Magpie season is here, and the advice we are being given to allow us to simply live our lives is bordering on preposterous.

In my street, 50 metres from a primary school, big signs – one of about 200 across Brisbane – are now warning people to “avoid this area if possible’’.

That might be a good excuse to play truant from class, but the way we are now pandering each July to November to a few petulant, angry and downright dangerous birds is ridiculous.

Several times this week, I’ve witnessed two magpies harass children, who were screaming as they ran and rode to safety while being swooped from behind.

Two of the incidents were a whisker away from something much more serious. In both cases, repeated swooping meant bikes veered into the path of ongoing cars.

In both those cases, experienced motorists were able to avoid a calamity.

The car behind one of those successful motorists was an L-Plater in a school uniform. Would he have been experienced enough to veer off the road to protect the cyclist in front of him?

Or if the cyclist had been serous hurt, or worse, would that 17-year-old now be the target of an investigation; their final year of high school and future marred by something outside their control?

Protecting magpies might look good on paper. It might even make us feel good.

But is it practical in inner-city Brisbane where people ride and walk and run and even attend school five days a week?

This is not us encroaching on their territory. The problem is brought on by an increasing number of magpies choosing to breed in busy city areas.

It’s an unpopular view, I know, because, we are told ad nauseam, that female magpies don’t swoop and only 10 percent of males become flying missiles. And that they are simply protecting their partners and babies.

From what? I’m yet to see a cyclist climbing a tree to attack a nest. And while that might be in jest, when will we consider ‘protecting’ human beings over vicious magpies?

The excuses made annually are risible. When a young footballer in Adelaide this week was harassed repeatedly by a magpie, an expert jumped in to suggest he might have looked like another teenager who might have annoyed the magpie in a previous breeding season.

Shouldn’t the protection of humans override the protection of magpies, which are looked after by a State nature conservation act – and where humans are liable for serious penalties if they take, harass or injure them?

Aren’t cyclists entitled to take an early morning ride? Shouldn’t joggers be allowed to clear their mind before a long day? Why can’t walkers be permitted to find a reprieve before the school run begins?

It’s only a year since a five-month old child in Holland Park was killed after her mother was swooped.

And now we are being asked to avoid areas, where they’ve settled in for a few months to wage war on those who live and work and play there?

Here’s a thought: Perhaps it would be easier to close our parks for five months each year? Or the school up the road from my house could take a five-month break between July and November?

Or perhaps we can take the advice given out by those wanting to protect these flying perpetrators.

Travel in groups. Wear hats. Wield umbrellas. Wear sunglasses at all times. Stop cycling and try walking.

Is that really feasible or necessary in the few areas where this is a legitimate and on-going problem?

Why don’t we just remove those magpies that choose to make their homes in highly industrialised areas so then cannot spend months taunting communities where young children are now scared to walk to school and parents have stopped meeting others in the local park.

Or do we have to wait for a serious accident, or even another death, before we put the rights of people over the rights of a few menacing birds?