Ship of Fools: When we were young - history written by the survivors

Thread: When we were young - history written by the survivors Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030107

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I recently saw one of those internet memes that says things like "I remember when:

We went out to play and came in when it got dark

We played outside not online

We went on our bikes without cycle helmets, and we were fine.

We went to school to learn, and if we didn't we didn't sit down for a few hours.

That sort of thing. I actually responded to this one, because it was the weekend.

The problem is that yes, we played on our bikes without helmets. We were fine, because we are here to tell the tale. Others are not because they are dead.

We played outside without a problem. Others played outside and cannot tell the trauma they suffered because they are dead. Their parents cannot tell the trauma they suffered because it is too painful.

I watch the Educating programs and wish that there had been the pastoral concern when I was at school, because I might have had treatment for my mental health problems ( which were blindingly apparent, but not the concern of the school).

Of course, it is fine for those who survived. We can look back and say we didn't need all of this. But that ignores the need of those families torn apart by avoidable tragedy. It is revisionist, and dangerous, because it implies that those who need help and support are weak.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
We played outside not online

And when we got flashed by dirty old men, it was in a nice green park, not a sleazy chat room!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

We're expecting our first child in about a month, and while we not had a lot of people pushing their views about the "right" way to do birth, there are a few who bemoan how medicalised birth is, and say people got on fine having children for thousands of years without doctors. To which my response is: yes, and what were the maternal and infant mortality rates?

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

quote:

And when we got flashed by dirty old men, it was in a nice green park,

And we just laughed at them, and thought nothing of it.

Real child abuse took place, mostly, in the family and we never knew about it, or if we did, it was none of our business. Or our parents' business, come to that. They tut tutted and that was it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Ah yes, the golden age of domestic violence with NEVER a call to the police, what was the point? The ambulance yes. The violence of teachers. That never did us any harm did it? Self harm? HAH! Kid's stuff. Talking to a Bosnia vet last night, PTSD? Dah! Denial is the only way.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

OK, folks, but let's not get smug or assume that our precautionary contemporary world has got all the answers. Remember that in 40 years time people might look at some of the things we're doing now with horror and amazement.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

One of those things being allowed to drive our own cars.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I think that a significant factor influencing our memories is the sheer numbers of children in the 1940s-1970s era.

When you have five, seven or ten children it is harder to keep track of them. Plus, you come to count on them looking after each other.

My own neighborhood in the 1950s and 60s had children my age in every single house on the street, and the next street, and the next. Gathering for spontaneous play was as easy as walking out the door. We spent as much time in other people's homes as we did in our own.

The lack of adult supervision did mean that there were bullies, there was the settling of scores in our own ways, getting hurt, and getting into trouble. And years later we find out that some people we knew were sexually abused, and that some of the household situations were not as happy as we had imagined.

One feature of having many children and few adults is that adult-child interactions were largely confined to management. Adults did not usually speak to you except to correct what you were doing.

So it is a great point that the good memories are recounted by the survivors. Personally I never experienced or witnessed anything especially traumatic.

Now that people where I live have fewer children, the opportunities for masses of them interacting spontaneously without adult supervision are less. The amount of positive interaction between adults and children is greater.

I think that overall it is a better situation now, even though, having survived it, it was fun to freely navigate the world without adults knowing where we were or what we were doing.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
OK, folks, but let's not get smug or assume that our precautionary contemporary world has got all the answers. Remember that in 40 years time people might look at some of the things we're doing now with horror and amazement.

As one who has been around quite a long time, has experienced this but whose prospect of being around in 2056 is as good as zero, I can tell you now that you will not be able to predict what they will be. There are trends that look significant now that will fizzle out. There will be ideas that become big, that you won't imagine or would regard as daft if somebody were to tell you now what they were.

I was already an adult, a parent in fact, 40 years ago. If we're talking about childhood, that's further back. We were warned about gropers etc. but there wasn't the impression there is now that there were that many of them. We were certainly warned repeatedly about the dangers of being run over, but nobody imagined there would ever be so much traffic that children couldn't play in the streets. Nor did it seem to have occurred to anyone that if people had cars and could go everywhere in them, they would need to be able to park them when they got there.

Parents feared you might get polio which was still quite prevalent, and consumption which was rapidly declining. The biggest fear, though, was that there would be another war like the one that had just finished, but worse, particularly after 1954.

There's a lot that hasn't been progress, but one surprising thing which I think has been is this. There was a sort of deep seated assumption in those days not just among teachers but even among parents, that all children were much the same. If you were a boy you wore a grey shirt, shorts held up with a snake buckle and long socks. If you were a girl, you wore a dress with smocking. Either way, you chanted your tables in unison. Everyone's aspiration, parents, teachers, you, was that you should be as like everyone else as you could be.

I don't know whether this was something engendered by universal service in two big wars or just a coping mechanism in many, many centuries when life was hard. But I don't think that's as endemic now. I think we probably give too much place to self-expression and individuality, but the culture of those days definitely was too far over on the be-like-everyone-else scale.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Thanks for your interesting post Enoch.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

One good thing that has been lost, however, is the opportunity for kids to invent their own games and make up their own rules.

Nowadays adults organize children's games, and the children follow the rules the adults teach them.

I attended a very small elementary school (three grades in each room). During recess, it would have been impossible to find enough kids to play softball if we had followed the standard rules. We adjusted the rules to accommodate the individuals.

The good athletes got three strikes; the average ones got ten strikes; people who were really bad got unlimited strikes. They could be put out only by hitting the ball into fair territory and failing to make it to first base in time.

This system did not produce any great athletes, but it did produce kids who understood the value of making concessions to get as much as possible of what they wanted. This was a very valuable skill.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I wouldn't advocate a wholesale return to the days of my childhood, but I am having a great time pitching LL and cousins outside on Saturdays and leaving them to make up their own activities. They are confined to the large yard (front and back) because of modern traffic, which is nasty around here, and I do of course spy on them through the windows etc. to be sure nobody's managed to find new and exciting uses for the giant bamboo poles and various bodily orifices--but appeals for adult direction ("What should we do?") are meant with an unsympathetic "you figure it out," and a nod toward the door.

This has now turned into the kids' favorite time of the week. I was amused to see them acting out Minecraft scenarios with bamboo "pickaxes" and the like. I never expected to find anything that would be a sufficiently strong draw to get them away from Minecraft on computer.

And it's doing wonders for their socialization as they have to work out minor arguments etc. without an adult around (they think) to appeal to.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I do think some kids today are wrapped in cotton wool and put on a lead. that is also not good. I am not necessarily arguing that we are better today than we were. It is more that there are reasons why things have changed, and in many cases these are good reasons for child safety.

Maybe it is unfortunate that we need to, but that is a different question.

