171–180 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're feeling game you could try for a cattle station job where I grew up .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-zWxDJOZU
And there's always heli-hoggin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm used to walking about 30-35Km a week in suburban Toronto. Close calls with cars happen on a weekly basis. Can you expand on how exactly do you have close calls with cars ever, let alone weekly? I don't walk as much as you but a decent amount. I've had close calls with cars... literally never. I'm having trouble picturing how that happens? I walk on sidewalks, zero chance of close calls with cars there. For busy…
Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians. Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians. Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges. In winter, cars driving too fast relative to the amount of traction they actually have on icy streets. While cycling, by far the most common problem I have is drivers p…
> Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges.
Both of these are things you should be watching for. When approaching driveways, look for people inside the car, that means the car might move. And a crossing with poor visibility for the driver probably has poor visibility for the walker as well, so don't cross until you're sure there is no traffic.
If you truly are having close calls with cars all the time, it might be benefitial to walk more defensively. I can see having close calls in the above if one isn't paying attention, but not otherwise. Always make eye contact with drivers to get a sense of what they're doing, they might wave you to go first or you can wave them to go if in doubt.
> Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians.
Wait, if they are turning on red it means the pedestrian also has a red.
> In winter, cars driving too fast relative to the amount of traction they actually have on icy streets.
That I could see. Thankfully no winter as such here (silicon valley).
> While cycling
Yes, cycling is much more dangerous, since you're sharing the road with cars. I still bike a lot but yes, it's more dangerous.
Walking shouldn't be though, since you have a separate sidewalk and as long as you pay attention when crossing.
The title blames "helicopter parenting" while the actual study blames the lack of independent mobility: > Considerable research, mostly in Europe, has focused on children’s independent mobility (CIM), defined as children’s freedom to travel in their neighborhood or city without adult accompaniment Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? Children and teens can't safely roa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians. Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians. Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges. In winter, cars driving too fast relative to the amount of traction they actually have on icy streets. While cycling, by far the most common problem I have is drivers p…
> Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians. > Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges. Both of these are things you should be watching for. When approaching driveways, look for people inside the car, that means the car might move. And a crossing with poor visibility for the driver probably has poor visibility for the walker as well, so don't cross until you're sure…
Not sure about OP but the dangerous situations I've seen when car turning on red was not looking around untill it reached the cross traffic that was a danger to him. Happily driving without looking through pedestrian crossing perpendicular to the direction he was comming from that now had green light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about the same comment. "GP" means grandparent, in this case jtrn . I'm referring to the link in their own post [1] The text in the linked article attributes the reason for having less deaths to safety standards, etc. In fact the same link mentions that people have been traveling more by car despite the reduction, not less. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38048241
fwiw, come to think of it, deaths is a false god metric. That is, accidents can increase but medical procedures can have improved to prevent deaths. Nonetheless, in helicopter households moms and dads are certainly driving more. p.s. We've both read plenty of studies based on bad data, bad procedures, bad analysis, etc. The topic comes up weekly on HN. One study does not a law make, nor is it grounds to dismiss the o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting anecdote. It's been studied though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Social
Urban sprawl is a feature of _suburban_ expansion at low density. It's exactly the opposite of a dense, connected urban environment. (1) My kids spend a lot of time at the neighborhood park, as one example. It's within walking distance and we see a ton of families there. Density (with infrastructure like parks) creates opportunities for connection. (1) from the Wikipedia article you cited, "Reid Ewing has shown that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual risk has changed. The risk vector is different though. Where before the risk was from a predator, now the risk is from a “Karen” calling CPS on you as well as the social costs of other people judging you as a bad parent.
That had to follow the change in societal norms though. When I was a kid if you called CPS because somebody let their kid walk to school they wouldn’t have done anything. The norms changed due to different assessment of risk, then, perhaps other risks followed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say the root cause of children's independent mobility (or lack thereof) is parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile. Of course there's also a social angle, if all other parents gawp at you or even threaten to report you to social services for giving your kids more freedom, then you're most li…
> Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake. More importantly, most people unsurprisingly live in the most dense…
That makes no sense; population densities were even lower 150 years go, yet kids walked to school.
A lot of it is how those suburbs are laid out. To walk to a point that is a 100 meter beeline, you may have to navigate 500 meters of labyrinth, to avoid going through people's backyards.
Could it be that the schools are larger, serving a larger catchment? I.e. schools in suburbia are perhaps modeled too closely after schools in denser urban areas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians. Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians. Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges. In winter, cars driving too fast relative to the amount of traction they actually have on icy streets. While cycling, by far the most common problem I have is drivers p…
> Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians. > Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges. Both of these are things you should be watching for. When approaching driveways, look for people inside the car, that means the car might move. And a crossing with poor visibility for the driver probably has poor visibility for the walker as well, so don't cross until you're sure…
Not sure what makes you think that isn't the case already. There is only so much a pedestrian can do when cars have tinted windows and they are parked right at the limit of the sidewalk, as they often are, which means that as soon as the car starts moving it will hit any pedestrian there.
> > Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians.
> Wait, if they are turning on red it means the pedestrian also has a red
Think of an intersection with the shape of a plus sign, where the driver is going North and the pedestrian is coming from the East. The driver only looks at the West because that's where the oncoming traffic is.
This issue is particularly common in T-shaped intersections with or without street lights.
> Walking shouldn't be though
Cycling shouldn't be dangerous either, yet here we are. A very small percentage of poor drivers is all it takes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians. > Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges. Both of these are things you should be watching for. When approaching driveways, look for people inside the car, that means the car might move. And a crossing with poor visibility for the driver probably has poor visibility for the walker as well, so don't cross until you're sure…
> Both of these are things you should be watching for Not sure what makes you think that isn't the case already. There is only so much a pedestrian can do when cars have tinted windows and they are parked right at the limit of the sidewalk, as they often are, which means that as soon as the car starts moving it will hit any pedestrian there. > > Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic…
> Not sure what makes you think that isn't the case already.
Obviously I don't know you, but what made me think that is your assertion that you are having close calls with cars every week. Something needs to be done differently if you are almost getting hit by a car every week.