Forum Topic

Free travel for under 18's on public transport

I know that having what seems like half a school clambering onto a bus at once is disruptive but the free travel has made a huge difference to young people and poor families.There is a move to scrap this scheme and if you would like to support it please sign the online petition at http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-12823-f0.cfmThank you!

Kath Richardson ● 6682d12 Comments

"Thats simply isn't true there is very significant body of evidence undertaken by the NHS and UK Youth Sports Trust that links childhood obesity with the nature of travel."It's not quite clear if you mean there is or isn't a significant body of evidence on obesity and the nature of travel. There is certainly a lot of emphasis on travel, Walk to School Weeks etc. but I don't think anyone would claim that the way a child gets to school is a primary factor in determining whether or not they become obese. Even a walk of a mile each day wouldn't burn up enough calories to make much of a difference. If you Google some relevant terms you will see that social class and level of education of parents are probably the most important factors.If a child has a generally sedentary lifestyle they will tend to be obese and it would certainly help if they did walk to school but not if they just came home and sat in front of the TV.  The research also suggests that obesity is inherited, not genetically, but if parents live a less active lifestyle this will be passed onto their kids. I think this has become more important in the current environment where kids need parental support in getting them involved in structured activities whereas in our day we would just go to the park - jumpers for gold posts etc.I'm not disputing encouraging kids to walk to school is a good thing although it involves getting to close on a daily basis to the M4/A4 there are other health considerations to take into account. However, I do think that any attempt to ration free travel to encourage walking would backfire.

Dan Evans ● 6679d

Thats simply isn't true there is very significant body of evidence undertaken by the NHS and UK Youth Sports Trust that links childhood obesity with the nature of travel.I was at a meeting about this the other day inrelation to a new BSF Academy in Lewisham.

Conal Stewart ● 6679d

I think there is a danger of confusing the issues of obesity and travel to school. Very few children in secondary school are driven in by their parents who have better things to do. The vast majority walk or take public transport. Most children driven into school are at primary level. Parents generally do this because it would be totally impractical to walk them or take them on public transport.The official figures seem to suggest that obesity in children is primarily class determined. Poorer children also  tend to have a poorer diet and take less exercise. Generally speaking the kids that I see around are not obese. There is less opportunity to play in an unstructured way to get exercise but there are far more organised events and clubs than there were when we were kids. Did does put the onus on parents to bring them to them and obviously this is more difficult for a car-less single mother than a better of conventional family unit.

Dan Evans ● 6679d

Such is the mentality of parents in this city that abolishing free travel would probably increase car driving a little.  In many respects accusations of "I blame the parents" is exactly right.I didn't say I was against free travel, I said I was against a blanket free travel arrangement for children. Free travel should be targetted and on basis of need.  Bus passes work perfectly well for children in Belfast And Manchester for children on single route journeys from a point A (home) to point B (school).  In this respect it allows for better policing of buses.  The schools sign the forms for the children agreeing to the pass being issued from the bus company. It seems to work well.I do suspect though that London parents need to catch themselves on and stop pushing kids to travel long distances if they simply don't need to.  I'd far rather have a well-rounded child who goes to an average school nearby thereby having to spend less time in transportation and having more time to do normal children's activities be fit, and be exposed to risk. What is the alternative? A child that is stressed and fat? We are bottom of the pile in this 21 industrialised nations survey simply because we won't let children be children.  Its the double edged sword of pushy ambitious risk-phobic parents and the type of parents that think a mcdonalds and/or greggs breakfast is perfectly ok.

Conal Stewart ● 6680d

Excellent post.

Colin Murphy ● 6680d

Wouldn't abolishing free bus travel mean that more children were driven to school?I'm not against free bus travel in principle, its just that the quid quo pro for the rest of the travelling public should be better standards of behaviour.

Dan Evans ● 6681d

An excellent post Conal.  You've covered all the major points.  There's nothing more to say.

