[whywhywhywhy]

Ridiculous editorializing with the "This teenager was allowed to work and now he's dead" part. As if non-working teenagers don't also ride bikes on roads.

Should just be made legal, at least they're trying to do something legal when drug dealing is always an option. Used to be completely normal for teenagers to work these sort of jobs.

[Broken_Hippo]

As if non-working teenagers don't also ride bikes on roads

Sure they do, but we all know that you drive differently and in different places when you aren't doing it for payment and dealing with those sorts of constraints (if I'm not fast enough, I'll get bad ratings/tips, for example).

It also used to be normal to not finish high school, not allow women to get a bank account without a man's signature, and to beat your kids. Segregation was normal, too. Just because something used to be normal doesn't mean we should still be doing it.

And I'll point out that folks would deal drugs even while working was normal. Heck, some folks (including teenagers) use jobs as a way to deal more drugs. It isn't work or drugs. I'm not sure why teenagers need to do anything other than learning about the world and going to school. School often already takes the time of a full time job.

[mathgeek]

> I'm not sure why teenagers need to do anything other than learning about the world and going to school.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Working is a way to learn about the world in a low risk way (losing a job as a teenager is often more a lesson than a set back, for example). It’s also a way to earn your own income, which is obviously useful.

2. Not every teenager has the luxury of living in a stable home with one or both parents/guardians. Even then, some teens are better off spending more time away from those people beyond time spent in school.

[atlanticaccent]

You specifically mention low risk in your first point but not all jobs have the same risk profile and food delivery drivers absolutely do not have the same risk profiles as say, a retail worker. If the spectrum of "jobs we let teenagers do" is from Kidzania to food delivery cyclist, I think it's in the interest of said teenagers to tip the balance towards Kidzania.

Seriously! Roads are not a joke! Bikes don't have crumplezones! A significant minority of drivers actively target cyclists! The teenagers in these scenarios are also effectively operating under coercion when they swap with a registered driver! How could any of this be low risk?

[mathgeek]

I was only commenting on the quoted section above. No thoughts on kids doing gig deliveries.

[hurryer]

> I'm not sure why teenagers need to do anything other than learning about the world and going to school

Some teenagers don't have what to eat.

[Broken_Hippo]

And they shouldn't need to worry about that. Neither should others, honestly.

I mean, realistically I know that some folks don't have real choices, and that includes whether or not they get to concentrate on school or whether they need to work - but it doesn't have to be that way so often.

[thfuran]

And many teenagers have hobbies or interests that aren't free.

[bambax]

Agreed.

> Children working as riders for food delivery apps

> The family of a 17-year-old who died while working as a Deliveroo rider...

A 17-year-old is not a child. He's a minor, yes, and it's possibly illegal to have him work some jobs (although not all jobs, not everywhere), but calling them "children" is disgraceful.

[Jenk]

Apprenticeships are open to 16 year-olds - in much more dangerous professions. Metalworking, construction, mining, etc.

And of course if it is deemed too dangerous for them to join any of these professions, your local military recruitment center, acceptong applicants aged 16 and above, is right this way...

[atlanticaccent]

These are all highly regulated industries/professions. They also include legally required training. Apprenticeships are also not exclusively work - that's the entire point - a significant portion of an apprenticeship is spent in training and education.

Do you seriously think it's acceptable to just hand a child tools that can easily get them hurt or killed, with zero supervision or training, and expect them to be fine? It is already a nightmare for commuter cyclists in metropolitan areas who prioritize safe routes and dedicated cycle paths. You think people this young have the ability to effectively manage the risks of working on the road whilst under time pressure?

[altairTF]

dont they have for a lot of time before, what changed now?

[soco]

Society tries more to protect its members than ever before. And I argue that's the whole point of a society.

[rhdunn]

Although you can take GCSEs at any age, they are typically taken when you are 16. After that, you have a number of options:

1. continue to A/AS-level taking 1 to 2 years, and then optionally onto collage or university;

2. do apprentiships or traineeship that take 1 to 5 years;

3. part-time employment and education/training.

From http://www.gov.uk/child-employment:

1. children aged 13+ can perform part-time work except in television, theatre, and modelling;

2. from age 16 to 18 (if not in education) you must spend 20 hours working or volunteering;

3. from age 18 you are elligible for full-time work.

Therefore, it is perfectly valid for the 17 year old to be working as a driver and the BBC is trying to incite outrage against food delivery apps with this.

[threeseed]

> but calling them "children" is disgraceful

We define a child as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and civil legislation in England and Wales.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/case-management-guidance/definit...

[bambax]

Ok, thanks for the link (and the text of your post is in fact a quote for that page); but the page in question is from the UK department of justice. In the judicial system it makes sense to call all minors "children".

In an article for the general public, the use of the term is disingenuous IMHO, because people usually don't think of 17-year-old persons as "children".

[threeseed]

The law isn't just for the judicial system. It's what governs the general public.

17 year old persons are children.

[rich_sasha]

Where I live, Deliveroo riders ride like they are immortal. I'm amazed I don't see a few dead per day. Run through red lights, zigzag through traffic, ride on the wrong side of the road.

And I'd imagine it's driven by the incentives/constraints of the job. I never see anyone ride that crazy.

I'd say a 17-yo doesn't have the maturity to understand that this is not worth a daily dose of a milimort.

Further complicating things, Deliveroo riders aren't even employees (maybe that's changed recently). They are contractors and so the risks of doing a dangerous job are offloaded onto them by the company. An employer would be liable for eg setting delivery times that necessitate reckless riding, a B2B contractor is expected to do their own risk assessment.

So I think it's fair to treat these 17-yo as children in this context, and certainly as exploited.

[beej71]

I delivered pizzas when I was 17... Apparently this is now illegal in California, but I wonder if it was illegal in the late 80s.