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

431–440 of 534 posts

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

#431

Post by baursak »

clarkmoody wrote: post #205
erikpukinskis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have purposely designed our cities to maximize vehicle throughput and require car ownership This is just one specific example of the broader phenomenon, which is corporations seek to remove all of our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities, so that they may resell those things to us as products. Requiring cars to move around is just the surface. We go to coffee shops and restaurants to see our f…

> corporations seek to remove all of our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities Please. It's in a corporation's best interest to give the customer exactly what he wants . We still have "our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities," but we also have the option of a corporation providing for our every whim.

> It's in a corporation's best interest to give the customer exactly what he wants.

Comcast comes to mind here. Or Better Business Bureau and the sole reason for its existence.

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

#432

Post by eots »

monocasa wrote: post #415
de_Selby wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist it happens all the time, it goes something like this: 1) A car comes within centimeters of side swiping me and knocking me down. They don't even notice I'm there. 2) They stop at the next traffic light, I tap on the window to tell them to be more careful. 3) They get angry at me . 4) Other drivers see this interaction and soon you see articles in newspapers complaining about "militant cyclists"

I mean, around me the made a law that you can't be within 3 feet of a cyclist. After that passed there was a group of cyclists going around with yardsticks trying to smack cars while riding. Pretending that there aren't extremely toxic cyclists doesn't help the problem.

Cyclists will often ride between rows of cars that are stopped at a traffic light in an effort to get to the front, probably assuming that the 3 feet law doesn't apply in that case.

Cyclists don't have to be toxic for the whole setup to not work, they just have to not obey the same laws that are in place for cars. Where I live, I'm more likely to be hit by a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing than by a car.

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

#433

Post by mseebach »

jessriedel wrote: post #279
manmal wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crime is not the problem, traffic is. I grew up in a blind alley, and the whole town was really low in traffic. I started cruising around with my bike together with the neighbors at age 7, and we met a car every 10 minutes, tops. They slowed down to a stop, mostly, when they saw us. Fast forward, we are living in a city of 30k citizens now, though on the outskirts; there is a major road about 200m away, and although…

Yes. Everyone is falling over themselves in this thread to bemoan the sensationalist media and irrational fear of kidnapping, but cars are a dramatic difference in the risks of letting children wander that just didn't exist 100 years ago.

> but cars are a dramatic difference in the risks of letting children wander that just didn't exist 100 years ago.

100 years ago, sure[1] -- but there's also a dramatic difference in behaviour from 40 years ago, and traffic is significantly safer today than then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great...

1: I'm sure more kids flat out died from catching untreatable infections when playing outside 100 years ago than are even mildly hurt in traffic today.

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

#434

Post by mseebach »

cperciva wrote: post #209
ma2rten wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this more than a cultural misunderstanding. It would not be considered normal or acceptable to leave your children alone for so long in Germany either.

It's a cultural misunderstanding, but not the sort you're thinking of. The mother in question wasn't following the culture she grew up in; rather, she was trying to follow the culture she had moved into, but failed in a hilarious way due to her misunderstanding of American culture.

But the more important point: She may have been baffled, but she was obviously not terribly concerned by the level of danger she was exposing her kids to.

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

#435

Post by balabaster »

baursak wrote: post #416
balabaster wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The suburbs truly are a barren wasteland of nothing. Without your car, they're a soul sucking prison with all the rules of the city and none of the pay-offs. I now live in rural Canada. I've spent much of my adult life living in dense cities after having grown up in rural England - London, Vancouver, Houston, Toronto. You can't compare the advantages of either environment - rural or city, but the suburbs truly are th…

As someone who considered this, there are a few other factors where cities are preferable. Work. If you're not running your own online business and need a skilled/tech job, you don't have much choice. Schools. Cities often have better school options for your kids. Politics. Rural areas across the world generally lean conservative, and sometimes downright way too conservative.

