[Closed] Quick straw poll? How many of you would let a 7 year old play out on their own?

STW, yesterday.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/parents-how-old-were-your-kids-when-you-first-let-them-out

(TL;DR, it depends on maturity, not age.)

i wouldnt.

Depends on the area, is it a traffic accident you would be worried about (which is a fair concern) or the bogeyman (of which parental fear is probably going to have a worse impact on the children)?

Not ok as simple as that.

😮

Not sure this day & age, I was often going missing down the fields when I was 7 & was always getting told off by mum & dad (1963).

Times have changed but maybe depends where you live as well.

Nope, too young, too late and too far from home.

Not a bloody chance. I wasn't allowed that far from home until I was about 14. Even then it would only be to a friends house in another area.

I was thinking about the seven year old boy who was tragically found dead today, in a vertical pipe in a construction site. He's crawled in to play, falled into this pipe and died.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33672499

No way.

I used to get a telling off if I didn't nip back home every hour or so up until being about 14. Even then, the longer bike rides had to be pre-planned and family informed of where I was going.

Just started letting 8yr old go to the park with his sister who is 11. No roads to cross and back within the hour or there will be trouble, would not be out after tea time though. Back when I was a young un I was allowed out all day but it was all very local and with a bunch of mates.

We had plenty of freedom and managed to get into plenty of scrapes when I was 7/8/9 (late seventies, Ireland) - however, thinking back now, to areas which would have been forty minutes from home, there was no way even the most relaxedly parented kids were that far from home at seven, not in my neighbourhood anyway. Y'know, I'm sure his parents will suffer with this for the rest of their lives (and perhaps they should) - but that far away at seven does seem a long way from home. Negligence? I dunno...they'll have plenty of time to work it out in their own heads.

Playing out unsupervised @ 7- yes, that would be a goal and [i]should[/i] be normal imo. Sadly achieving that goal might mean moving areas and plenty of sprog eduction about how to act maturely and streetwisely. However, being a 40 mins walk from home at 7 seems way way too much to me - more like 5 (depending on the area).

In this case the distance from home seems like it was irrelevant - he was found much closer to home than that.

In an ideal world yes, but in 'THE' world (or the UK) no way whatsoever!

Depends. On our culdesac, yes. In our old village, field and woods behind our house they were allowed to go as long as they could see the house, from 5/6.

Near traffic? No.

Without details? Hard to say. I'm not sure what "tragic accident" the OP is referring to though.

When I was 7 I used to get the bus across Edinburgh on a Friday evening to go to Cubs. On a nice night I'd walk it and keep the bus fare!

I'm not sure what "tragic accident" the OP is referring to though.

As above:-

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33672499 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33672499[/url]

A 40min walk from home at 8pm. You have to hope he was not meant to be out that late, or there is more to the story. Not cool parenting otherwise (despite my pro playing out post above)

My kid is 8 ...and I still go everywhere with him........no kids play outside on their own where I live!!
Not because it's a rough area....my area is really quiet

But when I was a lad (here we go!!) everyone on my estate played together , everyone knew each other and I used to go out ( as long as I stayed on the estate) from the age of 4

Mind you things where different back then, we even left the key in the door....we had **** all worth nicking!!

No chance !

Don't even like my 18 yr old daughter going out now, but did remark to Mrs Lannister after the news, that boys are different and it's a shame the idea of a seven year old out playing so far from home is bound to be frowned on by the mollycoddlers these days and there will be some serious tutting and handwringing, but...

At that age I'd catch a bus five miles to school and when it went on strike I cycled, I'd also spend all day away playing and we had bomb sites, much more fun.

that boys are different

Why do you feel this?

In this case the 40 minutes from home is irrelevant given where he was found. I don't have kids, but I do think it is a shame for them, and bad for society as a whole, that kids have their freedom restricted so much these days.

[quote=imnotverygood ]In this case the 40 minutes from home is irrelevant given where he was found. I do't have kids, but I do think it is a shame for them, and bad for society as a whole, that kids have their freedom restricted so much these days.

I was going to ask if distance from home made a significant difference? Does a year make a significant difference? As per the other thread, our 8yo is just being allowed to go off playing with mates in local park a few minutes walk away, which most people seem to think is fine and if anything would be fine for somebody younger. There is a building site between park and home, less than a minutes walk away, which is sometimes not properly secured in the evening...

Looking at the distance and the roads between the park and home it does seem to far.

But where the actual accident happened and the distance from the home, would probably be within the bounds of unsupervised play for me.

