This house would abolish school runs

I would like to start off by offering some rebuttals to arguments that my opponent made, and then move on to my second half of the argumentation regarding individual harms. RUBUTTALThe Con gave two of his own argument in his previous round. Those arguments were: a) how we can strictly enforce laws regarding school run, b) how traffic enforcers in pedestrian lane can help and c) possibility of alternatives failing in some specific situations. I will proceed in a systematic order. Rebuttal 1: Strictly enforcing laws to prevent problems of school run Firstly, this is very unrealistic. A law needs an enforcer to be served. However, as my citation [2] proved, the problem is very widespread, almost in every primary school in UK. I do not understand on what basis, Con believes that such regulation can be so easily carried out at peak-time of traffic when the situation it is already chaotic. Secondly, even if under the assumption that countries will enforce strong laws, laws do not prevent the risk that school run poses because the main problem lies within the amount of school run. Such chaotic situation with vehicle is what causes the biggest problem with school run. Because there are so many cars around and so much students at a confided area, tragic situations where students are ran over accidently by cars happen. Just because we charge every illegal parker a huge amount of fine, it does not mean complicated traffic at peak-time will decrease. Stricter laws will not be practical in solving the main threat of school run as well as illegal parking problems. We need to enforce a method that will fundamentally eliminate the risk. Rebuttal 2: Placing traffic enforcers in pedestrian laneCountries already have this system where cars are only allowed to travel at certain time and where they need to stop and wait until pedestrians pass by. The system is called "traffic lights". This alternative that Con suggested actually supports a way that students can safely make their way to school once school runs are banned. There can be traffic enforcers in roads to ensure the safe journey of students, from home to school. I thank my opponent for providing me with another alternative to support my case. Regardless, this idea itself is very unrealistic and ineffective as well. There is not much of what traffic officer can do to prevent accidents that usually happen in the middle of crowds of cars, in a split second. Rebuttal 3: Possibility of alternatives failingCon gave very limited cases to generalize the danger of alternatives. His explanation to why school buses cannot be an alternative was that the bus can be full. I want to ask how the school bus systems work in other cases in other schools around the world. Nevertheless, I never claimed school bus to be the sole alternative. Con also marginalized adults accompanying the students by giving this claim those adults might be abductors. I do not understand on what basis, Con is claiming the possibility of abduction on this alternative. If Con is to pursue on this point, I ask for some statistics for example where this caused a bigger problem than the school run is currently. Con also regarded cycling as unsafe using two very hasty reasons: that not all students can ride bicycle well and that there is possibility of falling and dying from bicycles. Firstly, I have never suggested that all students should ride bike to school but that cycling can be one alternative out of many. Hence, his rebuttal that not everyone can ride bicycle well is irrelevant and is far too weak to undermine this alternative. Secondly, the negligible possibility of death due to cycling is not a possibility that only this alternative carry. Just about everything has that risk. This risk also exists in school run that requires students to be on car because it is also very possible that passengers encounter death due to car accidents. Hence, this risk that Con suggested cannot be classified as flaw of the alternative but a risk we undertake in our daily lives. Thus, none of my opponent"s attack on alternative is pertained. ARGUMENT 2: Individual IssuesNow let me explain further harms of school run that make the abolition necessary and more of logical action to do. I have two sub-points to approach this case. Sub-Point 1:Travelling on car also takes away sizable portion of exercise time for children. In 2006 in UK, it has been estimated a quarter of adolescences are obese and this rate is still rising. [1] This situation is pretty severe and we need to find a solution to this. The same statistics provided that the reason for such steady increase in child obese rate is due to lack of exercise. Many things contribute in decreasing level of exercise and school run is undeniably one factor. Put simple, parental over-protection is partially reason for obesity rate. From another statistics, it has been surveyed that about half of the school run journeys are less than two miles which can be walked in less than 30 minutes, under an hour as a round trip. This time is an idealistic time to get some exercise that young students need. Dr. Grey, director of public health at Liverpool Primary Care Trust, also said that "Parents could prolong their children's lives and improve their general health by encouraging them to walk to school". [2] We need to start solving child obese rate and banning school run and inducing students to choose a rather healthy and eco-friendly method can be the first step to achieve the aim. Sub-Point 2:As mentioned in my previous round, school run is a culprit that poses a social harm of illegal parking. This is not only socially downgrading but also individually bad for households as well. When parents park on bus stops, spaces for fire trucks, ambulances, pedestrian roads and even in front of school gates, this sets a very bad example for the students in the car. The future generation is basically watching their own parents committing socially harmful actions, thinking it is acceptable. Attempts to resist these offences are very often met with verbal abuses from parents as well as my citation [2] from my previous round shows. Students attend school not solely pursuing education but also for moral guidance. I consider it to be ironic that students are shown of bad examples from their parents on their way to school. ARGUMENTATION SUMMARY It is so clear that school run poses a great threat then walking to school or any other method to begin with. It has been proven that risk of children being ran over by another parents" cars around school is 40 times higher than risk of abduction. [2] But not only that, school run (or people performing school run, which means the exactly same thing) causes other social issues like traffic congestion and illegal parking. 1 out of 7 cars during rush hour is school running vehicles. [2] The harm of school run is not only limited to this but it also contributes in health issues and ends up setting bad example for the future generation. While school run brings so much complication, banning it brings benefits. Not only that those problems will be solved, but it has been surveyed many times that using means of physical exercise to reach school fosters a healthy exercising habit. To list other benefits, in short terms, researches indicate that students who used means of physical activity to reach school tend to be more alert and ready to learn more and thus achieve better academic results. On long term, it fosters students" independence and self-reliance in some cases that students walk without supervision. A practice that creates so many problems has to be abolished to benefit the majority. There is no reason not to ban something that causes loads of problems but brings numerous benefits at its abolition. REFERENCES[1]http://www.devon.gov.uk... [2]http://www.thefreelibrary.com...