...but the popular news media certainly plays a part in creating exaggerated portrayals of risk.

That right there, Amy, is why parents are so extremely overprotective now. Except that I'm not really one of them. My brothers and I used to hang out with our friends after school, or on the weekends, or in the summertime, at the beach or the park or wherever, until the streetlights came on. That was when we had to be home, and we were. I used to take the train to New York all the time with my friends, starting when I was 15. My daughters do so now with their friends. As long as they stay together and have their cell phones to call me if they need to, I have decided not to pace the floor worrying about if they're okay. They're smart kids. They've never been late coming home. They've had some adventures, but no one's been hurt. You have to let kids have a sense of independence and let them know that you trust them, in order for them to learn how to grow up and be functioning adults, and in order to learn how to trust themselves. Helicopter parents aren't doing their kids any favors by doing everything for them.

"I survived. As did my two sisters."

By virtue of the fact that death is permanent, the kids who didn't survive aren't here to tell us their stories. I survived never sitting in a car seat-or even buckled up-but I won't be allowing my kids to do that. I will let them go to the park.

I'm pestering the county to put speed bumps in near us, so that cars zipping around our curve like it's the Indy 500 can be taken off my list of things to worry about.

It's not exactly reassuring to me that the one thing I do worry about is treated in the post as an area of justifiable concern.

My 15-year-old is the youngest in her class. Nearly everyone else already has a driver's license, while she just got her learner's permit. Those kids do a lot of driving, and I don't consider it unreasonable to worry that they are likely to be in an accident. I try to decide who she can ride with by how responsible I think the driver is, how far they're going, driving conditions, number of other in the car, etc. Still worry a lot.

People don't give their children freedom because it is just too dangerous. I am not talking about the danger of something happening to the children; I am talking about prosecution or ostrization. Yes, the danger has always been there, but the consequences are not the same. Now, we worry as much about losing my child to foster care as to death.

In our town, this seems to be rampant. A parent took her crying baby out of the car seat at a red light. She was rear-ended. The baby died. Not only did she lose her child, but she was charged in the death. Another women left her sleeping children ages 9 & 11 alone while she went to a Christmas party. There was a house fire. Once again, she was charged in the deaths. Another baby was removed from her parrents because the baby's grandfather tossed her into the air and dropped her. A mother was charged when her 9 year old choked himself to death playing a game. She was in the same house.

The actions of the parents don't seem horrific to me. I would think 9 and 11 year olds would be safer asleep in bed rather than roaming the neiborhood on a bicycle, but we, as parents, are supposed to prevent all injuries, all accidents. We are supposed to know exactly what our children are doing at all times. Of course, we must also provide them with food, shelter, and a clean home - but god forgive us if we let our child gets hurt if he or she is underfoot while we are cooking, we use the television for a babysitter, or our child unlatches the door. Oh the neglect!

Television is not a babysitter- I hope you are being sarcastic

Personally, I wouldn't have left my girls home alone at ages 9 and 11, even if they were in bed asleep. But that's just me. Either I'd have gotten a babysitter or I wouldn't have gone to the party. But that's not to say there wouldn't have been a fire if I had been home. A woman and her 3 children died in a fire in Bridgeport a few months ago. And I see all kinds of accidents like the ones you're talking about Jennifer, but I haven't seen the parents prosecuted. I've seen children taken out of homes in domestic violence situations, and then given back, only to have the father shoot the mother in front of the kids before turning the gun on himself. Yes, there are all kinds of dangers out there, but trying to keep your kids in a bubble doesn't protect them in every circumstance. I admit it's a lot different today than when I was a kid, but common sense should still prevail. Oh wait, we had a funeral for common sense quite a while ago, didn't we?