I live opposite a park with a kids playground. The kids there do have fun, play their own games, get messy (occasionally) and scratched. With all the other stuff around, there are often kids climbing the trees too.

OK, the parents often drive them here in 4x4s, but they do get some interaction and outdoor mess. And they have fun. Meanwhile my son is upstairs in his room on the web also having fun.

I suppose life is different now. In some ways better, in some probably not. But we are where we are for reasons, good reasons, and wishing we were somewhere else seems perverse. As AreThoseMyFeet said (congratulations, BTW) less children and mothers die now. Surely that is a good thing.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I suppose life is different now. In some ways better, in some probably not. But we are where we are for reasons, good reasons, and wishing we were somewhere else seems perverse.

Couldn't that argument be used by any society to justify its current values though? All societies do things for a mixture of rational and irrational reasons, and I don't see why ours should be any different.

FWIW my instinct is that we've become overly worried about the risk strangers pose to young children, and we've paid a high price in terms of heightened fear, suspicion of adults and loss of freedom and unstructured outdoor activity. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this though, and accept that many social changes are entirely positive.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Hiro's Leap - actually, yes, I think you are right. I wasn't meaning to say that we now have it right. I think we don't, that we keep our children away from the world too much. As you say, we make it a scarier place than it actually is.

I suppose I would rather we (as a whole, including myself) listened to our children, and believed them more, and equipped them to tackle the world, not run away from it.

But I don't want us to go back to a time that is seen as so much better by those who survived it and did well out of it. I don't think someone as damaged as I was would get through most schools without being identified and treated properly.

And yes, I hated my school time, because I varied between being depressed and being suicidally depressed. I would not want anyone to go through that. I don't think it is a positive way to get through school.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I don't think someone as damaged as I was would get through most schools without being identified and treated properly.

Good to hear - sounds like you had a horrible time.

[SEMI-TANGENT]
Not sure if this was part of the issue for you, but I think that one of the most devastating social problems is bullying. I've got friends who were badly bullied at school, and even 30 years later the damage hasn't fully healed.

Society nowadays is far better at dealing with some forms of bullying - e.g. from homophobia. I don't know if we're much better at dealing with the problem overall, or if bullies just find new targets. I don't think we acknowledge the impact enough though.
[/SEMI-TANGENT]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

It also should not be forgotten that in time past, especially during the 60s and 70s, sexual molestation and abuse of minors was rife (in all contexts, religious or secular). Thankfully, we have come quite a ways from the typical responses of this earlier era of trivializing incidents and cultures of silence, and have a much better understanding of the long-term, psychological trauma borne by victims of such exploitation.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But does it happen significantly less? Are things significantly better? Quite possibly, but only time will tell.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Yes re bullying. The approach seemed to be that children should sort it all out themselves. It was different when the teachers were the source of the violence. The use of corporal punishment was liberal.

The level of sexual abuse - it is not clear to me if the levels are the same as today's, more, or less. Certainly we did not have pornography, and sexual practices did not include some behaviour that seems de rigueur today according to what people learn from pornography (in the sense of expected and pretty much required).

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
...I think that one of the most devastating social problems is bullying. I've got friends who were badly bullied at school, and even 30 years later the damage hasn't fully healed.

I think it was better when I was in elementary school in the 1940s. The teachers considered it part of their job to teach us ethics, including how we should treat each other.

There was some teasing, but it didn't last long. Sometimes one kid would get picked on, but it usually lasted only through one recess, or at worst one day. I was picked on that way, and I picked on others. This was before the days of the theory that if a child is mistreated by other children, it's his fault. He is supposed to adjust to the group no matter what his interests are or what the other kids are up to.

One of my daughters had to start wearing contact lenses when she was nine years old. They made her eyes extremely light-sensitive, and she had to wear very dark glasses outdoors. She was teased unmercifully. I asked the guidance counselor to help, and she said the child must learn to handle her problems by herself.

I am glad people are becoming aware of the bad effects of bullying. I think it was better, though, when the teachers simply told us, "You don't treat people that way."

Moo

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes re bullying. The approach seemed to be that children should sort it all out themselves. It was different when the teachers were the source of the violence. The use of corporal punishment was liberal.

The level of sexual abuse - it is not clear to me if the levels are the same as today's, more, or less. Certainly we did not have pornography, and sexual practices did not include some behaviour that seems de rigueur today according to what people learn from pornography (in the sense of expected and pretty much required).

And one does hear that sexual abuse or coercion of children/young people by their peers (especially of girls by boys) is now something of a problem in places, and often attributed to the widespread availability of pornography.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think it was better when I was in elementary school in the 1940s. The teachers considered it part of their job to teach us ethics, including how we should treat each other.

One difficulty with this discussion is how do we know if our childhood experiences were typical? There was a fair bit of bullying at my school in the 1980s, but I have a friend who went to a (superficially) very similar school in the same year and there was almost none. So whose school was more representative of the period? Maybe both were pretty decent, and most others were worse. How far can I generalise? And this is before I start to wonder if my recollections themselves are accurate.

I think there's a big temptation to either be nostalgic for the past, or to discount previous eras as backwards and ignorant based on our own preconceptions. We're trapped in our limited frame of reference, and it makes it very hard to assess the past objectively.

(This isn't aimed at you Moo btw.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
It also should not be forgotten that in time past, especially during the 60s and 70s, sexual molestation and abuse of minors was rife (in all contexts, religious or secular). Thankfully, we have come quite a ways from the typical responses of this earlier era of trivializing incidents and cultures of silence, and have a much better understanding of the long-term, psychological trauma borne by victims of such exploitation.

Are you speaking from experience or from hearsay? Perhaps I was just fortunate. For all that it has become part of the mythology of how things were, I only heard of two instances in my entire childhood. Neither was in a school, religious or secular institution or family.

[ 02. May 2016, 22:38: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
It also should not be forgotten that in time past, especially during the 60s and 70s, sexual molestation and abuse of minors was rife (in all contexts, religious or secular). Thankfully, we have come quite a ways from the typical responses of this earlier era of trivializing incidents and cultures of silence, and have a much better understanding of the long-term, psychological trauma borne by victims of such exploitation.
Are you speaking from experience or from hearsay? Perhaps I was just fortunate. For all that it has become part of the mythology of how things were, I only heard of two instances in my entire childhood. Neither was in a school, religious or secular institution or family.

I did not mean to imply that sexual abuse was universal or ubiquitous. There were, of course, certain environments conducive to a greater prevalence of such incidents (boarding schools, summer camps, Boy Scout troops, etc.). Society both lacked general awareness of the issue and established avenues for dealing with abuse when it occurred. In a great many cases, only now is the truth coming out as victims long-grown are beginning to speak out. These attitudes became especially toxic once mixed with the flagrant permissiveness and promiscuity of the 60s and 70s (see, e.g., Jimmy Savile).

