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

321–330 of 534 posts

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

#321

Post by ciaranm »

nvarsj wrote: post #293
Kluny wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Media is part of it, but the other part is this, taken from the first comment on the linked article: "I can’t help but notice how many freeways and roads are between Sheffield and Rother Valley. We can’t blame parents alone for the loss of childhood freedom. Since 1919 We have purposely designed our cities to maximize vehicle throughput and require car ownership and the result is an environment that is lethal for 8 y…

This is very true in London, unfortunately. Cars destroy the city - both by polluting it, and making walking and biking dangerous. Boris Johnson's goal as mayor was to optimise traffic flow through London, which just encouraged more cars. Going to a city like Cambridge where the center is shut down to cars is quite eye opening - lots of kids and people walking and biking. In London it's just a sea of cars driving and…

I make a point of banging on any vehicle that's nearly hit someone and not noticed/acknowledged it - regardless of whether it was me they nearly hit or not.

People get mad (especially people driving vans/small trucks), but it's disgraceful that people are driving multi-tonne vehicles and are completely oblivious to their surroundings.

I'm glad your daughter is ok.

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

#322

Post by umberway »

Asooka wrote: post #312
toast42 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be interesting to see if self-driving cars lead to parents being more comfortable with their children exploring.

This is one of the aspects that are most exciting for me about self-driving cars: no road rage, no hurrying, complete respect for road rules. You wouldn't have to do the "game of chicken" on the crosswalk where you start crossing, but in such a way that you can always bail out if the oncoming traffic doesn't stop. You wouldn't have to fear for your life when simply riding your bike on a wide street. You wouldn't be o…

Yes, more than that: if robot cars could be made incapable of hitting pedestrians, then children might start to roam again. It would be a marvellous unintended consequence...

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

#323

Post by vacri »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #288
cel1ne wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see your point, but don't you think it's possible to teach children to cross traffic safely? When I was little, I regularly walked 3 or 4 miles to visit friends. I had to cross at least one "big" road on my way, where I just took extra care, because my parents had reminded me to.

If you're imagining a single kid, it sounds reasonable. Now think about the millions of kids across the country: what are the odds that in a year, none of them will make a fatal mistake while crossing a street? Even adults screw up, we can't reasonably expect kids not to when the consequences can be fatal. We could easily make our streets safer and more tolerant of user error if we actually cared, look at Sweden or t…

> Now think about the millions of kids across the country: what are the odds that in a year, none of them will make a fatal mistake while crossing a street?

What price a life? What else would you block to save a life? Pen lids? Swimming pools? Marshmallows?

> if they make even a small mistake, they can die. In what universe is that reasonable?

This universe. It is nature's way. Nature is unemotionally brutal, and cares not for a slip-up. We just try to insulate ourselves from its brutality.

Edit to reply to Tullius (I've hit my comment limit): The whole origin of this discussion is the hit to quality of life that losing the 'right to roam' has given. Also, while pen lids and marshmallows are outliers, swimming pool deaths aren't - between 1 and 4yo, drowning is the leading cause of death in the US, and drowning is up there with traffic accidents up until the teen years.

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

#324

Post by vacri »

m_mueller wrote: post #123
TWAndrews wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can mostly trust Swiss people to be that honest. It doesn't work like that everywhere.

Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem? IMO if a society treats people like responsible adults they'll rise up to the task. The question is of course how to transition there. I can't say to have any recipes, but I'm reasonably sure that taking away civic rights is counterproductive. Maybe try to get one electable political party that makes it their thing to protect and even expand citizen's rights and allow for more se…

> IMO if a society treats people like responsible adults they'll rise up to the task.

Like passing anti-minaret laws?

Societies and culture are more complex than you make it sound.

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

#325

Post by vacri »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #178
ehnto wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall my childhood in rural Australia and am greatful for our freedom then and hopefully still now. We would ride for hours all around town, once even riding to a neighboring town along the coast. Doors and cars are also typically unlocked, sometimes the keys are left in the car too. I have always mused that if you wanted to steal a bunch of cars you would just take a trailer to a country town and load them right…

>Doors and cars are also typically unlocked, sometimes the keys are left in the car too. I have always mused that if you wanted to steal a bunch of cars you would just take a trailer to a country town and load them right up. >It all worked out fine because it was a small community and people would know who did what. Steal a car? Where are you gonna drive it? Everyone will know it's not yours. >The other thing I imagi…

You just snarkily made the parent's point that "it works because it was a small community". You even quoted that bit. Weird.

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

#326

Post by throwanem »

bravura wrote: post #253
yen223 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities offer more choices, rural areas offer more freedom

Really? Have you tried wearing drag in a rural area?

Have you tried plinking cans in your backyard, or cleaning a deer, in a city?

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

#327

Post by throwanem »

vkou wrote: post #266
JammyDodger wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably financial reasons due to an increased of cost living.

The cost of living a subsistence lifestyle is very low. Land in the middle of nowhere is cheap, and property taxes are almost non-existant, you don't need to pay 25% of the turnips you grow to the state as an income tax, and gasoline is very cheap in the US. There's that whole big-corporation medical care business, but if you're willing to forego it, the dream can be yours - for much less then the cost of a small sub…

> The cost of living a subsistence lifestyle is very low.

As with Linux, this is only true if your time has no value.

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

#328

Post by vacri »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #109
m_mueller wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

US drivers seem particularly hostile to pedestrians. I spent only a couple of months there, but there were two times (one each in TX, CA) that I was crossing with the 'walk' sign and had to literally stop because a car was turning right in front of me and I would have walked into the side of it. And I'm a 6'6" guy with broad shoulders, not hard to see. There were other close shaves and pedestrian-hostile behaviour as well, but actually having to literally stop walking stuck with me.

Oddly, despite the reputation, I actually felt safer to cross the road in NYC than most other places.

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

#330

Post by TulliusCicero »

vacri wrote: post #323
TulliusCicero wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're imagining a single kid, it sounds reasonable. Now think about the millions of kids across the country: what are the odds that in a year, none of them will make a fatal mistake while crossing a street? Even adults screw up, we can't reasonably expect kids not to when the consequences can be fatal. We could easily make our streets safer and more tolerant of user error if we actually cared, look at Sweden or t…

> Now think about the millions of kids across the country: what are the odds that in a year, none of them will make a fatal mistake while crossing a street? What price a life? What else would you block to save a life? Pen lids? Swimming pools? Marshmallows? > if they make even a small mistake, they can die. In what universe is that reasonable? This universe. It is nature's way. Nature is unemotionally brutal, and car…

> What price a life? What else would you block to save a life? Pen lids? Swimming pools? Marshmallows?

Obviously there's some limit to the degree we can protect ourselves, however as it stands, traffic fatalities are one of the highest-ranked causes of death for kids and youth, and we know of plenty of things that could increase traffic safety while still satisfying our transportation needs. There's no need to debate some silly extreme when we can make vast improvements without compromising quality of life.

> This universe. It is nature's way. Nature is unemotionally brutal, and cares not for a slip-up. We just try to insulate ourselves from its brutality.

Yes, and we could insulate ourselves a lot better if we took up better traffic engineering principles.

Post reply on HN