That’s not what this is about

Very much not what this is about. My kids have travelled Europe and the US with music groups, sports teams, Scouts and Guides, but that’s not the same as getting infants to primary school.

Agree with Butcher’s comments – this is a very British attitude and problem – I’m not sure what goes in all other European countries – Germany, France.
I have pictures of my kids, 7, and 9, setting out to cycle to, from school not many years ago

I am stating that the real dangers to children are much lower now than 50 years ago. Its a simple fact. You have been given good data on it above.

Except they aren’t, the street I lived on as a kid had one parked car on it 50 years ago now it has 10-12, more than the number of houses. Suddenly a space that was essentially free of cars is now full of them.

The data presented is looking at casualties, it takes no account of behaviour modifying risks. Kids don’t get run over on the way to school if they are sat in “Dad’s taxi” etc

i cannot help the fact that you cannot distinguish between real danger and imaginary ones

You haven’t defined the real danger, all you do is bemoan that primary age kids don’t roam the streets like you did.

Parents tread a fine line, you nuture, educate and expand boundaries. You want you kid to grow up street wise so when you aren’t there they can cope with any problems. You think parenting was different in the 70’s, it wasn’t.

big and daft – accident rates. death rates amongst the total population are all well down from the 70s

again this is the difference between perception of risk and actual risk. walking to school is safer now than in the 70s – no doubt at all

The data presented is looking at casualties, it takes no account of behaviour modifying risks. Kids don’t get run over on the way to school if they are sat in “Dad’s taxi” etc

Not just that, the data only accounts for road deaths. Be that Johnny (who was a lively kid) who ran on the road or Karen who drove into a tree. The reason deaths have gone down since the 70’s is because the structure of the metal boxes has gotten safer, seatbelts are mandatory, airbags are everywhere, crumple zones are a thing and all manner of other safety innovations have made the inside of cars safer. Plus a change in attitude to drink driving. Nothing much outside the cars has changed barring a bit of tweaking round the edges for NCAP.

Plus, as said, you get the issue of family disputes. 40 years ago the wife tended to just shut up and put up, I’m glad we’ve moved on from that.

FWIW my daughter has been allowed to walk home since she turned 8, we’re right round the corner so fine with that.

We used to regularly get banned from cycling to secondary school for being bellends but all they could do was stop us taking our bikes through the gates. We used to lock them up outside during bans because they had no control on how we got to school.

Sitting here in Denmark reading this shaking my head in disbelief, must be a huge proportion of kids here that cycle to school or are dropped off by cargo bike which many people use instead of cars. You see entire classes of primary kids riding behind the teacher too. Obviously the attitude to cycling here is the opposite of the UK and we have great infrastructure though.

i cannot help the fact that you cannot distinguish between real danger and imaginary ones

while I tend to think the risk has come down. Blame and liability have gone up. In the 70’s no-one would’ve thought to blame the school (for instance) for a child being injured on the way to or from  school. If that school hasn’t got a safe travel policy…well the risk is there that LA will pass the buck, parents, I would argue, are more likely to take  legal advice now. Every accident has consequences now in a way that it didn’t in the 70’s .