The media bombards us with horror stories of things happening to kids on top of the fact that everyone is looking to sue someone else over ridiculousness. Like Flynne, I had a lot of freedom and I give my kids a lot of freedom. Of course I worry. What parent doesn't. For the most part, my kids stay out of and away from trouble. I have a rule with my kids to help avoid peer pressure. If something is going on that they don't want to participate in, I tell them to go to the bathroom and call or text me. If I get that call or text, I call them and tell them I want them home immediately and go pick them up. It saves face with their friends. And before people say tell them to stand up to their friends or find new ones, I'm talking normal peer pressure experimentation, not juvenile delinquency. I accept though that there will be things that my kids will experiment with at some point and all I can really do is try to educate and guide them.
There's no guarantee that nothing will ever happen, but I won't live a life afraid of the outside world or keep my children chained in the basement because I'm afraid of strangers, traffic, serial killers, etc.

we just don't know how to account for risk... and I suppose we never will. The lady in Wyo, whose kids go out 'back? If they make it to adulthood they will probably be self reliant mature people. If they don't they will be a statistic. There is the difficulty for us to figure as outsiders. The parent is an insider and they have to decide the risks of a thing, like going to the grocery store. The risk of something happening is not that high for that trip. But multiplied across all the trips you take, the odds change.

Just like the odds change that you will slip and fall in the bath, every time you shower. We know implicitly that we cannot live life any other way, or else we would be paralysed, and unable to move with fear.

A lot of this thought and pressure comes from OUTSIDE, where we can see from a distance what the possibilities are. Sometimes it helps and others not. It seems to help people to wear seatbelts in an accident. Especially it seems that when they don't, they are more likely to die. Should we make a law? Most people that don't care about seatbelts, still don't wear them, they just get a higher fine if they get ticketed for something else. Some people do wear them because they don't want to get ticketed and get that unintended boost in safety, just in case.

But when my 10 year old daughter goes into the washroom in Target... I keep an eye out. When she was younger, I would simply wait there, now that she is older, I don't go across the whole store, but neither do I hover. But. The ODDS of having some creep go in there haven't actually changed, just my proximity. I could do more, and quickly, but I'm not going to go in to check the washroom before she uses it, and EVEN THEN, it is ignoring the possibility that the perp might be a woman.

Are parents in general really more paranoid, or is it just that the paranoid ones get interviewed more? Is this a real problem or a made-up media one?

In any case. I fully expect my as-of-yet-unconcieved children to walk to school once they are in kindergarten. I walked to school, and I think it did me a lot of good. Also, I want them to learn to ride a bike and go explore the world. Of course, we are looking at small towns in Switzerland to raise our kids, I suppose I wouldn't if I lived in the Philadelphia ghetto or something...

But seriously. When I was 5 I was taking intercontinental flights by myself. I started riding the T (D-line, for you Bostonians) when I was about 9 or 10, and by the time I hit puberty I was going to neighboring towns via public transit, for fun. Kids need to be able to learn and explore.

"The media bombards us with horror stories of things happening..."

Exactly. Read this and imagine every mother being a 'Lorraine.'

'Lorraine’ Needs Our Help: How and Why Local TV News Tries to Scare Women"

http://bigjournalism.com/rfutrell/2010/01/21/lorraine-needs-our-help-how-and-why-local-tv-news-tries-to-scare-women/

"But, are car seats actually safer (for children 3-6)?"

yep. They are. My kids would slip right out of the seatbelt, I know, I've tried it. They're not even 40 lbs-tiny tiny tiny.

You know what's weird? The growing parental paranoia over everything except the BIGGEST cause of death (I think) among teens - namely, driving cars or riding with teen drivers!

Dr. John Rosemond, who is something of a libertarian when it comes to child-rearing, has pointed out over and over that the driving laws were written about a century ago, back when neither cars nor roads were designed for high speeds, teens certainly weren't allowed to spend valuable gas money on frivolous drives, as opposed to running errands for the parents, and most importantly, kids were just plain far more mature and responsible back then. So why, he says, can't we drive our teens for just a couple more years?

Isn't this the same argument the BOTU was making regarding terrorism fear-mongering and the actual statistical risk of being attacked by a terrorist? That we worry more than the actual danger warrants?

I'm pestering the county to put speed bumps in near us, so that cars zipping around our curve like it's the Indy 500 can be taken off my list of things to worry about.

Wouldn't that be a hindrance to ambulance drivers going from your neighborhood to the hospital. Imagine trying to install an IV in a thrashing patient and having to go over a number of those things while doing so.

There is one reason kids are in greater danger today, Amy. With men jailed on 100,000 dollars bond for talking to mommy's darlings in plain sight of mommy; with men in one state possibly being charged with a felony for LOOKING at kids; with the cops being called because a man is sitting on a park bench with kids playing nearby, it is far less likely that a kid in trouble alone will get help from men, as it used to be not long ago.

