The difference is that a plane crash is largely out of your hands. Sending your child out to play unsupervised is a conscious decision. Parents are also not entirely rational. Don't underestimate the personal experiences of the parents either - I've seen multiple kids get kid by cars (and been hit by one myself) and also nearly drowned on multiple occasions so definitely pay a little extra attention when my kids are near a busy road or body of water. Obviously there is a spectrum though - it's possible to be a little more vigilant in some circumstances without being a "helicopter" parent.
I'm not sure that incorrectly assessing risk is limited to just parents either - look at our collective response to terrorism and mass shootings. I'm sure it's already been mentioned somewhere in these comments but the role of the media sensationalizing tragic but rare events is probably significant in this.
> The difference is that a plane crash is largely out of your hands. Sending your child out to play unsupervised is a conscious decision.
There is no difference there. Sending your child out to play unsupervised and getting on a plane each have X risk of Y outcome so your decision is based on those variables.
GP was simply suggesting that the risk of one's child being abducted (by social services or others) is probably similar to the risk of being on a plane that crashes (e.g. so low that most people do not even think about it).
I understand that - I don't disagree that the risk of serious issues is overestimated. My point was more that sending your child outside to play is a routine decision with many more possible outcomes than a plane crash.
Sending them out unsupervised exposes them to the possibility that they could get lost, they could get hurt, they could get bullied, or they could be a victim of a serious crime. Of course they could also have a great time which is why parents do it despite the (minimal) risks.
If something bad happened to your child, plenty of parents would question their decision and that experience would likely influence their future decisions. There is a reason we have fences around pools, marked locations to cross busy roads, teach kids not to chase a ball out onto a road etc - they are situations that children encounter on a routine basis. Being involved in a plane crash as an unsupervised minor is far less likely to happen and probably has fewer possible outcomes.
> My point was more that sending your child outside to play is a routine decision with many more possible outcomes than a plane crash.
You are comparing a decision to an outcome, so that doesn't really mean much. You would have to consider "sending a child out unsupervised" vs. "taking a trip on a plane" (two decisions) -
Potential outcomes for sending a child out unsupervised:
- Abduction
- Bullying
- Getting hit by a car
- Stabbing
- etc.
Potential outcomes for taking a trip on a plane:
- Plane crash
- Grounding
- Diversion
- Hijacking
- etc.
If something bad happened (on their plane ride), plenty of (people) would question their decision and that experience would likely influence their future decisions.
Any number of outcomes are possible in both situations and the level of control the person experiencing the outcome has will varying greatly depending on any number of circumstances. None of this is relevant to the very simple comparison GP was making.
There's so few children abducted by strangers that worrying about it is going to take your focus off of the real risks: Drugs, sex, peer pressure, and abuse at the hands of other children. Later on you have to deal with teen drivers and all the risks that come with that.
If you educate your kids about the risks, give them the tools to protect themselves, and give them advice on how to handle their often difficult social situations, you'll do much better than never letting them out for fear of them being molested, stabbed, or robbed.
GP made the comment that the risk of child services getting involved was comparable to the risk of being in a plane crash. When you send a child outside you are ultimately accountable for that decision if something happens to them (did you adequately supervise the child if they needed it, did they have a safe environment to play in, did you know who they were playing with etc) but if you put your child on a plane that subsequently crashes then no one will ask whether you adequately assessed the risk.
I'm not sure that incorrectly assessing risk is limited to just parents either - look at our collective response to terrorism and mass shootings. I'm sure it's already been mentioned somewhere in these comments but the role of the media sensationalizing tragic but rare events is probably significant in this.