Noise on trains

[Flower884]

Why do parents think it’s ok to let their child listen to a children’s programme loud on a train with no earphones?

I’ve experienced this a few times now on trains and planes. They seem oblivious to the noise.

Another lady has just asked the mum to turn it down as she’s trying to work. The mums response - well my child can’t hear it!

@hoik

One of my dc was a tantrummer. My strategies to get down to her level and attempt to calm, or maybe ignore if they werent listening to me until it was over would not have been practical or doable to a train where no one can move as there's no space

You win the prize for the most dishonest quoting of anything, ever

!!! That is the summary of that section. I know it doesn't say what you wanted it to say, but that is actually what it does say. It's even in the bit you quote yourself. Be as shocked and appalled as you like at my terrible terrible tendency to quote what it actually says, I suppose, but it's still going to say that.

You didn't ask "what is your citation for the link between screen time and higher weight gain in children", or "what is your citation that Screen Time Bad" . You specifically asked, "What's your citation for claiming that all of the evidence of the neurological effects of screen time on very young children is 'over-reported'?" And that's my citation, right there. "Weak evidence that screentime particularly television screentime is associated with poorer educational attainments and has a negative effect on cognitive development in younger children."

I don’t hate parents or children - I’m a teacher ffs!

I don’t expect silence.

I expect people (of any age) to use devices with earphones or on silent. You can get child friendly headphones for toddlers. I listened to audio books from being around two years old through headphones as I regularly did 14 hour flights. My hearing is above average so I don’t buy the excuse of it not being safe for toddlers to listen through headphones, especially now that devices have safe listening levels programmed in.

At any rate, the child in question was much older.

Maybe we should have a separate train carriage for the children who want to watch noisy things without headphones and the adults who want to 'work on the train' by phoning every single underling and wittering endless stream-of-consciousness babble at them. And then the rest of us can just get on with our journey in peace elsewhere

"I have toddler. It's very hard to keep him occupied on a train, would you rather an ipad or him running around all over you?"

I hate to be the one to say it, but somehow our parents managed to keep their DC quiet in such situations. And plenty of current parents do as well.

@GoldenOmber
!!! That is the summary of that section. I know it doesn't say what you wanted it to say, but that is actually what it does say. It's even in the bit you quote yourself. Be as shocked and appalled as you like at my terrible terrible tendency to quote what it actually says, I suppose, but it's still going to say that.

OK, now I think you just don't understand what it says, rather than being deliberately dishonest (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

I posted the entire results and conclusion (minus a few words, to keep it a readable length). Not selective quoting in any way. How on earth can you think that systematic review supports the idea that screen time is not damaging for young children?

There is:

Weak evidence that screentime particularly television screentime is associated with poorer educational attainments and has a negative effect on cognitive development in younger children.

You don't understand what that means, do you? 'Weak evidence' does not mean that the association is not there. It means the evidence is there and shows that there is an association between those things, but the evidence is not quite as strong as the evidence:

for associations between screentime and greater obesity/adiposity and higher depressive symptoms; moderate evidence for an association between screentime and higher energy intake, less healthy diet quality and poorer quality of life.

Those are strong links. The next lot are weaker links, but still definitely there.

It really doesn't say what you think it does. It says precisely that there IS indeed evidence for that harm.

By contrast:
There was no or insufficient evidence for an association of screentime with eating disorders or suicidal ideation, individual cardiovascular risk factors, asthma prevalence or pain.

Those are the only negatives for which there is 'no or insufficient evidence'.

And it says precisely ZERO about how much it has been 'reported' or whether or not it's been 'over-reported'. So it has no bearing whatsoever on the original question I asked you - to provide a citation for damage of screen time on young children being 'hugely over-reported'.

That meta-analysis is crystal clear that screen time is damaging for children in a very wide variety of ways.

yes, children never ran around and made noise before about 1995, it's only a modern thing.

"I don’t expect silence."

When I'm dictator, silence on public transport will be a rule

@ScarlettBlaizeI've not missed the point I'm saying that we all use phones and tablets and somehow that turned in an opportunity for others to judge patenting. If I use an ipad on a train its silent or very quiet. It's not damaging his brain to watch a cartoon on an ipad as much as it isn't damaging should he watch a cartoon before bedtime. I'm not sure why fellow passengers would appreciate the child being occupied and therefore not likely to want to run around. Children under 2 or 3 have fairly little reasoning skills at times and especially while out. Someone I forget completely to pack a set of crayons, cards. Silent toys, snacks and patience when I've had 3 hours sleep. Equally I find it annoying with people without children on trains who have no consideration for other passengers but no let's bash those trying to actually do something constructive for the sake of other passengers and imply that all tablets for children are somehow damaging and completely unacceptable. Written by adults using tablets and phone. Oh the irony

"It's lazy parenting to sit them in front of a phone/iPad. Whatever happened to card games, colouring, books or comics?"

