leaving children on their own?

lostinrates

you are all reading a bit like kids left for a very long time unsupervised now.

plumpmouse

poet123 wrote: »

Re read my comment again, I said exactly the opposite. I said I wouldn't relate one anymore than I would relate the other. Really I am quite happy to be called to account for what I have said, but not when I haven't said it.

Here it is again:

I don't think that it follows at all that those who wouldn't leave a child alone at nine will be over protective of a teen, anymore than I would say the opposite;

I apologise Poet. Now I have re-read I can see what you were saying. Not sure why I missed the bit in red completely the first time I read.

Just as a point of interest. Yesterday I was driving kids to school,someone ran a red light and nearly crashed into the side of my car. If they had hit, it would have been my 2 year that would have taken the bulk of the impact. Life is full of risk and personally for me there are more risks being taken every day in a car but people do this without even thinking.

poet123

plumpmouse wrote: »

I apologise Poet. Now I have re-read I can see what you were saying. Not sure why I missed the bit in red completely the first time I read.

Just as a point of interest. Yesterday I was driving kids to school,someone ran a red light and nearly crashed into the side of my car. If they had hit, it would have been my 2 year that would have taken the bulk of the impact. Life is full of risk and personally for me there are more risks being taken every day in a car but people do this without even thinking.

Thanks for the apology, I think we are all guilty of skim reading at times!

I agree with you on risk. My point has always been that it is really not feasible to avoid risk such as your child being in the car or walking to school, or playing out, it is part of life, and unless they remain locked in a room 24/7 it is inevitable that we will expose our children to risk. But for me, there are risks we have to take to function normally and risks that are not necessary to take, for me leaving a nine year old alone falls into the latter category.

zagfles

lostinrates wrote: »

you are all reading a bit like kids left for a very long time unsupervised now.

:rotfl:yes the thread had reached that stage now...

FBaby

poet123 wrote: »

Thanks for the apology, I think we are all guilty of skim reading at times!

I agree with you on risk. My point has always been that it is really not feasible to avoid risk such as your child being in the car or walking to school, or playing out, it is part of life, and unless they remain locked in a room 24/7 it is inevitable that we will expose our children to risk. But for me, there are risks we have to take to function normally and risks that are not necessary to take, for me leaving a nine year old alone falls into the latter category.

This is exactly where we differ. To me my son staying home when I consider the risk to be no higher than in other circumstances IS part of life. We take trips driving every week that are not essential just choice. I don't analyse when I get in the car whether the reason for doing so justifies the risk I am taking by driving in the first place. I accept there is a risk getting into a car whatever the circumstances but still want to drive even if it is to go to the cinema or to the gym.

poet123

FBaby wrote: »

This is exactly where we differ. To me my son staying home when I consider the risk to be no higher than in other circumstances IS part of life. We take trips driving every week that are not essential just choice. I don't analyse when I get in the car whether the reason for doing so justifies the risk I am taking by driving in the first place. I accept there is a risk getting into a car whatever the circumstances but still want to drive even if it is to go to the cinema or to the gym.

The risk to a child in a car is specific, it is the danger of a car crash. The risk to a child being left alone is not as specific and encompasses many variables.

In an earlier post you mentioned the differences between the risk as being clearly shown by stats but you haven't backed up that assertion by showing the stats in question.

Did you actually mean you feel that is the case, or you have evidence that is the case?

FBaby

poet123 wrote: »

The risk to a child in a car is specific, it is the danger of a car crash. The risk to a child being left alone is not as specific and encompasses many variables.

What does specificity got to do with it? Specific vs non specific, ok to take risk vs not ok? Risk is risk, outcome of risk is outcome of risk, whatever the number of variables.

Did you actually mean you feel that is the case, or you have evidence that is the case?

On another mission to prove a point Can't be bothered to seek evidence for the sake of this thread but I'm sure if I did I would have not trouble finding the evidence

poet123

FBaby wrote: »

What does specificity got to do with it? Specific vs non specific, ok to take risk vs not ok? Risk is risk, outcome of risk is outcome of risk, whatever the number of variables.

Risk can be assessed, quantified and it is based on the number and type of variables. It is absolutely not just as simple as saying something is risky. That is the job of Risk Assessors in insurance.

FBaby wrote: »

On another mission to prove a point Can't be bothered to seek evidence for the sake of this thread but I'm sure if I did I would have not trouble finding the evidence

No, only on a mission to ask people who make statements that "stats clearly show xyz" to provide those stats for others to make a judgement on.

So, as you seem not to have even looked for stats it would appear you were making that bit up then?

FBaby

That's all very well getting into the rhetoric of risk assessment but that changes nothing to what I say. Since you love evidence so much, here is some:

For infants, suffocation led to more than 80 percent of injury-related deaths, with motor vehicle crashes being the next leading cause of injury-related death in 2008. For children ages 1 to 4, the leading cause of injury-related death was drowning. For children ages 5 to 14, motor vehicle-related injuries were the leading cause of unintentional injury-related death.

Source: safekids.org

So again, knowing that children are most at risk of death from a motor vehicle related injuries, why would anyone drive their children anywhere out of choice?

(and yes, I know it is an american study, but surely you're not going to come up with a theory as to why it doesn't apply in Britain? )

jellyhead

So, can I ask all of you at what age you would leave a child unsupervised in the bath, for more than a few seconds. I added that few seconds bit because some might not think that nipping to fetch their pyjamas while they are in earshot and you'll be back in the room with their pyjamas within seconds counts as unsupervised.