High Street car ban hits Colchester primary school (From Essex County Standard)

What will happen when Williams&Griffin commence the major work on the front of the store. Will they be able to have work vehicles parked during the day?

God forbid that they should actually have to walk their little darlings to school.

Some suggestions. As it's your choice to attend a Faith school:

1. Go to a local school instead of one needing a car journey
2. Take your kids on the bus
3. Park in one of the many town car parks (St John's for instance) and walk a short distance.

Reginald47 wrote:
Some suggestions. As it's your choice to attend a Faith school:

1. Go to a local school instead of one needing a car journey
2. Take your kids on the bus
3. Park in one of the many town car parks (St John's for instance) and walk a short distance.

Well said, Reggie. You are spot on with this one.

Reginald47 wrote:
Some suggestions. As it's your choice to attend a Faith school:

1. Go to a local school instead of one needing a car journey
2. Take your kids on the bus
3. Park in one of the many town car parks (St John's for instance) and walk a short distance.

Totally agree, really cannot see how they came up with the 30 minute extra comment !!!

I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

riaspice wrote:
I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

Well said, these people aren't living in the real world.

It would appear that CBC want to destroy the local town centre economy. They seem to be doing a great job doing so.

I thought the ban started at 11am?

riaspice wrote:
I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

So whats so different about this school from others? Lessons, play times, dinner break, baker days and teacher strikes. Not a lot different there then. you chose the school, dont wine about the journey. If you want to complain the do it to the CBC for letting the developers build thousand of homes without schools. Build the schools first and then build the homes around them. That way the school would be in the centre and the little darlings could walk. Sorted.

HARRY438 wrote:
I thought the ban started at 11am?

It does, closed between 11.00 and 18.00.

That's no help for parents picking their children up after school. And now with the new Bus lanes getting round town is a nightmare. Parents cannot just relocate their children and I know many parents who have not been able to get their children into their local school so what realistic options do they have? Using a bus is not one of those options in many cases.

Colchester town centre, for shopping, is not worth visiting and this decision has confirmed we will only go into Colchester if absolutely essential. A quick run up the A12, park in Copdock P&R and into the Ipswich Pedestrianised area in 45 minutes from home, usually quicker than battling into Colchester from north of the town, which on a good day, can take an hour.

"Will the last one out turn off the lights".

Assimilation wrote:

riaspice wrote:
I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

So whats so different about this school from others? Lessons, play times, dinner break, baker days and teacher strikes. Not a lot different there then. you chose the school, dont wine about the journey. If you want to complain the do it to the CBC for letting the developers build thousand of homes without schools. Build the schools first and then build the homes around them. That way the school would be in the centre and the little darlings could walk. Sorted.

I send my children there as it is among the county's top rated primary schools and is my local school. I also send them there so they will know the difference in spelling and meaning between "wine" (sic) and whine!

Learn to spell and refrain (dont (sic) as you spelt it) from commenting until you are in possession of the facts.

We live in the town centre and walk our children to this school on a regular basis, although on the two, sometimes three days per week when we are both working (one of us works part time), we have to drive them there, in order to drop them off, before getting to work on time.

On a general note, the use of the term "little darlings" to describe children by some commenters, is essentially a rather strange derision. After all, you were all once children; some of you still behave as if you are!

Reginald47 wrote:
Some suggestions. As it's your choice to attend a Faith school:

1. Go to a local school instead of one needing a car journey
2. Take your kids on the bus
3. Park in one of the many town car parks (St John's for instance) and walk a short distance.

Reginald, you do not seem to see the impracticalities surrounding your comments. Regrettably, this is quite normal for you and yes, this comment is aimed personally in your direction.
You do not sound like a working parent, that is at least one with primary school aged children, and I do not therefore, believe that you fully grasp the situation as it is for parents.
The council has changed things since parents enrolled their children in this school. Parents must apply for the school almost a year in advance, and they cannot simply keep changing the location of their children's education because of this council’s sudden whims.
Furthermore your comments both here and generally (such as those levelled against the Salvation Army in a thread yesterday) lead me to believe that you are a faith hating zealot.

