Thursday, 13 March 2014

“No more little children being dropped off by their mummies”

I love that headline above chosen by Lance Wiggs in promoting a sensible, yes, sensible, proposal by the Greens to encourage children to walk and cycle to school instead of being dropped off by their mummies. Stop mummies taking a round trip twice a day, then our roads are that much less congested (ever noticed how much easier it is to drive around when schools are on holiday?) and everyone else’s trip becomes that much quicker.

How did children end up being bubble-wrapped like this by their mummies?

When I went to school over 30 years ago [says Lance] the norm was to walk, cycle or take public transport. Similarly a colleague I spoke to yesterday said that when he went to school in Tauranga 20 years that there were hundreds of bike racks at his school and it was hard to find a place to park his bike. And I talked last night to someone from Hawkes Bay, and when she went to primary school a little over 10 years ago cycling was the norm as well.
    But there has been a dramatic shift to little children being dropped off by their mummies (that’s how we would have cruelly described it at school) over the last 20 years. And the result of the critical mass shifting is that it’s now deemed too dangerous for kids to cycle or walk to school. But a lot of that perceived or real danger is the very traffic caused by those car driving mummies.

Exemplified maybe by whole fleets of lunching ladies manoeuvring around outside schools in large cocooned SUVs (and they’re driving these cocoons for their kids’ “safety”) at the very time when the roads and foot paths outside schools are filled with little people who can’t be easily seen from behind the wheel of a large SUV.

    It’s a vicious circle [says Lance], exemplified by another conversation yesterday with someone who firstly talked about how she used to cycle in Auckland, then about how cycling in Auckland became too dangerous because of the cars and poor infrastructure, and then about how cyclists in Auckland are painful and dangerous when she drives her car. I struggled to get her to understand the causes and effects.
    We need to break this circle of despair, and get people back onto the streets, walking and cycling. We are seeing this start in some cities, Wellington especially, and successes in Auckland with multi-use areas like Fort Lane and Elliot Street. The end game is that New Zealand has vibrant walkable, liveable cities, with incredible people-filled street life and places to live that attract and retain the best talent.
  So it’s great to see the Greens today launched a
cycling to school policy. It’s a clever start.

It might be (though for the life of me I can’t see why it should cost taxpayers $50 million.)

It made me think of this neat talk by the hyper-energetic “World’s Worst Mum” Lenore Skenazy, author of the Free Range Kids website, arguing we should Quit Bubble-Wrapping Our Kids!

When CATO Institute meets the Greens. Always a good moment.

8 comments:

  1. The Greens and many others - presumably not parents miss major issues here. Firstly many kids nowadays have far more pre and after school activities - especially in the affluent central city areas they will no doubt target. This is a good thing - people have choices, and decide to let their kids have more opportunities than we did. So at some schools, so kids need to be picked up at 3 and taken to swimming, music, athletics, soccer etc etc. letting them bike home isn't feasible time wise. And when you've got 2-3 kids to move around it gets even harder. You can't let one kid bike home to be by themselves.
    Like some commentators, back in my day we didn't have these choices, either they weren't there, or we couldn't afford them - nice to be able to now for my kids.
    And even if it's the std parent coached sports teams after school, who in their right mind would want a primary school kid biking on some cycle lane during peak traffic??

    ReplyDelete
  2. the drunken watchman13 Mar 2014, 16:05:00

    mnnnn - well who would have thought it .....

    Libertarian blog promoting Greens' tax-payer funded social engineering. Or have I got someting wrong here?

    I mean, whatever happened to freedom of choice and limited government? So what if a parent thinks bicycles are dangerous? - I could have sworn this blog was promoting parental responsibility. And how about the parents who just find it more convenient to drop their kids at school? Coerce them into obedience to the State also, PC?

    I presume you know how these programs are run in some schools, where little lids are punished by ostracism for decisions made by their parents. Programs like "I Save the world", at Papamoa Primary School.

    I see Global Warming is also tucked away in this little gem.

    PC.BLOGSPOT gone warmist?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "And the result of the critical mass shifting is that it’s now deemed too dangerous for kids to cycle or walk to school. "

    This thinking is a result from promotion of mandatory of helmets which kicked off 20 yrs ago. Gory scenes of death that the State likes run ad nauseam. Little Johnny's body wrapped around a lamp post because he didn't have his helmet on.

    Sure it would be nice if everyone (else) rode bikes but get the State involved in an activity and it gets screwed up. 20 yrs later the Green clowns are having another crack. Just fuck off would help a great deal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's part of the media-hyped phobia that all kids face a combination of perverts and accidents whenever they have to interact with non-approved environments. The very low likelihood of encountering either (and indeed, that the danger of either is likely to be serious) is exaggerated. For the sake of a few pedestrian crossings, letting kids bike slowly on footpaths and encouraging kids to undertake self defence, this could be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the drunken watchman14 Mar 2014, 21:48:00

    ... find it kind of weird that none of the party faithful have expressed concern that PC.BLOGSPOT is running cover for Green Party warmist social engineering

    true colours? just dont read the posts? turn a blind eye if it suits? .... or is there a surprise sophist rabbit still in the hat? :)

    (ever fully prepared to retract if I have somehow got this wrong, but that is the way it appears to read to me ... "sensible, yes sensible" ? please tell me I am seeing things)

    ReplyDelete
  6. the drunken watchman15 Mar 2014, 19:48:00

    @ Mummies.blogspot.com

    “ “No more drunken holidays” …

    I love that headline above - a sensible, yes, sensible, proposal by the Nanny Party to discourage the use of vehicles to travel to and from holiday destinations. “A Nanny Party spokesperson said “What good can possibly come of drunken holiday-making?”

    Stop holiday makers driving their cars to their destination, then our roads are that much less congested (ever noticed how much easier it is to drive around after the holidays are over?) and everyone else’s trip becomes that much quicker. And safer for our children!”

    ReplyDelete
  7. @DrunkenWatchman: Not sure what the problem is: Greens say "less nannying" + "govt should spend money", to which I say "Yo" and "Don't" respectively.
    Please explain.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the drunken watchman17 Mar 2014, 19:42:00

    The problem is that you, at least to me, appear to be spinning it now.

    You originally said "I love that headline above chosen by Lance Wiggs in promoting a sensible, yes, sensible, proposal by the Greens to encourage children to walk and cycle to school instead of being dropped off by their mummies. "

    Semantics aside, you appeared to be saying you think the proposal is sensible in your opinion.

    Now, it appears that you are trying to say that you only like the idea that parents stop nannying their children. This is a quite different thing from expressing approval of the Green Party's proposal.

    As for the $50 million, you said "(though for the life of me I can’t see why it should cost taxpayers $50 million.)"

    Are you suggesting now that you thought it would not cost the tax payer anything, a la libertarian ?

    How exactly did you think that the Green's proposal might cost the taxpayer nothing?

    ReplyDelete

1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.