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

I posted on Facebook two photos of my father and his twin siblings. One was taken in the late 1920s, the other in the 1980s. This was for my American cousins so they could see some of the old photos I have.

What irked me was all the sentimental comments, not from my cousins, about how much simpler life was back then.

By the time the first photo was taken, my grandfather had abandoned the family and was living in a home for soldiers with shellshock, my father had spent a year in hospital with a tubercular ulcer on his leg, my grandmother was giving the children daily hidings, and they were trying to live on the smell of an oily rag that was the earnings of a piano teacher in a small rural town.

None of that is simple, nor is it fun. Dad and his brother and sister lived with the aftermath of that upbringing all their lives. The thing that got Dad and his sister through was music, my uncle, engines (they lived on the main trunk line).

[ 03. May 2016, 04:09: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think it was better when I was in elementary school in the 1940s. The teachers considered it part of their job to teach us ethics, including how we should treat each other.
One difficulty with this discussion is how do we know if our childhood experiences were typical? There was a fair bit of bullying at my school in the 1980s, but I have a friend who went to a (superficially) very similar school in the same year and there was almost none. So whose school was more representative of the period? Maybe both were pretty decent, and most others were worse. How far can I generalise? And this is before I start to wonder if my recollections themselves are accurate.

I think there's a big temptation to either be nostalgic for the past, or to discount previous eras as backwards and ignorant based on our own preconceptions. We're trapped in our limited frame of reference, and it makes it very hard to assess the past objectively.

(This isn't aimed at you Moo btw.)

I was in primary (elementary) school in the 1980s and I was repeatedly bullied, over long periods of time, by a number of different individuals. I look back on it now, and I think, the teachers must have known. There's no way they couldn't have. And they opted to do nothing. So as a small child, you come to this gradual realisation that literally nobody is on your side. The adults won't do anything - which the bullies take as permission to continue. There may be other children who don't join in, but they're not going to stick their necks out for you - and why would they, having observed both what you're experiencing, and the fact that no-one would rescue them from the situation. As someone upthread said, it stays with your for many years afterwards. And honestly, I doubt it's really any better now. There's noise about it now. Schools have 'policies' and 'programmes' in place with regard to bullying now. But I doubt it looks or feels any different at all for joe or jane not-quite-average-enough, who is the latest target of the mob.

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

anoesis - I hear you. I was bullied similarly. The bullying was known about but my bully wasn't taken care of as no-one wanted to upset their confidence. I was at a small school so these things were obvious. The problems associated linger on for me and I'm typically afraid of my shadow.

I don't know if better or worse, but when I was a kid, if my mom was chatting to a friend, I was so not allowed to interrupt until given permission. Now, when I talk to my friends, if their kids want to talk, I'm told to be quiet so Tarquin can have his say. I always think that is a shame but that's my POV. I don't have kids, I don't know if things are better or worse, I just think a different set of issues.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And one does hear that sexual abuse or coercion of children/young people by their peers (especially of girls by boys) is now something of a problem in places, and often attributed to the widespread availability of pornography.

I witnessed a number of sexual assaults during my school days. It wasn't taken seriously by anyone.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
And one does hear that sexual abuse or coercion of children/young people by their peers (especially of girls by boys) is now something of a problem in places, and often attributed to the widespread availability of pornography.

Yes, mostly by aged prudes citing biased studies using questionable "research".
Sexual abuse/assault has always been a problem. But it has not always been reported and seriously addressed.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I don't know. It seems to be a concern that is being raised by responsible educators, especially those who are concerned about the effect on the autonmoy and status of girls and women. It may be that although, as you and others have said, peer-on-peer sexual abuse has always happened, t this is different in kind and perhaps extent. I don't think it should be dismissed lightly: imagine, for example, what would happen if you had a number of young men getting behind the wheels of cars on the public roads with an image of what it means to drive a car that had been substantially shaped by watching Top Gear and with little proper driver education to counter that.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think either of us are arguing for a light dismissal of sexual abuse, rather that we dismiss the rosy record of the past as possible under-reporting.

It is an interesting fact though that we regard recently-evolved badness as more in need of urgent action than stable badness. I know I have that tendency myself, but there's no logical reason why it should be any worse that peer-on-peer sexual abuse rates have gone up compared with ongoing high levels of sexual abuse.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh, I'm not suggesting that it is necessarily any worse- just that it isn't necessarily any better nowadays- maybe just different. Fewer scoutmasters with wandering hands, perhaps; but perhaps more 14 year old girls feeling they have to perform fellatio on their boyfriends. I think we often only really understand these things in retrospect.

[ 03. May 2016, 08:49: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You are comparing two different things. One is very definitely coercive abuse and the other is not so definite.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I think we need to know a bit more about it. I suspect there is a spectrum of coercion in both cases. But my suggestion is that social, technical, and cultural changes have altered the conditions under which abuse can take place- the perhaps excessive deference to authority figures of the 1950s/60s, the rather naive view of sexual expression as generally a pretty unmitigated good thing that some people held in the 70s, the acceptance and more importantly easy electronic availability of very explicit pornography today- all created different opportunities and constraints. It seems to me to be naive and hubristic to point to, say, the kind of things that some schoolmasters used to do fifty years ago, or to the mores of the era that allowed people like Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall to flourish, and say 'thank goodness things are better than that today'. In some respects they may well be better: but we need to look out for others in which they are not.

[ 03. May 2016, 09:07: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Sex between an adult and a child is always abuse and sex between teens might or might not be.
The prevalence of teen sex is not an indication that things are as bad, just different.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

He that hath ears, let him hear. Going to cut my losses and do something more fruitful than try to discuss this, or pretty much anything else, with you.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

From the OP:

quote:
We went on our bikes without cycle helmets, and we were fine.

I went out on my bike circa 1972 without a cycle helmet and ended up in A&E for a quick fix, then a couple of follow up outpatient apointments, with surgery three years later. Nothing major - perhaps a week off school in total? But still, not something I'd want to risk my own kids experiencing. Hence my insistence that they never went out on their bikes without helmets.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I think we often only really understand these things in retrospect.

If at all.

#1. It's very hard to assess the values our own culture because we're so close.
#2. It's very hard to assess past cultures because our view of them is clouded by forgetfulness, and filtered through our current values (see point #1).

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But my suggestion is that social, technical, and cultural changes have altered the conditions under which abuse can take place

Absolutely, but I think it's even broader than that: social, technological and cultural changes alter our entire concept of abuse, and morality in general.