I will add 'children-hating' to the list now.

I don't think with the local school comment that Reginald is implying they should change school because of a council change, more that parents should put their children in a local school to begin with, which I personally agree with (although I partially agree with the strive for the best attitude - I went to a local school until A-Level and then commuted 3-4 hours each day to go to a better school for my A-Levels, although this was via public transport and practically no ones parents drove them there, keeping congestion low).

Also, given that you see he hates faith, and he also thinks children would be better off at other schools, I'm not sure how you got to child-hating? Surely if anything he would see going to a faith school as a horrible thing for a child, and thus be on their side? :)

I think it's a valid point in general though; a lot of parents drive their children to school these days and I don't really see how that can be a good thing. Kids are better off with the exercise of walking to school, and we're all better off with less cars on the road. You only have to try and commute during half-term to see how many people drive their kids to school these days, and that's a huge shame really.

Setting aside the issue of parents choosing a particular school over another, the fact of the matter is, and this illustrates it perfectly, the High St is a thoroughfare.

Town planners specifically designed the one-way traffic flow to come up North Hill, down the High St and branch off to East Hill and Queen St. Priory St is one way and can only be accessed via Queen St.

I'm all for reducing urban traffic and providing a safe, pedestrianised shopping environment, but this traffic ban is ill-conceived at best and 80% of Colchester's retail heart is already pedestrianised, which is probably comparable to Ipswich or Chelmsford.

wormshero wrote:
I don't think with the local school comment that Reginald is implying they should change school because of a council change, more that parents should put their children in a local school to begin with, which I personally agree with (although I partially agree with the strive for the best attitude - I went to a local school until A-Level and then commuted 3-4 hours each day to go to a better school for my A-Levels, although this was via public transport and practically no ones parents drove them there, keeping congestion low).

Also, given that you see he hates faith, and he also thinks children would be better off at other schools, I'm not sure how you got to child-hating? Surely if anything he would see going to a faith school as a horrible thing for a child, and thus be on their side? :)

I think it's a valid point in general though; a lot of parents drive their children to school these days and I don't really see how that can be a good thing. Kids are better off with the exercise of walking to school, and we're all better off with less cars on the road. You only have to try and commute during half-term to see how many people drive their kids to school these days, and that's a huge shame really.

Please do not feel that I am just commenting on your comment here, but see this as a more general response in relation to the story.

Your comments relate the time when you went to school. This (as with my own case and other commenters) is of course in the past tense, and so is not really reflective of what is happening today but is aspirational toward how we wish it still were.

As a child, I attended a local (faith) infant and primary school. My two brothers and I all walked to school, as did many other children.

Unfortunately, subsequent years have seen changes; more traffic, less crossing patrols (there are none in the vicinity of St Thomas More school) both of which have necessitated children being accompanied by a responsible (usually) adult person.

Not only this, but the rigorous protection of children placed in part (via the education system) by the regimen of OFSTED, but also that of society at large in relation to the safety of minors, puts a huge pressure on parents to ensure that children are safely accompanied to and from school.

If both parents work, then at least one must drop children off before they go to work, often in a car. The alternative offered by public transport given its frequent unreliability and expense, is not feasible.

Lastly, you mention the difference in the commute during half term. I commute in a car as a necessity of work. I combine this (in term time) with looking after and transporting children to and from school. Many other commuters begin and end their journey with just one occupant in their car. What about them? My four (vehicle) occupants represent a more sustainable use of fuel and resources than they do, yet the sanctimonious cry about the 'school-run' is regularly trotted out by them with all the ‘cotton wool clad comfort’ that accompanies any tired old cliché.

I will say that the Council did the right thing in not altering the residents parking bays in Dutch Q. it seems to be going well, atm.
As for Priory St. make it 2 way from E Hill from 11-1800?
& why call kids 'little darlings'? its not their fault they were born into the biggest nanny-state that civilization has ever known. When they grow up maybe the pendulum will swing back & send 'em back up chimneys again?

