After some parents were ticked off by social services for allowing their kids to ride their bikes to school, the Daily Telegraph has a Yes/No opinion piece (
Should the Schonrock children be allowed to cycle to school alone?). My sympathies lie with the Yes opinion writer. It seems to me as a non-parent that kids are too looked-after these days. Back when I was a kid, we used to roam off at weekends, get up to all sorts of scrapes, fall down hills and into gorse bushes, fall off bikes, fall into streams and the like (yes, I know it all sounds a bit
Just William). All part of growing up, discovering one's limitations and the like.
Anna Maxted's 'No' argument begins with an explanation of the emotional response to an awful event happening to one's children:
Most parents are accustomed to that involuntary lurch of fear in their chest. It occurs when one of their children narrowly escapes death.
In my case, it was the day on Hampstead Heath when I let the five-year-old push the baby along in his buggy. We heard screams and turned to see the buggy hurtling down a steep slope and smash violently into a metal fence. By great good fortune, the baby’s head missed the bars.
Mr and Mrs Schonrock, of Dulwich, west London, are immune to such fears. They face the threat of being reported to social services for allowing their five-year-old son and his eight-year-old sister to cycle one mile to their private school every morning, alone.
But how does she know the Schonrock's are immune to such fears? Perhaps they believe their children have received adequate training and preparation. And in her example, why did she permit her five year old take charge of the baby (indeed she acknowledges here responsibility later in the article)?
Where I live, we no longer see children out and about on their own, you just see them being ferried around in cars. Is it wise to protect kids right through to adulthood? How dangerous is childhood (and how dangerous should it be?
On the other hand, perhaps my non-parental status influences my opinion...