Nice - price motorists off the roads

[WiseOwl182]

8 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Going back to what I said though, it wasn't primarily about young children walking.

The numbers of secondary school children driven to school has increased massively hasn't it.

 

I walked to school, primary was 0.2 miles according to google maps.  I walked to secondary school, 1.3 miles.  The bus to secondary was 5p when I started, but I rarely caught it, probably 10 - 20 times in my entire 7 years there.

I probably got a lift <10 times in that 7 years.

 

Parents fears may well be the explanation, or maybe it's a bigger change in attitudes.  Despite the decreased risks to children, they're not allowed the same freedoms I had 30+ years ago.

I'm not sure if I would class a 6 year old child walking to school as a freedom, more neglect in my opinion. I would certainly not allow it. Secondary school children are another matter, but most from what I can see either walk, or if from further afield catch the bus. I don't see the cars on the school run being much of an issue at secondary schools. How many teenagers want to be seen dead with their parents dropping them off?

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[Cyclone]

You keep banging on about 6 year olds, knowing that I never said that.

On 11/01/2019 at 16:55, Cyclone said:

I think that sending the kids to school independently would be a lot quicker for the adult currently involved in ferrying them around.

There'd be numerous benefits in fact.

Can you see me saying anything about 6 year olds here?  No.  You made that bit up and keep repeating it.

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I'm not sure if I would class a 6 year old child walking to school as a freedom, more neglect in my opinion. I would certainly not allow it. Secondary school children are another matter, but most from what I can see either walk, or if from further afield catch the bus. I don't see the cars on the school run being much of an issue at secondary schools. How many teenagers want to be seen dead with their parents dropping them off?

 

Children these days do not have the same freedoms they had 30 years ago.  I didn't say that this meant walking to school at age 6.  You're just making things up that haven't been said.

[WiseOwl182]

1 minute ago, Cyclone said:

You keep banging on about 6 year olds, knowing that I never said that.

Can you see me saying anything about 6 year olds here?  No.  You made that bit up and keep repeating it.

You said "late infant". By definition, that is the final year of infant school, which the children start at the age of 6 and turn 7 at some point during the school year (or even into the following summer holiday).

[Cyclone]

On 11/01/2019 at 16:39, WiseOwl182 said:

Most of the 75% of car journeys that are 1 mile or under will not be within a city centre. School runs will account for a lot of that. If you think cycling to school and back is quicker and more practical, you're mistaken.

So all these short journeys (75% of car journeys are under 1 mile) are (you claimed) school runs.  And now they're school runs for infants specifically...

And no, I didn't ever suggest that anyone cycle their children to school.

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You said "late infant". By definition, that is the final year of infant school, which the children start at the age of 6 and turn 7 at some point during the school year (or even into the following summer holiday).

You're mistaken.  I said that I had walked to school in late infant/early junior.

To clarify that for you, somewhere around the age of 7 (late infants) or 8 (early juniors), was when I walked to school on my own.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Cyclone

[WiseOwl182]

31 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So all these short journeys (75% of car journeys are under 1 mile) are (you claimed) school runs.  And now they're school runs for infants specifically...

And no, I didn't ever suggest that anyone cycle their children to school.

No, I never said "all". I reckon a large proportion will be. There are other short journeys too. For example, I live around quarter of a mile from the local shop. Sometimes I walk it, if it's a nice day and I'm not in a rush for anything. If it's cold or wet, or I'm in a rush, or I'm going out somewhere else as well, I'll drive it instead. I could cycle too, but by the time I've unlocked the garage, got the bike out, strapped my helmet on and cycled there, I'd be back already in the car. Lazy? Yes probably, but so what? I'd rather not get cold or wet, or waste time if I'm in a rush.

35 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

You're mistaken.  I said that I had walked to school in late infant/early junior.

To clarify that for you, somewhere around the age of 7 (late infants) or 8 (early juniors), was when I walked to school on my own.

Late infant covers 6 year old. Even 7 is too young to walk to school alone though.

[woodview]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Well, something changed over the last 30 years to massively increase the number of children driven to school.  And it's not "danger to children", they're safer than they ever were from both road accidents and any other form of harm.

Lots of the smaller primaries have closed, and compacted into fewer, larger ones for economies of scale.

Lots of families both parents work, dropping off kids on way to work. Lots drop off kids at childminders near school, or breakfast club also on way to work.

[Cyclone]

Lots of families were dual income 30 years ago, that's not a new thing.

 

Are there any stats about school closures?

 

All the ones that existed in my village are still there, 4 of them I think, 5 maybe.

4 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, I never said "all". I reckon a large proportion will be. There are other short journeys too. For example, I live around quarter of a mile from the local shop. Sometimes I walk it, if it's a nice day and I'm not in a rush for anything. If it's cold or wet, or I'm in a rush, or I'm going out somewhere else as well, I'll drive it instead. I could cycle too, but by the time I've unlocked the garage, got the bike out, strapped my helmet on and cycled there, I'd be back already in the car. Lazy? Yes probably, but so what? I'd rather not get cold or wet, or waste time if I'm in a rush.

Late infant covers 6 year old. Even 7 is too young to walk to school alone though.

So what?

So it contributes to congestion I guess, wasn't that what we were discussing?  Isn't that why Nice would like to make it more expensive for motorists?

 

But you popping to the shop at 1830 in the evening probably isn't make a big difference to the congestion that most people notice, which is the commute congestion.  In fact if you're in a congested area you probably actively avoid going to the shop at rush hour, I know I deliberately time my journeys to be better.  I'll be visiting my parents tomorrow, I don't cycle the 18 miles there and back, but I do make sure I leave home by 1600, no later, to avoid the worst of the traffic, and head back at 1900 again to avoid any bad traffic.

[WiseOwl182]

18 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Lots of families were dual income 30 years ago, that's not a new thing.

 

 

"Lots of". Can we have stats, now Vs then please? You wouldn't accept "lots of" from anyone else.

[Cyclone]

On 20/01/2019 at 21:58, WiseOwl182 said:

"Lots of". Can we have stats, now Vs then please? You wouldn't accept "lots of" from anyone else.

That took a bit of finding.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/womeninthelabourmarket/2013-09-25

 

Employment rates for women have been increasing steadily since 1971 (when the graph starts), that increase slowed since 1991.

 

The rise in women in employment is partly due to an increase in the percentage of mothers in work. In 1996 (when comparable records began), 67% of married or cohabiting mothers with dependent children were in work and by 2013 this had increased to 72%. 

 

1996, that's >20 years ago and it was already "most" at 2 3rds.

 

Even going back to 1971 (well beyond the 30 years I defined), it was greater than 50% of women (which isn't to say families of course, women exist outside families).

 

Looking at another bit of data

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/workingandworklesshouseholds/aprtojune2016

In 2015 56% of households were dual income, compared to 1996 when it was 51%.  Not a huge shift, because the shift had happened earlier.  (That's 22 years ago)

 

30 years would be back to 1988.  I can't say that this evidence is conclusive, it doesn't look like the data to prove it exists in any way that can be easily accessed.  But these two sets of data support my assertion.

The shift towards dual income being common started in the early 70's and was nearly at current levels within 20 years, and that is 28 years ago!

[woodview]

On 20/01/2019 at 21:39, Cyclone said:

Lots of families were dual income 30 years ago, that's not a new thing.

 

Are there any stats about school closures?

 

 

You'll have to research stats if it helps you.  Working from experience. Our 2 closest schools closed and we're compacted down into 2 others, I've seen others further away close too.