Pages of forum entries ? difficult not to add my bit?! I wonder if you are still reading Gillian/Oliver... I?m glad the school has had a chance to put their side now ? and as a parent directly mentioned in the Times article I think it is important to correct another error, which has been repeated as if it was fact. In reality, there wasn?t some kind of ?parents revolt?, banging on the door of the headmaster. My own view about the Schonrock school run decision (which has been going on for ages) was mild bemusement. I can?t say I thought about it often. I didn't respond to the email described (a University of Westminster study done in the 1990s) because it was very complicated and seemed abit out of date - but more importantly, it seemed like hard work and too similar to the work I do in my dayjob! I think (although don't know) that this would have been the view of other parents too. My own ?risk assessment? is that the risks associated with unaccompanied trips to school for 5 years olds are low ? but not negligible (I think because we all like our cars we have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to numbers of RTA-related injuries). Stranger-danger? I agree that does seem far-fetched. But I also can?t see the benefits are so great either at this stage. So those are my views. FYI I guess I?ll be gradually building a bit more of the independence you describe into my children?s lives over the next couple of years. But having seen my own children handle bicycles on the path or road ? I know they are not ready now. But this went very, very public, and that?s the bit I didn?t like. I think you must always assume you are on a loser when your view is simplified down to a ?nanny-state?/"social-worker" bashing session, and backed by the Daily Mail and Boris Johnson (who goes public, even admitting he didn't know the facts - that is irresponsible). It was so unnecessary: the school didn't deserve it, and niether did our children. Dominic PS everyone else is anonymous on this forum - am I about to find out why??