[Closed] Playing out in the street. It's the future!

I reckon it's one of the most important things we've lost over the last 30 years and one of the major reasons for some of the problems in our communities.

Definitely the way forward. Impressed the Council signed up to this idea.

It was like being a kid again in 1970s.

Children free to bomb up and down a 70 yard stretch of road on their bikes and scooters, or kick a football without the fear of getting creamed by a passing car.

they had asked everyone to move their cars out of the way.

but then where do all the cars go another street , that deprives the kids the right to play there, we plolayed in the street and cars where there, we respected the neighbours cars, and didnt ned our parents standing watching us play.
But it is nice to see neighbours talking to each other and kids playing, even if it needs to be organised.

The street I used to live in, in Brixton holds a street party every year. We shut the street down to traffic and get the cars to move out of the way (getting permission from the council), put on music, food, kids entertainment, let the kids (and the adults) run around and play.
It went down so well in 2008 when we did it the first time that we've done it every year since. I still go back to help out even tho I've moved away.

People could do much more of this kind of stuff if they took it upon themselves instead of expecting government to do it. It's brought the street closer together without a doubt, and this is just an annual thing

Kids from the surrounding streets were there too. There were dozens and dozens of them.

Good stuff.

Spacehopper-tastic! Kerby, three n in, wally.....takes me back

A picture from Terrahawk http://twitter.yfrog.com/z/hwt32vuj

The local fire station even sent down a Nee-Naw to play in.

We are very lucky that we live on a cul de sac. Jnr FD is 3 and plays out on the street nearly every night/weekend with other kids of a similar age and a bit older. Does get the adults out of their houses too talking to each other.

We really, really must move house. Wouldn't want my (baby) son playing with any of the kids in this street 🙁 Not a crashing snob, just we live in a not-so-nice area and the local kids sit around trying to get their older siblings to buy them White Lightning.

I fondly remember the street where I grew up. There was loads of kids and we had full reign 😀 It was ace!!! I feel sorry for kids nowadays. I go mad at the nutters who seem to think our cul de sac is the perfect place to speed 😯 Child's face and all that!!

Great idea. Can terra put a word in with Trafford? Sell it as a community idea? Plenty of young kids on our small street

That was ace. Our 3rd street party and the start of something regular we hope. Maybe one afternoon a month to start and see where it leads.

It only took a couple of phone calls and some cooperation between neighbours.
The best thing by far is that due to our street parties we all know each other. Which is nice.

Can terra put a word in with Trafford?

I don't know anyone at trafford council. I'm not the king.

I reckon it's one of the most important things we've lost over the last 30 years and one of the major reasons for some of the problems in our communities.

Along with white dog poo

And hedgehog crisps. And Um Bongo.

You can still get Um Bongo.

Can terra put a word in with Trafford?

Seriously. Talk to the neighbours and if you want to do it phone up the council switchboard and ask for the Highways Department.

My only concern is that playing in the street becomes a planned, you-must-have-permission-and-a-permit process - when it should be everyday...
I am not the only one...
http://rethinkingchildhood.com/2013/06/18/street-play-bbc-one-show-too-much/

Every silver lining etc...

You can find negatives in everything if you look hard enough.

Brilliant 🙂

Whilst it is a shame that it needs to be formally arranged it sows the seed of the idea that playing out in the road is a good thing, which brings doing it spontaneously one step closer.

This happens a few streets away and the kids love it.

We've lived in or current house for 18 months and have meet or neighbors on both sides. It wasn't until a car crashed outside a few months ago, and we all rushed out to help, that the other neighbors who've lived here for over 10 years each realized that they knew each other from 20 years ago! They live 3 doors away!!

I reckon it's one of the most important things we've lost over the last 30 years..

Yep, yet another quality-of-life factor that has been sacrificed to the mighty car.

My kids and all the other kids play out in the street here. One of the benefits of living in a cul-de-sac.

My kids play out in the cul de sac as often as they can - one resident is a bit of a knob about turning in at speed and has been spoken to by a couple of parents, and one family we would prefer they didn't play with, but it is great.

I was brought up a pavements width from the A16 trunk road - playing in the street wasn't much of an option in my 70s childhood!

Kids already play out in our street every day, in Central Reading.. 20mph, speed bumps. It doesn't need once-in-a-blue-moon closures, it needs motorists to accept that they can't drive everywhere at the speed they want to.

I played in the street when i was little. Quite literally in fact. I got such a bollocking when someone informed my parents we were riding our bicycles into head on traffic on the wrong side of the road 😯

well done terrahawk!

It is NOT progress to tell kids "you can play out there once a year under strict controls", any more than the SkyRides do anything in the long term for cycling other than tell people "it's not safe to cycle except when we shut the road once in a while".