Sorry sandgronun64, but you make the incorrect assumption that I'm somehow talking about distant history when I am infact only just out of the school system. On the security issue, I was taken to primary school by one of my parents for the first few years, however they walked with us rather than driving us there.

The issue is that a lot of parents are enrolling their children in schools that aren't within quick walking distance, and that's not really by necessity, it's by the parents belief that they're getting a better education. Fine, maybe they are slightly, although I'd argue that even in badly rated schools pupils who have better family life and respect at home generally come out of school with good grades regardless.

Also you mention that having kids in the car to school before driving to work is better use of fuel; seriously? If you were taking your kids on foot to a closer school and then walking home and driving to work, avoiding the usually slow moving jams that occur outside of school, then you'd be using even less fuel. Just because there's more people in the car for part of your journey before going to a different destination doesn't make it more economical than walking to a local school (unless of course your place of work is next to the school they're studying at).

As my friend Shez just said to me: 'I'm still convinced it's all part of the Colchester Comedy Festival'

wormshero wrote:
Sorry sandgronun64, but you make the incorrect assumption that I'm somehow talking about distant history when I am infact only just out of the school system. On the security issue, I was taken to primary school by one of my parents for the first few years, however they walked with us rather than driving us there.

The issue is that a lot of parents are enrolling their children in schools that aren't within quick walking distance, and that's not really by necessity, it's by the parents belief that they're getting a better education. Fine, maybe they are slightly, although I'd argue that even in badly rated schools pupils who have better family life and respect at home generally come out of school with good grades regardless.

Also you mention that having kids in the car to school before driving to work is better use of fuel; seriously? If you were taking your kids on foot to a closer school and then walking home and driving to work, avoiding the usually slow moving jams that occur outside of school, then you'd be using even less fuel. Just because there's more people in the car for part of your journey before going to a different destination doesn't make it more economical than walking to a local school (unless of course your place of work is next to the school they're studying at).

No, you miss the point. Having four (4) people in a car is better than single occupancy (i.e. just the driver).

But you have your own (theoretical) point to make and I have my own (practical) one to relate.

Looks like we have little common ground to agree on here.

As I previously suggested, during this six-month "discussion" period, can someone at CBC/ECC discuss the possibility and practical sense of reversing the traffic flow in Priory Street? In off East Hill, you have to go that way to get there anyway, out into St. Botolph's Street where you (should) have quick access to Southway West or plus Balkerne Hill North, Mersea Rd south or Hythe East. Helps not only the school but also the many residents along there and the car park itself.

Yes, you're right, presuming the school is exactly on your route, there's no additional traffic or hold-up, and you don't stop your car and use additional fuel restarting it, otherwise you miss the point I'm making which is that walking to a local school is better than driving to a distant school. Having four people in the car means nothing over having one when you cover additional miles and get stuck in (apparently) over thirty minutes of traffic burning fuel that could be avoided by using your legs. It just seems like a weird way of justifying not walking the kids to school to me.

sandgronun64 wrote:

Assimilation wrote:

riaspice wrote:
I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

So whats so different about this school from others? Lessons, play times, dinner break, baker days and teacher strikes. Not a lot different there then. you chose the school, dont wine about the journey. If you want to complain the do it to the CBC for letting the developers build thousand of homes without schools. Build the schools first and then build the homes around them. That way the school would be in the centre and the little darlings could walk. Sorted.

I send my children there as it is among the county's top rated primary schools and is my local school. I also send them there so they will know the difference in spelling and meaning between "wine" (sic) and whine!

Learn to spell and refrain (dont (sic) as you spelt it) from commenting until you are in possession of the facts.

We live in the town centre and walk our children to this school on a regular basis, although on the two, sometimes three days per week when we are both working (one of us works part time), we have to drive them there, in order to drop them off, before getting to work on time.

On a general note, the use of the term "little darlings" to describe children by some commenters, is essentially a rather strange derision. After all, you were all once children; some of you still behave as if you are!

