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

471–480 of 534 posts

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

#471

Post by eru »

eots wrote: post #432
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.

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.

In London riding to the front is actually encouraged, if I understand local traffic mores right. (And it seems like the sensible thing in any case.)

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

#472

Post by stuckagain »

oftenwrong wrote: post #467
stuckagain wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a critique of that design on new world economics: http://newworldeconomics.com/lets-kick-around-carfree-com/ I think the author did a poor job of arguing there compared to his usual articles, but he does make some decent points.

It's not Venice, that's true. I simply use it as an example of how a city of millions of people could easily be built in a compact area, without high rise apartment buildings, and with tons of open space.

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

#473

Post by balabaster »

nickt wrote: post #161
saurik wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually got stopped by the local police a year or two ago for going on a walk during a holiday, as they received reports of some strange guy walking alone.

Me too. Cop said, "are you English?" "Yep" "Though so"

Hahaha I get this every time I cross a street upon a suitably large gap in traffic rather than waiting for the lights... because that's what we learn growing up in England where almost nobody waits for the lights - especially if there's a gap in traffic. The numbers of people gobsmacked at this behaviour here is... funny, honestly.

As a pedestrian, are you really going to stand around and be dictated what you can and can't do by a stupid fcking light? Life is short, get your head out of your phone, pay attention to your surroundings and cross the fcking road before the little light comes to tell you that your time is up and it's your turn to go to the next life and you missed it.

Every time someone baulks at me for doing it, I can't help but grin and remember the quote from the original Point Break:

"It was about us against the system. That system that kills the human spirit. We stand for something. To those dead souls inching along the freeways in their metal coffins ... we show them that the human spirit is still alive."

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

#474

Post by Arizhel »

vkou wrote: post #468
Arizhel wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 alway…

Most of the cost of housing is in labor, not building materials. And, as you said, there's always the trailer. It'll be cold in the winter, though. My parents do part-time homesteading (My father works - he will retire in a few years) - and they only need to go into town once a month for staples - supplemental chicken feed, milk, fertilizer, etc. Fuel economy isn't that big a deal. The ACA tax is based on your income…

The other problem you're missing is what happens when you have health problems? No health insurance means you're screwed as soon as you have any kind of problem at all.

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

#475

Post by eru »

ambicapter wrote: post #453
saiya-jin wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is impossible in real world. if you go 50 kmh in 50 kmh zone, and small kid jumps 2m in front of your car suddenly, there is nothing anybody or any software can do. if it's 5m, would you rather crash and kill the parents than the kid? what about 2 kids? it's dangerous direction of thoughts, meaning kids won't have to be careful when outside. but you have bikes, you have tons of other dangers.

Take an evasive maneuver at the very limits of the car's handling, brought to you by the speed of computers, while all the other cars around you adjust at similarly lightning-fast speeds?

Plus kids seldom appear completely out of nowhere. They will be tracked even when they are just on the side of the road.

It will still be possible to hit a pedestrian, but much less likely.

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

#476

Post by vkou »

Arizhel wrote: post #474
vkou wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the cost of housing is in labor, not building materials. And, as you said, there's always the trailer. It'll be cold in the winter, though. My parents do part-time homesteading (My father works - he will retire in a few years) - and they only need to go into town once a month for staples - supplemental chicken feed, milk, fertilizer, etc. Fuel economy isn't that big a deal. The ACA tax is based on your income…

The other problem you're missing is what happens when you have health problems? No health insurance means you're screwed as soon as you have any kind of problem at all.

erikpukinskis - the great-grand-parent of my post was talking about dropping out of the rat race that is modern life, which presumably means that you are OK with not having access to a $400,000 treatment plan should you get lung cancer. You can't really have it both ways, though.

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

#477

Post by monodeldiablo »

eots wrote: post #432
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.

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.

What a strange double standard. Presuming your anecdote is true (and statistically, it isn't), your greatest risk is minor injury if hit by a cyclist, while that's the best possible outcome from an interaction with a car.

And no, cyclists don't often ride between lines of cars. Some cyclists do that. Just like some drivers are reckless jerks.

Every group has bad actors. I'd even wager both groups -- cyclists and drivers -- have the same percentage of morons.

You seem to be claiming that all cyclists have to be saints "for the setup to work", which is bizarre. The rules in most cities in the US clearly prioritize cars over people. As plenty of other cities around the world have demonstrated, changing those priorities changes behavior.

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

#478

Post by kuschku »

oftenwrong wrote: post #467
stuckagain wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a critique of that design on new world economics: http://newworldeconomics.com/lets-kick-around-carfree-com/ I think the author did a poor job of arguing there compared to his usual articles, but he does make some decent points.

The articles of this author are interesting, but he’s missing something.

Really narrow roads (But he is right that the #1 priority is in proportions.

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

#479

Post by erroneousfunk »

tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #297
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.

I actually share the same understanding of summer camp as the woman (I’m from Germany). For me, summer camp means I pay for the stay of my children, drop off my children and leave because there are employees that take care of all the children in the camp. I would also not expect a 1:1 care, just enough employees to take care of the children. Of those employees I would expect many to be just around 18–21 years of age…

There's a difference between camps with employees around to supervise children (a "summer camp") and camps where a family might go by themselves with just a tent and a van and stay for a weekend. Campsites for families/adults might have just a single park ranger there 8 hours a day, or no supervision at all. They usually provide a cleared area in the woods for a car and a tent, a water spigot, maybe an electricity hookup, a fire pit in the middle of a clearing, but that's about it. They're often located in more scenic campgrounds for people who don't like to hike, but want to be out in the wilderness, build a fire, cook food outdoors, and sleep in a tent.

The woman from Germany left her kids at a campsite/clearing in the woods, with no supervision -- not a summer camp designed for children, with adults (or, at least, college students) providing some type of supervision.

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

#480

Post by redditmigrant »

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"

As a pedestrian in SF, I feel a lot more threatened by cyclists than by cars. The car-pedestrian right of way rules are clearly established, but the pedestrian-cyclist rules, if they exist, seem to be ignored by cyclists. I have numerous times had cyclists bike 2 feet in front of me instead of stopping at a pedestrian crossing. I am not sure cyclists in SF grok the idea of a stop sign either. Same thing with traffic lights, which a lot of cyclists treat as mere suggestions.
Post reply on HN