The mothers noted that they restricted their own children's outdoor play because of safety concerns, a fact echoed in other surveys where parents mentioned child predators, road traffic, and bullies as reasons for restricting their children's outdoor play.
I've always wondered if there is any factual underpinning that would license such thinking from mothers. I am not sure the threats to children (besides road traffic) have risen so strongly over the last decades, but media coverage may have, creating the impression that the world has become a (more) dangerous place for kids.
However, the change over recent year is not as important as the actual current status, i.e., the answer to a question like: "If you allow your kid to play outdoors, what is the likelihood that it will suffer harm from any of the mentioned sources." (It doesn't matter if it was 50% percent less 50 years ago, if it's still very low today.)
Police statistics should provide the data for an initial estimation of such numbers, which of course would have to be conditioned further, e.g., for neighborhood etc.
But of course, people don't always behave rationally, so having such information - even if it should suggest that the danger is not higher than it was during their own childhood - is likely to have zero impact on parents.
I think the one of the worst things the US ever invented was the 24hour news channel. People are constantly bombarded with events that are further away and repeated more often. Producers are trying to fill a 24 hour slot with news which means they have to pump up whats there, travel further, and constantly loop the material.
Even though crime is statistically lower than it's ever been people feel less safe because of media induced paranoia.
But I'm convinced that the threat from "predators" is minimal, yet I still find it really hard to let my kids just go out and play. Luckily both myself and next door have decent sized gardens, so they get to run around outside all they want. But it's not the same as when I used to go out on my bike all day and not return home till I was hungry.
And yet, today, kids can have a cell phone and call from any location around - possibly even be monitored with a tracking signal as to their whereabouts. The ability to know where a kid is down to the meter is within almost everyone's reach, and yet we're more scared about letting kids go out and wander around.
Going out as a kid in the 70s and 80s, I usually had to tell someone what friend's house I'd be at, and was given times (either 'dinner' or '8pm' usually) to be home at, but usually had pretty free reign. I normally stayed within a mile or so of the house, but there were plenty of places to go - small arcades, shops, friends, school playgrounds, etc. My parents had no way of knowing if I was at place X, Y or Z, unless I called home. No cell phones, sms, etc. But we managed just fine.
I've always wondered if there is any factual underpinning that would license such thinking from mothers. I am not sure the threats to children (besides road traffic) have risen so strongly over the last decades, but media coverage may have, creating the impression that the world has become a (more) dangerous place for kids.
However, the change over recent year is not as important as the actual current status, i.e., the answer to a question like: "If you allow your kid to play outdoors, what is the likelihood that it will suffer harm from any of the mentioned sources." (It doesn't matter if it was 50% percent less 50 years ago, if it's still very low today.)
Police statistics should provide the data for an initial estimation of such numbers, which of course would have to be conditioned further, e.g., for neighborhood etc.
But of course, people don't always behave rationally, so having such information - even if it should suggest that the danger is not higher than it was during their own childhood - is likely to have zero impact on parents.