Why Our Streets Are Failing Kids – And How to Fix It
Three Steps for Designing With Children’s Autonomy in Mind
For over a century, society has turned to blaming “helicopter parenting” or “safety concerns” for the decline in kids traveling by themselves, especially by bike. But the truth is more systemic. Our review of more than 80 studies shows the truth: children are not choosing to stay off the streets and parents are not choosing to be helicopters; our streets are choosing to exclude children.
Child development, family practices, street design and social norms intertwine into what we call “children’s independent cycling” (David, Glaser, & Witlox, 2025). Children’s independent cycling is not only about reaching a destination, but about choosing where to go, when to go and with whom; a concrete expression of growing agency (Zwerts et al., 2010). Autonomous cycling is thus the outcome of a dynamic system that involves making independent choices, fostering skills and garnering access to a larger world. Our results show that this autonomy is not given, but designed.
The Adult-Only Trap
A central issue is that transport environments are designed from an adult, car-centred perspective. Street design prioritises motor traffic and assumes adult height, vision and cognitive processing. Children, however, are smaller, less visible and need more time to interpret complex traffic situations (Barton et al., 2012; Twisk et al., 2018). Streets that work for confident adults (“commuters”) therefore often exclude children by design.
The “Mobility License”
Children’s autonomy develops in close relationship with their parents. Decisions about independent mobility emerge through ongoing negotiation and a gradual expansion of freedom or “mobility licence”, shaped by children’s growing skills and by parents’ perceptions of traffic safety and community trust (Riazi et al., 2021). When traffic is heavy or streets feel unsafe, parents are more likely to restrict independence, while low speeds, low traffic volumes and separation from motor traffic increase perceived safety and support for independent cycling (Ducheyne et al., 2012; Ghekiere et al., 2015; Hook & David, 2025).
These permissions are socially patterned and result in gender inequity: older children and boys are typically granted independence earlier, reflecting gendered expectations about risk and competence (Ghekiere et al., 2016; Riazi et al., 2021). Children know public space is designed and regulated by adults, with little room for their own perspectives (Cele & Ekman Ladru, 2015; Skelton, 2017), and they even internalise traffic danger as part of everyday life (Thomsen, 2004).
Moving the Needle
What does this mean for planners and policymakers?
Design for children’s bodies and minds. Plan for proximity.
Use lower speeds, protected infrastructure, short crossings and simple layouts. Independent cycling is more common in dense urban contexts, where destinations are closer and more activities are within easy reach (Fults et al., 2013).Invest in residential streets as learning and play spaces.
Independent cycling grows out of everyday experiences close to home, with friends. Children see cycling as a source of enjoyment, freedom and autonomy, and as an important part of peer culture (Shaw et al., 2015; Wales et al., 2021; Weir, 2023; Költő et al., 2021). Low-traffic and play streets allow children to practise autonomy and socialise independently while parents build trust.Change how cycling children are imagined.
Treat children as legitimate road users and citizens. Visibility and participation in planning help shift expectations. Children are often framed as vulnerable and in need of protection, reinforcing expectations that “good parenting” means keeping them away from the street. At the same time, Silonsaari et al. (2024) show that for some parents, actively supporting children’s autonomy is central to what it means to be a “good parent”. Such narratives do not merely reflect current practices; they shape what kinds of mobility futures become imaginable and legitimate.
Ultimately, children’s cycling independence is not just a matter of skills or parental trust, but a collective design choice about what – and who – our cities are for.
Joyce David is a PhD researcher at Ghent University (Chair of Cycling, Department of Geography). Her work focuses on children’s mobility, independent cycling and child-friendly urban environments. She studies how street design, social norms and everyday experiences shape children’s autonomy in public space. The ideas discussed here build on a recent publication in Transport Reviews, “Pedaling towards autonomy: a multidisciplinary exploration on children’s independent cycling mobility”.
