Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, a reasonable risk is tolerable. But, for instance, car-centric infrastructure has *intensely* exacerbated those risks: space is completely surrendered to cars, sidewalks are non-existent, crosswalks go across 8 lanes of 60+mph traffic. All of this, plus terrible public transport, makes it impossible to travel anyway except by car. This leads to lack of independence for children, and sedentarism.
These risks have not increased substantially in the last 20 years, and in many ways they have decreased e.g. the mandatory backup cameras in new cars.
Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
521–530 of 531 posts
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
> any interesting places to go to were to far away to even reach conveniently by bike. Isn't this just a result of the country being more spread out in general? For this reason, cars are obviously useful. And because people have them... well, yes, it becomes circular. I think bikes are a pretty common thing to own in the U.S., though. Adults mostly use them for recreation, but minors definitely use them to get around…
Isn't this just a result of the country being more spread out in general? yes, but why is that? because people chose it that way and cars supported it. yes, it is circular. it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty in between. these urban centers exist. eg. new york, dc and a few others that i am not familiar with, but contrast with san di…
The country is a hell of a lot older than the automobile, and much development occurred before it. It's spread out in general because we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it.
> it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty in between.
Not everyone wants to live in an urban center. I would be chronically depressed in such an environment.
> new york, dc and a few others that i am not familiar with, but contrast with san diego and los angeles
These are all huge cities --- metropolises --- (okay, DC is a bit of a weird one) and while they have large populations, I cannot consider them representative of the U.S. overall.
> the area i am talking about was one of those bedroom communities outside of D.C. probably the worst example.
Absolutely; this is not representative of the U.S.
> they are not using them to go to school, or to the movies or for errands, because they can't
Because they don't want to. This used to be different. Some decades past, it was not unusual to bike a few miles (say, less than 10) to get where you wanted to go. It was also not considered unreasonable to walk a few miles to school everyday, often over terrain that I see people in this thread calling "unwalkable". Society changed.
When I didn't have a license for several years, I biked everywhere. My maximum range for a day trip was about 35 miles. I don't do that anymore; it's just far more convenient to do that sort of thing in a car, especially, you know, when there's a foot of snow on the ground. But the way I see it, you do what you have to do.
> cars absolutely are the issue because not every youth can afford them
Yes, but in general, that means you borrow your parents' car, and save for something cheap. Something you repair and maintain yourself if you need to. Used auto prices got kind of crazy since the pandemic, but my experience growing up with decidedly non-wealthy families, is that people found a way.
One thing that is a real issue financially, is the insane premiums on mandatory auto insurance in some areas, notably New York state.
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you expound upon this? Specifically, why cars are bad for personal independence, but bicycles are just fine?
Cars are extremely space inefficient, so when cities are built for cars it is done at the expense of more efficient transportation methods. And what you're left with in the end is a very inefficient transportation system that REQUIRES a car. An efficient system would simply make cars optional and therefore you have more independence as you have more options - not to mention a system better at moving people. Follow Br…
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I’m doing a big shop I just get it delivered to my door. Costs from $2-$10AUD. That... adds up quickly. And delivery services have other problems, such as actually getting the items you want. This may not be a problem for you; it's been a problem for me. Also, I can't help but point out that instead of driving out in your car for your groceries, you're having someone else drive the groceries to you. In a car.…
It’s far cheaper to get them delivered than to drive myself when you factor all the costs of a car. They also don’t deliver them in a car, they deliver them in a refrigerated small truck which makes multiple deliveries to the same street/area in one trip. Often a few to the same building as me. I’ve regularly evaluated the cost effectiveness of getting deliveries/Ubers vs owning a car. And owning always comes out mas…
> They also don’t deliver them in a car, they deliver them in a refrigerated small truck which makes multiple deliveries to the same street/area in one trip. Often a few to the same building as me.
Ah, interesting. Very different from my area. Where do you live, roughly speaking? If you don't mind.
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
These risks have not increased substantially in the last 20 years, and in many ways they have decreased e.g. the mandatory backup cameras in new cars.
Cars are much bigger (easier to accidentally hit stuff with them), taller (harder to see things at street level) and heavier (take longer to stop and hit much harder) and smartphones greatly reduce driver attention.
...and the smartphone part I obviously wouldn't dispute.
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] but in general car deaths have been increasing over the past decades, [...] Are you sure about that? What's your source? Some quick searching gave me https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... which even looks like a decrease per capita over the past decades. No clue whether that source of data is any good, and what the rates outside of the Us are. Just FYI, I don't like car centric place…
Deaths for people inside cars have been decreasing, deaths for all other people, such as pedestrians or cyclists, have been rising.