One example is our attitudes towards premarital sex. If you live in a society with lots of resources to support children, a welfare system, low mortality for women giving birth, effective treatments for STDs, and (vitally) cheap effective contraception, then you can afford to be fairly chill about premarital sex. If you have none of those things then you can't. Both societies will tend to consider the other immoral, but both are shaped by pragmatic concerns.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I did not mean to imply that sexual abuse was universal or ubiquitous. There were, of course, certain environments conducive to a greater prevalence of such incidents (boarding schools, summer camps, Boy Scout troops, etc.). Society both lacked general awareness of the issue and established avenues for dealing with abuse when it occurred. In a great many cases, only now is the truth coming out as victims long-grown are beginning to speak out. These attitudes became especially toxic once mixed with the flagrant permissiveness and promiscuity of the 60s and 70s (see, e.g., Jimmy Savile).

You haven't answered a key part of my question, which was whether you were speaking from experience or hearsay.

There was a time lag about this. For a lot of us becoming young adults then, the sixties were still quite old fashioned. Outside the West End of London, they weren't as luridly permissive as modern mythology would assume. It was well into the seventies before the big changes in social mores really leached out into ordinary peoples' live. And when I was talking about childhood, that's really the fifties world anyway.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
... One example is our attitudes towards premarital sex. If you live in a society with lots of resources to support children, a welfare system, low mortality for women giving birth, effective treatments for STDs, and (vitally) cheap effective contraception, then you can afford to be fairly chill about premarital sex. If you have none of those things then you can't. Both societies will tend to consider the other immoral, but both are shaped by pragmatic concerns.

Sorry. How can any society consider another society that is less lax than it is and discourages premarital sex 'immoral'? That really would be calling black, white.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
One difficulty with this discussion is how do we know if our childhood experiences were typical? There was a fair bit of bullying at my school in the 1980s, but I have a friend who went to a (superficially) very similar school in the same year and there was almost none. So whose school was more representative of the period?

Yes, it is very hard to know.

Sometimes people have experiences with several different schools and can compare the atmospheres, which are often quite different.

A few have the chance to compare what they experienced in different countries. I don't know how different an English childhood is from an American one.

I lived in West Africa for two years in the 1970s and taught in schools in small rural villages. I was very struck, as you would expect, by how different their social experience was from my own. In some ways African teens' live were quite idyllic, but in other ways much worse than what I grew up with. It certainly taught me what "cultural difference" meant, although in most ways kids are kids the world over.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry. How can any society consider another society that is less lax than it is and discourages premarital sex 'immoral'? That really would be calling black, white.

We call the less lax society oppressive, judgemental and repressed. We say it controls people's sexuality. What we mean is "they are wrong and immoral; we are right and good".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I was a child in the 80s. I have many happy memories of my friends and I running wild over the hills, fields and woods near our homes, roaming for miles and spending whole days without any adult interaction at all (barring the occasional need to escape an irate farmer).

We used to ride bikes without any protective gear, and yes we used to fall off them and get hurt. We used to climb trees, and occasionally fall out. We'd catch cold from rolling around in the mud or snow, or get sunburnt from being out in the sun too long. And every one of those pains, every one of those injuries, every bit of blood spilt or skin torn was a lesson we learned a damn sight better than the dozens of times our parents had tried to get us to learn it from them while sat on the nice, safe, comfortable sofa back home.

But. I also remember the kid who was out playing unsupervised and ended up under a lorry. I remember the teacher who was quietly removed from the school amid rumours (only half-understood) of him touching another boy. I remember a game one of the other lads introduced to the playground when we were about 7, the aim of which was to grab someone else's penis and pull it - and only now, as I read this thread, am I wondering where in the hell a 7-year-old gets that kind of idea.

I think we've gone too far in protecting our children, and I wish society could get back to a place where parents feel able to let their kids play unsupervised like I used to. But that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have gone any distance at all in protecting them. Bike helmets are not an unreasonable imposition, for example. And while frenzied witch-hunts are not the answer, being far more aware of abuse and willing to challenge and prevent it at all times is a very good thing indeed.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

When I was a kid in the late 60s and early 70s, we did have a fair amount of freedom. However, parents still had their own specific fears, and these were shaped by their own upbringing and experiences. In my neighborhood there was a "woods"--a fairly wide steep wooded area, with a river at the bottom. the area on both sides was heavily developed with single family homes, and the Beltway (major highway) crossed over this wooded area on a tall bridge (tall from the river.. from the road you barely knew you were on a bridge at all). We also had a shopping area at a crossroad of two fairly large roads within walking distance.

Becasue of their own childhood experiences, most of my friends parents allowed them to go to the shopping center un-supervised at a younger age than I was allowed to do so. Conversely, I was allowed free range in the woods long before my friends were allowed to do so. Of course, in reality, we all did both, but the parental fears were very obviously different. in my mother's eyes, danger lurked in populated areas..cars could run you over, strangers were there and could do things to you, whereas the woods were relatively safe. for other parents, the woods were scary and empty.. who knows what lurked there. the shopping are was full of other adults, and thus assumed to be safe for kids.

Interestingly, I had one experience as a child (older by then, so allowed to go to the town). There was a library in the shopping center, and as an avid reader I was a frequent visitor. Once I was in the "kids" section of the library, when I saw an older man sitting there, with his legs spread wide, wearing very loose shorts.. and displaying everything he had for anyone to see (particularly anyone with a lower eye-level. In retrospect of course it's obvious that this was entirely deliberate. at the time I sensed something was not quite right about it, but still though it most likely that he didn't realize that I could see his junk, and was too embarrassed to tell him. I didn't report him to anyone, because, well, I didn't think he was doing something on purpose (I think it crossed my mind that he might be, but it seemed so preposterous to me, that I rejected the idea).

A story from my kids younger days: my son had a friend, who was the kid of kid most parents do not want their child to associate with. He was one of my cub-scouts, so saw him at his best, but even so I knew there was something not quite right. He would bring very racy
CDs to school to share with the other boys, he told me he would stay up all night playing video games (the kind I wouldn't let my kid even look at at that age). He generally was un-monitored at home in terms of the media he was exposed to. Anyhow, on one occasion his mother brought him over for a "play date" with my son. while she and I were chatting, the boys ran off to play. After a few minutes my son came over to ask if they could go to the park. this park is in a gated neighborhood, within shouting distance of my house, and no need to cross any streets (walk along a bike-lane on a residential road to get to the park). The mother was HORRIFIED that I would let my son go to this park unsupervised. They were, I think, 8 years old at the time. I'd been letting him go there since he was.. well, not sure. probably 5 or so. This mom, who let her kid to all sorts of things most people would never allow a kid that age to do, was horrified by the thought of a park without supervision. Apparently, as long as he was in her house, he was safe (no matter what he was exposed to online).

