Most places I've seen, yes in the US, have bike paths, and houses are typically in a separate area from main thoroughfares. Why wouldn't a kid bike to a friend's house, or a local park?

I've never been in a place where I had to take a "busy main road" to get around locally. Cross it sometimes, sure, which can be done at a light. This sort of highlights the problem. Over-protectiveness, by examining the worst that can happen, and the worst scenario.

Despite that, I've avoided bad accidents and generally felt pretty safe, but only because I survived long enough to develop an acute intuition for when drivers are about to do something stupid/illegal/dangerous. Previous and contemporaneous experience driving a car on the same streets was also very important. I would not trust these streets with my daughter's safety on a bike, and I honestly won't trust her to read the idiots' minds until she has some experience doing so from inside a heavy steel cage.

Riding within neighborhoods like the one I live in now is a different question, though some people do drive quite fast through here, and the size of the typical modern car makes clearances and sight-lines rather tight. I do see a lot of older kids out on their own walking, often to and from school, which I think is great.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Long story short, I maneuvered this person into a rhetorical corner where they had no choice but to abdicate or say to my (virtual) face that a master carpenter is literally incapable of evaluating the practical merits, or lack thereof, of a particular hammer that they have held in their hands and used. That is when I decided to stop having substantive conversations with this person, because there is no arguing with such an absurd depth of self-serving epistemic nihilism. I was satisfied with simply proving that it was there, to myself and others in the conversation.

---

> "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"

You are offering broad, utterly worthless generalities with a side of BS hand-wringing about politics (which this is not). I am offering concrete scenarios and questions, because each child is real and they live in real physical environments and any injury or death they sustain in the course of a dangerous activity is real.

So I ask you again: is it appropriate for me to let my nine month old crawl around in the street? Why or why not? Is it appropriate for me to let my four year old use the sharpest chef's knife in the drawer? Why or why not? I would like you to commit to answers here, to establish a baseline, so that I know you are not so steeped in self-serving epistemic nihilism that you would tell me to my face that a carpenter cannot say if a hammer is a good hammer or a bad hammer just to salve your own wounded ego.

Once you've provided those answers, let's try a less obvious (I hope!) scenario. First, at (approximately) what age would you say that a child living in a sleepy subdivision with wide streets, long sightlines, and minimal traffic should be allowed to tool around on a bike in the street and visit her neighborhood friends living within a handful of blocks? Now, having answered that, how would you answer it for an identical child living in a high-rise condo in downtown LA?

Are they the same age? Is your answer simply "as soon as they are able to ride a bike", taking judgment entirely out of the equation? Or will you admit that all things are not equal?

And finally, assuming you do admit that parental judgment has a role in keeping children safe, what exactly is it that makes you believe you are more fit to judge the cycling safety landscape of my neighborhood, in my city where I have been cycling for almost two decades, than me? Without even knowing what neighborhood in what city we're talking about, no less!

I look forward to reading your answers to these questions. If you cannot answer them I will have to assume you are participating in bad faith, and this will be my last reply in this thread.

The issue is just don't care, it seems. :(

Since moving here I've effectively stopped riding because of the drivers.

A lot of the people espousing the whole free range parenting stuff never actually walk around and understand what the pedestrian experience is like. If they did, they'd be strongly advocating for better road design and pedestrian paths. But you rarely see the two groups intersect.

Now in my home town there are zero kids on the street. Culture has shifted drastically.