Bikes for 'tweens?

"Luigi de Guzman" wrote in message
...

The worst part is that my baby brother is much less free to ride than I
myself was. The folks barely let him get to the edge of the street. I
used to get on my bike and explore. I'd stop when I felt I was getting
too far out of my element--main highways, for instance--but otherwise, I
was free to roam, even if none of the other neighborhood kids rode with
me.

I'm 26. My brothers are 17 and 12. I pity them, but there's no talking
the folks into letting them roam on bikes. When I'm with them, and try to
teach them to ride on the street effectively, I get an earful for exposing
them to unnecessary risk.

What the hell happened in the years between my 24" black huffy and now?
*sigh*


You might be interested in this article, he

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:51:44 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:


You might be interested in this article, he

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770


I read that last week and felt really quite sad.

I wonder, though: what is it about us these days that makes risk so
unacceptable? My parents and grandparents lived in bigger, nastier,
scarier worlds. My grandfather was the only survivor of ten children--all
his other siblings perished in a typhoid epidemic, which eventually drove
his mother (my great-grandmother) insane. My father grew up in a rough
neighborhood in postwar Manila, running around and playing in the street.

By almost any measure, life for their generations was much more nasty,
brutish, and short than it is for mine. My brothers and I are safer than
they ever were--and yet they live in almost constant fear. Why?




--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:30:45 GMT, Luigi de Guzman wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:51:44 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:


You might be interested in this article, he

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770


I read that last week and felt really quite sad.

I wonder, though: what is it about us these days that makes risk so
unacceptable?

It is relative risk. People will focus on reducing the greater risk. When
the risk of dying at a young age from illness or whatnot is so high, no one
cares about the risk of dying on a bike, because that risk is comparatively
low. When the risk of dying from illness is low, then the risk of dying on
a bike become relatively greater. Bike helmets and other safety measures
become a necessity.

The more one worries about day to day survival, the less concerned one is
about bike helmets, air bags, seat belts, car seats, sanitation,
cholesterol, etc.

"toypup" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:30:45 GMT, Luigi de Guzman wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:51:44 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:


You might be interested in this article, he


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770


I read that last week and felt really quite sad.

I wonder, though: what is it about us these days that makes risk so
unacceptable?

It is relative risk. People will focus on reducing the greater risk.
When
the risk of dying at a young age from illness or whatnot is so high, no
one
cares about the risk of dying on a bike, because that risk is
comparatively
low. When the risk of dying from illness is low, then the risk of dying
on
a bike become relatively greater. Bike helmets and other safety measures
become a necessity.

The more one worries about day to day survival, the less concerned one is
about bike helmets, air bags, seat belts, car seats, sanitation,
cholesterol, etc.

And I think part of it is advance guilt. You can't control your child dying
in a typhoid epidemic. You can, however, prevent your child from riding a
bicycle on streets with cars on them. Not letting your child take risks
means that you're not taking the risk of something happening to your child
that YOU feel responsible for (and that you'll be blamed for by everyone
around you). It is no longer expected that many families will lose a child
at some point.

One thing we discussed at length in my pregnancy loss group was the "too
precious" child-that it is very typical for families who have lost a baby to
overdo it with their living child and to shelter that child too much, overdo
it on material posessions, and in general treat the child like a hothouse
flower, with similar results. I see much the same fear, though, in families
who haven't had a loss of a child now because of the very slim possibility
that their child will be taken from them.

"Donna Metler" wrote:

"toypup" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:30:45 GMT, Luigi de Guzman wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:51:44 +0000, Claire Petersky wrote:

You might be interested in this article, he

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

I read that last week and felt really quite sad.

I wonder, though: what is it about us these days that makes risk so
unacceptable?

It is relative risk. People will focus on reducing the greater risk. When
the risk of dying at a young age from illness or whatnot is so high, no one
cares about the risk of dying on a bike, because that risk is comparatively
low. When the risk of dying from illness is low, then the risk of dying on
a bike become relatively greater. Bike helmets and other safety measures
become a necessity.

