> I have no authortative figures but there SEEM to be a lot more paranoid
> parents driving in their children now as the illegal stopping to drop-off
> has certainly increased, as has the frequency of letters home about bad
> parking and driving close to the school.

Lots of factors: there are many more two-car families than there were,
so there are more parents with `take child to school' responsibility
who have access to a car.    Indeed, mothers being able to drive is
now universal, whereas forty years ago far fewer women could drive
(you can stop that joke right now, I'm ahead of you).    My parents
ran two cars (actually, two vans with windows not installed until six
months after purchase to avoid special purchase tax) in the 1960s, but
they were in a tiny, tiny minority (and, ironically, I always walked
to school).

Another factor is far more women with school-age children working, and
therefore dropping children on their way to work.

Another factor is the grotesque atomisation of secondary provision,
which means that a lot of children aged 11/12/13 are still ferried to
school by their parents.

Another factor is `faith' primary schools, which because of their
admission criteria tend to pull children in from longer distances than
primary schools used to.

For the record, I walked to school, my wife walked to school, my
children walk/ed to the local primary and my elder now gets the bus to
secondary school.  But as I'm curious about why people drive, so I
asked around a few years ago, and most of the people I know who drove
their children to school either had distance issues or were concerned
about traffic (self-fulfilling, as they realised, but that's a tragedy
of the commons issue).  I only know one mother who even hinted at the
dangerous-pervs-all-around argument, and she rapidly dismissed it.

It's like the increasing need for parking in the NHS: `choice' means
people don't use the closest.

ian

Sue McNaughton  wrote:
>simon wrote:
>>>
>>Hopefully I'll regret this - why ?
>>
>He who lobs hand grenade into village pond must expect big stink!


Very well put, Sue.  ;-)

"simon"  wrote:
>
>Why would you think anyone is using uk.railway to further an agenda - is it 
>a plot to take over uk.* ?


I would love to know what "agenda" I have - it's news to me!

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:CX5BAVNZuFdIFASy@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 02:12:27 on 
> Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Tony Polson  remarked:
>
>>I would love to know what "agenda" I have - it's news to me!
>
> Spout misconceived opinion masquerading as fact, then insult everyone who 
> disagrees with you. Seems pretty clear to me.

Same characteristic spotted here.

It's that "throw grenade into village pond" thing.
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6dja1qF2spcqU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
> news:CX5BAVNZuFdIFASy@perry.co.uk...
>> In message , at 02:12:27 on 
>> Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Tony Polson  remarked:
>>
>>>I would love to know what "agenda" I have - it's news to me!
>>
>> Spout misconceived opinion masquerading as fact, then insult everyone who 
>> disagrees with you. Seems pretty clear to me.
>
Not sure that could be considered an agenda, anyway theres far too many 
people use it as a tactic to single out any individual - especially when 
theyre only an occasional user.
:-)


> Same characteristic spotted here.
>
> It's that "throw grenade into village pond" thing.

Think that one was aimed at me in humour though.

> -- 
> Brian
> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Cheers,
Simon

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:4am774pnrd5vv1tcbtvh4612d15v9u0c8h@4ax.com...
> Sue McNaughton  wrote:
>>simon wrote:
>>>>
>>>Hopefully I'll regret this - why ?
>>>
>>He who lobs hand grenade into village pond must expect big stink!
>
>
> Very well put, Sue.  ;-)
>
Ha - cop out.

Simon