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [...] but in general car deaths have been increasing over the past decades, [...] Are you sure about that? What's your source? Some quick searching gave me https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... which even looks like a decrease per capita over the past decades. No clue whether that source of data is any good, and what the rates outside of the Us are. Just FYI, I don't like car centric place…
The source may be correct, but it’s not useful. To judge the risk you’d need a breakdown of where accidents happen - it may be the case that motorways have become much safer due to safer cars, but pedestrians and cyclists suffered. Especially modern pickups and SUVs have an increased risk of severe injuries for pedestrians due to the high front area which hits vulnerable body parts where a station wagon would hit leg…
Btw, I heard that European cars pose less risks to pedestrians and cyclists?
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this just a result of the country being more spread out in general? yes, but why is that? because people chose it that way and cars supported it. yes, it is circular. it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty in between. these urban centers exist. eg. new york, dc and a few others that i am not familiar with, but contrast with san di…
> yes, but why is that? because people chose it that way and cars supported it. The country is a hell of a lot older than the automobile, and much development occurred before it. It's spread out in general because we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it. > it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty…
that, and many people came to america to start a new life away from the oppressive landlords in europe. many were also poor, meaning that they had to provide for themselves, which is easier if you have land to grow your own food. so quite naturally people favored to be away from the cities.
but modern suburbs are not that. i can understand living in the city where the jobs are or out in the country where you grow your own food. suburbs have neither of that.
i grew up in cities and on farms growing crops and herding cows. when i lived in american suburbs i found those depressing. i have been to a few places, and while DC bedroom communities may be the worst, suburbs elsewhere were not much better. it doesn't help that in movies you see much of the same. so if those suburbs are not representative, then what is?
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yes, but why is that? because people chose it that way and cars supported it. The country is a hell of a lot older than the automobile, and much development occurred before it. It's spread out in general because we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it. > it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty…
we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it that, and many people came to america to start a new life away from the oppressive landlords in europe. many were also poor, meaning that they had to provide for themselves, which is easier if you have land to grow your own food. so quite naturally people favored to be away from the cities. but modern suburbs are not that. i can unders…
Well, I do think that Hollywood is biased towards certain demographics.
> but modern suburbs are not that. i can understand living in the city where the jobs are or out in the country where you grow your own food. suburbs have neither of that.
Many people want the city job with the space to raise kids; without the claustrophobia of the big city. Midwestern suburbs achieve that, but suburb means different things to different areas. My suburbs are not the suburbs of the coasts. Still, I would think the general logic would apply, but having not lived in such places, it is not really my place to judge. Maybe they really should just die out and be replaced.
Personally, I hate suburbs almost as much as the city; I belong in the country.
I guess, if I were to say one thing for certain: the country is large. Sweeping statements about it can be difficult to make with accuracy.
Re: Making It Legal to Play Outside: “Reasonable Childhood Independence” Bills
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
Italy is not as ridiculous, but until 14 years kids cannot exit school without a register adult picking them up.
But that is ridiculous! According to thelocal.it it's no longer true: https://www.thelocal.it/20171114/italy-amends-law-kids-go-ho... Havs thelocal got it right? "Italy amends law to allow kids to go home from school alone Italian schools can let children walk home alone without fear of legal repercussions, after the senate approved an amendment to a law that said they had to be picked up by an adult. .. Under-14s wi…
How can you get something right about any Italian law?
Sure they correctly cited what has been defined by the law but that doesn't mean jackshit in practice.
Once a law is written, it can change substantially once it gets put into practice, by the many and many little details.
In theory the parents "authorize" their kids to exit the school alone.
In practice, individual schools can decide whethers that's reasonable or not. The criteria for what's reasonable or not begin with reasonable stuff like "it must be safe", "the child must be mature enough", "the child must walk on your sidewalk", "the child must know the rules of the road" ....
But then after a while most schools just ended up with blanket rules like "possible starting from the 5th grade" (since only those kids are generally old enough to meet all the other criteria; so even if your kid meets them before, tough luck).
And some schools don't even allow that. Basically you have to fight for your right, which usually requires you to band with other parents otherwise you have no chances winning.
But once you band with enough parents, there is a simpler solution which requires no fighting: you just add a bunch of other parents to the list of trusted people, and so a group of kids exits with one adult supervision and they usually just walk together to their respective homes, possibly letting the kids to leave the group once closer to home (sometimes called "piedibus")
So yeah, in practice people get more or less what they want, but oh boy how different this is in practice than what you'd read in the newspapers.