Fair play to those who organise these, they're doing the best that's doable, but we shouldn't let the powers-that-be off here.

Street parking, and traffic speeds and volumes, especially on residential streets, are a blight on our country.

But I have a car (which I use to go riding) and my Mrs has a car (which she needs to drive to work, not viable on bike or public transport). But there are only 2 adults in our household and we have off street parking.

Our neighbour has 4 adults in the house, they have a car each to go to work.

Our neighbour on the other side has 5 adults, they have a car each to go to work.

Guy across the road has a truck because he's a landscape gardener, he needs that for his business. He has 2 kids so there's a family car too. If he parks both on his driveway the truck block in the car, so he parks the truck on the street or verge.

This in a street of 3 bed semis, pretty affluent by the standards of the nation. None of the above are selfish or inconsiderate people.

Who's going to step up and give up their car?

It's a tricky one. The land value of the UK handed over to on-street parking must be huge. It's a VAST subsidy to private motoring.

Cars are the only possession we're allowed to own without making provision for storing them on our own property, or paying to store them somewhere.

@ormandroyd, true. But the economy gets that back because people can get to work. If the guy with the truck for instance is denied parking for it, there goes the income he uses to support his family.

Part of the problem here is these houses were built in the 30s (like millions over the country) so car ownership & parking on this scale wasn't considered. But population density is also an issue, I'm fairly sure the the 3 adults one side and 2 the other would prefer not to be living with their parents, at least not all of them.

@mike interesting observation

But the economy gets that back because people can get to work. If the guy with the truck for instance is denied parking for it, there goes the income he uses to support his family.

But many of the other examples you mentioned were people who drive ordinary private cars to work. Do all of them have no other choice? Could they walk, cycle, take a bus? A huge number of car journeys are less than a couple of miles. For the majority of drivers the car is, ultimately, a well subsidised convenience most of the time. The opportunity cost burden of a line of parked cars down the side of a road is very big.

But I have a car (which I use to go riding) and my Mrs has a car (which she needs to drive to work, not viable on bike or public transport).

It's not a sin to own a car you know, you don't have to justify it all the time.

you don't have to justify it all the time.

Sure, perhaps they could, I don't know where they all work.

My other half's journey is not viable on foot (too far), bike (perhaps too far, definitely too dangerous, and she also picks our daughter up from nursery on her way home), and not viable on public transport. (I work from home, and almost always push my daughter to nursery, a 3.5 mile round trip, on foot. But I'm a bit odd!)

Mike's point is quite thought provoking.

It's not a sin to own a car you know, you don't have to justify it all the time.

Wasn't. I have 2 cars actually. 😳

any more than the SkyRides do anything in the long term for cycling other than tell people "it's not safe to cycle except when we shut the road once in a while".

To be fair the SkyRides are more than that - yes they have one big day where they shut the roads and gets lots of people riding that usually wouldn't, [i]but[/i] they use that day to hand out loads of info about riding, promote leisure and transport cycling, and they follow up with free Sky organised rides for months afterwards.

Cars are the only possession we're allowed to own without making provision for storing them on our own property, or paying to store them somewhere.

+1, this article puts it very well:
[url= http://bamboobadger.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/car-parking-ill-just-leave-this.html ]"I'll Just Leave This Speedboat Here" (Ian Walker)[/url]

We live in a cul-de-sac and are very appreciative of the fact that the children can play out in the street unsupervised.

If anyone thinks we can just restrict car ownership and everything will be fine, they are in la la land.

It's a lovely ideal and soemthing we definitely shoudl work towards, but cars are totally intertwined with our way of life currently. It'll take a century to reverse even with concerted effort.

From that blog:

Because here's the question: why should I be allowed to own a car if I have nowhere to store it?

Because cars are rather useful. FFS.. I can't stand it when people latch on to one simple idea and act all self righteous about it when the issues are far more complicated. Can you imagine what would happen if you banned on-street parking?

Re kids playing out - our street is full of kids playing, but then we live in a cul-de-sac. It's not a co-incidence.

We've got a garage.
It's full of bikes.

We've also got 2 cars.
One lives on the drive & one on the street.

I feel a bit guilty now.

From this thread it sounds like the solution is to turn all residential streets into [i]cul-de-sacs[/i].

There may be some issues with that which I haven't thought through...

From this thread it sounds like the solution is to turn all residential streets into cul-de-sacs.

They've done that a bit in Cardiff, in places, with the old terraced streets. They are pretty quiet, and kids do play in them.

Good point.

They did something simlar in Harpurhey and Moston in Manchester:
Knocked down every second row of terraces and refurbed the remainder, turning some of them into cul de sacs.

The houses had a lot more light, gardens, safe play areas and became instantly much more desirable as a result.

Whoever came up with that idea is a bloody genius.