I think what we have here is an upper class status symbol, "My kids go to a better school than yours". The next thing will be a drive through schools so the little dumplings can step straight out of the school door into mummies or daddies car, and vica versa. And dont worry about my spelling, it does not bother me like it bothers others it`s not held me back in life and you could obviously read it.

Assimilation wrote:

sandgronun64 wrote:

Assimilation wrote:

riaspice wrote:
I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

So whats so different about this school from others? Lessons, play times, dinner break, baker days and teacher strikes. Not a lot different there then. you chose the school, dont wine about the journey. If you want to complain the do it to the CBC for letting the developers build thousand of homes without schools. Build the schools first and then build the homes around them. That way the school would be in the centre and the little darlings could walk. Sorted.

I send my children there as it is among the county's top rated primary schools and is my local school. I also send them there so they will know the difference in spelling and meaning between "wine" (sic) and whine!

Learn to spell and refrain (dont (sic) as you spelt it) from commenting until you are in possession of the facts.

We live in the town centre and walk our children to this school on a regular basis, although on the two, sometimes three days per week when we are both working (one of us works part time), we have to drive them there, in order to drop them off, before getting to work on time.

On a general note, the use of the term "little darlings" to describe children by some commenters, is essentially a rather strange derision. After all, you were all once children; some of you still behave as if you are!

I think what we have here is an upper class status symbol, "My kids go to a better school than yours". The next thing will be a drive through schools so the little dumplings can step straight out of the school door into mummies or daddies car, and vica versa. And dont worry about my spelling, it does not bother me like it bothers others it`s not held me back in life and you could obviously read it.

So, you think a state school (not private) primary school is an "... upper class status symbol..."? You think this school is a symbol of the upper echelons? Really?

Wow ... I didn't realize the 'depths' from which you were spouting forth your invective!

As for your spelling it is but a small puzzle to the reader, compared to the task of deciphering the meaning of the drivel you write.

I take it you are not a driver then? Nor a parent?

wormshero wrote:
Sorry sandgronun64, but you make the incorrect assumption that I'm somehow talking about distant history when I am infact only just out of the school system. On the security issue, I was taken to primary school by one of my parents for the first few years, however they walked with us rather than driving us there.

The issue is that a lot of parents are enrolling their children in schools that aren't within quick walking distance, and that's not really by necessity, it's by the parents belief that they're getting a better education. Fine, maybe they are slightly, although I'd argue that even in badly rated schools pupils who have better family life and respect at home generally come out of school with good grades regardless.

Also you mention that having kids in the car to school before driving to work is better use of fuel; seriously? If you were taking your kids on foot to a closer school and then walking home and driving to work, avoiding the usually slow moving jams that occur outside of school, then you'd be using even less fuel. Just because there's more people in the car for part of your journey before going to a different destination doesn't make it more economical than walking to a local school (unless of course your place of work is next to the school they're studying at).

Just out of the school system but you already know what it is to be a parent?

Perhaps with 'age' you'll come to realise that it isn't the same as being a child.

Whilst you do make a few cogent points you base much of your reasoning on assumption.

In my own (factual not theoretical) case, the school is on the way to my workplace, although notwithstanding this to drop them (at a pre-school 'breakfast club) and get to work on time is still an effort. My wife and I 'lift share' to get to work, and on the days when she is not working, she walks the children to school and I catch a train and a bus to work. Using public transport I cannot get my wife or I to work on time if I/we drop children off at school first.

This sort of reality is a situation mirrored by many parents if their working day starts at 9am.

The point is then, that your theory on walking children to school is not universally applicable to parents of children attending this town centre school. I know a great many of them and their circumstances. Do you?

But then of course, you have the answer to everything because you left school recently and 'always' walked there.

sandgronun64 wrote:

Assimilation wrote:

sandgronun64 wrote:

Assimilation wrote:

riaspice wrote:
I send my 'little darling' to this school rather than the local one as this is the best school I can offer to my child!!!
I have to drive as I am a working mother and have to make my way from North Colchester to town in 15 minutes after work.
The High St ban adds extra time onto my journey so I am now late picking up my Daughter.
And getting to the other car parks as suggested is just as difficult.