If it is on silent or with headphones it is no one's business but the parents.
There is far too much judging about situations people know nothing about.

Children under 2 or 3 have fairly little reasoning skills at times and especially while out

Yes quite. I can just imagine trying to explain to a child under two years old that you'll be going on a train and you must sit quietly and not make too much noise. Seriously, an under two is not going to have any comprehension of what you're saying.

re children of 2 or 3 and their reasoning skills

I was quite impressed by a friend's toddler recently. he was dragging his mum's suitcase around the kitchen systematically.

I asked him why he was doing that. He said "because I can". Fair play.

You don't understand what that means, do you? 'Weak evidence' does not mean that the association is not there.

Yes, I do understand what that means. It means that there is not in fact decent evidence for the idea that any screen time at all will cause irreversible neurological damage to developing children's brains. There is some suggestion that it might do some damage in some circumstances, with a dose effect indicated. But the popular media and forum and popular culture claims that all screens must be avoided at all times are not well-founded in evidence.

And it says precisely ZERO about how much it has been 'reported' or whether or not it's been 'over-reported'.

You really need me to give you a list of citations on screen time + children getting reported in negative ways? Christ. Okay, if you really don't think this is a thing, here's the RCPCH www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/health-impacts-screen-time-guide-clinicians-parents: "The evidence base for a direct ‘toxic’ effect of screen time is contested, and the evidence of harm is often overstated."

It really doesn't say what you think it does. It says precisely that there IS indeed evidence for that harm.

It really really does (and I didn't say 'there is no evidence', could you at least read what I'm saying rather than reading the first few words and deciding I am one of the bad people that need to be corrected?). That is why the RCPCH's own guidelines, based on that BMJ review of existing evidence, do not say "no screens ever" but rather "families should negotiate screen time limits with their children based upon the needs of an individual child, the ways in which screens are used and the degree to which use of screens appears to displace (or not) physical and social activities and sleep".

(I am sure you will ignore all of this to once again either patronise me or rage at me that I am the most dishonest person you've ever come across on the internet, in the same way that you entirely ignored the distinction between 'this person is saying the evidence for neurological harm is overstated' and 'this person is saying screen time is universally great for children', but alas I have to go and inflict my toddler to 19 hours solid of EastEnders now, I hear it's good for her emotional regulation.)

@Klouise777 your comparison between adults and children using electronic devices is completely nonsensical. A child has no concept of how to limit screen usage and how irritating and distracting it is for other passengers to have to listen to fucking Peppa Pig with the volume on, it's therefore the job of the parent to regulate.

A child also, for example, has no concept that a "cartoon before bedtime" will have a negative impact on their sleep. Again, that's one for the parents.

There's a pervading sense here that some parents are prioritising keeping their little angels happy above anything else. Your kid won't grow up to despise you for making them sit/stand still quietly.

Your kid won't grow up to despise you for making them sit/stand still quietly

Depends on the age as to whether they can even do that. You can't make a two year old sit or stand quietly if they don't want to.

I actually don't give a fuck if mum has been up all night or whatever. If on public transport, you show consideration to other passengers. If a kid is crying and the parent is making an attempt to calm them, I can cope with that. No headphones on phones or tablets is inconsiderate, whatever the age. Ignoring your child whilst they're being a pain in public transport is inconsiderate. I've travelled extensively with 4 children and managed to not piss off other travellers.

Other adults using tablets on trains shouldn't be doing it with the sound up and no headphones on either. Drives me barking. See also: speakerphone with the mobile HELD IN YOUR HAND, aaaaargh.

@GoldenOmber

There is some suggestion that it might do some damage in some circumstances, with a dose effect indicated. But the popular media and forum and popular culture claims that all screens must be avoided at all times are not well-founded in evidence.

So to cut to the chase - to avoid getting bogged down in ever finer points (and yes I understand and have read everything you've posted, but I too have work to be getting on with), your 'takeaway' from that review is that screen time is not necessarily damaging for young children, and you think that, having read that review, it's OK to leave it up to individual families to decide how much screen time their children should have?

Because the reality is - as you see on this thread and in real life - what is happening in practice is one-year-olds - babies - being given tablets, parents relying for hours at a time on screens to babysit their children, and that is OK because it doesn't necessarily do major damage to every child every time?

Even though there is evidence that it is indeed associated (strongly) with obesity and despression, (moderately) with poor diet and poor quality of life, and (weakly) with behaviour problems, anxiety, hyperactivity and inattention, poorer self-esteem, poorer well-being and poorer psychosocial health, metabolic syndrome, poorer cardiorespiratory fitness, poorer cognitive development and lower educational attainments and poor sleep outcomes.

And what it will mean in practice to tell parents "hey, you know best" is that the parents who lack the resources to manage their children for whatever reasons (educational, time, money, psychological, emotional, whatever) are the ones most likely to have their kids glued to screens, thus giving them an even worse start in life, and disadvantaging them even more relative to their peers.

