Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AteMoose

Poor Kids Are More Likely To Be Hurt By Cars

Recommended Posts

Hmm, nahh its more to do with most parents keeping there kids on a leash, and the kids from poorer backgrounds running ferral. Most of the kids get hurt on a friday and saturday (drinking days?)

Im pretty sure the kids in posh areas of london have less garden space than the kids in preston...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10989119

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its annoying stupid logic. Its like saying someone called Wayne is more likely to commit crime .'. we should ban people from being called Wayne... Its got nothing to do with gardens, 4x4s, or wealth, it is down to parents who don't give two monkeys, and out of control kids. If you give all the people in preston 1 million quid each and double the size of gardens, there will be more car related deaths, and bigger messier gardens. Most council estates properties are bigger and have bigger gardens than terraces, new flats and often modern detached new builds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its annoying stupid logic.  Its like saying someone called Wayne is more likely to commit crime .'. we should ban people from being called Wayne... Its got nothing to do with gardens, 4x4s, or wealth, it is down to parents who don't give two monkeys, and out of control kids.  If you give all the people in preston 1 million quid each and double the size of gardens, there will be more car related deaths, and bigger messier gardens. Most council estates properties are bigger and have bigger gardens than terraces, new flats and often modern detached new builds...

It could be to do with gardens

Gardens are a good kiddy-cage for children up to about four-five

The parents can read a bit and glance away occasionaly without the children being immediately run over by an arctic or molested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, nahh its more to do with most parents keeping there kids on a leash, and the kids from poorer backgrounds running ferral. Most of the kids get hurt on a friday and saturday (drinking days?)

Im pretty sure the kids in posh areas of london have less garden space than the kids in preston...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10989119

+1

Many people seem to think that throwing money at problems will solve them.

IMO, the British society is not divided into afluent and poor but into caring and careless. No matter how much cash you throw at the careless they will still end up as losers.

These days, the so-called 'disadvantaged' families have access to free health-care, free libraries, free education, free roof over head, free food and free pocket-money for booze and fags.

Should we now top it up with free rangerovers and bigger gardens just because they breed like rabbits and don't give a damn about their offspring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we now top it up with free rangerovers and bigger gardens just because they breed like rabbits and don't give a damn about their offspring?

Palpable, incandescent fury at the notion that kids be allowed somewhere to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we now top it up with free rangerovers and bigger gardens just because they breed like rabbits and don't give a damn about their offspring?

Should we see if there's anything the government can do to stop hundreds of children being killed every year? I guess you view is let 'em die if their parents don't look after them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before long they will be FORCED to move to areas where there IS work & they WILL work.

Mike

Or else?

You going to beat them down with your stick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logically - I would reckon those brought up playing on the streets will have a far better understanding of the dangers involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palpable, incandescent fury at the notion that kids be allowed somewhere to play

Well, I lived in a high rise when I was 5, 6 and 7. I had plenty of places to play. This was the mid 70's mind you and the surrounding areas had a few play parks etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we see if there's anything the government can do to stop hundreds of children being killed every year? I guess you view is let 'em die if their parents don't look after them?

What's to see there if the parents don't feel responsible and couldn't care less? Throw more money at them??? Employ an army of social workers to teach those families that cars are dangerous?

I guess, we can ban cars from estates occupied by the careless. Or maybe we should look into how many adults get killed by kids from poorer areas?

BTW, I know many much poorer countries where partents work 2 jobs each to make ends meet and kids somehow survive. Because their parents feel responsible and don't expect the government to do parenting for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I lived in a high rise when I was 5, 6 and 7. I had plenty of places to play. This was the mid 70's mind you and the surrounding areas had a few play parks etc.

Well, your parents were obviously respectful, decent types who knew their station in life. I doubt the OP would have a problem with children being kept properly and tidily in a flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before long they will be FORCED to move to areas where there IS work & they WILL work.

Mike

[sarcasm]

I've just checked the jobboards and by gawd you are right!

Look there are 8 million vacancies in the south and loads of empty property for people to move into, why didn't we think of doing that before?

[/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like all these poor kids getting their heads stuck in gates recently, initially they interviewed a neighbour (the polish child in south wales, not the black one whose head also exploded in a gate in some inner city estate) who said the girl was always playing outside, alone, no supervision. Obviously once the 21st UK compensation culture kicked in this wasnt mentioned again and focus swapped to the electric gate supplier and the council to exonerate the parent/mother of her responsibilities.

Or else its darwinism in action. Even as a small child, i knew sticking your head or any other appendedge in an electric gate isnt a very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid people have stupid children

No, it's because poor children go outside on their own, and wealthy ones don't. I know a number of middle-class parents whose children have quite possibly never been outside on their own. I personally know at least three people who have children in the third or fourth year at secondary school, and who drive the children to school every morning and then pick them up in the evenings and drive them back home. These children aren't slim either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's because poor children go outside on their own, and wealthy ones don't.

Poor? Food, roof over head, electricity, hot water, TV&radio, mobile, heating, school, libraries, health-care. medicines, etc, etc...

Is that poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor? Food, roof over head, electricity, hot water, TV&radio, mobile, heating, school, libraries, health-care. medicines, etc, etc...

Is that poor?

OK, it's clear which people we're talking about. What term would you prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, it's clear which people we're talking about. What term would you prefer?

Sorry, I know what you mean but the media often use the term 'poor' and it's clear that the only thing those people are 'poor' at is 'making choices'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's clear that the only thing those people are 'poor' at is 'making choices'.

That seems a bit harsh. We can't all choose to be winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we now top it up with free rangerovers and bigger gardens just because they breed like rabbits and don't give a damn about their offspring?

I object to this quite strongly. It's clear that the reason for the higher death rate for 'poor' children is because they're outside mixing with the traffic more: they walk to school, and often the areas where they live have been built relatively recently and favour cars over people: in Edinburgh, for example, these areas are often on the outskirts of the city and often have wide, straight roads to facilitate speedy traffic movement in and out of the city centre. Pedestrians have much more trouble getting across these kinds of road than they do in the leafy back streets of Morningside. Children are outside dealing with this kind of thing, and that's why they get killed. We live in a society where the car is king, and instead of motorists having to take care it's seen as being entirely the pedestrian's own if they fail to defer to the motorist and end up being injured or killed.

But anyway, my main objection is that I don't think that allowing your children to walk the streets unsupervised is "not giving a damn". Many middle class children are ferried everywhere in cars and never go outside on their own. This really seems like being over-protective. People moan about the nanny state but then nanny their children in a way that would have been inconceivable in previous generations (and still would be in many parts of the world). I really don't think we should be aspiring to a society where that's the norm, and anything less is seen as parental neglect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the report doesn't want to come out say 'Fact: driving a 4x4 means your children are less likely to die'.

Or that if you hit someone else's kid in that 4x4 you're more likely to kill them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But anyway, my main objection is that I don't think that allowing your children to walk the streets unsupervised is "not giving a damn". Many middle class children are ferried everywhere in cars and never go outside on their own. This really seems like being over-protective. People moan about the nanny state but then nanny their children in a way that would have been inconceivable in previous generations (and still would be in many parts of the world). I really don't think we should be aspiring to a society where that's the norm, and anything less is seen as parental neglect.

The article said:

Campaigners say affluent children are less likely to spend time on the street as they have gardens to play in, and are driven around in safer cars.

All I'm saying is that it's got nothing to do with thinner wallets. I personally am horrified seeing kids hanging around in groups on bicycles totally disregarding traffic rules. If I saw my kid running around like that it would have been banned from cycling. However, other parents don't seem to care as they're more concerned with having a good time down the pub or in front of the telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.