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

481–490 of 534 posts

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

#481

Post by redditmigrant »

monodeldiablo wrote: post #477
eots wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 driv…

In SF, I see cyclists jumping traffic lights, ignoring STOP signs, not giving right of way to pedestrians in the cross walk etc. etc.. In my anecdotal experience I see more cyclists breaking traffic laws everyday than cars. I havent felt the same way in other American or European cities, so its possible this is an SF only thing.

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

#482

Post by gunnyguy121 »

balabaster wrote: post #448
Cerium wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

You realize "bombs bursting in air" is a reference to the British bombing us

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

#483

Post by balabaster »

gunnyguy121 wrote: post #482
balabaster wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

You realize "bombs bursting in air" is a reference to the British bombing us

I did, lol

You may have missed the tone of the rest of my post which should have implied a tongue in cheek mood... you'll have to forgive how dry our humour is, something else that is uniquely British ;)

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

#484

Post by RonanTheGrey »

ehnto wrote: post #110
jplahn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

I've wondered the same thing. It concerns me that there are more police dramas than any other genre on American television.... and even more that they are so popular. It says alot about a cultural mindset. One the one hand you can argue the shows are being pushed.. but they wouldn't continue to do so if people didn't eat them up.

It's a gut fear that is being appealed to, and simultaneously teaching people exactly "us vs everyone else" and "other people are dangerous and untrustworthy." Even your neighbor. Even your friends.

Makes me sad.

It didn't used to be that way in the US. It's certainly gotten worse.

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

#485

Post by jemfinch »

certifiedloud wrote: post #83
jemfinch wrote: post #63

There's nothing I want more than to let my kids roam like I did in the late 80s and early 90s. Sadly, I can't, because I'm quite literally afraid that someone will take my kids (completely ignoring that the real dangers of the foster home system vastly exceed any risk I would let my kids take).

Perhaps your worry is unfounded: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/...

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not afraid of strangers, I'm afraid of social workers for Child Protective Services. I'm afraid of legalized kidnapping because my preferred way of parenting would expose my kids to small risks now so they're at far less risk as adults.

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

#486

Post by jessriedel »

mseebach wrote: post #433
jessriedel wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outsid…

We could continue this debate over whether the increase in restrictions is rational, by me pointing out that as all-cause child mortality falls, and as others methods of getting children from A to B become cheaper, it makes sense for parents to take steps to avoid sources of risk that were acceptable in the past. But that is not even really my point. The point is that the discussion in the thread is hopeless if most commenters focus on feeling smug without considering all these effects in detail.

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

#487

Post by cparker15 »

redditmigrant wrote: post #481
monodeldiablo wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 driv…

In SF, I see cyclists jumping traffic lights, ignoring STOP signs, not giving right of way to pedestrians in the cross walk etc. etc.. In my anecdotal experience I see more cyclists breaking traffic laws everyday than cars. I havent felt the same way in other American or European cities, so its possible this is an SF only thing.

From my experience, it's all too common in Boston, too. Zero regard for traffic signs, lights, or pedestrian activity. It's usually the couriers that ride unsafely.

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

#488

Post by cel1ne »

DanBC wrote: post #376
fpig wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible. In fact, we have proof suggesting it's possible (me and millions like me who grew up that way and lived) while we have no proof suggesting otherwise. It's not like children died en masse due to being allowed outside, so people decided it was a bad idea. People just became obsessed with their children's safety and stopped letting them outside just in case. At no point was there some large-scale problem…

> It's not like children died en masse due to being allowed outside Do you know what the rates of accidental death were in the 1970s vs today? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested if you know the data. EDIT: indeed, most children killed in car accidents were inside the vehicles, so driving kids everywhere may be increasing their risk of death. And a decreasing death rate might just be better car safety fe…

(repost)

Statistics about my situation (1992, Austria):

These are the statistics about traffic-accidents back then. Unfortunately there's no distinction whether the children were in the car or walking/cycling.

* Austria had 7.8 million inhabitants back then, 24% were 0-19 years old.

* There were 4.682 accidents involving children 0-14 years old

* 4.843 times a child was hurt

* 56 children were killed

Source: http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/energie_umwelt_in...

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

#489

Post by fpig »

DanBC wrote: post #376
fpig wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is possible. In fact, we have proof suggesting it's possible (me and millions like me who grew up that way and lived) while we have no proof suggesting otherwise. It's not like children died en masse due to being allowed outside, so people decided it was a bad idea. People just became obsessed with their children's safety and stopped letting them outside just in case. At no point was there some large-scale problem…

> It's not like children died en masse due to being allowed outside Do you know what the rates of accidental death were in the 1970s vs today? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested if you know the data. EDIT: indeed, most children killed in car accidents were inside the vehicles, so driving kids everywhere may be increasing their risk of death. And a decreasing death rate might just be better car safety fe…

One more thing (can't edit the other comment), I am talking about the late 80s / early 90s, not the 70s. I am not from the US, so it is possible that the "protect the children" mentality was adopted later here. Kids were definitely still free to roam around in 1990.

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

#490

Post by SomeCallMeTim »

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #282
SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a small suburban city and I can walk to: * The library (5 minutes) * A supermarket (8 minutes) * A dozen restaurants (7-15 minutes; mostly local restaurants + 2 fast food chains) * Two liquor stores * A drug store (12 minutes) * A coworking space (15 minutes) * Several antique stores (12-15 minutes) * (Almost forgot) Walmart (10 minutes) * Two barbers (8-12 minutes) * At least three major bus lines And if I…

Curious - what city is this?

Lafayette, CO. Though neighboring Louisville is similar, and Boulder proper has some very walkable areas as well (at twice the price).

Edit to add: Longmont, CO has a charming walkable downtown as well, plus gigabit ethernet for cheap. In case you care. :)

Post reply on HN