So whats so different about this school from others? Lessons, play times, dinner break, baker days and teacher strikes. Not a lot different there then. you chose the school, dont wine about the journey. If you want to complain the do it to the CBC for letting the developers build thousand of homes without schools. Build the schools first and then build the homes around them. That way the school would be in the centre and the little darlings could walk. Sorted.

I send my children there as it is among the county's top rated primary schools and is my local school. I also send them there so they will know the difference in spelling and meaning between "wine" (sic) and whine!

Learn to spell and refrain (dont (sic) as you spelt it) from commenting until you are in possession of the facts.

We live in the town centre and walk our children to this school on a regular basis, although on the two, sometimes three days per week when we are both working (one of us works part time), we have to drive them there, in order to drop them off, before getting to work on time.

On a general note, the use of the term "little darlings" to describe children by some commenters, is essentially a rather strange derision. After all, you were all once children; some of you still behave as if you are!

I think what we have here is an upper class status symbol, "My kids go to a better school than yours". The next thing will be a drive through schools so the little dumplings can step straight out of the school door into mummies or daddies car, and vica versa. And dont worry about my spelling, it does not bother me like it bothers others it`s not held me back in life and you could obviously read it.

So, you think a state school (not private) primary school is an "... upper class status symbol..."? You think this school is a symbol of the upper echelons? Really?

Wow ... I didn't realize the 'depths' from which you were spouting forth your invective!

As for your spelling it is but a small puzzle to the reader, compared to the task of deciphering the meaning of the drivel you write.

I take it you are not a driver then? Nor a parent?

I am a driver and I am also a parent and even if I say so myself, better than you will ever be, I let my children become independent rather than rely on me driving them everywhere and keeping them from the real world. I also do not suffer with chronic verbal diarrhea like yourself. Just reading your comments and seeing those words proves that you think you are better and more upper class that everyone else.

I am a parent, and a grandparent. I walked to school, my daughters walked to school and my grandchild will walk to school. I am not a faith hater, I merely don't believe people of faith should claim they have more rights than people not of faith. I do not believe in faith schools whether they be Catholic, C or E, Jewish, Muslim or anything else. I believe all schools should be equally good so any child can go to their local school ,,, by foot. In all this long string not one person has said what is the truth .... my children go to this school because it's Catholic. And if sandgronun64 has the need to be offensive to me I know I am right!

Peace be with you Reginald.

Peace be with you Reginald.

If ECC/the school allocate a place at a faith school or a selective school it is based on the need for that child to receive that type of education which cannot be provided elsewhere such as at a local school. What ECC do not do is give any thought or help in to getting the child there and if you happen to live down a lane with a 2 mile walk to a village where there are only buses every 2 hours that don't arrive in Colchester in time for School what do you do??? The School run is constantly attacked and parents often verbally abused by those who don't know that facts behind the journey that is made.

common sense or not wrote:
If ECC/the school allocate a place at a faith school or a selective school it is based on the need for that child to receive that type of education which cannot be provided elsewhere such as at a local school. What ECC do not do is give any thought or help in to getting the child there and if you happen to live down a lane with a 2 mile walk to a village where there are only buses every 2 hours that don't arrive in Colchester in time for School what do you do??? The School run is constantly attacked and parents often verbally abused by those who don't know that facts behind the journey that is made.

drive part way and then walk... stop whinging

ommon sense or not wrote:
If ECC/the school allocate a place at a faith school or a selective school it is based on the need for that child to receive that type of education which cannot be provided elsewhere such as at a local school. What ECC do not do is give any thought or help in to getting the child there and if you happen to live down a lane with a 2 mile walk to a village where there are only buses every 2 hours that don't arrive in Colchester in time for School what do you do??? The School run is constantly attacked and parents often verbally abused by those who don't know that facts behind the journey that is made.
drive part way and then walk... stop whinging

Drive part way and stop whinging may be the case and is fine if there is somewhere accessible and legal within walking distance which for Priory Street may not be the case without going along the roads that are becoming over crowded due to the ban . The parents concern is access to the east of the town from the north and west. By the way I am not a parent at that school so just giving my unbiased comment which is so difficult with so many people who don't consider the facts first.