Michael Fletcher ● 6681d

Matt,A blanket provision of free travel for under 16 IS inappropriate. Have you seen the child obesity statistics in London? They are well above the national average. There is simply no excuse for that. I know research is currently being undertaken by UK Youth Sports to measure the impact of free transport for kids in London and everyone in the Labour camp had better observe the results when they come. The anticipation is that free travel has had a compounding impact on the explosion in child obesity rates.  The only exercise most of these fat children now get is walking to Greggs and Martins from the bus stop to pick up fat, MSG, and sugar filled snacks nicely loading them up for their poor teachers in the morning.I don't know how many times i've been on an E2, E8 or 65 and witnessed lazy children going two stops, at best, armed with disgusting food and showing no signs of having the desire to ever put one foot in front of the other to walk a few hundred yards. Blanket free travel simply has to stop for children above the age of 12 at least - unless accompanied by an adult or in possession of a travel pass between two specified points, i.e. home and school.  There is no reason in the world why school children in this large city should not be walking to school.  None of you life long urban dwellers seem to appreciate how ludicrous you are being about schools and how children get to their schools. If you really do believe your choice of school for your child is a fundamantal parental right then how your child gets to that school has to be part of the overall equation and is fundamental to your child's quality of life. Stop seeing them as separate issues because I really think you Londoners do. For those of us that come from rural areas know that choice is a luxury and it is not a God-given right.Most children in London should be perfectly capable of getting off their behinds and take themselves a mile or so up the road to school without having to need the bus or have Mummy and Daddy drive them. I don't need to hear any arguments about inclement weather and perverts being everywhere.  The climate here is mild and children are no more at risk from perverts today as they were thirty years ago.  The information age and risk-phobic parents has caused the real harm in that respect.Stop the free travel, target it on those that really do need the service on a means tested basis and give those that do need free travel limited bus passes. This isn't just an issue of children from poorer families saving money either...I appreciate some children do have to take several buses to school for good reason, i.e faith, learning disablities etc. But if you are a parent who has made the choice to send your child to that award winning school four miles away instead of the ordinary ugly looking one down the road then think about the broader quality of life issues your child faces right now in their life.  Does your child really need to be travelling an hour or so to get to school in London? No they do not. And if you have the financial means to drive your child to school four miles and dump them off in a 4X4 destroying the environment of others you have the financial capability to give your child the money to pay for bus transportation and thats your choice by being a pushy parent.  There are reasons why this country is supposedly bottom of the pile in respect of quality of life in children. It is one extreme or the other.  If they aren't kicked out the door to eat mcdonalds and terrorise adults on buses, they are socially incapable fat little things wrapped in cotton wool who have no spare time to have informal recreational unorganised activity.  They all have one thing in common they can't walk the length of themselves these days in this city and free transport is part of the problem.Oh and I have to reiterate. The Tories/ICG aren't right either on this issue. School buses Simpsons style makes sense in rural areas, but certainly not in urban Hounslow.

Conal Stewart ● 6681d

Why should school children have such free travel? It was not that long ago that one qualified for a pass from home to school if your journey was over a minimum distance. This encourages idleness (and by extension obesity) and makes schooltime public transport an unpleasant experience.

Colin Murphy ● 6681d

I think part of the backlash against free travel for children is down to behaviour. Many buses are unusable by adults at the end of the school day. We were promised that free travel would improve behaviour because deliquents would have their Oyster cards confiscated but this has not happened. I can understand the dangers of refusing a child access to a bus if they haven't got a card but a more robust response to poor behaviour is needed because the situation is deteriorating.

Dan Evans ● 6681d

It's one of the proposals put forward by the Conservatives on the London Assembly in response to the Mayor of London's budget, which once again provides for free travel for under 16s.Their alternative proposal, which also seems popular amongst Conservative/ICG councillors here in Hounslow, is dedicated school buses, of the kind usually seen driven by Otto in the Simpsons.Now, in parts of the US - generally, small towns and rural districts - these work, as journeys are fairly linear. However, anyone with any practical knowledge of London will know how nonsensical an idea this is.There is a huge benefit in allowing under 16s free travel. Obviously, it helps very many families financially. But it also gets young people accustomed to travrelling on buses and public transport in general. If they get used to it at a young age then there is a far greater chance of them maintaining the habit into adulthood, with the benefits that follow on from that.

Matt Harmer ● 6682d

This scheme has been a great saving for my son.  There has been one down side for other travellers using the local buses however, as the teens will often hop on a bus to travel one or two stops, when they would previously have walked!Have you seen the 2 for the price of 1 entry offers for the spring, Kathleen?www.2for1entry.co.uk

Sarah Felstead ● 6682d