[b112]

I've been riding in a big west coast city for the better part of two decades, and I have definitely not been able to rely on dedicated bike paths (or even multimodal "trails") to get around.

Fair enough, but that's not what I said. I said locally, and neighbourhood. You elude to this later in your comment, but it seems unjust to reply, and refue my comment, while changing scope.

These are kids. They can bike locally to friends houses, or a corner store, or a non-central local strip mall, without hitting main roads.

Which you in fact agree with, later in your comment!

It doesn't need to be all or nothing, people. Biking in local neighbourhoods can be safe, and it can still be dicey on the main roads.

[caconym_]

> I said locally, and neighbourhood.

I think the problem with your model is that it conflates these two concepts, which may sometimes be appropriate but definitely isn't universal. For example, if you walk about 3/4 of a block east from my house you will hit a relatively busy arterial that is honestly one of the more dangerous roads I've ever ridden on, with broken sight lines due to parked cars (which also constitute a dooring hazard), lots of cars pulling in and out from side streets and parking spots, delivery drivers blocking the bike lane, a busy pedestrian crossing (again with very poor visibility), and cracked and rutted pavement. Just from their small stature alone, a child riding on this road would be in significantly more danger than an adult would, to say nothing of the skill and experience it takes to navigate so many simultaneous conflicts safely.

On the other hand, if you walk west from my house, you can go the better part of a mile through a quiet, shady neighborhood before hitting a main road.

Now what is "local" and what is "neighborhood"? Is the grocery store about a 3 minute walk east of my house not "local" just because to get there you have to at least cross this busy, relatively dangerous arterial? I don't think that makes sense. However, it's definitely not part of my neighborhood in the go ride around the neighborhood sense I understood as a child growing up in the suburbs. So in my view I am not changing the scope of the conversation, but rather trying to draw your attention to a distinction that may not exist in the locales you have experience with, but is important in some of those you don't.

[b112]

Well this is why I stipulated only crossing busy main roads, and going to local, quiet strip malls, and otherwise being on side roads.

This added context to my statements about local, and neighbourhood, and all kids get directions such as "but don't do that!!", it's part of life as a kid. And frankly, an adult, though it be self prescribed.

Naturally each situation is different, but busy rodes have traffic lights, otherwise you might tell the youngster "never cross that road".

And that still leaves loads of low risk areas, which ypu yourself admit is viewed as local.

I see a lot of either/or in some topics, and local non-car travel seems to be a big one. People want to rail on about fewer cars, it's not safe, more bike paths needed etc etc. And I find that any conversation revolving around it being safe ... anywhere to bike, elicits these sort of absolutist responses.

"It's just not safe!!!!"

But the reality is, it is safe... just with conditionals, which I mentioned, and with instructions to child, and of course taking into account the specific child too.

And this is how to avoid helicopter parenting. You don't use a cell phone tracker, to make sure they obeyed, you don't follow them around, you give restrictions and work with that.

[caconym_]

If your point is that biking locally is safe anywhere (excepting absurd scenarios) for children as long as they can be trusted to accurately internalize and unerringly obey a complex set of directives concerning which roads they are allowed to ride on, where and how to cross those they are not, and warnings of hazards they aren't experientially equipped to intuitively understand, then sure, I agree with you.

However, in practice, I think you will find that there are very good reasons you see a lot of younger kids out walking by themselves in neighborhoods like mine, but very few on bikes (unattended). If it just came down to "helicopter parenting", you would not see the former either.

[b112]

From where I sit, you're making my point. An exaggerated emphasis on the complexity of a few "don't do that" rules, and the concern that blind obedience won't be forthcoming, is the malformed cause of helicopter parenting.

Additionally, "kids are actually allowed outside" isn't really proof that taking away bikes isn't helicopter parenting.

Look, I can't imagine we're going to agree here:

* I believe a child is given great disservice, if they don't have the option of doing risky things and

* I believe a child a abused, their development twisted, if they don't break the rules occasionally, and do a risky thing... while considering how to do it in a least risky way!

Put another way, if you seek to cut off all possibility that a child can get in over their head, or do a risky thing, one is helicopter parenting.

[caconym_]

> An exaggerated emphasis

What exactly do you think it is that I'm exaggerating? I've been polite here, but frankly—given your earlier assertion that "most places [you've] seen [...] have bike paths, and houses are typically in a separate area from main thoroughfares", I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about re: any neighborhood even vaguely resembling mine. Furthermore, your implicit assertion here that making any dangerous activity off limits for children of a certain age is helicopter parenting—abuse, in your words—is totally ridiculous.

Am I a helicopter parent because I refuse to allow my nine month old to crawl around in the street out front eating dog shit to learn how bad it tastes? Because I won't let my four year old help out in the kitchen by chopping zucchini with the extremely sharp chef's knife I barely trust myself with? Get a grip, man.

[b112]

This sort of hyperbole is what is wrong with US political discourse.

When I say:

"But the reality is, it is safe... just with conditionals, which I mentioned, and with instructions to child, and of course taking into account the specific child too"

and you ignore this context, you're missing vital context, and your reply loses value.

And when I say:

"Put another way, if you seek to cut off all possibility that a child can get in over their head, or do a risky thing, one is helicopter parenting."

and transition "a risky thing" to mean "every possible risky thing conceivable", you are again ignoring context, for that is already mitigated by my statements about the individual child.

Part of the growth of a child, is to allow risk, so that as an adult, that human will be able to gauge risk. Helicopter parenting over-reduces risk, and results in weaker adults as a result.

Let's look at the bike example, with rules. And as I discussed, a child being told that it's OK to bike in their neighborhood, but "don't go on that busy street, although you may cross at a light!"

Now you have to trust that child, while I should not have to say it, for I already did, and therefore you should keep the context in mind, "and of course taking into account the specific child too".

For example, I have seen 8 year olds with more sense than 12 year olds.

But back to the example. Now what happens if child decides to ride that busy road? Well, on very rare occasions, a child might break the rules. But naturally, that same child would not want to get caught and punished.

So what would a child do? Well, it rarely, if ever would break that rule. And that child would be damned careful, because they didn't want to get caught doing something wrong!

One of the reasons for punishment, is not to instill blind obedience to rules, but instead to instill risk management as a concept to children.

But I'm sure you'll take this response to indicate I believe toddlers should by flying fighter jets, instead of 10 year olds biking to a friend's house, with rules. So why even discuss any more?