I think there were permissive parents and restrictive parents always, and the things parents fear are shaped not by real risks, but by familiarity. if you are familiar with something, it's less scary, and thus you are more willing to allow your child to do it. we are now aware of many dangers that we didn't really think about in the past.. the dangers are no grater than they were, but we fear them because we know about them (and conversely, we are less familiar with the places where we encounter the dangers). if we spent relatively little time in the woods as kids, then hear about the dangers of being in the woods, we tend to feel those risks are higher than they really are. if we hear abut the dangers of something we are familiar with, we tend to minimize those threats (oh, I did that and nothing bad happened).

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I remember that we Could.Not.Leave.The.Neighborhood, "the neighborhood" being defined by certain streets that were its boundaries.

I remember the first day I dared to venture outside the boundaries -- I rode my bike downtown and visited the city's leading department store. Wouldn't you know it -- one of my relatives was there and, of course, told my mother all about having encountered me.

While there, I had need of the facilities. I thought it odd that so many men felt the urge to use the men's room at the same time I did. Only much, much later did I come to realize that the men's room in that particular department store was the place where gay men went for a "quickie".

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
but perhaps more 14 year old girls feeling they have to perform fellatio on their boyfriends. I think we often only really understand these things in retrospect.

I have heard a fair few worried parents talking about this. There are cultural memes of the time and teenage oral sex does seem to be one of ours. Colleagues in community health care have noted a number of teenage girls attending for STD screens who have clearly been pressured into doing something they felt uncomfortable about, and very distressed about the boy bragging to the rest of the school.

On the other hand I don't think one can talk about a spectrum of coercion regarding sex between adults and children without taking great care to point out that "absence of coercion" or "little coercion" aren't going to be acceptable ways of talking about child abuse. Once one has determined that one is dealing with a minor who cannot give consent then degrees of coercion become an irrelevant matter.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, I think that's a better way of putting it. What I suppose I had in mind was the spectrum between, at one extreme, direct and violent physical coercion, and at the other, a child or young person responding willingly to an older person's sexual overtures, on the basis of an imbalance of experience, maturity, and indeed perhaps covert power which is to the advantage of the older person. I'd say that the latter is less coercive- but not the less abusive. Which suggests, as you say, that coercion as such is not really relevant here.

[ 03. May 2016, 14:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
From the OP:

quote:
We went on our bikes without cycle helmets, and we were fine.
I went out on my bike circa 1972 without a cycle helmet and ended up in A&E for a quick fix, then a couple of follow up outpatient apointments, with surgery three years later. Nothing major - perhaps a week off school in total? But still, not something I'd want to risk my own kids experiencing. Hence my insistence that they never went out on their bikes without helmets.

This is one of those things where what seems to be the wisest decision is more complicated. Where safety combines with other factors. Cycle helmets, encouragement to wear them and in some places, laws, have made the perception of cycling as a particularly dangerous activity. It reduces participation in cycling, and results in the usual query after car versus bicycle "was the cyclist wearing a helmet?". Automobiles create far more head injuries and is far more dangerous.

People who take risks while riding bicycles should wear helmets, e.g., aggressive 12 year olds. So what I want is that there is a proper discussion of who should be helmeted and when. This is an extension of the logical problem solving we want independent, nonanxious and confident children to use.

FWIW I don't recall cycling helmets being available in 1972.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Colleagues in community health care have noted a number of teenage girls attending for STD screens who have clearly been pressured into doing something they felt uncomfortable about, and very distressed about the boy bragging to the rest of the school.

I suspect that the public aspect (bragging, shaming, bullying) is usually more damaging than the sexual activity itself.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, I think that's a better way of putting it. What I suppose I had in mind was the spectrum between, at one extreme, direct and violent physical coercion,

Sexual encounters between teens run the gamut between completely willing and mutual to rape. In between there is quite a bit of ground. Psychological pressure is far more common than physical force. And in varying degrees. Not that this makes it OK, it does not. But it is far from the picture you appear paint.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Colleagues in community health care have noted a number of teenage girls attending for STD screens who have clearly been pressured into doing something they felt uncomfortable about, and very distressed about the boy bragging to the rest of the school.
I suspect that the public aspect (bragging, shaming, bullying) is usually more damaging than the sexual activity itself.

And this does not even require pressure or reluctance. A willing consent can still result in this, largely because of the inequity in which sexual activity is viewed depending on gender.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I meant there, specifically, sexual 'relationships' (dubious word in this context)/ encounters between adults and children or young adolescents. There's a spectrum in 'relationships' within an age group, sure, but that's a bit different.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
FWIW I don't recall cycling helmets being available in 1972.

Oh for the era when transplant surgeons used to refer to cyclists as "organ donors"... [Roll Eyes]

Which they did. The increase in helmets cut down their supply of fresh, youthful organs cut from still-living but brain-dead bodies quite dramatically.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

There's a social/ cultural/ structural aspect to that, of course. The only time I went to Amsterdam I don't think I saw a single cyclist in a helmet there. That was over 10 years ago and it may be that things have changed- no doubt there are shipmates who can tell me whether they have- but I imagine that that reflected a way of ordering the streets, and perhaps a highway code, that prioritises the cyclist. Here we take the view that in this instance, as perhaps in many others, risk is to be minimised by personal rather than by collective action.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
FWIW I don't recall cycling helmets being available in 1972.
Oh for the era when transplant surgeons used to refer to cyclists as "organ donors"...

Which they did. The increase in helmets cut down their supply of fresh, youthful organs cut from still-living but brain-dead bodies quite dramatically.

My first summer job, just before starting college, was at a restaurant. On my last day, the owners decided they wanted to wash their plastic grabage bin at a local car wash, and so got me to SIT IN THE TRUNK OF A CAR and pull it behind me.

Obviously, that was pretty dangerous, and is NOT something that you would want to do today, for legal reasons alone. Though, thinking about it, getting hit by another car while riding in that trunk probably wouldn't be any worse that getting hit by a car while cycling on the road without a helmet. Which was pretty much the norm in those days.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
FWIW I don't recall cycling helmets being available in 1972.
Oh for the era when transplant surgeons used to refer to cyclists as "organ donors"...

Which they did. The increase in helmets cut down their supply of fresh, youthful organs cut from still-living but brain-dead bodies quite dramatically.

Motorcyclists. With or without helmets, motorcycling has a high death rate, something like 30 times that of driving. I doubt cyclists have ever been seen as a useful supply of organs since cycling is about as safe as walking. I'm not aware, either, of any clear evidence that helmets reduce the death and serious injury rates of cyclists.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Actually, I've been trying to think of people I have been at school or university with dying in accidents of any sort, and I've drawn a blank.

I hear of accidents, of course, but that may reflect the interest people take in the news. To get a reliable picture you need to define your cohort first and then work out the death rate. And, thinking about members of churches I've been in, classmates of my children, relatives, and work colleagues of close family members, I can come up with just one accidental death. Plenty of deaths from illness, a couple of suicides, and no murders.