See your earlier item about feminism.

My father and his brother age 14 and 16 used to hunt on the way to school. They lived in the country. This was the 1940's and they drove to school 8 miles away. They would take a shotgun and a rifle. If they killed a pheasant, deer etc.. on the way to school they would drop it off at their Aunt's house before continuing on to school. If they got something on the way home they took it home to clean and eat for the family. They left the shotgun and rifle in the truck while at school. They never got in trouble because if they did, they would have never seen the shotgun and/or rifle again.

Today kids can't even bring a butter knife to school.

Prosecution varies. It goes by "community atandards". I asked for specific rules, such as when can I let my child play in the front yard, etc. I was told that the only protection from possible prosecution is if I wait until they are 12. Everything else "depends on the circumstances". So I guess that means that you *might* be prosecuted for letting your kindergartener walk to school.

PS. When I said let the television babysit, I meant while cooking or cleaning. We do not always have someone to take care of our kids while we do those things. If we are watching our children while we do those things our children can be injured in an instant. My toddler grabbed onto the oven rack while I removed dinner. I was just inches away. Another time, he grabbed the furniture oil. Did you now that it can be deadly? If we try to do it all while the kids are sleeping, we will become sleep deprived. If we fall asleep and our young child gets out and is injured, we are responsible. It seems to me that it is hard to win.

"I'm pestering the county to put speed bumps in near us, so that cars zipping around our curve like it's the Indy 500 can be taken off my list of things to worry about.
Posted by: momof4"

Your energy would be better spent teaching your children to be careful in the street. One can not bubble wrap the world.

"You know what's weird? The growing parental paranoia over everything except the BIGGEST cause of death (I think) among teens - namely, driving cars or riding with teen drivers!"

You're correct- confirmed, as per textbook-

"When adolescents learn to drive, their environment expands and so does their potential for injury. The risk of motor vehicle accidents is higher among 16- to 19-year-old drivers than any other age-group. Teens are more likely to speed, run red lights, ride with intoxicated drivers, and drive after using alcohol and drugs. Teens also have the lowest rate of seat belt use (CDC, 2006b). The young driver needs to learn to comply with rules and regulations regarding use of a car. Potter Perry. Fundamentals of Nursing, 859.

In the same vein though, the book put this gem out there-

"A child needs to be warned repeatedly not to accept candy, food, gifts, or rides from strangers. In addition, a child needs to know what to do if a stranger approaches."

Not a freakin' PEEP about the statistically more relevant predator, the close relative.

The reason for overprotectiveness seems like an issue of media panic, except that things like witchcraft, gypsies "stealing kids," wolves and infant mortality were at least as frightening to parents of long ago than anything now.

I think the death of belief in the afterlife is the real source of the problem. I'm not denouncing atheism, merely pointing out a disadvantage.

When a child had a fifty-fifty chance of making it to five years, but once baptised, was considered MORE LIKELY to reach Heaven than an adult (less chance to commit mortal sin!), then the death of a child was sad for the mother, but OK, life goes on.

Consider Queen Anne of England (reigned 1702-1714). She had 18 pregnancies, 13 of them miscarriages or stillbirths, three children who lived less than two years and one who made it to 5 days past his 11th birthday. Queen Anne outlived him by 14 years.

In 1687 alone, Queen Anne miscarried in January; on February 2, her seven-month baby girl died; and less than a week later, on February 8, her 21-month infant girl died. Later that year, in October, she miscarried again (a boy).

I find it inconceivable that a person who did not believe in a better place after death could have experienced such tragedies without going insane.

Now, imagine Queen Anne faced with the modern fear of child danger...

"Wouldn't that be a hindrance to ambulance drivers going from your neighborhood to the hospital. Imagine trying to install an IV in a thrashing patient and having to go over a number of those things while doing so."

We live exactly 1.9 miles from the nearest hospital (round rock Tx. About the best place to live in the world. #4 in safety in the US, 4 hospitals for about 100,00 people, great schools.). I can't imagine speed bumps in a residential neighborhood less than 1 block from the elementary school being a large hindrance.

"Your energy would be better spent teaching your children to be careful in the street. One can not bubble wrap the world."