Stop being so lazy and walk. When I was about 5 or 6 my mum would walk me and my sisters to school from our old house around the Tesco Hythe area, to Hamiltion School off Butt Road.

The irony here is if you exit your car and walk it will be alot quicker.

Imagine you are a working parent.

You leave work to pick up your kid from school. That means driving for most people, there is no alternative.

The parents are facing an extra half hour journey. Their employers are going to love that arent they? leaving half an hour earlier every day.

All this go and walk or move school to one nearer is just cloud cuckoo land.

I totally agree.

So we are in a 6 month period when comments can be made on the car ban.
Why should anyone believe the councillors will take any notice of us voters/council tax payers, they haven't so far. It has already been decided I bet.

Which is being lazy - the parent who chooses the school that is nearest to where they live and gives them the most convenient journey, or the parent who chooses a school because they feel it is the best one for their child and one that they feel offers something more than a basic education and somewhere for the children to go during working hours? I know which I think is being lazy....

It should go back to how it was. Where you lived had a catchment area and your children went to the school within that area. That's it, full stop, they went where they were told to go, no picking and choosing.

Assimilation wrote:
It should go back to how it was. Where you lived had a catchment area and your children went to the school within that area. That's it, full stop, they went where they were told to go, no picking and choosing.

And when was that then?

Children still do go to schools in their catchment area. My children go to a school that is within walking distance and often do walk there. I walked them there today.

Your comments depict a very balanced individual; you appear to have a chip on both shoulders!

Assimilation wrote:
It should go back to how it was. Where you lived had a catchment area and your children went to the school within that area. That's it, full stop, they went where they were told to go, no picking and choosing.

Yes, god forbid any parent would want their child to avoid a crap school.

sandgronun64 wrote:

Assimilation wrote:
It should go back to how it was. Where you lived had a catchment area and your children went to the school within that area. That's it, full stop, they went where they were told to go, no picking and choosing.

And when was that then?

Children still do go to schools in their catchment area. My children go to a school that is within walking distance and often do walk there. I walked them there today.

Your comments depict a very balanced individual; you appear to have a chip on both shoulders!

A chip on both shoulders? Wow two chips, could you not find some more confusing and very long words to describe chips? How common. But at least I do not pretend to have been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, or talk like I have a plumb in there. And if you walk your children to school then why are you going on about the High Street car ban ? it should not affect you.

jut1972 wrote:

Assimilation wrote:
It should go back to how it was. Where you lived had a catchment area and your children went to the school within that area. That's it, full stop, they went where they were told to go, no picking and choosing.

Yes, god forbid any parent would want their child to avoid a crap school.

My three children went to what you might class as crap schools. One is very high up in nuclear medicine, one is very high up in HM prison services (Not an inmate) and one passed the 11 plus and went on to university and is very high up in the NHS. God forbid crap schools

No mention yet of the elderly lady knocked down in High St yesterday by a motorbike? two people arrested?
Bikers love to show off & now they have an empty town centre street to perform in -except for those irritating pedestrians.I am talking about the irresponsible bikers ,not the more mature ones that will comment on here. Congested streets are usually accident free.

It's funny how the most pompous, and most unrealistic comments, so often start with the words 'living in the real world'. Actually, 'in the real world', it really is a very bad thing that there's been a huge increase in the number of kids being driven to school. I remember a statistic (a few years old now, so I can't imagine it's got any better) that in the 70s only one in ten kids were driven to school. But by I think the late 90s the vast majority were being driven to school.