Work: This is a matter of priority... you can always find ways to pay the bills and put food on the table. It might not be doing exactly what you love, or it may be. There are ways to make almost anything work if you spend the graft making a name for yourself. You're right, it's frequently easier, dare I say simple to find a comfortable job doing what you love in the city. I'm at a point now where I have enough of a client base who trust the quality of my work to give me the freedom to work from home part time which makes this a lot easier. But even in the countryside, if you're capable and interested in learning new skills to a high degree of quality, which I am, there will always be people willing to help you put a roof over your head and food on your table.

Schools: I agree, you can't substitute a good education, but there are more ways to educate kids to a high level than sitting in a classroom. Scouts, Guides, 4H, Outward Bound, there are many stables that need stable hands, farms that need labour. There are endless numbers of lessons to be learned about working as a team, discipline to work on your own etc. etc. etc. There are many ways to effectively supplement their academics that they would never stand a chance of getting in the city. It just takes a different way of looking at things. That's not to say that the academic education kids get in the city is to be dismissed. But the more I hear about our inner city schools failing our kids, the more I wonder how effective they even are in this current climate.

Politics: This is very geo-specific. There are many liberal, conservative and more socialist leaning communities. It really depends on the demographic of that area and who the tax system is set up to benefit. The village I grew up in tended to be much more moderate... I'm not sure how to describe it actually, liberally conservative perhaps? We had a socialist mayor when I was growing up there and the closest town was quite metropolitan, but still enjoyed the benefits of the socialist leaning community that all looked out for one another. It was pretty much live and let live, help each other out, look after your neighbours, proud of their community and the town was very well kept and maintained. If an area is downright too conservative and that's not for you, I'd suggest not living there ;)

Even in rural areas, you can find much more in common with your neighbour than you think, regardless of their political sway, whether they're a hardcore biker or businessman, doctor, lawyer, farmer. We're all in this together, even if some of their ideals don't quite mesh with your own.

https://peperperspective.com/2017/02/01/we-are-more-alike-th...

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

#437

Post by DonaldFrump »

solipsism wrote: post #265
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.

Never has a thread been more full of survivorship bias. If you had juggled chainsaws as a kid and survived it wouldn't be any more relevant.

Indeed. Among the many reasons life-expectancy was worse back then, children were less likely to survive to adulthood. Among "Great Grandpa's" 13 siblings growing up on the farm, the one who drowned unsupervised at the ol' swimmin' hole six miles from home is just another statistic next to the couple who died as infants from disease.

Everyone's grandparents who survived just fine are exactly that: just fine, because they survived.

Nowadays, with parents having fewer children on average and with tragic childhood accidents being more exceptional, I would only expect modern parenting to favor greater restrictions.

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

#438

Post by metaphorm »

noonespecial wrote: post #122

I was thinking about this the other day. Ironically this is the safest time in all of history to let kids do this. Crime is historically very low and our kids want to carry around magical devices that lets us know where they are at all times and contact them instantly. This should be a golden age, yet we've turned it into jail. What gives everyone? Edit: And by "what gives" I mean literally, I live in the US and have…

> This should be a golden age, yet we've turned it into jail

gilded cage. freedom means not _needing_ these complications in our lives. the technology is potentially liberating but our culture is not a liberated culture.

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

#439

Post by thomnottom »

baursak wrote: post #417
thomnottom wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in suburbs most of my life and have never had a HOA.

I've lived all my life without ever visiting China.

Not sure the point of this. The implication of the parent was that HOAs severely restrict freedoms in the suburbs. My point was that HOAs are not a requirement for living in the suburbs.

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

#440

Post by cperciva »

mseebach wrote: post #434
cperciva wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a cultural misunderstanding, but not the sort you're thinking of. The mother in question wasn't following the culture she grew up in; rather, she was trying to follow the culture she had moved into, but failed in a hilarious way due to her misunderstanding of American culture.

But the more important point: She may have been baffled, but she was obviously not terribly concerned by the level of danger she was exposing her kids to.

Social proof matters. If everybody else is leaving their kids alone for a week, clearly it's not as unsafe as it sounds.

(And as with raising funding from VCs, social proof depends on whether they think other VCs are investing, not on whether other VCs actually are.)

Post reply on HN