Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

freerangekids.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 534 posts

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#101

Post by djsumdog »

jimmaswell wrote: post #80
FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

Has anyone considered that, like many things, maybe childraising knowledge has improved over time, and maybe it is true that it's dangerous and a bad idea to let them roam around far away unsupervised? It always seemed reasonable to me, even when I was that age myself. An anecdote is that the only bone injury I had as a kid resulted from riding bikes with some other kids who had a "fun idea" of biking down this steep…

I really feel that proposing video games over being outside does a huge disservice to us as people. Maybe I'm centennial, but there's something visceral and amazing about being outside.

I think we have made some changes for the better. I remember as a teenager I noticed all the metal jungle jims at playgrounds were gone. It made me said, but I realized it was probably because falling from one could injure or kill a kid; and today we see that many of them have come back, but in the much safer rope based variety with that cool recycled rubber matting under them.

There is something about risk that is important in helping people develop:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/aug/06/children.pla...

Your own stories show you learned from your mistakes. Yes, you could have died, but you didn't. That action and memory create a different reality for you, and the way you view it deeply impacts the opinion you've presented here.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#102

Post by kasey_junk »

wallace_f wrote: post #88
kasey_junk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ummm. Your citation has the exact opposite conclusion to what you say. So much so that I had to read it 3 times to make sure I wasn't missing anything. What precisely do you mean?

What are you looking at? According to Wikipedia(1), it is 3.9/100,000 in the USA, and 16 in the Americas. From the source(2), it was less than 1 in the USA by 1800. There also variable crime by region in America. Baltimore, St Louis, Detroit and New Orleans have homicide rates around 50. That's higher than any country in Africa or the Middle East. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention... 2…

I mean, I guess maybe I'm taking quotes like "The homicide rate in the US has fallen dramatically over the past few centuries." out of context?

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#104

Post by cknoxrun »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #42

As another in a long line that identifies with this, my partner and I are taking steps to buy a small acreage on the outskirts of a city where we can 'free-range' our kids whilst giving me access to city work. While we also want this lifestyle we think this is super important for our young'uns (5&7) and I'm more than happy to accept the additional commute to give them this. This will take my commute to about 90 min e…

I am very lucky, the core of my city has a practically untouched river valley running through it. My kids play in the creek and woods near the river every day. But from there we are a 10 minute walk to downtown. Are there no wild places downtown where you live?

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#105

Post by stuckagain »

kuschku wrote: post #75
stuckagain wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, one does not simply double the population without limiting the distance people can walk. It's a simple matter of geometry. The number of households in the USA has doubled in the last 40 years. The number of major roads has radically increased. Most (85%) live in urban areas so there is only somewhere to walk in the woods if you live on the edge of the sprawl.

Or if your city is built vertically, but with lots of forests throughout it.

That's very rare. American cities are built on "free market" principles as distorted by politics. They are not built for livability, beauty, or any other quantitative or qualitative measure.

I personally advocate for this type of development, but it's unlikely that I will ever see it built: http://carfree.com/topology.html

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#106

Post by ScottBurson »

frankosaurus wrote: post #99

I'm tired of this claim that kids today are less free-roaming. Such articles never seem to provide empirical evidence to back it up. The term "helicopter parent" is thrown around as if it has some sort of scientific definition. In actuality, it is just a pejorative used to label any parent we have observed being overprotective. These claims about a societal shift serve only to tickle persons' biases that kids today a…

How old are you?

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#107

Post by maxerickson »

simonsarris wrote: post #7

I suspect this is not just an American or British or solely cultural thing but also a number-of-children thing. This seems like it would also be the natural response to having fewer children. If you have 3-10 kids, you can "afford" to let them off the leash so to speak, if only psychologically. Your kids going missing or getting hurt is an eventuality anyway, maybe. If you have 1 or 2 kids, you are investing a lot mo…

I wonder how much of it just has to do with the immediate environment available to kids. People have concentrated into larger cities in the last 40 years. There might not be much reason to give permission to roam in certain directions (say a sea of housing hemmed in by a busy road).

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#108

Post by cowsandmilk »

m_mueller wrote: post #22
FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

As a Swiss with a small child, this is the main reason why I couldn't move to the US or UK. Your 70ies examples are still common enough in Switzerland. 6 year olds are sent to Kindergarden on their own (after a bit of training with their parents). Put the visibility triangle on and off you go. Parents are discouraged by the school authorities to bring by car. Today looking back at this I can see the value. Maybe it h…

Does Switzerland publish where sex offenders live?

One piece of information present now is that I can see all the child molesters within a mile of where I live. You see that half a mile away there is someone convicted of "Rape of child with force" and it messes with you.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#109

Post by JabavuAdams »

m_mueller wrote: post #22
FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

As a Swiss with a small child, this is the main reason why I couldn't move to the US or UK. Your 70ies examples are still common enough in Switzerland. 6 year olds are sent to Kindergarden on their own (after a bit of training with their parents). Put the visibility triangle on and off you go. Parents are discouraged by the school authorities to bring by car. Today looking back at this I can see the value. Maybe it h…

My main concern would be traffic. I live in an affluent neighbourhood with a lot of stressed people driving SUVs. I've had a car run over my foot. On one occasion, my kids had to be yanked out of the way by their mother to avoid being hit by a left-turning car that didn't see them.

My impression is that the Swiss are more fastidious about following traffic regulations. Is this outdated?

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#110

Post by ehnto »

jplahn wrote: post #60
culturestate wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is essentially how it works in Japan as well; once the kids are old enough, the parents will walk with them to school a couple of times - to ensure they learn the route and to introduce them to neighbors they might meet on the way - and then the kids are on their own. Japan's cultural safety net (by which I mean the overarching concept that everyone is more or less working together for the common good) is one of…

I was just going to mention this exact same observation from my visit to Japan in October. I stayed in an Airbnb north of Shibuya and morning and night we saw little kids walking to and from school. It was awesome. That, coupled with everybody leaving their bikes unlocked, was such a stark contrast to what I'm used to here in the US.

The concept of "us vs everyone else" or "other people are dangerous and untrustworthy" is probably the most clear difference in US TV shows when I compare it to where I live.

It always seems to be the exception rather than the rule, that people might be willing to co-operate. The idea of "only we are sane" is another. Assuming everyone else is crazy or disagreeable seems to be common.

I wonder if that is something reflected by US media correctly or if it is something skewed.

Post reply on HN