This is just based on the map and satellite picture of the area, there would of course be other factors to consider.

I used to walk to school on my own at that age, though we lived in a village and there wasn't much traffic in the 1970s.

The little lad actually died on a building site about 200 yards from home,there appears to be some doubt about which park he went to,as there is a local park near his house.

In cases like this it is often useful to consider the social standing of the parents. If he was from a broken home, single-parent on benefits type then it's poor parenting. If his parents are two middle-class professionals (e.g. doctors) then it's a tragic accident.

As much as you love to shoehorn the McCann case into these things druidh, their tragedy was hardly an "accident" was it? Your desire to get your opinion of it in has clouded your sense of rationale. Not for the first time and not the last either for sure. Two very different incidents and not really that comparable.

In cases like this it is often useful to consider the social standing of the parents. If he was from a broken home, single-parent on benefits type then it's poor parenting. If his parents are two middle-class professionals (e.g. doctors) then it's a tragic accident.

😆

In cases like this it is often useful to consider the social standing of the parents. If he was from a broken home, single-parent on benefits type then it's poor parenting. If his parents are two middle-class professionals (e.g. doctors) then it's a tragic accident.

sad

I saw this yesterday in the news and my first thought was that I wouldn't let them out my sight at 7 years old, never mind a 40 minute walk from home on an evening without another adult with them.

Spoke about it with people at work and everyone shared the same opinion.

convert - Member
that boys are different
Why do you feel this?

Permit me to correct..

Boys [i]should[/i] be different, I realise in this day and age of PC blundering, molycoddling, no blame, no bullying, and certainly no risk taking, we are selectively breeding away the little ball bits...

And as to the incident it was a tragic accident, fate, it could have happened right outside the house, or even from falling out of his bedroom window, it was written that's it.

Boys should be different, I realise in this day and age of PC blundering, molycoddling, no blame, no bullying, and certainly no risk taking, we are selectively breeding away the little ball bits...

See, that's not what I meant - entirely the wrong way around. Why do you perceive girls to be so soft and lacking independence they can't do the stuff that you think (as do I) boys should do? Very old fashion view if you ask me.

[quote=DaveyBoyWonder ]I saw this yesterday in the news and my first thought was that I wouldn't let them out my sight at 7 years old, never mind a 40 minute walk from home on an evening without another adult with them.
Spoke about it with people at work and everyone shared the same opinion.

Isn't hindsight wonderful. At what age would you let them have a bit of freedom?

When I was a kid we used to ride our bikes all over Cambridge on our own.....

Boys should be different, I realise in this day and age of PC blundering, molycoddling, no blame, no bullying, and certainly no risk taking, we are selectively breeding away the little ball bits...

Blimey that's even worse than what you first said!

Why are you against [i]"PC blundering, molycoddling...etc"[/i] for boys but okay with it for girls?

Apart from anything else you are completely undermining your own objection: if a generation of mothers are brought up in over-protective bubbles then they'll bring up their sons in the same way.

Isn't hindsight wonderful. At what age would you let them have a bit of freedom?

"a bit of freedom" being letting my kids go to a park 40 minutes walk away on their own? Let me think. Maybe when they're 14/15?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing which is why I want to protect my kids as much as I can. The last thing in the world I imagine anyone would want is to think "I wish I did that differently" when the result was their dead child.

At the end of the day, letting a 7 year old out on his own to go to a park a 40 minute walk away, along/over main roads and for him to then end up dead on a building site, to me, smells more of child neglect than when the McCanns went for a meal and left their kids "safely" in an apartment nearby.

My girls (2 of them) do about 99% of the things that boys do, and the rest they just discard because they're too sensible.

Tyrion, me old son- disrespectfully, you're talking cobblers 🙂

DBW - whilst you would be far from alone in thinking a 40min walk from home is daft for a 7 year old what you said was "I wouldn't let them out of my sight". With respect for me that's too much the other way (which is the point aracer was making I suspect). Allowing kids some freedoms and showing them how to use it sensibly is a key part of growing up and good parenting. Still, you know your kids and the geographic limitations of where you live best.

[quote=DaveyBoyWonder ]"a bit of freedom" being letting my kids go to a park 40 minutes walk away on their own? Let me think. Maybe when they're 14/15?

Yeah, but at what age would you let them out of your sight, as you claimed neither you nor your colleagues would with a 7yo?

