750,000 years unsupervised child outdoors before risk of abduction or murder by stranger

[Namechangeferthis]

I’ve seen this figure several times now online, the calculation that statistically the average child would be outdoors unsupervised for 750,000 years before being statistically likely to be abducted or killed by a stranger.

It’s used in the context of how fears for children tend to be inflated by high profile media cases etc.

My disbelief that the risk is really that remote might be based on my own experience of an assault by a stranger in a park as a child. I was “abducted” in the sense of pulled by force into trees, held for a period of time and assaulted the let go. That incident would feature nowhere in any statistics as I never reported it.

I’m not someone who is overly cautious with my children, now teens and try and balance risk with freedom, but that 750,000 years figure, that can’t be right can it? The risk is far greater than that of harm to children.

They are talking specifically about the "killer bundles a kid into a car and murders them" crime, which is actually quite rare.

I agree that this is very much not the only harm that could come to an unsupervised child outside and that ignoring all the others - some of which could also be fatal or life-changing - is unrealistically "reassuring".

Or being groomed into criminal activity (eg being befriended and asked to carry drugs/à knife for them). Or straight up being groomed. The vast majority of people aren't like that. But if your young child is the only one hanging out all day at the park by themselves they stand out as less cared for than the others. Its why it is also quite sensible to watch what other people are doing roughly. I'm not one for following the herd for no reason but it does make sense a bit here. Although of course that can have a cumulative effect where noone lets their kids out so noone lets their kids out which is sad.

Also some of the scary-but-not-as-bad-as-being-abducted things that happened to me as a child were probably less bad because there were other kids and adult (pedestrians) close by. I don't think it's fair to judge parents who live in places where theres little pedestrian activity and everyone drives everywhere. Which feeds into the real reason parents stopped letting their kids play outside as freely... Çars and the risk of your child being hit by a car/4by4 tank.

Ím not overly cautious. I raised my son in a place where it was normal for kids to play outside without supervision and bike to school etc. He did and it was good for him. But I wouldnt judge parents living in areas which are less safe traffic wise and where its less normal for children to be unsupervised for doing differently. I hate the smug "parents are worrying for no reason" attitude that ignores the real reasons parents might have to worry. Especially when they had very bad experiences themselves (Im so sorry name change).

I'm so sorry that happened to you. I and another child witnessed an (over the clothes) assault on her sister in a woodland park, and we didn't tell anyone afterwards either. I agree a lot of such incidents probably go unreported. This was the '70s - hopefully children feel a bit more empowered to speak up nowadays(?)

I think it's interesting and sad that my friends and I didn't report it. It clearly wasn't our fault, and our parents would no doubt have been sympathetic even if no action could be taken. We just collectively agreed not to speak about it after we extricated ourselves and walked home. There was definitely some obscure feeling of shame or embarrassment.

I hate the fact of sexual assault in and of itself but also the wider ripple effect that the fear of violence has, in terms of reducing the freedoms of women and children. I'm not a parent, and don't know what the answer is, aside from educating and empowering children to feel able to tell someone, so their attackers might be identified at an earlier stage of their "careers". Same reason voyeurism should be taken far more seriously - it's often a gateway crime.

No kid has ever lived that long so it’s definitely not proven.

I grew up in the latter 1950s and into the 60s - certainly stuff happened but nobody would have ever reported it to their parents: it just wasn't done. Don't ask me why, I genuinely don't know. We had very separate lives from our parents, they seldom knew what we were up to.

Not the same thing, of course, but kids did used to get damaged quite a lot in their adventurous play - falling out of trees leading to broken bones, concussion etc. I know from local history groups that, before my time, it wasn't unusual for children to drown in the summer holidays. They'd all go off in a group in the morning with their bit of food to roam around all day, no need to be home until it was getting dark and would end up in rivers or canals when it was hot, then disaster occurred. They didn't live safe lives. But I do realised that is different from assault and sexual assault, which enters your soul in a unique and awful way.

You have answered it yourself. The number, if it is done off official statistics, only reflects what was reported. Bad things happen all the time, but don't get reported. (Plus it was probably dodgy statistics, reported crimes in random Euro Country, but total world population).
It is a harsh reality that kids need to be vigilant, and not to trust adults just because they are adults.
The shitty thing for parents is weighing the real risk of potential harm from something happening, vs the real risk or (almost) guaranteed harm from restricting kids freedom.

My kid got escorted home today by an elderly gentleman because he climbed a tree, got stuck and called for help. Nice elderly gentleman got him down and brought him home. Now, worst case that could have gone very differently. But kids need to climb trees.

