It is a universal fact: kids do not drive. Not until they are about 16 years of age, depending on where they live. Instead, kids rely on:
- their parents (to drive them),
- public transit (and/or school buses),
- walking,
- cycling, and/or
- other forms of wheeling (scooting, skateboarding, wheelchairs, etc.)
We do not design a credible transportation network for children, but we should.
In North America, we build our cities with the car in mind: parking, ease of travel, and so-called safety. This is rarely, if ever, conducive to a safe, comfortable, and convenient experience for other road users, particularly for children; for example, wide streets built to make sure that no one waits when driving results in lanes of traffic for kids to cross. We also design public transit largely around getting working people to and from major employment hubs, eg. downtown — again, ineffective for most kids. And school buses can only cover part of a child’s day, plus they need to be able to safely walk to their designated bus stop. So what is a kid to do?
While kindergarteners in Japan may walk to school solo, that is a rare sight in North America. Instead, it is generally understood that a child will have the skills and mental capacity to walk to school without an adult somewhere around ages 9-11 (this may vary on the level of instruction they receive, their maturity, and/or the complexity of the trip). If we follow this guideline, that still leaves at least 5 years where they could be quite independent of their parents, but instead we are slow to design cities that meet their needs so they have trouble getting around safely and continue to rely on their parents.
We are satisfied with voting for speed reductions of 40 kph instead of 30 kph, even though science has repeatedly shown that anything over 30 kph exponentially increases the risk of injury and or death. We choose to willingly ignore international best practice because we have accepted that one step closer is better than nothing. And ‘one step closer’ is all we can hope for the majority of city councillors to vote in.
We repeatedly design piecemeal infrastructure, floating in space, that does not connect to other protected types of infrastructure, such as a pathway or another cycle track, but instead dumps the rider out in the middle of a road with a speed limit of 50 kph: akin to going from a green ski run to a double black diamond. Would you take your family back to a place like that? No ski resort can get away with that, why can cities? It takes significant skill to navigate infrastructure (or lack thereof) that is not consistent nor intuitive and this is inappropriate, especially for kids.
We design streets that subsequently require band-aid solutions, like rectangular rapid-flash beacons to be added because people driving refuse to follow the law and stop for a person waiting at a painted and signed crosswalk; instead of designing the road appropriately the first time around, we are left patching our cities after enough people get hurt. Why do we have to wait until even one person gets hurt?
Furthermore, flashing lights at a crosswalk still do not help every kid get to school safely in the morning sun. When you are a kid, you expect a car to stop if you press the button that illuminates lights to indicate that they are ready to cross. What are we teaching kids when we teach them the procedure but tell them it does not always work? And, that to cross you have to wait until the person driving stops their car? Are we saying that it’s okay to disobey the rules? Perhaps we are just acknowledging that everyone makes mistakes. But does that help them to accept carelessness for once they become drivers? What if the child does not see the car? At 30 kph, that ‘what if’ has more chance of ending on a positive note and helps to put road users on a more even keel of shared responsibility.
In my city, kids can ride their bikes on the sidewalk if they are under 14. Is this how we get around it all? By giving them permission to do something that is not actually possible everywhere? There are many streets that do not even have sidewalks. Not to mention that cycling on sidewalks is actually quite challenging, often navigating pedestrians, driveways, and multiple road crossings. And, what are they to do until they are old enough to drive, (from age 14 to 16) if we do not provide intuitive and consistent infrastructure for them? Nor otherwise design roads for slower speeds and all modes? They are no longer cute enough to be welcome on the sidewalk; yet we refuse to give them space on the road or even limit speeds to make this option credible.
Most parents are afraid of sending their kid(s) off to battle the streets on their way to school and rightfully so in many cases. Yet, in doing so, they become a part of the problem, adding to the number of cars on the road. It is a vicious cycle, one that can be remedied by reduced speed limits that can then lead to better road design. Because design is where it’s at:
- people do not consistently follow rules while driving even though they have been educated;
- enforcement is a temporary solution that fades soon after the police have finished;
- education helps children but they are only learning and make mistakes because of their underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, not to mention that adult drivers make mistakes, too;
- encouragement is nice, but we should not have to plan parties to get people excited to be independent.
Design is the solution and we have to acknowledge that.
A child’s voice is rarely represented in the design phase. They do not have a seat at the table other than through the odd parent. They are a minority yet if we design for them, we are designing for all. By default, we need to consider their perspective; better yet, bring them to the table.
They say that children are an indicator species for cities. The pale/male/stale image of cycling, for example, has dominated imagery of active transportation for decades and is only recently beginning to shift. When we see children included more in that imagery and actually see them out in the wild, we know that we have created a city that is appealing and safe for those beyond the pale/male stereotype of the brave, lycra-clad warrior. Instead, we have created a city where children, women, families, seniors, disabled, and able-bodied people alike, can exist and move when they want and how they want. And all of those people deserve that respect: the right to travel safely by whatever mode they choose.
How successful are we if we are imposing the car on our kids? At age 16, if they choose to learn, get licensed, etc. (or even have the means to do so), even then, privileged few have full access to a car and if they do, are often burdened by the expense of running and maintaining it.
Science shows that reducing speed limits can help to prevent injury and save lives. Science shows that kids need to make mistakes and experience independence at an early age, when risks are low consequence. Yet we continue to deny them this experience. Over and over again. In North America, we absolutely must reduce residential speed limits to 30 kph/20 mph. Only then can we start to design for cities that are appropriate for children.
We need to design cities for kids, now. And then we have it right for so many people.
What can I do to help?
Be engaged. Many cities are reviewing default speed limits nowadays. Write in your letter of support for such initiatives. Write your councillor to express your ideas if speed limits are not being explored.
Want to learn more?
Check out the following resources:
- Designing Streets for Kids (Free PDF Available or Purchase Book)
- BCYS: Cycling Cities for Infants, Toddlers, & Caregivers
- WRI Podcast: Why Sustainable Cities Need to Tackle Road Safety
- WHO: Youth and road safety (PDF)
- WHO: Children and road traffic injury (PDF)
Email me at [email protected] if you have other suggestions to include in the list.
More from my site
This is an excellent post! It eloquently summarizes a lot of similar arguments I’ve seen. I especially like the “children are an indicator species” paragraph. To follow that logic: I think that a society’s treatment of children is a good metric for how just and compassionate that society is. When our public spaces are deadly-by-design for children, when children are forbidden from even existing in them most of the time, what does that say about us?