Because on a societal level, it's actually much easier to tell parents that it's basically fine to stick their young kids in front of screens, even when we have good evidence that it's not, rather than to provide any kind of support, training, or instruction that will help parents to bring up their children in a way that doesn't directly damage their brains, bodies and life opportunities, pretty much from birth.

your 'takeaway' from that review is that screen time is not necessarily damaging for young children,

In the words of the RCPCH, since my own cause you such shock and consternation, "There is not enough evidence to conclude that screen time is harmful to the health of children and young people or advise on how much screen time is too much." They say that parents should decide. Personally I err on the side of caution and seriously limit it, but I take iPads (with headphones!) for long train journeys.

and you think that, having read that review, it's OK to leave it up to individual families to decide how much screen time their children should have?

Well, 'it's okay' as in 'it's better than putting criminal sanctions in place for parents who exceed more than 16 minutes of screens' I suppose? But no, I did not in fact ever say that no parents were neglectful, used screens inappropriately or excessively, etc etc. Of course they do. The stuff about letting parents decide was from the RCPCH rather than me though; take it up with them if it angers you so, although probably bear in mind that they don't mean 'whatever you decide is fine'.

What I actually said was that letting a child do something on an iPad for the circumstances of a train journey, in which we're expecting them to sit still and quietly for hours against all the instincts that young children have, is not going to cause them lifelong harm.

@AllesAusLiebe I'm not suggesting this at all. Of course I'm the parent and would limit devices who said i wouldn't? Who's suggested that should I use one occasionally to try and keep the peace for 5 mins with the welfare other passengers in mind (ie on silent or very quiet) that I'm the sort of person who plonks their dc in front of the TV all day everyday?

In the words of the RCPCH, since my own cause you such shock and consternation, "There is not enough evidence to conclude that screen time is harmful to the health of children and young people or advise on how much screen time is too much." They say that parents should decide.

Yes, I know, and I addressed that point at length, and why I think it's very stupid and irresponsible advice.

letting a child do something on an iPad for the circumstances of a train journey, in which we're expecting them to sit still and quietly for hours against all the instincts that young children have, is not going to cause them lifelong harm.

What the systematic review says is that there's plenty of evidence that increased screen time increases a huge number of negative effects, as listed in posts above.

Realistically, parents who stick a one-year-old on an iPad because they can't even control a baby without resorting to a screen are going to be using screens a lot throughout that child's life - and it may well cause them lifelong harm. As the meta-analysis concluded.

The stuff about letting parents decide was from the RCPCH rather than me though; take it up with them if it angers you so

I assumed you agreed with it and that's why you were citing it - do you not?

Well, 'it's okay' as in 'it's better than putting criminal sanctions in place for parents who exceed more than 16 minutes of screens' I suppose?

Because the only two options are 'it's fine' and 'it's a criminal offence'? So if I don't think it should be a criminal offence to feed your child McDonalds every single day, that means I think it's fine? Or might there be a middle ground where it's neither fine nor criminal?

You haven't addressed any of the points about how the RCPCH is potentially damaging and particularly harmful for those children whose life prospects are already poorer than their peers.

Seriously, an under two is not going to have any comprehension of what you're saying
Are kids this generation stupider? Because mine were perfectly capable of understanding the notion of being quieter at two. Just like they understood the meaning of no. Then again, they'd heard both for some time by then.

It's amazing how a 2 year can work out how to use a phone and play games on it but not understand the notion of buying quieter!

I can't help but think that is definitely an element of lazy parenting and justified by 'my poor darling couldn't possibly understand'.

In my experience it's rarely the children making the noise. I've known adults have extremely long, loud facetime chats, play loud music through speakers and have full on parties on the train from York. They don't seem to have any regard for fellow passengers. I take headphones and listen to music but I can still hear them above it all.

Unless you're in the quiet carraige this woman was also unreasonable. You don't assume enough quiet to work on a train

Most carriages in most trains have signs saying "Be considerate to other passengers". A child NOT using headphones is unreasonable. There's no reasonable argument against that.

I am sometimes tempted to buy a heap of cheap headphones from Poundland (ie £1 each) to give away to people including some parents, who are obviously too poor, or ignorant, or badly brought up, who insist on inflicting their personal choice of listening on the rest of the train carriage.

And from some of the answers to the OP's perfectly reasonable irritation at a parent allowing her child's listening to reach over the whole carriage, no wonder that it sometimes appears that the British "don't like" children.

On the contrary, most of us like children, but become irritated at badly-parented children. And those lazy or ignorant parents spoil it for the rest of us.

Being able to work on the train is a bonus...not an expectation

No, being able to read a book on the train is a bonus. Doing work on the train is an expectation and necessary for some of us who travel a lot and have a high workload.

For all of those saying that people complaining about children's behaviour aren't complaining about adults - well actually, it is the adult who is at fault not a young child. It is the adult who is disturbing other passengers and who should know better. So that argument doesn't really wash.