Does English law define "child" too narrowly?

The point you raise is so profoundly interesting that it seems to be too self defeating for a site such as this to handle. If constructive and productive conclusions are to be reached, full communication rather than mere exchange of words should be encouraged. In short, due to this site's built in limitations, we can start the conversation but it would take a better and less limited link to reach a productive and more worthwhile conclusion that would benefit the greatest number of people over a longer period f time.

The problem with addressing the needs of the young is not the rules, but rather, the exceptions to the rules as they are applied. Here, I refer to those young people who shock and surprise us by being wise beyond their years in what they think, say and do. They are the exceptions -- not, the norm. To ask of them that they diminish their talents and abilities to conform to a norm in a public setting such as our respective educational systems is unfair to them. The reverse is also true. To ask a normal teen to rise to a level of exceptional ability to keep pace with their exceptional peers is also unfair. The average kid just being a kid with the normal handicaps such as lack of education and inexperience when compared to their gifted peers provides fertile ground for lack of self worth to prevail. These things must be adjudged solely on an individual to individual basis. Simply put, a one brush paints all philosophy just will not work when applied to young people through governmental definition and regulation.

By sub-categorizing as you've indicated, you would be putting unneeded pressure on most young people to make too many rushes to too many judgments far too quickly as they try to rise to a state of competitive excellence they are not yet ready to achieve.

If thought through properly as to its possible ramifications for all involved, I personally am inclined to vote no predicated on the fact I have more confidence in the young with their honestly expressed naivete than in the old with their misuse of their experience who would legislate them into false chronological expectations. At present, we have far too many laws already on hand that restrict the young from growing at their own pace instead of ours.

The final consideration that leads me to a "caveat emptor" conclusion on this issue is that I know of too many adults in too many positions with too much authority who are dumber than their years than the young people I know who are wiser than theirs. To allow the cart to lead the horse is too likely to lead to yet another added mess rather than clearing up the one we have.

I honestly believe that approaching growth chronologically may be a mistake to begin with. It would be better to judge the young on what they think, say and do rather than on how old they are. In a very real sense, what right have we to demand of them that they mature at our rate of speed when even we don't progress at the pace we set for them? I know too many 40 and 50 year olds who act with the naivete of 13 year olds to deny the rectitude of my conclusions on the matter.

I think they should make their mind up as to why you have to be an adult of 18 or over to buy alcohol and cigarettes and receive more then minimum wage, but if you are over 12 you get charged adult fares for EVERYTHING, despite not legally being an adult yet.

You're an adult when it suits them, a child when it doesn't.

As you have stated Child covers everyone under 18, then you ask if we should narrow these down even further into sub categories. You are contradicting yourself.

anyone under 18 is a child thats pretty universal and it works fine.