I don't think I am but am prepared to be told I am if the MN Jury thinks so

[fuckmepinkandCALLmegoran]

DD1 is 12, she is at her dad's this weekend, and has gone to her grandmother as they have a farm and it is silage time.

She has just sent me a picture of herself in overalls DRIVING A TRACTOR WITH A TRAILER ON IT

I have texted her and she is delighted to be allowed to cart the "near home" fields where she doesn't have to go on the road.

I am most displeased about this. I think it's dangerous and irresponsible.

But past conversations with ex when DS was this age did not go well, as he cannot see the problem nor can his family. They all did it at that age.

So, oh MN July, AIBU to think she's too young, it's too much responsibility and far too dangerous?

Gooseberry - I agree - Fuckme is no weakling, but she needs to get stronger and more confident, and may not even need to get a solicitor. She might me able to take charge all by herself.

Driving a tractor on private land at 12 is perfectly legal.

I didn't think there was any age limit on driving a tractor on private land. Are you sure?

here lesley illegal if they are under 13 in the uk.

TBH, what's bothering me most here is that the OP has said that her ex-inlaws 'need the help most' with the sileage. So regardless of what else her ex-P has said about it being character-building or fun or good for self-esteem, perhaps the real reason is just that they're short-handed and actually need your DD to put some hours in. So that's great for a sense of communal pulling-together, and good for her self-esteem and sense of responsibilities, but basically what they're doing is deliberately and knowingly breaking the law, putting her at risk when she is not (IMO) old or mature enough to fully appreciate the risks - in order to cut some corners or get the work done. For their benefit, in other words.

Sure, this is the way family farming works and has always worked. A hundred years ago or so, farming families had several children because you needed a large workforce and it was better to keep it in-house. And some of those children would have been killed through their tasks, but that's the way farming life is, eh? Agree with the poster who made the analogy with a factory earlier. There's no way on earth anyone here would think it ok for a child to work in a family-owned factory with heavy, dangerous machinery, so why on earth is it ok for a 12 yo to work a heavy tractor? And the rules about 13 yos sound pretty mad, tbh. No way I'd ever let a 13 yo drive a tractor on their own, supervised from a distance or not. And no, I'm not planning on wrapping my own DSs up in cotton wool.

Well at least if she can't read or write she can drive a tractor.

Reshape- that's a very good point. If it wasn't DD it would be some other child from up the road, or a cousins youngster - the pressure is on when it's silage time and the attitude is if you're big enough to reach the pedals you're big enough to help out.

I also agree about the comments re a factory. Children don't work in mills anymore but they used to.

Oh and as to wrapping them up in cotton wool - We've already broken up for school holidays and DD left her tennis racket in school I've sent her and DD2 on their bikes (with money for a lolly at the shop) to go and get it.

I don't wrap them up in cotton wool, but it's about level of risk and IMO the level of risk in driving the tractor is too high.

oh just ignore the cotton wool comments

i was told to "piss off you mewling paranoic" once when I suggested supervising children swimming

some people have weird ideas

'they only go to the farm on their dad's weekends for access. Other than stopping him having them at the weekends I can't stop them going.'

I would suggest that you do stop access. The first reason being that during the cricket period he is dropping them elsewhere - so not actually bothered about having access time with them - so they may as well not go. The second being that when he does drop them off, it is now proven that your DD at least is being put in dangerous situations, and the law is being broken. Even more reason for this particular access situation to be deemed unsafe and not beneficial for your children.

It is not a case of stopping access full stop, but putting a stop to the current situation. He is putting them in danger and knowingly leaving them in the care of people who are breaking the law with regard to their safety. It's a no-brainer.

Again I would suggest a complaint to HSE first, if this is upheld, getting a court order to prevent your DD being left in the care of her grandparents would achieve your aim and actually result in Mr. Cricket's More Important spending MORE time with them - not less!

I'd go to solicitor and outline this plan and take their advice.

Shouty - I mentioned to the solicitor before about them being sent to their grans on his weekends and was told what he does is up to him. Maybe I will have a stronger case now.

He is putting them in danger, I know that.

Slightly reluctant to take the nuclear option though I will think about it over the next couple of weeks.

Okay I stand corrected. I think you need to first tell them it is illegal for a child under 13 to drive a tractor. My OH's family are farmers and I didn't know this - they may not know this. And then it is perfectly reasonable to insist they follow the law.

FMP - I agree, stressing the illegal tractor driving is key when talking to your solicitor. Good luck, hope you make progress with that avenue.

Against my better judgement, I'll bite again - but only to make the point that peopel have a poor appreciation of where there is really risk.

Fwiw a bit of googling shows cycling in the UK killed 15 kids aged 5 - 15 in 2007, farms killed 31 aged 0 - 16 over 10 years to 2009, at least half being less than 5 - so about 3.1/2 = 1.5 5 - 15 y/o kiled per annum on tractors, ie about 1/10th of those killed cycling. Given there are probably 10x more kids cycling (say 50% of all kids) than rural kids (c 5%) that seems about the same death rate per 1000 people.