As has already been pointed out, the accident happened a lot closer to home than that, within the sort of range many of us think reasonable for a kid close to that age. My 8yo will certainly be allowed out to play with mates in the next few weeks if they come calling, to go playing in the park 5 minutes away - as he was last week. 6yo is sometimes out of my sight if within a shorter range. Your "not out of my sight" smacks of knee-jerk.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing which is why I want to protect my kids as much as I can. The last thing in the world I imagine anyone would want is to think "I wish I did that differently" when the result was their dead child.

Personally I don't want to be thinking "I wish I did that differently" when my kids have problems due to lack of freedom when younger.

Mind you things where different back then

Yeah, nonces didn't exist until 1990, FACT!

There's a lot more, faster traffic these days, granted. But roads aside, the world isn't any more dangerous now than it was five, twenty or a hundred years ago, we're just so very much better at sensational reporting.

At what age would you let them have a bit of freedom?

NOthing to do with circumstances at all. My seven year old would not be allowed to venture two miles from home without an adult, under any circumstances.

Difficult not to cast judgements here, I just cannot see how that is ever all right.

In answer to your question.
My 5 year old is allowed to the park at the end of our cul de sac, about 20m from the house with line of site.

My 7 year old is allowed to walk round to her friend house that is about 100m away, not line of site, along a track and path, no roads.

My 9 year old can go to the park at the other end of the street, can walk to friends in the village but that is all within about 1/2 mile radius.

I am not prescribing that that is correct, just what works for us and what we feel comfortable with.

Incidently though, my kids have not really challenged this, they don't seem to want to venture further afield. Yet

letting my kids go to a park 40 minutes walk away on their own? Let me think. Maybe when they're 14/15?

14 or 15? That seems pretty strict to me.
I'd expect most kids would be going to school on their own by that age, which may well be more than 40 minutes away.

If they can't even go out alone at 15 how will they cope when they find themselves at uni or in a job just three short years after that?

I still don't think I'd let them out of my sight at 7. My eldest is nearly 6 and he's not at an age where I'd feel comfortable about letting him disappear down the road on his own.

Over protective? Maybe. Happy that I know where my kids are all the time? Yes.

Blimey! The restrictions placed on some of the kids here sound little short of incarceration 😯

[quote=DaveyBoyWonder ]My eldest is nearly 6

Well that answers the question I was going to ask. Just finished year R then? You'll find they grow up a lot in the next few years (if you let them). I was keeping a very close eye on my oldest at that age, but things are different with my youngest just a year older than that.

I'd be interested to know how much freedom people on here had as kids compared to how much they give their own kids. And why.

Were you a carefree leaf on the wind and want to give your children the same thing?

Or were you feral and don't want feral kids?

Or were you carefully supervised till your 18th birthday before being carefully introduced into a protective habitat?

GrahamS - While I recognise the freedom I had in childhood, we do live in a changed world. Particularly with traffic and online risks.

I wonder how many of us who are concerned enough to restrict our children outside, also have similar strict approaches to online safety and viewing? Sadly, I know of a good few 10-15 year olds who have viewed some pretty hardcore porn, a few who are addicted at 12/13. I also know that a good proportion of 10yr old+ children view 18 horror/war/graphic films. I would argue the risk of harm from this kind of behaviour is greater than being active, social and responsible outside.

Oh, and you should all read this.

Download for free from his site:
http://rethinkingchildhood.com/no-fear/
[img] [/img]

I've just been looking after my two boy nephews, had them for over a week now, 6 and 8yrs.

Dear God 😯

How do you Parents cope? No, seriously ? 😯

luckily I'm handing them back today... 😆

The question raised by the OP is a good one. I've a place on the coast thats in a very quiet area near a stunning location by the River and Beach. Taking that into consideration I see (on my rides etc. and sailing) literally hundreds of kids about 8/9/10+ out on their own or with other kids the same age. I see all the risks associated with this area, strong tides, boats, rope swings into the River, shingle beaches and of course the Sea itself. As is, it's a fairly benign place if you know what you are involved with.
A couple of weeks ago, just before the kids broke up from school a young lad (10) drowned in a slouce gate from one of the many pools by the River. It happens, so sad, they were jumping off the bridge into the River and he got trapped..
When I was young I was able to run wild, I lived in Fort Lauderdale FL, and in a similar environment to where I live now. We were taught from an early age about Croc's/Gaters and the myriad of snakes and nasty spiders.. Did this stop us from swimming and playiing out until the Sun went down? Nope. Did we build rafts from reeds and plantation crops, damn right we did.
Also, I'm a Dinghy Instructor and Windsurfing Instructor and hold a Yachtmaster Cert, taken kids all sorts of places in boats and boards, ages from 5 through to mid teens and enjoyed having them as company and teaching them the ways of the Sea etc. Many years have I done this and when I retire, this is what I'll continue to do.