Was recently talking about our childhoods with a group of six women my age. We were all children in the eighties who had the freedom to roam. Every single one of us had a story about flashers, being followed, low key sexual assault or weirdos making us feel unsafe as children None of these things were ever reported to our parents or other adults.

I wonder why some people would have an interest in persuading parents to worry less about their children?

it is quite clear that this statistic is distorted by children not reporting (yes me too), differences in location not being taken into account but also the fact that normal parents are continually vigilant about where their children go and play and who they associate with. There are obviously no statistics for what those figures would look like if children were not warned about the danger of strange men or allowed to go anywhere. Or thinking about it perhaps we do know what would happen when we look at the children from the grooming gang cases.

Do you think that was an acceptable price to pay for that freedom, or do you think it would have been better if your parents had kept you home away from those risks and unpleasant experiences?

I think it would have been better if we had all been able to tell our parents!

I think there is a middle ground between being a helicopter parent who doesn't let their children have any freedom and being a parent who does not know or care where their children are.

I've never seen this partifular statistic but my pet peeve is the obsessive fear of a child being abducted. it's rare. As is obvious from this thread however, what's FAR more common and a genuine risk, is "low level" assault and sexual harassment that children experience while out in the world.

I don't worry about DD being grabbed in a white van and taken away. It could happen, but I know the chances are remote.

I DO worry that some lecherous old man is going to whisper inappropriate things to her in Costa.
I DO worry that on a bus someone will try to touch her face, her leg, her body.
I DO worry that teenage boys and young men will cat call and whistle at her and make her feel unsafe while she's walking home from school.
I DO worry that ifi she is in a park some sick man will choose to sit on a bench and obviously masturbate while she's walking past.

Because these are all things we KNOW happen a LOT. Abduction doesn't.

They're talking about a child being snatched and murdered. Those numbers don't include the things that parents don't hear about.

When I was 11 a man (30s?) tried to persuade me to "go for a walk" with him in the sand dunes at Tenby. Thankfully I had the sense to leg it.

And I had to fend off the husband of one of my mum's friends when I was about 12, and a friend's brother who had offered me a lift home, when I was 13.

I didn't tell anyone about any of those. The fuss wouldn't have been worth it. But if I'd had a dd, I wouldn't have trusted anyone until she was 16 or 17. Predatory men are everywhere.

And incidentally, a local child was snatched from the town I lived in when I was a teen, and horribly murdered. Beyond the immediate tragedy, the police investigation ripped the town apart. Friends who had trusted each other for years, suddenly kept their doors locked and walked their dcs to school. Lots of people sold up and left including my parents.
So sadly I know first hand that it isn't always "somewhere else".

Like many others here, I was sexually assaulted by male strangers several times during my childhood. In one case I was led away by a man pretending to give me directions when I’d got lost. So not murdered but briefly abducted. And on other occasions accosted by men who tried to lure me away. So I dispute the 750,000 years.

There are two competing arguments. It's probably fair that Gen X, like me, have overly molly coddled our kids. They do not have the experiences I had at their age. This means that they are probably more cautious and less aware of what is and isn't risky.

But also I look back at my childhood and there were some areas where the parenting was virtually absent. I wasn't quite kicked out of the house and left to drink from garden hoses (as the trope goes) but I was also in pubs at 15, flying on my own at that age. In fact, I went on an exchange to France once with a friend of a friend that my parents had never even met. It was fine but imagine that now, with no mobile phones too? I stayed with my older siblings at university at 14.

Did all this mean I was better able to assess risk? Did it heck. I was victimised by three different men in three different situations. A stranger, a boyfriend and a work colleague. Those "street smarts" learned as a child did f all to protect me.

So I try and find a balance nowadays. My son does go out of the house on his own now he's 15. He walks to and from various things. He's not got the normal bus or train on his own yet (only the school bus) but I'd trust him to.

I think the risk with the stat you gave OP is that while attacks by strangers are rare, they do happen. There is a concept in risk assessment of severity and likelihood. While the likelihood is low, the severity is the highest. That's what determines overall risk. Just because something is low incidence, doesn't make it low risk overall.

Yeah no way i believe that stat. Repeatedly molested as a kid, have heard multiple friends and family stories. We had this phone call system supposed to be used to let parents know the school shut for snow or whatever but I remember twice that being used to alert parents to attempted abductions. I know a girl abducted and gang raped as an early teen. Facebook regularly has alerts in my local area about attempts to abduct/flash children in my local area today. So because most kids don’t get murdered they are safe? Nope