It used to be, if I remember correctly, that about 1 in 200 of us would die in a car accident, but the figure is far lower now.

I think we are unduly risk averse. It's not a bad fault for a parent, though.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Today's google doodle, at least in Korea, is a tribute to Jane Jacobs.

I recently read a portion of her book The Death And Life Of Great American Cities, published in 1961. One of the arguments she makes is that, contrary to the beliefs of professional planners, building parks is not a surefire way to provide kids with a safer and healthier enviroment than they get on the much maligned "street".

Jacobs observes that, in urban areas where kids play a lot on the sidewalk, they are subject to casual supervision by the adults sitting on the front steps of apartment blocks, in stores, etc. Whereas in many places where parks have been built with the express purpose of providing safe spaces for play, they are either avoided by kids, or become magnets for "perverts"(her terminology) or juvenile delinquents.

Jacobs does outline conditions which, if met, can lead to successful parks, but I don't have the time, space or memory to go into them here.

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

I think there are two common themes here

1) Transparency
- some things were hidden that when see the light of day are revealed as unacceptable
- some things we know about which change our perception of risk as although the probability has changed, hearing about all the instances change our perception of the probability e.g. deaths from injury on a school activity (possibly less instances but you bet they all get reported)

2) Risk acceptance
-some things we didn't know about we would regard as unacceptable and the risk as unacceptable - a goal zero
- some things where the risk was accepted we have a lower risk tolerance e.g. accidents where doing adventurous activity - almost in denial that the risk is part of the satisfaction

I still want to go hill walking although there is some risk ... there is something to achieve which will only give me satisfaction if I overcome the risks.

Does zero risk mean that we will become inactive blobs with only our brain working - everything else is done for us? I have a horrible vision of humans in a film - I think it was called Wal-Ee

I wonder whether the underlying cause of the decrease in risk tolerance is the decrease in faith and the belief that this is the only life?

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
One good thing that has been lost, however, is the opportunity for kids to invent their own games and make up their own rules...

...I think it was better when I was in elementary school in the 1940s. The teachers considered it part of their job to teach us ethics, including how we should treat each other.

I'm late to this, but I want to pick up on two points Moo made on the last page, not to find fault but as an encouragement.

Both my kids (8 and 11) make up their own games, though perhaps they 'play out' less than I did when I was that age (1980 / 82). Their school lets kids stay on (so long as a parent is there - or else you have to pay! So I take a book) and play in the yard and field 'til 5:30, and they always want to stay. They make up games together, and go to a church youth club where the kids are encouraged to be (to my mind) feral. And the school (RC primary) is hotter on ethics than the 3Rs, which is how I like it. So there's hope.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
cycling is about as safe as walking

It's about as twice as unsafe. The Killed and Serious Injury ratio is 556 per billion km for cyclists, and 394 for pedestrians.

As for your other assertions, I'll have to tell my consultant anaesthetist friend his experience, and those of his colleges, is merely anecdotal.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
cycling is about as safe as walking
It's about as twice as unsafe. The Killed and Serious Injury ratio is 556 per billion km for cyclists, and 394 for pedestrians.

As for your other assertions, I'll have to tell my consultant anaesthetist friend his experience, and those of his colleges, is merely anecdotal.

556 is nearer to 394 than to twice 394. That's 1.4 times as unsafe on those figures (there are plenty of others).

And, yes, isn't all our experience anecdotal as evidence?

[ 03. May 2016, 18:34: Message edited by: hatless ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's about as twice as unsafe. The Killed and Serious Injury ratio is 556 per billion km for cyclists, and 394 for pedestrians.

As for your other assertions, I'll have to tell my consultant anaesthetist friend his experience, and those of his colleges, is merely anecdotal.

As an absolute risk that is staggeringly low. I wonder if there is a statistically significant difference between two such very low risks.

Of course his experience is anecdotal. It is not borne out by some studies but may be by others, albeit with quite weak effect sizes.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

No one dies using bike shares, and they also don't wear helmets. There are also risks with tree climbing, skiing, rock climbing and using an axe.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As an absolute risk that is staggeringly low. I wonder if there is a statistically significant difference between two such very low risks.

For cars, it was 83 in 2012.

[ 03. May 2016, 19:45: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

A Ben Goldacre article about whether bike helmets help reduce injuries. He concludes that it's complicated, and the popularity of helmets might not be because of "their direct benefits — which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies — but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk."

Which I guess shows how it can be tricky to analyse social effects, even on a contemporary issue with access to hard statistics.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Well, mine stopped me from eating through a straw a couple of times. I was very happy it was there, considering the amount of damage I sustained to the rest of me...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
A Ben Goldacre article about whether bike helmets help reduce injuries. He concludes that it's complicated,

I agree that it is complicated and the other strategies do more to reduce injury. To do a definitive study, one would need the same type of rider on the same surfaces in the same conditions. The perfect test would be professional cyclists. Good luck getting a control group to not wear helmets, though.
I suppose one could develop a software model to compare the potential for injury, but it isn't really that much of a bother to just wear a helmet.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No one dies using bike shares, and they also don't wear helmets.

If one reads the article you link, it does not draw the conclusion that helmets are therefor useless.

quote:

There are also risks with tree climbing, skiing, rock climbing and using an axe.

Living is the most hazardous activity: Everyone who is alive will die!

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, mine stopped me from eating through a straw a couple of times. I was very happy it was there, considering the amount of damage I sustained to the rest of me...

The one day I didn't wear mine I skidded off next to the Civic Centre and got a nice cut smacking my head on the pavement. I've been more careful since then.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, mine stopped me from eating through a straw a couple of times. I was very happy it was there, considering the amount of damage I sustained to the rest of me...
The one day I didn't wear mine I skidded off next to the Civic Centre and got a nice cut smacking my head on the pavement. I've been more careful since then.

The corner by Northumbria? There was a rim-cracking trench there, left over from some pipe work, for ages.

(local knowledge for local people)

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The only time I went to Amsterdam I don't think I saw a single cyclist in a helmet there. That was over 10 years ago and it may be that things have changed- no doubt there are shipmates who can tell me whether they have- but I imagine that that reflected a way of ordering the streets, and perhaps a highway code, that prioritises the cyclist.

There are probably a few more helmets around these days, but it's often a case of "spot the foreigner". Sports cyclists will always wear a helmet but most regular commuters don't. In most places bicycles don't share the roads with cars though, so you can't really make a fair comparison.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

That last point, about bicycles not sharing the road with cars, is what I thought made the difference. That and perhaps - am I right?- the legal presumption that in a collision between a bike and a car the car driver is to blame? As I say, a collective rather than an individual approach to dealing with risk.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To do a definitive study, one would need the same type of rider on the same surfaces in the same conditions. The perfect test would be professional cyclists.