Knowing all this, I'd never let my nephews out alone. But thats more a reflection of the fact that I seriously don;t think they're mature enough to cope with daily life, never mind the myriad of risks out there 😯 A total reflection of their Parents they are 🙄

[quote=bikebouy ]A couple of weeks ago, just before the kids broke up from school a young lad (10) drowned in a slouce gate from one of the many pools by the River. It happens, so sad, they were jumping off the bridge into the River and he got trapped..

How many kids have been killed on the roads since the previous time one drowned playing in the river? (I know you weren't suggesting kids shouldn't do that because it's too dangerous, but thought the point needed making)

codybrennan - Member
My girls (2 of them) do about 99% of the things that boys do, and the rest they just discard because they're too sensible.

Which kind of makes my point about the er 'quality' of todays ball free boys...

And do you know what, the girls of course have total respect for the [s]weeners[/s] city boys, soccer divers, emotional 'retards' and other blubberers from Gazza down.

Which kind of makes my point about the er 'quality' of todays ball free boys...

OK, I'm going to say it - you sound like a bellend. I pity your poor repressed 18yr old daughter who has such a plonker for a father.

My poor aunt grew up not allowed to go the university like her younger brother (my father) or allowed to learn to drive because her father didn't think it was right for a woman. But that was in the 60's and I'd hoped the like had died out with my grandfather's generation. It sounds like you could be a throwback.

A present for tyrion

[img] [/img]

[b]Which kind of makes my point[/b] about the er 'quality' of todays ball free boys...
And do you know what, the girls of course have total respect for the weeners city boys, soccer divers, emotional 'retards' and other blubberers from Gazza down.

Are you sure there is actually a point ?

It really doesn't come across that way at all.

OK, I'm going to say it - you sound like a bellend

You might as well say it.

Everyone else is already thinking it.

So basically your "point" is that boys should have greater freedoms and do more exciting things than girls?

Because testicles.

Sounds like the Lannister household is a rare beacon of progressive equality. 😆

convert - Member
Which kind of makes my point about the er 'quality' of todays ball free boys...
OK, I'm going to say it - you sound like a bellend. I pity your poor repressed 18yr old daughter who has such a plonker for a father.

I'm sure my 'repressed' daughter would fully agree on the bellend comment, but that is not the point I'm making. I've brought up four daughters, they all windsurf, mountain bike, can snowboard rings round most of their contemporarys, but that doesn't mean the male of the species should be deliberately dumbed down to equal them, which is my point.

Whichever way you play it, boys and girls are not the same, were never supposed to be the same and other than a few, don't actually want to be the same. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be given every opportunity to do what the **** they like, but not letting boys sort out their own differences doesn't exactly prepare them for the realities of life further down the path, nor preventing them playing with knives, axes under supervision (reference here to Boy Scouts banning sheath knives and the carrying of hand axes)and all manner of other ridiculous supervisory limitations that have come to pass down the years.

And back on topic whilst it was a tragedy that will have wreaked a terrible effect on the parents I would not add to that grief by holier than thou protestations of better parenting authority buoyed up by this ludicrous pc climate we now find ourselves in.

(tyrionl1 == derekrides, yes?)

Not sure this day & age, I was often going missing down the fields when I was 7 & was always getting told off by mum & dad (1963).

Not sure what people mean by "this day and age". Doesn't the evidence show that kids are safer today than they were in the 1960s?

All I was doing outlining the recent death on the River, was that it happens and the kid was 10.
I rode passed the flowers on the bridge and read the postcards and such, then just down the River there were a bunch of kids swinging from a rope into the River and I stopped and asked them about it, it was one of their friends from school..
Got no idea about Road Deaths TBH.

that doesn't mean the male of the species should be deliberately dumbed down to equal them, which is my point.

So to you equality means dumbing down boys to level of girls?

Wow!

Give him a break, he is an oppressed white male in a black lesbian female ruled world.

GrahamS - Member
that doesn't mean the male of the species should be deliberately dumbed down to equal them, which is my point.
Wow!

So? Are you not suggesting that young lads of today do not experience greater restrictions as a result? Even though it is also true more adventurous would be axe wielding girlies are also swept up in the same trap?