Knocked down every second row of terraces and refurbed the remainder, turning some of them into cul de sacs

That's an excellent idea for those really run down places you see on the news where the houses are all £5 or whatever.

Our street isn't a cul-de-sac, but because it's a 20mph zone with speed bumps, the rat-runners are deterred, and hence it's pretty kid friendly.

This appeared all along the pavement this weekend, for instance.

[img] [/img]

If anyone thinks we can just restrict car ownership and everything will be fine, they are in la la land.

We have unrestricted car ownership and things are far from fine. The balance is miles the other way right now. TfL, for instance, have drivers' organisations listed as statutory consultees, but not cycling or pedestrian groups.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/what_statutory_consultation_list

It's all about the bloody car, right now. Yet even people who NEED to drive would benefit from less driving by those who don't need to.

Rusty - that sounds like what Urban Splash did in Weaste in Salford. It was absolutely grim round there. Rows of boarded up and abandoned terraces. They knocked half down and turned the remainder from this

[img] [/img]

into this

[img] [/img]

We have unrestricted car ownership and things are far from fine.

Quite so.

But, simply ranting about how stupid everyone (else) is for parking outside their house is not at all helpful, as some people are (not directed at the posters here necessarily). How about some actual solutions? That are actual real ideas that will work not fantasty statements?

Molgrips yes cars are damn useful but the sheer amount of land "given over" to storage of private vehicles is bonkers and is a massive subsidy to the poor put upon drivers that no-one ever seems to remember about. Old housing obviously doesn't play nicely with multiple car ownership, new homes built out in the burbs a zillion miles away from any employers without inadequate off street parking is stupid. It'll take a bit of effort to change but

It'll take a century to reverse even with concerted effort.

Well what other options do we have Donk? (I've got an idea but I've said it before enough times)

Yep, that's the one binners.
Must be the same initiative.

I'm blody sick of hearing about how we need to build on greenfield sites to replenish housing stock.
Utter bollocks.
We just need some intelligent thought applied to the issue of the thousands of uninhabited properties and wasted brownfield land in the centre of our existing towns & cities.

We just need some intelligent thought applied to the issue of the thousands of uninhabited properties and wasted brownfield land in the centre of our existing towns & cities.

How much of that is there though? Serious question. I don't know of any stretches of dead houses in Cardiff, for example, and brownfield sites are being developed quite heavily here and apparently up in the Valleys too.

How about some actual solutions? That are actual real ideas that will work not fantasty statements?

Proper pricing of on-street parking is something I think should be strongly considered. With money ringfenced and channeled directly into public transport improvement. Getting there would need some serious positioning and messaging, though.

The village we're trying to relocate to is proper old skool in that it has greens, football/rugby/cricket pitches, a playground, fields, woods, rivers, i.e the very same things I spent my childhood playing on/in. Fewer and fewer places seem to have these facilities which I just don't understand.

Would rather monkey jnr spent his formative years growing up in the same way.

Proper pricing of on-street parking is something I think should be strongly considered.

It would mess up many people's lives. Given people's current jobs and living arrangements, they'd have no choice but to pay the fees. Chances are they would struggle to move because the value of houses without off-street parking would plummet. It'd really hurt people in their pockets, and that's no way to get people on your side.

You can't penalise people into doing the right thing. You have to make them WANT to do the right thing, and give them the means to do it.

Beyond all this hefty debate and back to the OP, I think this is a great idea and considering the way the world is going with excessive immersion in the digital world (typed ironically 😆 ) it's great for people to get together and break down the walls that insulate the growth of communities.

Well, I'd say about five hundred uninhabited properties in the centre of Burnley.
Along with, ohhhh, twenty or thirty old disused plots that could be transformed into green spaces or more housing.

Not sure about Liverpool now, but there were a good few hundred sturdy, Victorian properties that had been abandoned.

It would mess up many people's lives. Given people's current jobs and living arrangements, they'd have no choice but to pay the fees. Chances are they would struggle to move because the value of houses without off-street parking would plummet. It'd really hurt people in their pockets, and that's no way to get people on your side.

Given that on-street parking is, in its current form...

a) A major detriment to children playing outside, thus having a health cost impact
b) A cause of congestion
c) A big giveaway of land to motorists that could be used for other facilities like bus lanes, cycle lanes, additional traffic flow space, etc

...then there's a big economic case for something to change. Like i say, it's not an easy choice, and it's certainly not the only aspect of car dependency that is detrimental and ought to be tackled.

That said, it doesn't really stop the kids playing in our street. The most important thing to do IMHO is to bring speeds down with properly enforced slower limits in residential streets, something with sends groups like the Association of British Drivers (who reject the existence of "rat running") into spasms.

The result... kids playing out safely, neighbours out on the street with a brew talking to each other and no cars!