This obviously isn't healthy. Without even going into the problems of all these extra cars, it's not healthy in the precise meaning of the word healthy. A culture that sees kids exercising less, encouraged by the over-reliance on the motor car, has gone alongside an increase in the rates of childhood obesity. But it's not good for kids in another way. I started making my own way to and from school in the first year juniors (year 3 today). So I was learning some independence, an important part of growing up.

OK, I know somebody will respond that today's childhood is not as safe as my 1970s one. And on one level it isn't, because there are a lot more cars on the road. But as many of those cars are being driven by parents driving their kids to school, this part of the argument falls apart in self-contradiction. As for the other part of the argument on safety, it simply doesn't exist, because there are no more predatory paedophiles today than there were in the 1970s. The media might like to suggest there are, but this just goes to show the way our media works. It's much easier to whip up scare stories about dirty old men in rain coats, or Islamic terrorists, than the things that will really harm us, like not getting enough exercise.

6079 Smith W wrote:
It's funny how the most pompous, and most unrealistic comments, so often start with the words 'living in the real world'. Actually, 'in the real world', it really is a very bad thing that there's been a huge increase in the number of kids being driven to school. I remember a statistic (a few years old now, so I can't imagine it's got any better) that in the 70s only one in ten kids were driven to school. But by I think the late 90s the vast majority were being driven to school.

This obviously isn't healthy. Without even going into the problems of all these extra cars, it's not healthy in the precise meaning of the word healthy. A culture that sees kids exercising less, encouraged by the over-reliance on the motor car, has gone alongside an increase in the rates of childhood obesity. But it's not good for kids in another way. I started making my own way to and from school in the first year juniors (year 3 today). So I was learning some independence, an important part of growing up.

OK, I know somebody will respond that today's childhood is not as safe as my 1970s one. And on one level it isn't, because there are a lot more cars on the road. But as many of those cars are being driven by parents driving their kids to school, this part of the argument falls apart in self-contradiction. As for the other part of the argument on safety, it simply doesn't exist, because there are no more predatory paedophiles today than there were in the 1970s. The media might like to suggest there are, but this just goes to show the way our media works. It's much easier to whip up scare stories about dirty old men in rain coats, or Islamic terrorists, than the things that will really harm us, like not getting enough exercise.

Just for the record, which of the above comments started in this way? i.e. the words "living in the real world?"

sandgronun64 wrote:

6079 Smith W wrote:
It's funny how the most pompous, and most unrealistic comments, so often start with the words 'living in the real world'. Actually, 'in the real world', it really is a very bad thing that there's been a huge increase in the number of kids being driven to school. I remember a statistic (a few years old now, so I can't imagine it's got any better) that in the 70s only one in ten kids were driven to school. But by I think the late 90s the vast majority were being driven to school.

This obviously isn't healthy. Without even going into the problems of all these extra cars, it's not healthy in the precise meaning of the word healthy. A culture that sees kids exercising less, encouraged by the over-reliance on the motor car, has gone alongside an increase in the rates of childhood obesity. But it's not good for kids in another way. I started making my own way to and from school in the first year juniors (year 3 today). So I was learning some independence, an important part of growing up.

OK, I know somebody will respond that today's childhood is not as safe as my 1970s one. And on one level it isn't, because there are a lot more cars on the road. But as many of those cars are being driven by parents driving their kids to school, this part of the argument falls apart in self-contradiction. As for the other part of the argument on safety, it simply doesn't exist, because there are no more predatory paedophiles today than there were in the 1970s. The media might like to suggest there are, but this just goes to show the way our media works. It's much easier to whip up scare stories about dirty old men in rain coats, or Islamic terrorists, than the things that will really harm us, like not getting enough exercise.

Just for the record, which of the above comments started in this way? i.e. the words "living in the real world?"

Well, Jut's comment, in which you gave 100% agreement, was in that spirit. Just for the record, would you like to have a go with disagreeing with the substance of what I actually said?