If you would like to read more insights from recent research on cycling, urban mobility, and inclusive urban spaces, consider subscribing to our Substack:
Read next:
References
Barton, B., Ulrich, T., & Lyday, B. (2012). The roles of gender, age and cognitive development in children’s pedestrian route selection. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(2), 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01202.x
David, J., Glaser, M., & Witlox, F. (2025). Pedaling towards autonomy: a multidisciplinary exploration of children’s independent cycling mobility. Transport Reviews. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2025.2602185.
Ducheyne, F., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Spittaels, H., & Cardon, G. (2012). Individual, social and physical environmental correlates of ’never’ and ’always’ cycling to school among 10 to 12 year old children living within a 3.0 km distance from school. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 142. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-142.
Fults, K. K., Fransen, K., & Boussauw, K. (2025). An exploration into the levels of automobile usage and independent mobility for children in Belgium. Children’s Geographies, 23(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2024.2431719
Ghekiere, A., Van Cauwenberg, J., Carver, A., Mertens, L., de Geus, B., Clarys, P., Cardon, G., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Deforche, B. (2016). Psychosocial factors associated with children’s cycling for transport: A cross-sectional moderation study. Preventive Medicine, 86, 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.03.001
Ghekiere, A., Van Cauwenberg, J., Mertens, L., Clarys, P., de Geus, B., Cardon, G., Nasar, J., Salmin, J., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Deforche, B. (2015). Assessing cycling-friendly environments for children: Are micro-environmental factors equally important across different street settings?. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0216-2
Hook, H., & David, J. (2025). Designing ideal streetscapes with youth: Exploring transport values through participatory urban planning in Flanders. Journal of Urban Mobility, 8, 100157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2025.100157
Költő, A., Gavin, A., Walsh, S., & Molcho, M. (2021). Physical activity, active travel and sport participation among children and adolescents in Ireland: Findings from the HBSC 2018 study. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Ireland, Department of Health & HSE.
Riazi, N. A., Brussoni, M., Vertinsky, P., & Faulkner, G. (2021). “Well, you feel more responsible when you’re unsupervised”: Exploring family perspectives on children’s independent mobility. Children, 8(3), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8030225
Shaw, B., Bicket, M., Elliott, B., Fagan-Watson, B., Mocca, E., & Hillman, M. (2015). Children’s independent mobility: An international comparison and recommendations for action. Policy Studies Institute.
Silonsaari, J., Simula, S., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (2024). From intensive car-parenting to enabling childhood velonomy? Explaining parents’ representations of children’s leisure mobilities. Mobilities, 19(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2023.2200 146
Skelton, T. (2017). Research on youth transitions: Some critical interventions. In M. Cieslik & G. Pollock (Eds.), Young people in risk society: The restructuring of youth identities and transitions in late modernity (pp. 100–116). Routledge.
Thomsen, T. U. (2004). Children—automobility’s immobilized others? Transport Reviews, 24(5), 515– 532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000181680
Twisk, D., Wesseling, S., Vlakveld, W., Vissers, J., Hukker, N., & Slinger, W. (2018). Higher-order cycling skills among 11- to 13-year-old cyclists and relationships with cycling experience, risky behavior, crashes and self-assessed skill. Journal of Safety Research, 67, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.10.003
Wales, M., Mårtensson, F., & Boldemann, C. (2021). ‘You can be outside a lot’: Independent mobility and agency among children in a suburban community in Sweden. Children’s Geographies, 19(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2020.1773401
Weir, H. (2023). Children’s autonomous mobility and their well-being. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 4, 100134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2023.100134
Zwerts, E., Allaert, G., Janssens, D., Wets, G., & Witlox, F. (2010). How children view their travel behaviour: A case study from Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Transport Geography, 18(6), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.10.002
 | A guest post by
|
This really resonated, Joyce. Framing children’s independence as something that’s designed rather than earned or withheld feels like a crucial shift. I especially appreciated the point about residential streets as learning spaces, not just traffic corridors. It makes the problem and the solution feel much more concrete.
Oh wow, I love this! I only just saw it after I published a similar piece from a theological lens: https://jesusurbanist.substack.com/p/jesus-loves-the-little-children-our
Children are full people, and deserve inclusion in our street design!