I don't care to bubble wrap it. I am a rock climber. Real cliffs, not the gym. I've skydived. I scuba dive. I imagine my kids will do all of the above. The oldest are 5 and already show no fear in climbing trees. I also know that in a contest between a car going 40 or so (15 feet from houses) and a body, the car wins. I wish asshats didn't drive, but they do. Since they do, we have to do things to slow them down in neighborhoods, since they won't do it themselves. Because goddamnit, I shouldn't have to worry about my kids in the front goddamn yard.

Momof4 do what I did, get a bunch of ball, when you hear a cars engine reved up and speeding kick one out into the road and watch em slam on their brakes

Ooo, nice idea luj! Think I'll try that.

I read about this book at Instapundit. "Fifty Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do)." It looks interesting.

We used to play with firecrackers, and my older sister would amuse herself by lighting one while I was holding it and tell me not to let go until she said so, thus having it explode about 6 inches away from my fingers on the way to the ground. I would also climb trees and was very good at it, winding up a few hundred feet from the ground, as well as going garter snake hunting (purely catch & release). Also bareback riding (on horses!) at full gallop through field and dale. I also rode the subway alone from 12 on, and was very adept at losing any pervs that would follow me.
Kids have to learn the dangers that exist and how to deal with them, not hide under the bed and live in fear.

How many of you have seen this?

directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-did-we-survive.html

Whoops, sent that a little too fast. I meant to comment a bit first. (But I do like the old ads it comes with!)

From another page, here are the first two-fifths (slightly modified?):

They called us Tonka Kids. If you don't know what that means then you must not be one.

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids in the 40s, 50s, 60s or 70s, probably shouldn't have survived.

Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors, or cabinets, and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took hitchhiking). As kids, we would be carted around in cars with no seat belts or air bags, and riding in the back of a truck, on a warm day was always a special treat.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps, and then rode down a steep hill, only to find out, we forgot brakes. We would leave home in the morning, and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on, and no one was able to reach us, because cell phones hadn't been invented yet. We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from these accidents. They were accidents! No one was to blame, but us! Remember accidents? Some of us even had fights, punched each other, and got black and blue.....but we learned to get over it........

(snip)

On to a related subject: Guess what? Judy Blume's 1981 book "Tiger Eyes" may be filmed soon! For those who haven't read it, some consider it her best book (at that date, anyway) because, instead of her usual navel-gazing, she tackled all sorts of controversial subjects in it that she never had before. (Strangely, though, critic Michele Landsberg ignored the book in her harsh, famous criticism of Blume's love of suburban narcissism.) It's about a teen girl from New Jersey whose father gets killed in a hold-up of his store before the book starts. She, her mother and brother move temporarily to the home of relatives in the Atomic City, Los Alamos. They turn out to be sensibly protective and cautious in some respects (such as the realities of teen driving), but also isolationist to the point where Davey is ready to go insane.

Here's about a third of what I wrote in Google Groups regarding TE (SPOILERS):

When Davey removes her bike helmet (which her aunt had ordered her to wear), would most adult readers of that time, in your opinion, see her act as ominous and foolish, or would they follow the young reader's tendency to see Davey as starting to be aware of her relatives' paranoia and controlling behaviors? I myself can't help but wonder whether Blume herself was capable of seeing the act as reckless, given her general
tendency towards navel-gazing. (After all, helmets, for bicyclists, were not considered that important back then, I believe, so the fact
that Davey's parents had never told her to wear one hardly proves that they were foolish or particularly ignorant.) Of course, Davey's aunt
Bitsy eventually catches her in the act of biking without it and reads her the riot act, but I had the impression that was mainly to show the
reader that Bitsy is observant and responsible, not necessarily smart or a great role model.

(It's pretty clear Bitsy doesn't fit that well into the fiercely scientific atmosphere of Los Alamos and probably had never thought of what she would do if she couldn't become a housewife - and since her husband Walter doesn't tolerate "useless" people, it's no wonder she plunges into the additional role of foster-mother.)

Someone pointed out that TE was Blume's first attempt to discuss anti-intellectualism in a truly meaningful manner - that is, Davey
understands the need for soul, adventure, diversity and humanity that the Los Alamos mentality - especially her icy uncle and domestic yes-dear aunt - cannot grasp in the book. (I hate to think how readers there reacted! Blume did live there at one time.)