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

441–450 of 534 posts

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

#441

Post by m3rc »

yen223 wrote: post #202
m3rc wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, people who live in cities don't have freedom? And the user you replied to wasn't talking about space available like in a truly rural setting, they were talking about how it's impossible to live in a suburban or rural setting without centering your life around the car you drive.

Cities offer more choices, rural areas offer more freedom

I don't know if I've ever seen "choices" and "freedom" framed as in opposition. And I don't see how having to pour money into a fossil fuel powered cage and having to keep your kids inside like this post talks about is helping in the directive of freedom.

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

#442

Post by witty_username »

molsongolden wrote: post #358
witty_username wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with corporate greed? I want the best returns out of the corporations I invest in. > Question how we're conditioned to think of lower corporate profits as a bad thing. Perhaps it is my neoliberal worldview, but I think most people are like "corporate profits can go down" for . People think that corporations are owned only by billionares. Lower corporate profits are a bad thing for shareholders. Why don'…

Take it further. Why are you a shareholder? Why are so many people shareholders? Investing for retirement is pushed heavily and incentivized by the government but is it for our own good or is it to provide liquidity in the financial game? If you are pushed to invest then you have skin in the game and are a shareholder who wants to increase corporate profits. This puts you almost directly at odds with all non-sharehol…

People are shareholders to make money.

> This puts you almost directly at odds with all non-shareholders who are negatively affected by increasing profits.

Economics is not zero-sum. Few people such as competitors will be negatively affected, but for the average person there will be little impact. For example, if Google makes more profits I am hardly impacted.

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

#444

Post by mrloop »

de_Selby wrote: post #370
ciaranm wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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"

Ha, I remember knocking on the rear windscreen of a car as it passed me by, I was doing about 20mph, the car not much faster, I didn't even need to stretch my arm to do so. The driver pull over further down the street and I had a conversion with him very calmly, he wasn't happy about me knocking on the window and told me that if he was younger he'd punch my lights out.

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

#445

Post by [deleted] »

_benedict wrote: post #375
mironathetin wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is very true in London, unfortunately ..." I admire the Dutch. They use the bicycle everywhere and in all weather conditions. The result? Their cities even sound so different. It is calm, very little car noise. Amazing.

Dangerous as a pedestrian though - especially if you aren't used to it!

[deleted]

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

#447

Post by Arizhel »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #199
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…

> 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…

>many of us would be happy to never have to walk significant distance, cook, or listen to a local musician ever again.

You say that like local musicians are somehow a good thing... I'm quite sure there's none in my little area that I'd have any interest in listening to. Whether local musicians are good depends on your taste in music and the local culture where you happen to live.

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

#448

Post by balabaster »

Cerium wrote: post #403
balabaster wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an every day occurrence in London unfortunately. People park on sidewalks, cars parked down both sides of narrow streets with no room for cars to pass in opposite directions, you have to pull into gaps between parked cars to allow head on traffic to pass. In some places there you only have inches on either wing mirror to even pass through. If you've never been to London, you can't begin to appreciate the width o…

The Irish are just as crazy, they pass busses at highway (should I say motorway?) speeds on what I would call a one lane road. The busses suck together when they pass. It's terrifying.

We grew up in this environment though; and just like you guys are desensitized to the media hype of which country you're bombing next for their resources (heck your national anthem even celebrates that insanity - bombs bursting in air indeed!), we (for the most part) don't even think about how dangerous our roads are... we just accept that and find a way to enjoy it.

Every country has its own behaviour that shocks and horrifies the rest of the world. Britains roads, drivers and completely topless Page 3 girls in mainstream newspapers that even our kids can leaf through are ours. I guess we'd rather die at high speed in our own car in a land we own where our kids grow up with a healthy appreciation of breasts than be desensitized to the rape and pillage of foreign lands for their wealth ;)

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

#449

Post by monocasa »

brewdad wrote: post #424
monocasa wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I LOVE this idea. Don't want your precious car scratched, then give 3 feet. My street has no sidewalks and cars constantly exceeding the 25mph limit. I'm pretty sure I could damage some vehicles doing nothing more than holding my house keys sideways in my hands as I walk/run. Drivers truly don't care about anything outside their windshield.

They were actively riding into lanes and hitting cars.

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

#450

Post by Arizhel »

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…

>Land in the middle of nowhere is cheap, and property taxes are almost non-existant

Housing is not cheap, no matter where you go in the US. Sure, the land it sits on may be cheaper in some places, but the cost of building materials is the same everywhere, and houses have to be built to code, and old houses that aren't maintained well enough get condemned so you're not allowed to live in them. Of course, you can always just get an old trailer home or something.

>and gasoline is very cheap in the US.

Yes, and distances are far when you're talking about living in "the middle of nowhere", and if you have an old vehicle, it's probably going to have terribly fuel economy, so you're still looking at a significant fuel bill just to get to the grocery store. No, you're not going to succeed in getting yourself a proper diet with your home garden. And you still need some kind of income to buy that land and whatever structure you live in, and that gas for your car/truck.

>There's that whole big-corporation medical care business, but if you're willing to forego it,

That's not allowed unless the ACA is repealed. Of course, with a low enough income, you might qualify for Medicaid, but that really depends. I believe a lot of states won't allow you to enroll if you're an adult, saying you should just get a job.

Post reply on HN