The more one worries about day to day survival, the less concerned one is
about bike helmets, air bags, seat belts, car seats, sanitation,
cholesterol, etc.

And I think part of it is advance guilt. You can't control your child dying
in a typhoid epidemic. You can, however, prevent your child from riding a
bicycle on streets with cars on them. Not letting your child take risks
means that you're not taking the risk of something happening to your child
that YOU feel responsible for (and that you'll be blamed for by everyone
around you). It is no longer expected that many families will lose a child
at some point.

One thing we discussed at length in my pregnancy loss group was the "too
precious" child-that it is very typical for families who have lost a baby to
overdo it with their living child and to shelter that child too much, overdo
it on material posessions, and in general treat the child like a hothouse
flower, with similar results.

This basically happened to my mom - her brother and only sibling died
of some disease (this would have been about 1915) and her mother was
extremely protective of her after that. I have the letters that my
grandmother wrote to my mom when she went to college. My grandmother
wrote almost every day, and almost every letter started with a
complaint that she had not had a letter that day, or if she had, a
complaint about how short the letter was.

And my mom tried really hard to have more than two children because of
the chance of one dying. After she had a child that died a few days
after birth (a blue baby before they had the operation) and a serious
miscarriage at about 6 months, her doctor told her to stop trying if
she wanted to see her children that she had grow up.

I see much the same fear, though, in families
who haven't had a loss of a child now because of the very slim possibility
that their child will be taken from them.

I think a lot of it can be laid at the feet of the news media who
publicize all the things that happen to children - not just in the
immediate area, but all over the country and sometimes all over the
world - WITH PICTURES. Horrifying pictures - and not just still b&w
photos which would have been in the newspaper, but color moving
pictures.

When I was with my (13-14 yo) grandson in Ireland, he was initially
uncomfortable in going anywhere without me. Eventually he got so he
would go out with other people on the tour, and then at the end, he
was comfortable with going from the hotel (in Kensington) around the
corner to Burger King in the morning.

I did this deliberately because I think that children need to
experience being on their own in small ways before they go off to
college or work and have to be really on their own. I wanted him to
practice independence and looking out for himself in various
environments. And I suspected that he didn't do too much on his own
at home. [which he confirmed]

But my dh and my sister both told me that I had been a bad grandmother
for allowing this because something might have happened to him and
because it would worry his parents. Although my sister allowed and
encouraged him to walk around Princeton by himself to go get a haircut
or meet her at the camera store and she didn't seem to feel this was a
problem.

Nothing did happen of course, and neither of his parents have said
anything to me. In the case of ds, I doubt if he would say anything
(he after all did a trip with HIS grandmother at that age), and I
haven't talked to my DIL.

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
I think a lot of it can be laid at the feet of the news media who
publicize all the things that happen to children - not just in the
immediate area, but all over the country and sometimes all over the
world - WITH PICTURES. Horrifying pictures - and not just still b&w
photos which would have been in the newspaper, but color moving
pictures.

I agree with Rosalie, that the national news media does have a hand in this.
But interestingly enough, as I started reading this thread after reading
stories of two local students. The first was about a young lady who happens
to be a member of my country club. As a freshman in high school she was
involved in a terrible boating accident that left her with major head
injuries and leg injuries, with one leg almost torn off by the propeller.
The story was how this young lady went from being expected to never walk
again to running, and playing sports again. And then while still working
hard to graduate with her class both her parents were struck with cancer.
And yet she was still able to hold the family together while keeping up her
studies, and graduate with her class. She wouldn't have made the strides
she did without the strong support of her mother, who refused to give up, or
codle her daughter. And though her mom still worries about her daughter,
she lets her go, because she wants her to grow up to be strong, just like
her mother. It's an absolutely inspirational family.

