Couple warned over allowing children to cycle to school alone

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

From the Telegraph.

captain - shut up, will you, you're just digging yourself deeper and deeper. Your response is completely out of proportion to the scale of toc's perceived "offence".

But Captainspeaking - you started it. You waded in and had a go - it is OK to disagree but there was no reasoned discussion in your posts - you were aggressive from the off.

She told you to fuck off because you got the wrong end of the stick and started to psychoanalyse her, knowing nothing about her and being new to MN, and getting it totally wrong.

I've been told to fck off, pss off, shut up, go away, more times than I care to remember during my time on MN. It's like water off a duck's back for me, and I never listen to it - instead dig myself into an even bigger bunfight

actually it's been a long time since I had one of these on MN, or felt up to one, but I'm rather enjoy this one,

I think I'm nearly back to myself again - woohoo

I don't like being psychoanalysed as no-one ever gets it anywhere near right

5 is definitely too young to cycle to school without an adult

I fall into the give the kids some independence camp, but personally I wouldn't want a five year old being supervised by an eight year old in that situation.

What I find really disturbing about all of this is the "threat" of social services if parents do anything outside of what is considered "the norm" these days. Parents do lots of things that aren't good for their kids - overfeeding them high fat/sugar foods, exposing them to second hand smoke, not ensuring that they have enough exercise. Should schools be contacting social services over these things too?

It takes 4 years to train to be a psychoanalyst so I doubt there are many capable of doing it on MN. Probably why nobody gets it right T&F. Besides, it is a bit of a dark art imo - all that guessing about a person based on what they didn't say and what they didn't know they even thought - a bit weird.

If CS is a psycoanalyst, she isn't a very good one, has probably breached a huge number of professional codes of practice and could probably do with a top-up dose of psychoanalysis herself to deal with her ishoos with strangers on the internet.

fragola - I think it's more about the immidiate risk to children rather than the potentially long term risk if that makes sense?

If something happened to one of those children on the way to school then the parents would be perceived to be at some fault for allowing them to go unsupervised. Much the same as if something happens to a young child left at home unsupervised for any period of time. SS's would probably be involved.

Where as if in 20yrs time the child has cancer, diabetes, or is over weight then no-one will really be looking back at the parents and saying "well where were you"

if that makes sense?

fragola - yes.
Social services and other agencies aren't the enemy. They are there to protect children. If the parent's choices aren't harming the children then there is no problem surely.
For example, my HV knew that I co-slept. I knew that it is against her policy. I knew that by telling her it would be recorded, but I didn't mind because my reasons for doing so were well researched and founded on my own circumstances. In this cycling case I imagine that if there is no danger to the children the parents will be able to convince SS of that.

AFAIK agencies are involved if your child is dangerously overweight.

I do think children need to be given independance but I think five is to young to be cycling with an 8yr old and no adult present.

Alot depends on the child but 5 is far to young.

Fragola - I think there is a difference in the risk between a 5 yo cycling to school unsupervised and the dangers of overeating or not exercising enough.

There is a risk of injury, here and now with the cycling which is not present with the overeating or lack of exercise - if there is a risk of injury from those things then they are years down the line and could be increased or reduced by all manner of other variables as the child grows up.

It maybe there have been a few other children who have been hurt on the way in to school and it is a dangerous area and the school don't know what else to do to get through to the parents that it isn't wise to leave their children like this. It depends, for me, whether the parents are making a stand for the sake of making a stand on this rather than doing what is best for their children.

Most people wouldn't leave their 5 yr old alone in the house and yet it is deemed OK by these parents to let a five yr old ride a bike on busy roads which seems to me to be infinitely more dangerous. Just the thought of it makes me shudder. No car would see a 5 yr old if they were close and even adults on the pavement may step in front of a child on a bike. The risks just seem too high.

The kids in the OP aren't cycling on busy roads, they're cycling on the pavements of quiet back streets. The only time they cross the road, they use a lollipop lady.

Did you even consider reading the article before ranting repetitively about it?

"I never listen to it - instead dig myself into an even bigger bunfight"

Exactly as I said - you have trouble with your temper.

"Did you even consider reading the article before ranting repetitively about it?"

I thought ranting without reading was your speciality, cs?

ermm actually I did read the article - I even "walked" the route using google street view. I'll admit the roads were fairly quiet, but there were a lot of drive ways, and cars going in and out of those without checking would be my biggest concern.

They are also those awful pavements that have trees growing in the middle of them, aren't particularly wide, and I dread to think what it's like when it's bin day and everyone has their bins out on the pavement.

now if you'll excuse me - I have a teddy bears picnic to attend.

I live in a village which is all quiet roads, but i still would never have let my kids cycle on their own at 5, children do not have enough road sense at that age. It only takes one vehicle or one error by the child, roads dont have to be busy.

thumbwitch - using Bitter's name in vain there -she'll eat you for breakfast you know

surely quiet roads are more dangerous?

IME, people tend to let their minds wander a little in quieter ares whereas on busier roads they need to keep their wits around them.

• nah, she'll be right!

Is the irate captain one of the parents involved?

It's a city, at rush hour - are those 'quiet' streets ever that quiet at that time of day? I call a quiet road one where you don't get a car coming along for a good half an hour not a city side road.

I agree that driveways are a menace. A reversing driver would not see a 5 yr old on a bike. And pavements with trees are rarely without major lumps and bumps.

I would be interested how these children get home too. Our infants are not allowed out of school without an adult coming to pick them up. If they need supervision to get home then surely they need supervision to be dropped off?

Read the article.

The parents or the nanny collect them from the school.

Thumbwitch - I wondered is CS was one of the parents too although if he/she is, then they had better come up with a calmer, more reasoned argument to support their views if SS come knocking.

Oh, and you really think social services should be called because of lumps and bumps in the pavement?

That's just desperate. Why don't you leave other people's kids alone? It's a lot more creepy how obssessed you are with following other people's children around to "protect" them than it is to allow them a little freedom by cycling to school.