Or a very pragmatic real-world approach where you just compare the odds of serious head injury among helmet-wearers and non-helmet-wearers. There are some biases involved in that, but at least it is applicable to the real world. A very tightly controlled experimental approach doesn't necessarily tell you what will actually happen in real life (even if it were possible to do in this instance).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As an absolute risk that is staggeringly low. I wonder if there is a statistically significant difference between two such very low risks.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For cars, it was 83 in 2012.

I'd guess that really is lower - a seven-fold decrease seems like a pretty big difference even at those low rates.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I wonder how the dangers of staircases, often straight and steep in UK houses, compares. I've never seen it discussed.

I'm just grabbing it as a likely example of something we don't worry about, but which is more dangerous than many things we obsess over.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Well, I don't know: see THIS - admittedly in a public place rather than a house.

(However, the sign itself may provoke high blood pressure leading to cardiac arrest in those of a pedantic grammatical disposition).

The dangers of falling down stairs are the meat-and-drink of programmes such as "Casualty"; and, of course, the careful placing of a child's toy or other object at the top of the stairs is the staple of making-a-murder-look-like-an-accident dramas.

[ 04. May 2016, 06:50: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It used to be, if I remember correctly, that about 1 in 200 of us would die in a car accident, but the figure is far lower now.

I think that
this says it all - especially when one remembers the ever-increasing volumes of traffic. Charts like this are all too easily ignored by the "health and safety gone mad" folk.

Equally it was reported on the national news last week that a construction worker had died on the new Forth Bridge project. Yet at least 57 - and possibly many more - died in the building of the famous railway bridge; this was almost accepted as the necessary adjunct to large engineering projects. Standards have changed for the better.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

My mums bridesmaid and family used to come and stay with us, when I was very young. The father was killed in a car accident which changed the dynamics rather, and sent the family into something of a tailspin. But people dying in car accidents was just part of life (this would have been mid 1960s. He would have been in his 30s). You just accepted it, in a way that we don't today. Yes it happens, but nothing like as often.

A friend of mine came off his bike recently. He lost consciousness and only remembers the bike starting to slip and then waking up in hospital. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he wouldn't have woken up.

Anecdotal evidence, yes. But the "nanny state" might have stopped one family disintegrating, and definitely stopped another one from losing a much loved member. Is it worth the many fights with children to wear helmets to save this one person? The family think so.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Elf 'n' safety gorn mad isn't new.

At the turn of the C20th there was a suggestion that TB was being spread by schoolchildren spitting on their slates to clean them. There was a proposal that sponges dampened with clean water should be used instead.

This prompted the following "letter to the editor" in 1904

“A few foolish rules to observe, a whole lot of hygienic quirks to adjust to, a schedule of superstitious sanitary notions diligently followed by day dreamed of by night, is a malady which begins as a mental derangement and ends in a complete physical “fizzle” No room is left for a spontaneous life."

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And the engineering in cars has made surviving an auto accident much more likely now that it has ever been. My daughter was in one yesterday. She rolled her SUV over =seven= times. It came to a halt on its wheels, and she opened the door and stepped out. Side-impact airbags and a seat belt saved her life. Her main complaint today is that she will need a new cell phone and a new car.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
]
A friend of mine came off his bike recently. He lost consciousness and only remembers the bike starting to slip and then waking up in hospital. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet, he wouldn't have woken up.

Anecdotal evidence, yes. But the "nanny state" might have stopped one family disintegrating, and definitely stopped another one from losing a much loved member. Is it worth the many fights with children to wear helmets to save this one person? The family think so.

Might we also require sunhats, sensible shoes, and no running with scissors? And don't mow the lawn with bare feet.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think you have to get to a tipping point where the impact (financial and otherwise) of a particular kind of accident gets great enough that it's judged worth creating a law for.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Which is precisely what the people who run the railways, and so on, do- perfectly sensibly IMO. Not just changing law, changing operating practices too.

[ 04. May 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think you have to get to a tipping point where the impact (financial and otherwise) of a particular kind of accident gets great enough that it's judged worth creating a law for.

I think there is also something about the streets and sidewalks being government owned that makes unsafe cycling somewhat different than, say, running with scissors in the privacy of your own home.

I can't really put my finger on the logic, except by way of a rough analogy: At home, I'm allowed to drink milk that has been sitting in the sun surrounded by a swarm of houseflies for three days. But a publically regulated restaurant isn't allowed to serve that to me, even if I am willing to drink it.

And, factor in that, unlike the restaurants, roads and sidewalks are actually owned by the government, and you've probably got an even stronger case for their being subject to greater regulation than is common in the private sphere.

[ 04. May 2016, 19:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
The only time I went to Amsterdam I don't think I saw a single cyclist in a helmet there. That was over 10 years ago and it may be that things have changed- no doubt there are shipmates who can tell me whether they have- but I imagine that that reflected a way of ordering the streets, and perhaps a highway code, that prioritises the cyclist.
There are probably a few more helmets around these days, but it's often a case of "spot the foreigner". Sports cyclists will always wear a helmet but most regular commuters don't. In most places bicycles don't share the roads with cars though, so you can't really make a fair comparison.

(tangent) Don't share the road??? Last time I was in Amsterdam, 2 years ago, commuting almost exclusively via bike, it was ALL sharing the road with cars, buses, and trollies. And very much "spot the foreigner" cuz I found it terrifying and the natives seemed quite impatient with my timidity. More stressful than commuting on the 110 fwy, which is saying a lot.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think there is also something about the streets and sidewalks being government owned that makes unsafe cycling somewhat different than, say, running with scissors in the privacy of your own home.

I can't really put my finger on the logic

The logic is one of liability and scale. If you run with scissors in your house, you're a danger to yourself. If you run with scissors down the street, you're a danger to a lot more people, who don't share a house with you. Likewise, dodgy milk. You can choose to serve yourself with it. You don't get to choose to serve it to other people.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I had a rather shocking reminder today that even scissors fairly carefully cutting are only a loud noise from swinging (open) at someones head as the rest of the body turns.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Likewise, dodgy milk. You can choose to serve yourself with it. You don't get to choose to serve it to other people. [/QB]

But, that's why, in my example, I specified that the customer knows how long the milk has been sitting in the sun. A restaurant owner can't get himself off the hook by saying "I tell all my customers about the stuff that doesn't meet the Health Code, so they know what they're consuming".

And a cyclist who goes without a helmet is really no harm to anyone but himself. When he goes flying off his bike after being hit by a car, it's his head, and his head alone, that hits the pavement.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Cycle helmets are not compulsory in the UK.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

There is data that cyclists wearing helmets are passed more closely by cars that those not. The wearing of the reduces participation and willingness to cycle. They also contribute to perceptions that cycling is inherently dangerous.

