Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

The mom quoted a statistics about traffic crashes being the number one cause of death for kids. She was comparing it with the risk of abduction. What I think she either purposefully neglected to say or doesn't know, is that 20% of those kids killed in car accidents are pedestrians. And Montgomery County has a higher than average number of pedestrian injuries and deaths. Kids 5-15 are most at risk. Her kids may be very responsible. But what about all the drivers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mom quoted a statistics about traffic crashes being the number one cause of death for kids. She was comparing it with the risk of abduction. What I think she either purposefully neglected to say or doesn't know, is that 20% of those kids killed in car accidents are pedestrians. And Montgomery County has a higher than average number of pedestrian injuries and deaths. Kids 5-15 are most at risk. Her kids may be very responsible. But what about all the drivers?

Certainly there is an awful lot that Montgomery County should do to improve pedestrian safety. But Montgomery County has a higher than average rate of pedestrian injuries and deaths because Montgomery County has a higher than average percentage of walking. In places where nobody ever walks anywhere, there are no pedestrian injuries or deaths.

Also, if 20% of kids killed in car accidents were pedestrians, then around 80% (or somewhat less) were in cars. (What proportion of the children who died as pedestrians were accompanied by parents, by the way?) If children shouldn't walk anywhere because they might get killed in a car accident, then children also shouldn't get driven anywhere because they might get killed in a car accident.

Also, if kids 5-15 are most at risk, does that mean that nobody should be allowed to walk anywhere until they are 16?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mom quoted a statistics about traffic crashes being the number one cause of death for kids. She was comparing it with the risk of abduction. What I think she either purposefully neglected to say or doesn't know, is that 20% of those kids killed in car accidents are pedestrians. And Montgomery County has a higher than average number of pedestrian injuries and deaths. Kids 5-15 are most at risk. Her kids may be very responsible. But what about all the drivers?

Certainly there is an awful lot that Montgomery County should do to improve pedestrian safety. But Montgomery County has a higher than average rate of pedestrian injuries and deaths because Montgomery County has a higher than average percentage of walking. In places where nobody ever walks anywhere, there are no pedestrian injuries or deaths.

Also, if 20% of kids killed in car accidents were pedestrians, then around 80% (or somewhat less) were in cars. (What proportion of the children who died as pedestrians were accompanied by parents, by the way?) If children shouldn't walk anywhere because they might get killed in a car accident, then children also shouldn't get driven anywhere because they might get killed in a car accident.

Also, if kids 5-15 are most at risk, does that mean that nobody should be allowed to walk anywhere until they are 16?

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

However, in fact, the issue in this case is the legality.

But the bigger, more important issue is the children.

Not for you, it isn't. Because they are not your children. Apart from the legality, all we have is parents making choices that you disagree with.

Choices that can put children in harm's way.

Free range parents appear to be very focused on the very low possibility of children being abducted, with little mention of the wide range of other dangers posed to young children without an adult around looking out for them. As someone who knows all too well of the other hazards out there, I feel a moral obligation to at least write about them on an Internet forum.

So, is there any point at which the village should step in to protect children whose parents make choices that put them in danger, or should parents be free to make any choice they wish in regard to how they rear their children?'

The issue in this case is not "the village" stepping in. The issue is the law stepping in.

We, the residents of the village, are the law. We elect our lawmakers as our representatives. People who are concerned about the safety of children and make phone calls to the appropriate professionals are also residents of our village. There have been quite a few members of the village who have been willing to spend time and energy on making sure kids who were strangers to them were safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We, the residents of the village, are the law. We elect our lawmakers as our representatives. People who are concerned about the safety of children and make phone calls to the appropriate professionals are also residents of our village. There have been quite a few members of the village who have been willing to spend time and energy on making sure kids who were strangers to them were safe.

No, actually, the law is the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

But we are not talking about your personal opinion. We are talking about whether this does constitute child neglect, and if not, whether it should.

Also, which parts of the walk from Ellsworth Park to Fenton St/Easley St are high traffic areas? I would like to know which specific parts you're concerned about.

[Anonymous]

The corner of Wayne and Fenton is busy. Even Fenton and Bonifant is sort of a weird intersection where people are often eager to make turns.

That said, I lean libertarian and think the Meitivs should be left alone.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Actually, I am a new poster, so shouldn't have answered that as I guess it is addressed to a particular PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

That's absolutely incorrect. From ages 5-24, motor vehicles are the number one cause of death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you saying that Wiley Rein is taking on a high-profile case they have no expectation of winning? Why would they do that? Maybe partners at Wiley Rein are fond of losing high-profile cases?

Yes
Publicity
Death penalty pro bono cases are rarely won.... So yes, pro bono cases are often loser cases.

Presumably Wiley Rein wants GOOD publicity, though. Which they won't get by taking on a case that they immediately lose. They're not Hollywood stars, for whom any publicity is good publicity.

Everybody knows they will lose... So no bod publicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

That's absolutely incorrect. From ages 5-24, motor vehicles are the number one cause of death.

No it's not. They are surpassing car deaths this year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Presumably Wiley Rein wants GOOD publicity, though. Which they won't get by taking on a case that they immediately lose. They're not Hollywood stars, for whom any publicity is good publicity.

Everybody knows they will lose... So no bad publicity.

That doesn't make sense to me. Of course it's bad publicity to take on a case that they immediately lose, especially if everybody already knows that they will lose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

But we are not talking about your personal opinion. We are talking about whether this does constitute child neglect, and if not, whether it should.

Also, which parts of the walk from Ellsworth Park to Fenton St/Easley St are high traffic areas? I would like to know which specific parts you're concerned about.

The mother was quoting these statistics to defend her actions. I was pointing out discrepancies in them. That is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

That's absolutely incorrect. From ages 5-24, motor vehicles are the number one cause of death.

No it's not. They are surpassing car deaths this year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

That's actually not what the link says. The link says that a Center for American Progress report EXPECTS gun deaths to top car deaths. Also the report itself talks about deaths among people under 25 and says nothing about deaths among people under 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course not. They should take steps to mitigate risks. We have fewer child deaths by car now than gun deaths, because we take steps to mitigate risks in cars. We don't take steps to mitigate risks with guns. There are ways to mitigate risks with walking in high traffic areas as well. I don't personally think a 6 year old may always have the best judgment about that. The 10 year old? Maybe. But not 6.

That's absolutely incorrect. From ages 5-24, motor vehicles are the number one cause of death.

No it's not. They are surpassing car deaths this year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

In 2013, gun deaths of ages 5-14 were equally split between homicide and suicide.