In other words the risk of death by tractor or suburban bicycle are about the same, and both are small compared to death on the roads.

People tend to overplay big, scary, unfamiliar risks and downplay those they are familiar with. So a townie thinks cycling to the shops is fine, a "farmie" thinks driving a tractor is fine, as they are familiar with the respective risks.

I'm sorry Omigawd but you've just completely made those numbers up. I don't think there are anything like 5% of kids that drive tractors. I grew up in a very rural area and I'd say less than 5% of the kids I knew at school would have been in that situation. I'd say more like 2% even in a school that covered a vast rural area. There are far, far, far more kids that live in towns and cities.

@mumble - 11% live in rural areas in the UK, less than 1.5% are "employed" in farming. I took a view that more people worked on farms than were "employed", especially at haymaking etc etc - hence 5%. And assuming 50% of all kids are on cycles in any one year is probably aslo generous

But take 2%, or even 1% - my main point is these are all very small probabilities compared to teh big ones.

Ten years ago when I was a young teen I had a couple of friends who lived on farms, as well as family who do.

Their parents would not have dreamed of letting a 12 yo do heavy farm work like this. It is both illegal and fucking dangerous and stupid. They hired people whose JOB it is to do it, have the relevant training and enough experience to handle unexpected things.

You can't compare it to a bloomin' bike.

The difference being that cycling is a risk worth taking, legal, and entirely for the benefit of the child. And usually they wear helmets. This tractor driving risk is being taken for the benefit of the grandparents, with no protective gear and entirely illegal.

Omigawd - you are missing the fact that most children killed on bikes are injured because of other people (eg, hit by a car)

A child on a tractor and trailer (huge bits of machinery) could kill themselves in a whole host of ways very quickly without involving anyone else at all.

Omigawd I think you are right when you say that people downplay the risks they are familiar with. Just as a thought, how many people are killed or injured by a child illegally driving a tractor? The risk runs both ways. When you read the details of the accidents which have killed and maimed you realise that they were easily avoidable, stupid and pointless.

This is not about nannying or wrapping children in cotton wool. It is about following good practice, not being stupid and not breaking the law. A farm is a factory, no one with any sense would allow a child to drive fork lift trucks or use any other machinery in a factory. In the 20 years I have been working I have seen huge improvements in simple safety measures in factories. This isnt just about driving the tractor. It is also about taking sensible precautions in all the other aspects of the farm whether it is handling chemicals or livestock.

The only difference I can see between what is accepted in a factory and what is accepted on a farm is that people are frightened to gainsay farmers. For some reason farming is treated as being 'special'. It isnt special. Just because poor work practices were acceptable in the past doesnt mean they should be acceptable now.

I believe that the bullying shouting tactics of the OP's ex inlaws are just further evidence that they have no logical argument just the mulish 'well it didnt do me any harm' attitude which is simply naive.

Omigawd- rather than stats you have made up , I would be interested to see the figures relating to the percentage of children operating farm machinery illegally who are actually injured in the process.

For example, in the OPs family, 50 % of her children who have driven a tractor illegally have been involved in a serious accident while doing so. Clearly this data is not adequate for statistical analysis - but neither are the figures you've made up.

@Gnome re tractor deaths - latest from the HSE all child farm deaths in the UK 2000 - 2011 were 26 for kids 0 - 16, ie c 2.6 per annum (my original 31 was 1999-2009). The same HSE report said 24% of deaths overall were from vehicles.

I couldn't get what sort of vehicles killed kids broken down from teh HSE, but one source I found - a study in Canada - showed that most kids were not actually killed on tractors, by far the most kid/farm/vehicle injuries aged 10 - 14 were on quads and motorbikes (80%+), and tractors hardly featured.

I also saw one that said that kids 0 -4 were about half of all child fatalities.

Thus you are left with fatalities kids aged 5 - 15 are about 2.6 x 0.5 = 1.3, of which c 1/4 are on vehicles, = 0.33, of which c 20% are tractors, ie 0.07.

Even if you assume only c 1% of the population farm, multiplying up 1% to 100% x 0.07 gives you proportionately (ie if every singly kid in the country drove a tractor) approx 7 deaths, vs c 15 for kids cycling.

And @LaWeasel, as to the "how" they die on tractor vs bicycle, that is irrelevant - a dead kid is a dead kid. D'you mean to say that somehow its not as bad if someone else kills them?

Omigawd - how can you call yourself a statistician when you just made those numbers up? They have absolutely no basis in fact. Lies, damned lies and statistics anyone?

By the way you are all welcome to do your own research - Google is your friend :)

Omigawd - x-posts

I would like you to answer my point that it is entirely LEGAL for my child to ride her bike (she does wear a helmet btw) but it is ILLEGAL for her to drive a tractor.