The second story was about a young man in my daughter's graduating class
that died in a freak accident two days after his high school graduation. I
only know the family a little, but all the stories point to how incredible
this young man was: eagle scout, international choral singer with the high
school, trumpet player in the band, outdoorsman. And the quote from his
father in the paper that really hit home was that his son had an amazing
life, and he was saddened he couldn't see the second act. How many of us
can look at our 18 year old children and say they have had an amazing life?

These stories focused on these children not because they were brought up
safe in a scary world, but because they were brought up to take on life.

I've tried to raise my children to be self sufficient. I let them bike or
walk to school on their own starting in the fourth grade, biking with me
before that. By junior high that means crossing a major street, for a
distance of a little over a mile. They went to sleep away camp starting at
age 8 for a week. By the end of high school my oldest was away from home
pretty much all summer. They were allowed to walk to our little downtown
area on their own when they were 11. I let my high school daughter take the
train into San Francisco with friends to go warehouse shopping starting when
she was 14. When she was 16, while looking at colleges with her father, he
had heart problems, and she found her way back from Mass General to her
hotel (three different subway lines) by herself at rush hour. She ordered
room service, and calmly waited for him to come back. (While I panicked on
the opposite coast...) By senior year she was comfortable enough go to San
Francisco with two other girls to film homeless for what turned out to be an
award winning documentary.

On college tours I see many parents struggling. They've been sheltering
their children for so long they aren't sure how to let go, or whether the
kids will be able to live on their own. They ask if there are dorm
chaperones? Are there curfews? How do they know their kids aren't leaving
campus? And I wonder too, if this is the first time their children are
really free to roam, to do whatever they want, how do they know to make the
right choices?

But this isn't new. I see the US, and how the country is willing to give up
so much to try and be safe. Individual lives are just paralleling the
country as a whole.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:17:06 GMT, Rosalie B. wrote:

But my dh and my sister both told me that I had been a bad grandmother
for allowing this because something might have happened to him and
because it would worry his parents. Although my sister allowed and
encouraged him to walk around Princeton by himself to go get a haircut
or meet her at the camera store and she didn't seem to feel this was a
problem.

I think it is fine, if your dgs was your child, but he is not. I think you
should respect the wishes of his parents, no matter how unreasonable you
think they are, unless it is an immediate danger to his health. To not do
so would mean risking future

toypup wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:17:06 GMT, Rosalie B. wrote:

But my dh and my sister both told me that I had been a bad grandmother
for allowing this because something might have happened to him and
because it would worry his parents. Although my sister allowed and
encouraged him to walk around Princeton by himself to go get a haircut
or meet her at the camera store and she didn't seem to feel this was a
problem.

I think it is fine, if your dgs was your child, but he is not. I think you
should respect the wishes of his parents, no matter how unreasonable you
think they are, unless it is an immediate danger to his health. To not do
so would mean risking future

Well the parents themselves never said anything of the sort. It was
his great aunt and his grandfather who expressed concern. So I don't
know if the parents were worried or concerned. I tend to think not.

I was sending them daily reports of just about everything we did
(initially just to my son, but I reluctantly* added my DIL when she
requested it), and also posting photos for them to see. So they could
have written and expressed concern, and they did not. My son did
comment on some of the photos (which were on MySpace restricted
viewing only for friends, and my only friends were my son, and
granddaughter and the grandson who was with me), but the comments were
not critical.

And while the dgs himself told other people that he wasn't allowed to
walk very far in his neighborhood, I know his sister was out playing
in the rain filled ditches along the side of the road and over at
other people's houses in the same way that my children did. My
children had to ride their bikes along a public highway with no
shoulders to get to their friend's houses to play. Of course it was a
comparatively deserted highway with about one car every half hour and
I knew that my kids could ride their bikes safely and wouldn't be
larking around.

*There's a certain amount of unhappiness on my part with my DIL
because I don't think she's been a very good wife to my son, but I
don't want to go into that here. I was a little bit afraid that she
wouldn't let my grandson go with me in order to make my ds unhappy,
but she's apparently found other ways to do that.