To have never worried for a second about the possibility of my children being abducted...

[curlew]

......and to have never, as far as I can remember, made any decisions based on the possibility or factored it in to any plans I have made or actions I have taken?

Is this unusual? Do most people worry about this?

Lady you can't speak for every area, lots of kids are out and about at all ages in my experience but not in yours. Which one of us is right? Neither of us because we don't know the true figures across the land. Fewer kids of the age you're talking about play out now to the extent of the 70s and 80s that's true.

LeBFG you can't categorically say parents are dropping their kids off 100% because of safety. Maybe for your kids' school (if you've questioned everyone of them and asked) but certainly that isn't the case for everyone throughout the world. Again a sweeping generalisation that you believe to be fact but based on very little but your view.

When you've a car outside and it's raining and you're running a bit late (partly because you know you've the option of the car) you'll go by car. Nothing to do with safety although that main be a secondary consideration. Again it might be a primary consideration for some - but not all as you insist on.

Whether what I can see around me and what you are isn't quite relevant though is it? It's the fact that children aren't playing outside as much as before. And we know it's the case. Both on an anecdotal pov and with numbers.

And hard to say that parents are NOT letting their dcs going to school in their own later now than before. It's all over on MN but also through school policies etc. they wouldn't let the children out on their own until they are in Y5 in our school for example.
So of course now taking them to school means using the car more. Partly out of laziness, partly out if habit, partly out of time constrain. But the starting point was, you can't let an 8~9yo going back home on their own, even if it's 200yatds away.

Again you're relating this to just where you are Lady. Schools round by me will let the kids walk home alone before Yr5. It's not a law, it's individual school policy. You say "So of course now taking them to school means using the car more". No it doesn't necessarily. The starting point of the whole OP was not 8-9 year olds going home on their own so don't know where you get that from. Some 8-9 year old do. The car thing was in response to LeBFG's sweeping statements that everyone who takes their kid to school by car is because of safety which is simply not true. Just because someone thinks it doesn't make it a fact, just their perception based on whatever. Same with your perceptions being based on what happens at your school. They vary you know.

I worry much more about abuse from people known to children than about abduction per se - probably because I was in contact with [counts] at least four abusers when I was young, and that's before you even count the dodgy pervy teachers with wandering hands at secondary school. The only time my parents came anywhere close to discussing things with me was to tell me that a neighbour whose house all of us kids used to go into was 'a bit funny'. In reality he had abused at least two other children but I never found out until we were all older. Different times, eh? It was all very common in the 70s and I'm sure it's just as common now (teacher at my son's school been done for kiddie-fiddling recently) which is why I've had lots and lots of talks with my son about his bodily integrity, the need never to keep secrets etc. I have also talked with him about what to do if he gets lost, and when he is older I will talk to him about staying safe as he gradually gets more independent. But really I think the main threat to children comes from people they are in contact with, and that is sadly just as true now as it was when I was growing up.

I have a question for you all- from my actual, real life. We live 2 miles from the station. There are 3 ways of getting there- there is a bus, which, because we are the end of the route, the chances are that you are the only passenger on, you can walk or cycle along a very windey country road with high hedges, or you can walk or cycle along isolated farm tracks surrounded by fields where you can be seen from quite a distance.

Which one would you want your year 6 and up children to use?

Or you could drive the said DC?

"the number of people (proportion of) people who are sick in such a way that they would perpetrate that sort of crime is still the same"

What is different now is that the proportion of "people who are sick" who act on their impulses is higher, because they now have the internet where they collaborate, exchange thoughts/ideas/methods, and egg each other on. As a result, they are bolder, wiser, more resourceful, and have reason to think they can do what they want because there are so many others like them who also do what they want.

It is a serious problem.

Ah, yes, I forgot- I could drive them. But as you may have noticed, I'm all for independence!

"we take other much more probable risks every day"

This and other similar posts make me think that people don't realise that "risk" DOES NOT mean "probability". That something is more probable doesn't mean it is a terribly high risk. The relationship between the two is as follows:

Risk = Probability x Outcome

... Where Outcome is how wonderful or how horrible that particular outcome would be, if it happened.

So risk of falling off a cliff could easily be higher than the risk of falling off a wall because its likely Outcome (certain death) is much worse than a gash in your head or a fractured arm, for example.

In the same way, the risk of abduction (with likely outcome of never seeing your child again, never knowing if they are dead or alive, searching for him for the rest of your life etc) can easily be higher than catching some disease from public toilets (expected outcome: a few weeks of antibiotics) or even a car crash (expected outcome: light or severe injury, with known treatment at hospital).

Well, if it were me, my option would be option 4, the driving one. For primary aged children anyway.

From year 7, the bus, probably.

I'd probably drive them or check out the bus.

I will admit that I do worry about this. However, I also realise that my feelings are probably not that rational because there are much bigger every day risks to children than abduction.

"Be vigilant until they are 11+ is my feeling"

I suspect that older children (young teens etc) are at greater proportionate risk as it happens (however small that absolute risk may be - and I am ignoring Cote's post and using 'risk' in the common or garden sense) precisely because they are afforded a greater degree of freedom, hence opportunity presents itself ....