Happens on my street whenever it's not raining, (appart from the no cars bit). I'm currently the street curby champion in fact. 8)

Okay, one constructive idea: Car sharing schemes could be one really good way to improve things. Many people only have a car for the odd drive at the weekend. It'd be good to show people in those circumstances that it'd actually be cheaper to rent a car 30 weekends a year than to own one for the whole year, clogging up a bit of road space.

Not a bad idea - but car rental needs to be really cheap and easy then, like the city car schemes.

Although, how many people really only use their car for odd weekend trips and take PT at other times? In London maybe, but elsewhere?

Anything like that needs huge investment in PT. But PT isn't always profitable, so it needs subsidising. And for that, you need a left-wing government.

I like the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child", my daughter's knocking on to 2 1/2 now so I think about that a lot.

But PT isn't always profitable, so it needs subsidising.

We already subsidise the bejeezus out of private motoring, so why not?

groups like the Association of British Drivers

Don't flatter the ABD by calling them a "group".

[i]"Pressure groups such as the Association of British Drivers are unduly influential. They have less than 3,000 members, yet they are given enormous attention by the media. They appear on Radio 4's Today programme. It's ludicrous — this is a bunch of crackpots being given prime airtime. It's just because the media love a controversy."[/i]
-- Richard Brunstrom, then chief of road policing for the UK Association of Chief Police Officers, 2004.

And yet TFL consult them all the bloody time, while ignoring the London Cycling Campaign.

(e.g.

)

t is NOT progress to tell kids "you can play out there once a year under strict controls", any more than the SkyRides do anything in the long term for cycling other than tell people "it's not safe to cycle except when we shut the road once in a while".

it is progress when you've got 6 hours when cars aren't tearing along the street. It gives residents a foothold and gradually 6 hours per months becomes more frequent. then it's a one-way street with calming measures and a 20mph limit. or it's closed to traffic entirely.

Entirely possible that none of this would happen, but what we did yesterday is a step in the right direction.

What really saddens me is the lack of freedom of movement that kids have in this country. It's not just about playing outside, it's also about being able to get on a bike and go places.

That's what's so depressing about the SkyRide. I saw a lovely blog about the Southampton one, a few months ago, which showed pictures afterwards of parents and kids cycling on pavements back towards car parks, because the roads had been handed back to thundering traffic.

In the Netherlands, by contrast, a young kid can get on a bike and ride anywhere they want in safety. Even when there's not a bike lane on a quiet street, signs and laws make it perfectly clear to drivers that they don't take priority. It's no coincidence that obesity levels are much lower there, but it's just the principle of the damn thing: Kids should be able to move.,

Terrahawk: I came across a bit strong, and I think what you did was great. You're clearly thinking longer term than just this event. I tend to feel ranty when media coverage and other commentary portrays it as a great thing while not talking about the future. BUT: I really think there's a risk that it becomes normalised to both kids and adults that this time is the kids' time to use the streets, thus reinforcing the sense that it's off limits at other times. Hence it's important for all of us not to let this kind of thing let people off the hook at all other times.

it is progress when you've got 6 hours when cars aren't tearing along the street.

agreed, perhaps from some people, or kids who've not had the experience before, it's a taste of what's possible

Y'know, the "why are these kids in the street, they had their afternoon back in August" effect?

agreed, perhaps from some people, or kids who've not had the experience before, it's a taste of what's possible

That's a strong argument for it, for sure.

Car ownership is relatively easy and cheap, so people build their lives around them, so cars become "essential".

I never learned to drive. (I tried twice, but didn't ever pass a test.) So, I've never built my life around owning a car. I applied for jobs that didn't require driving and were nearby, I don't drive to bike rides on a weekend, etc. As a result, we only have one car and it lives on our drive.

Previously, we've been completely car-free for a year or more at a time, including when we had young kids.

It is possible, and more people could do it. We just need to have incentives and alternatives in place. Unfortunately, central and local government seem allergic to taking any steps that are deemed anti-car. My local newspaper's comments pages are full of people complaining that they have to pay 1 pound an hour to park in the town centre; we're happy to pay that, because the alternative is to spend £9 on the bus to get us, as a family, into town.

My local newspaper's comments pages are full of people complaining that they have to pay 1 pound an hour to park in the town centre; we're happy to pay that, because the alternative is to spend £9 on the bus to get us, as a family, into town.

One challenging thing is the way car ownership's sunk costs are internalised, so people only see the price of £1 parking and a dribble of fuel, rather than the actual daily cost of owning their car (a tenner in depreciation, say).

One family bus trip at the weekend: £9
[i]versus[/i]
Fuel into town: £1
Car parking in town £1

When really the other side includes...

A week's car tax: £3
A week's depreciation: £70
A week's insurance: £10
A week's service cost: £10