There are other things that are adverse for safety. "Share the Road" campaigns are also problematic because car drivers are more apt to perceive bicycles as vehicles and equal to cars. Bikes are to cars as tigers are to house cats.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Cycle helmets are not compulsory in the UK.

Well, in places where they are, the logic behind the obligation probably goes as I outlined.

I'm sure you could think of similar discrepancies between private and public behaviour, in terms of how each are regulated, in the UK.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And a cyclist who goes without a helmet is really no harm to anyone but himself. When he goes flying off his bike after being hit by a car, it's his head, and his head alone, that hits the pavement.

But it can also be another car driver who catches them and they die. I suspect it is the interaction with others that makes the difference - others with whom one does not have a care relationship.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I used to be part of a campaign group that wanted the motorcycle crash helmet law repealed. Felt is was a big deal at the time, all seems a tad silly looking back now. I suppose there was a principle at stake.

I do sometimes wonder if the drive to eliminate all risk from our lives hasn't somehow resulted in a form of melancholy.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
And a cyclist who goes without a helmet is really no harm to anyone but himself. When he goes flying off his bike after being hit by a car, it's his head, and his head alone, that hits the pavement.
But it can also be another car driver who catches them and they die. I suspect it is the interaction with others that makes the difference - others with whom one does not have a care relationship.

If you mean that a car owner could die after being hit by an un-helmeted cyclist flying through the air, I think that reasoning might apply to seat belts, but not to bike helmets.

If I'm driving a car without wearing a seat belt, and I get hit, I can be killed or seriously injured, which would cause me to lose control of the wheel and send the car careening down the road, endangering others.

But a bike helmet doesn't help you keep control of your bike, it only protects you AFTER you've been sent flying through the air. So, whether I hit the other car with a helmet on my head, or without a helmet on my head, probably doesn't make much difference in terms of preventing another accident.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I knew a bus driver who was driving behind a cyclist who had his hands in his pockets. The bicycle hit a pot-hole, he came off and went under the bus wheels and died. The driver has that with him for the rest of his life and has anxiety attacks 10 years later. He probably was too close, but it was a busy road in rush hour traffic.

I'm a non-helmet-wearer myself but I can see the arguments for enforcing safety standards for everyone's benefit. Although I'm not convinced that helmets make an important enough difference to worry about.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As an absolute risk that is staggeringly low. I wonder if there is a statistically significant difference between two such very low risks.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For cars, it was 83 in 2012.
I'd guess that really is lower - a seven-fold decrease seems like a pretty big difference even at those low rates.

Although the stats are for injuries/deaths per billion km - and a car is going to clock up more km in the same time period than the others.

If I reckon that around town I cycle about three times as fast as I walk, and drive about three times as fast as I cycle, then the risk I'm taking per minute would be in the ratio:

747:1668:394 for drive:cycle:walk.

Driving is about twice as risky as walking, and cycling about four times.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I cycle to work about twice a week. Once there was ice on the bridge. I flipped like a pancake and came down on my head. My helmet saved my life.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As an absolute risk that is staggeringly low. I wonder if there is a statistically significant difference between two such very low risks.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
For cars, it was 83 in 2012.
I'd guess that really is lower - a seven-fold decrease seems like a pretty big difference even at those low rates.

I'd be shocked if there wasn't such a big difference between cars and bikes. Someone travelling down the road with a great big metal box around them is going to have less risk of injury than someone travelling down the road with virtually no protection from impacts - that's just obvious.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Stetson - no I mean that I as a car driver might catch a cyclist. They then fall, and because they aren't wearing a helmet they die (or are seriously injured).

The driver - assuming they are broadly innocent - then has a guilty conscience, which impacts them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Although the stats are for injuries/deaths per billion km - and a car is going to clock up more km in the same time period than the others.

I guess the point is what decision one is going to take on the basis of these figures. The choices are rarely going to be 10 minutes of cycling vs 10 minutes of driving - rather between driving to the shops versus cycling to the shops.

However the other figures that aren't in this are the effects on personal fitness, on community risk, fumes, the environment etc.

It seems to me that given the very low risks for most journeys then personal fitness is likely to become very important as a consideration.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

If we're doing anecdotes. I have been in 3 significant cycling accidents over the past decades. What I have learned is that cyclists always lose with cars even when they're in the right. The second thing is that pedestrians are softer than cars and it is better to hit one of those when one or the other jumps in front of you.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I wonder how fast you can cycle with your hands in your pockets. 12mph tops is my guess. If you fell you wouldn't go under the wheels of a bus, but a bus's wheels might go over you, but at 12mph, if the bus couldn't stop in time I think it must have been going far too fast or been far too close.

Poor cyclist, and poor bus driver. A helmet, of course, would have made no difference in a crushing accident.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I've seen guys doing a lot faster than 12mph but I don't know the specifics here and it didn't seem wise to probe in that way.

I doubt a helmet would have made a difference, but my point was that one can't simply say "it's my life" regarding safety issues that appear to be a risk only to you. None of us are islands.

Of course it is another leap from there to go to legislation and I'm not sure that is the answer.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Yes, it's probably daft to speculate, but I react to victim blaming. A collision from behind is almost always considered the fault of the vehicle behind. Is it relevant that the cyclist had his hands in his pockets? Does it mean he was reckless and partly at fault? It certainly means that he didn't use his brakes, and can't have stopped very suddenly. 'Going under the wheels' is a common enough phrase, but if doesn't describe what actually happens.

It's a long time since I've cycled with my hands in my pockets, but I'm sure I never went much faster than 12mph.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I understood the relevance of the hands in pockets to be that when he hit a pothole he was unable to stay on the bike, whereas he might not have gone airborn otherwise. I think the point was well made simply that it's not just "at your own risk"-- the choices/ risks we choose for ourselves also impact others

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I knew a bus driver who was driving behind a cyclist who had his hands in his pockets. The bicycle hit a pot-hole, he came off and went under the bus wheels and died. The driver has that with him for the rest of his life and has anxiety attacks 10 years later. He probably was too close, but it was a busy road in rush hour traffic.

I'm a non-helmet-wearer myself but I can see the arguments for enforcing safety standards for everyone's benefit. Although I'm not convinced that helmets make an important enough difference to worry about.

The relevant bit is that the driver was following too close. Drivers are often impatient when a cyclist has no choice but to take a full lane. Everyone always asks if the cyclist was wearing a helmet or some other victim blaming piece of info. Of course the real problem is that cycling lanes should not be drivable at all by busses or cars. But it is a car centric world.

A second issue is lack of patience. I think people were more patient in the past. A driving journey or commute needs to be considered a part of the day to be enjoyed, not an inconvenience and annoyance. If it is annoying then this is either an attitude thing, a failure of transportation design or both. I think the enjoyment of a journey is something needing rediscovery.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0