6079 Smith W wrote:

sandgronun64 wrote:

6079 Smith W wrote:
It's funny how the most pompous, and most unrealistic comments, so often start with the words 'living in the real world'. Actually, 'in the real world', it really is a very bad thing that there's been a huge increase in the number of kids being driven to school. I remember a statistic (a few years old now, so I can't imagine it's got any better) that in the 70s only one in ten kids were driven to school. But by I think the late 90s the vast majority were being driven to school.

This obviously isn't healthy. Without even going into the problems of all these extra cars, it's not healthy in the precise meaning of the word healthy. A culture that sees kids exercising less, encouraged by the over-reliance on the motor car, has gone alongside an increase in the rates of childhood obesity. But it's not good for kids in another way. I started making my own way to and from school in the first year juniors (year 3 today). So I was learning some independence, an important part of growing up.

OK, I know somebody will respond that today's childhood is not as safe as my 1970s one. And on one level it isn't, because there are a lot more cars on the road. But as many of those cars are being driven by parents driving their kids to school, this part of the argument falls apart in self-contradiction. As for the other part of the argument on safety, it simply doesn't exist, because there are no more predatory paedophiles today than there were in the 1970s. The media might like to suggest there are, but this just goes to show the way our media works. It's much easier to whip up scare stories about dirty old men in rain coats, or Islamic terrorists, than the things that will really harm us, like not getting enough exercise.

Just for the record, which of the above comments started in this way? i.e. the words "living in the real world?"

Well, Jut's comment, in which you gave 100% agreement, was in that spirit. Just for the record, would you like to have a go with disagreeing with the substance of what I actually said?

I am not going to comment on all of what you said, simply because it would involve repeating things I have already said in this thread.

Put aside your prejudice for a moment and look at the figures.

The Road Traffic Statistics Statistical Release August 2012 showed that since the 1950s the long term trend in the volume of road traffic has been one of growth. In 2011, the overall motor vehicle traffic volume of 303.8 billion vehicle miles was 3.4 per cent higher than 10 years ago, and over 10 times higher than in 1949 (28.9 billion vehicle miles). However over the last 20 years there has been a decline in the rate of traffic growth. Motor vehicle traffic grew by 50 per cent during the 1980s, by 14 per cent during the 1990s and by six per cent between 2000 and 2009. Of these totals it is cars that have seen the greatest increase, with the ratio of approx. 50:50 (cars:other vehicles) in 1949 changing to 84:16 by 2010.

Population has only increased by around 20% across this time although the population has become older - life expectancy rose 9 years for both males and females during this period.

In short we are ten times as reliant (i.e. 1000%) on motor vehicle transport, although there are only 0.2 times (20%) more of us.

Back to present day traffic. On weekdays traffic generally peaks between 8 am and 9 am in the morning and between 4 pm and 6 pm in the afternoon. At these times traffic is approximately double the average level due to commuting and trips to school.

Friday differs from the other weekdays in that there is a lower peak in the morning and the build-up to the evening peak accumulates steadily throughout the day, rising from 10 am.

The distribution of traffic flows throughout the day for weekends differs from weekdays in that there is a peak between 11 am and 1 pm, which reflects the different types of journeys being carried out. Saturday in particular has no evening peak.

So, whilst the school-run, undoubtedly does add to this total, (no real prizes for those who have said this) what about the rest of it?

These are of course all facts. The 'opinion' offered by so many people that children should not be driven to school, under any circumstances on the other hand is not a fact but a judgement.

Why stop there then?

Why not just walk to work? Are all commuters guilty of not living close enough to work?

Why not ban supermarkets that entice people to drive out of town to shop?

But hey, why bother with facts. Why not just carry on categorising peoples comments and then replace them with your own words?

Why not? All facts and figures can doctored to make the outcome look good. Population down? False. Immigration down? False. Unemployment down? False. Government borrowing down? False. Taking more money off of the people to pay for the spineless jelly fishes inability to run the country? Very true. The list is endless but all this has nothing to do with this storey has it?

I love the picture and the comment Colchester High Street with no cars

Should add (no people)

Made the High Street better for people, but forgot there is nothing there for people to see.

CBC clever as ever