I seldom / never worried about my dc from the abduction perspective when they were small and under my ever watchful eye. Now that dd gets the bus to school, wanders around town with friends etc but is still just 11, I do sometimes worry (although more about being hassled by older kids etc than anything else)

I don't mind saying but what you trying to prove with it though Curlew? When people say none of them for you to turn round and say well my two have been doing it since they were 4 and nothing has happened to them? Proves nothing. You got away with it if that's the case - so far anyway.

Why not drive them? Who wants to arrive at school potentially muddy and wet from a walk to school to sit in said wet clothes all day. There's independence that happens to pretty much everyone naturally then there's trying to prove a point, but to what ends? That you're one cool, liberal parent, a wild spirit?

I'm starting to wonder what your initial post was about - did you want everyone to say you're right and they don't give these things a second's thought either and the people in the tent thread were irreparably detrimentally affecting the development of their children

i grew up in the north during the moors murderers era - police dug for bodies on my father's land. it made everyone very aware of possible danger.
my friends and i were cautious, and i was cautious with my daughter. protective. my child was and is very precious to me.
i expect she'll be as careful with her daughter.

Sorry just seen it's not for school it's to the station presumably to go into town or somewhere else once a week? Well in that case drive them or bus. Why risk being knocked down on the winding road with no pavement or lights? Who wants to get wet or their clothes muddy if they're off into town for the day with friends?

It really depends though on your child - how independent they are naturally, how mature they are, how aware they are, or how confident they are in speaking out, taking charge, making decisions, thinking on their feet. Also factors such as how well do you know and how long you have known the people in the local community including the bus driver. Lots of factors come into play so the mode of transport would really depend on a number of things.

My DS visited a friend in the country quite recently under similar circumstances. The mum picked him up and dropped him at the station for convenience. Partly as he didn't know where he was going, partly as it was raining or threatening rain. He was more than capable of walking to and from their place but yes he would have got wet.

And no my first thought with all of the scenarios was not abduction - more comfort so they don't get wet and have to be in those clothes for a long period of time, convenience, not being knocked down. The country walk on a sunny Saturday afternoon sounds lovely. Mid winter not so much. The walk/cycle on the road not great.

I would let them walk/cycle across the track, or get the bus.

As for getting wet etc we have a half hour walk to school across a field, yes its muddy so my kids have wellies and waterproof trousers. My 9yr old in yr 4 can walk to and from school on his won now, there is one busy road but it had a pedestrian crossing so he uses that.

I know a few parents are aghast that I let him walk on hs own, but its a route he has been doign since he was 2. He knows it well and I feel its safe.

Many parents are not letting their children do a shorter walk until the summer of year 6.

When thinking baout the risk my main concern was the road, abduction didnt feature on my risk assesment.

He was offered a lift by a parent one day as itwas rainjng, he told them no, the parent then called me to say could he have a lift and I then said yes. He knows not to accept a lift even from someone we know without checking with me first.

I make risk assesments all the time about my children, I am picky about car safety, much more so than somefriends who would not let their children walktos chool, but happily let them travel in just a basic booster seat etc, whereas I would use a high back carseat.

Ileave my sleeping toddler in the front garden in her pushchair and did when she was a baby, others ha e said dotn you worry someone will snatch her and no I dont, we live in a queit cul de sac, I can see out from my living rooma n kitchen windows if anyone did walk up to the front of the house iw would see them and be there in seconds. Ditto letting my children play in the cul de sac.

I asked, because the only route mine aren't allowed to use is the road-which I suppose in terms of potential abuse/abduction is the safest. And yes, it is for school. And yes, if it's pouring of course I drive them. Much to ds's outrage........

I wouldn't say the road is the safest in terms of potential abuse/abduction, about on a par with the country walk I'd say. Bus I think would be the safest. Who knows?

Bewildered by the point of that exercise. What does it prove? That you're a bit of a no-nonsense adventurous wild spirit mum but your kids love it because they're mini Bear Grylls? I give up.

"I am ignoring Cote's post and using 'risk' in the common or garden sense)"

I'm not quite sure what "garden sense" is but risk is not the same thing as probability.

The sooner people understand the difference, the easier these debates will be. Because it will be clear to everyone that low probability doesn't mean low risk and we will not get questions like "But why say there is a significant risk if chances it will happen are so low?"

I studied this stuff and have to insist that "garden sense" is not correct in this case

curlew - With "children" of 12 and 18, I think your situation is different. I would agree with you that the probability that someone would want to abduct them (especially when together) is infinitesimal and even if that were the case, they are old enough to resist, run away, or even escape when possible.

Those of us with small children still have to protect them at a different level because they can't protect themselves at all.

I would have said no to the road too. Because ime it's the potentially most dangerous place (due to the cars!)

Whatever you learnt at management training about risk Cote, we all understand perfectly well what hmc means.

hmc - Perhaps it's also the case that there are just less paedophiles interested in young children - most are interested in young teens.

cote you are right re the difference between probability and risk.
With abduction, the risk is very high and the probability is (very) low.
I would say that with cars, probability is high and risk is medium to high.
So I don't worry about abduction but I will not let my dcs on the front seat until they are 10yo because I think the risk that being at the front passages seat creates a higher risk (and still the same probability).
The thing is the assessment if risk and probability can be tricky. We know the risk of accident with cars is high but we tend to minimize it (no one would go in a car otherwise ). And I suspect that we minimize slightly the risk too.
Whereas the issue of abduction is a highly emotive one so we tend to maximize both the risk and the probability.