[img] [/img]

GrahamS - Member
that doesn't mean the male of the species should be deliberately dumbed down to equal them, which is my point.
So to you equality means dumbing down boys to level of girls?

Wow!

No it means that just because we offer equal opportunity to all, that 'opportunity' should not be over restricted with cotton wool.

what are these restrictions?

The only thing I can think of (and the only one you've mentioned) is the restriction on carrying knives... which if you remember came about cos ickle hormonal teenagers were slaying each other with them on a weekly basis..

we do live in a changed world. Particularly with traffic and online risks.

They can't play out because of online risks? By that logic surely outside is the safest place for them?

(tyrionl1 == derekrides, yes?)

That's been the consensus here for a while now, yes. Nice to have confirmation, I expect this alter-ego's days on the forum have just come to a middle.

Ever feel like you're playing whack-a-mole?

Your first post:-

Don't even like my 18 yr old daughter going out now, but did remark to Mrs Lannister after the news, that boys are different and it's a shame the idea of a seven year old out playing so far from home is bound to be frowned on by the mollycoddlers these days and there will be some serious tutting and handwringing, but...

So, just to clarify.....

You appear to believe that giving freedom to explore is a good thing (I do too) and that it's only mollycoddling handwringers that have stopped this. You had 4 children and were able to parent as you wished and had they been boys they would have been free to roam that sort of distance from home (as you are not a mollycoddling handwringer - of boys) but as they were girls they weren't. Because testicles(sorry, stolen from GrahamS as I couldn't come up with anything better!).

sounds like we have a maniacal sexist knife-wielding mollycoddler on our hands

yunki - Member
what are these restrictions?

Well the obvious one is that which is under discussion, wether or not 'they' get to roam free, as to the rest, quite honestly the only ones that spring to mind were the boy scouts since that body I always felt brought a controlled sense of adventure to that age group, with the chopping down trees, building fires and general scout craft which believe me is lost these days as a young man of my acquaintance a scout leader frequently points out to me.

Conkers? Did I not read they can't play conkers. Then Sports Day? It was called Shorts Day and there were no winners and losers, that'll really set you up for life.

[i] Quick straw poll?[/i]

Not anymore. It's now turned into a full-on, STW Thermonuclear pitch-fork-athon. Again.

tyrionl1 - Member
codybrennan - Member
My girls (2 of them) do about 99% of the things that boys do, and the rest they just discard because they're too sensible.
Which kind of makes my point about the er 'quality' of todays ball free boys...

No, just proves that equality has kicked in. My girls ride bikes, climb trees, get into scrapes, have fights, break bones. Just as my friends and I did as boys.

We'll never win arguments on the internet with perfect strangers of course, but if you think that boys have to do be doing things with are somehow more quintessentially 'male' than girls these days, you'll struggle to find activities.

Oh, and they camp with their mothers Guides too, build fires, pitch tents, have fun. Are you feeling outnumbered yet?

No it means that just because we offer equal opportunity to all, that 'opportunity' should not be over restricted with cotton wool.

You are conflating two completely different things there.

I've never come across anyone (sensible) saying [i]"we can't let boys do X any more because girls can't do it so letting boys do it would be sexist"[/i].

That's not a reasonable argument - primarily because who says "girls can't do X"

Nice to have confirmation, I expect this alter-ego's days on the forum have just come to a middle.

Not confirming - just seems like a strangely familiar character-trait. FWIW, much as I disagree with his opinion I don't think he has said or done anything particularly hammer-worthy.

Is that's shorts day thing even true or did you just read it somewhere..?

It was definitely sports day earlier on in the year at my kid's school and there was medals and everything 😕
Our local forest school is running some lovely sessions over the holidays too, for kids 3 and over to mess around with fires and saws and stuff..

I'm confused

Maybe they're just not letting [i]your[/i] family get involved?

Conkers? Did I not read they can't play conkers. Then Sports Day? It was called Shorts Day and there were no winners and losers, that'll really set you up for life.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. 🙄

Conkers? Did I not read they can't play conkers. Then Sports Day? It was called Shorts Day and there were no winners and losers,

Its in the EU legislation next to the bit about straight bananas

Is that's shorts day thing even true or did you just read it somewhere..?

I believe it's held during Winterval. 😉

[s]derekrides[/s] [s]that windsurf shop owner or whatever it was[/s] tyrionl1 I've been helping at a local cub group (7-10 year old boys and, shock horror, girls). They've been using sheath knives, done fire lighting and cooked over an open fire. I'll let them know they're banned from it.