What age do you let your children out alone?

fairy_lights

Makalu wrote: »

When he was 11 he had a phone and I called him and he said he was in Sainsbury's with his friend. I said "You aren't allowed that far" and he replied saying he and his friend wanted to do something "teenagerish" (His words) before starting secondary school, so although I was shocked I was glad he had the confidence.

I think that's brilliant - going to Sainsburys as an act of rebellion :rotfl:

silvercar

theEnd wrote: »

It doesn't really make any sense. The road is the main danger and that's a lot safer now than it was back then.

I think it is more that a parent would be able and willing to collect from juniors, but anyone with a child at each would not be able to escort from senior school as they are at the junior school.

Round here people tend to send to secondary schools great distances away, so the logistics and effort required to collect are that much more difficult. People tend to let their year 6 children have some freedom in their last term in preparation for secondary school.

Lily-Rose_3

I sincerely hope this doesn't turn into a 'what kind of parent are you' thread? 'Wow, how over-protective are YOU lol, you are doing your child a massive disservice by not allowing them to go anywhere alone, they will be completely stunted and not even be able to wipe their own bum/tie their own shoelaces etc etc when they're an adult.'

Or the 'you obviously don't care about your kids like I do' kind of comments.

Upshot is, it depends on the child. Some are more sensible than others, and some are more advanced than others, but if you let your child walk to school, alone, on a main road, at the age of 5, like THIS child https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTYuMOKSCd4
then you need your head looking at.

(I now fully expect the 'I walked 10 miles to school when I was 3, and then worked 55 hours a week at the age of 12, and did a 20 mile round trip to get there and back' brigade! :rotfl:

Surely common sense prevails. As I said, each child is different, and IMO, people who are quite protective and extra vigilant with their children, are bashed by the less protective towards their children brigade far more than the less protective are bashed by the more protective. I wonder why? Trying to justify themselves? Guilt? Who knows.....

I cannot think of a single person who has been harmed by an over protective parent. There are certainly many cases of children coming to harm from not being protected enough though.

It's utter nonsense to say that if a child is not allowed to travel anywhere alone until they are 12 or 13, that they will not be able to function as an adult like some people say. The things some people come out with! :rotfl:

JimmyTheWig

pigpen wrote: »

if something happened the parent would be liable to prosecution for allowing a preventable accident. It is just lazy parenting imo.. cant be bothered to walk the short distance yourself so put your children at risk by letting them go alone.

I think that's unfair to call it lazy parenting.
If it is done for the reason of giving the children experience of being independent then I don't think that's lazy.

Would it be "lazy parenting" to encourage children to tidy up after themselves, or to allow a young teenager to prepare a simple meal? Would it be "lazy parenting" to let the children do their own homework rather than doing it yourself? Would teaching a child to tie their shoelaces be "lazy parenting" because a parent would only do that because they couldn't be bothered to tie them for them for the next 10 years?

theEnd

Lily-Rose wrote: »

I cannot think of a single person who has been harmed by an over protective parent. There are certainly many cases of children coming to harm from not being protected enough though.

I largely agree with your post, but not this bit.

Most people will know someone who was over protected when they were young. They often got left behind in their teens. Some catch up, but others never really do. The lessons that are learnt in those years are quite important.

JP08

Location is also a pretty big factor.

I was allowed a lot of (apparent) freedom from a very young age, but as the village had a child population of ~60 and a total population of a couple of hundred, everyone knew everyone, and whose kids were whose, you couldn't do anything without being seen by someone who knew you and your parents !

That was back in the 70's, but when I go up to the parents its still not uncommon to see groups of young kids out and about on bikes unattended. We are talking rural Norfolk though.

Lily-Rose_3

theEnd wrote: »

I largely agree with your post, but not this bit.

Most people will know someone who was over protected when they were young. They often got left behind in their teens. Some catch up, but others never really do. The lessons that are learnt in those years are quite important.

Thank you.

I would still stand by that bit though. I mean, I agree with you that some people may be affected by being mollycoddled an excessive amount... But I sincerely believe people - in general - would be much more likely to come to harm if the parents were less protective than if they were more protective; not just physically affected but mentally and emotionally too.

I don't mean every parent who is less protective is damaging their kids, and every one who is more protective is a better parent, but just that less protection and vigilance may not always necessarily be better than more.

I can imagine people who had parents that walked them to school til they were 10/11, and who were quite protective and a bit strict, being much more secure and happy as adults, than people whose parents were never there, who had them walk to school from 6 years old, and who instilled no boundaries. Children need this, they really do. They need to know they are loved and cared for and protected... not left to their own devices from 5 years old.

dsab

I don't think there is a right answer, and in the end every parent takes a different stance on it. None is absolutely right, and very few will be absolutely wrong. We live quite close to our daughters Primary school (5 mins walk), and when I told some parents that I was going to let our daughter walk on her own from P3 they were horrified. Said that, the Headteacher said it was actually the right thing to do.

But this need to protect kids does seem to be a very British thing. I grew up on the continent, and you were viewed as some kind of "idiot" among your class mates if your parents were dropping you at school aged 7 or 8. From P2 (7/8 years) all kids went to school by Bike or on foot, no exceptions. Police came tom school every few months to run Bike checks to make sure they were safe etc., and to teach the kids to be safe and to be vigilant etc.

My nephew is still in Primary school in Germany, and his school doesn't even allow parents to drop the kids off within 500m of school. All kids are expected to take the Bus, to walk or to go by bike.

If you are ever in the Netherlands have a look around schools around 3pm, and you will see thousands of bikes leaving the school, kids of all ages. You will see very few kids being picked up by parents.

peachyprice

I wouldn't let them walk alone at that age, primarily because I don't think it's fair to leave an 8yo in charge of a 5 and 6yo. At 8 they're not old enough to be able to cope with a hissy fit by one whilst keeping the other safe, it's just not a good position to put a young child in.

I think I would be inclined to walk with them as far as the alley part then hang back and let them walk the rest of the way by themselves to give them just a little feeling of independence.

bossymoo

It would be a no for me. Mine are 7 & 5 and they don't go out alone. Eldest has a friend who lives in the same street, but we live is such a busy, over populated area with crazy drivers around that I personally wouldn't risk it.

If I could see their house and watch them from my door, then maybe.

For me I think when they get to 10, if they are reasonably sensible, they can start going short distances alone.

But every child and every parent is different, thank heavens! Would be very dull if we were all the same!