Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

stevemagness.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 632 posts

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#421

Post by jolmg »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #416
jolmg wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be like brakes. Some people abuse the brakes for their own self-satisfaction to e.g. brake-check others, others brake hard every time they need to come to a stop (e.g. intersections) because they don't know otherwise, and then others make it seem like the brakes don't even exist as the car glides without disturbance to the point that you might find it normal to have a drink from a open cup throughout. It's a…

Aren’t you just describing an EV with regen braking and one foot pedal driving? The brake pedal is just for emergencies.

Dude, you're breaking the analogy. Imagine an ICE car from the 90s. It's not about what technologies you're using. It's about the skill and intent with which you use the brake pedal (considering it the only form of braking).

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#422

Post by skandinaff »

Xirdus wrote: post #282
skandinaff wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do we get out of this mess? Because now, as an adult, I see no value in those electronic gadgets, videogames, especially at ages <16yo. Do we create laws and ban all of this? The democrats among us will scream and shout. Leave it to "each family's consideration" and we'll get the lowest common denominator scenario.

There is huge value in being acquainted with computers at a young age, especially if they end up in STEM or some white collar job.

As to continue my anecdotal story, I could safely say that all of my interactions with computers up until the age of 14 were purely gaming with occasional drawing in ms paint. Even so, at the age of 14, I did manage to create a simple html web page, and install a php based web engine, those actions were barely conscious, just following some tutorials in my mother tongue. Only at the age of 17 I made some first real steps into using computer to compute, write first simple programs, and began to be able to understand how it actually works. I'm pretty sure, that all of the time I spent with computers before 14 contributed less than 0.1% into "getting into STEM" and that learning English, reading actual books, spending time in extracurricular classes did way, way more. But then again, that's just my personal experience. Though I believe, it's of many.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#423

Post by parineum »

TylerE wrote: post #212
parineum wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 40 years ago a 5 or 6 year old mostly had to contend with sedans with hoods lower than 30 inches > Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front ends angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44 percent more likely to cause fatalities. I'm not sure that height matters for a young kid and, 40 years ago, there weren't abs and sensors that will brake for you. Plus, drunk driving rates were much, much…

40 years ago there was ABSOLUTELY ABS. ABS in aviation goes back to the 1950s in planes and the late '60s in cars.

But what percentage of cars on the street had it. I understand it existed but not even disc brakes were nearly as ubiquitous as they are today, let alone electronics control of them.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#424

Post by aftbit »

bluGill wrote: post #301
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But life is full of safety vs. living tradeoffs. That's not even the issue. Suppose that more people wanted to live in a city than currently do. The market implies that -- the price per square foot is higher in cities. And that's the problem, when the city isn't allowed to grow. The existing city already has tall buildings, so if there is more demand than supply, to create more of it you need to add more somewhere…

In the US the city is not a safe place for kids. Great for the 21-30 year old crowd (and older folks that didn't "grow up") since there are many great bars and parties, but there are no kid friendly places. I know several people out here in the suburbs who loved city living until they had kids. One kid under 5 isn't too bad, but as soon as the kid is school age you look at how bad the schools are and you get out thus…

Which city? IMO having public transit and good sidewalks would be amazing for older kids in the 12 to 16 range. I grew up in a small suburb, connected to the world only by a busy 40 mph street without sidewalks. I was basically trapped at home unless I could convince my parents to take me somewhere until my friends started getting cars when I was 16 or 17.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#425

Post by handle584 »

oersted wrote: post #225
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's amazing how much modern-ish suburbia just has no place for you to even exist without a car. It's trendy to blame cars for this but the problem is fundamentally zoning. It's not that there is nowhere for you to exist without a car, it's that there is nowhere for you to exist there at all , and you thereby need a car to leave the vicinity in order to get anywhere you can. If you want to build a cafe or an ar…

As a European, I don’t understand why there’s such resistance to this. I get it NIMBY, but why? Surely good amenities would improve property values and life quality. If it’s right next to your home all the better. Peaceful quietness is so overrated by US and northern Europe. It feels creepy and dead to me, a liminal space. Besides, modern insulation does wonders for blocking noise if that bothers you, not to mention…

Problem with insulation is that it kills off all sound, not only noise. For example people might actually enjoy the sound of wind blowing leaves, squirrels running around or an occasional car driving by. There are devices generating natural noise for Passivhaus because its insulation is so great that people starts to feel eerie.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#426

Post by dividefuel »

PantaloonFlames wrote: post #22

The article is confused. The opinion is, it's so much safer _now_ than it was in the 1970s, it makes no sense to restrict children's wanderings. But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now. "We have so many fire-safety rules in the building codes in Seattle. But get this: we haven't had any major fires since 1889! It's obvious we don't…

Yes, I often wonder this too: It's said all the time that communities are much safer than they were, so why restrict kids? But that raises the clear possibility that those preventative measures might be why it's safer now.

Whether we've hit the right balance of freedom VS safety is still very much worth discussing. But it certainly feels possible that the preventative measures we take have led to safer outcomes.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#427

Post by mattmiller »

elevation wrote: post #383
ryandrake wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point about the proliferation of the absurd “crime” of loitering, which apparently just means “existing somewhere without spending money.” I remember being a teen in the 80s and what we did every day would be considered “loitering” today. There’s not much else for kids to do outside the home besides loiter.

> existing somewhere without spending money Existing without spending money works a lot better when you perceive and comply with social norms. At a mall, you're unlikely to meet loitering enforcement for reading a book in the food court all afternoon while sipping a drink you brought from home. You can meeting your local walking club there too and walk for miles chatting without purchasing anything -- if you're not b…

"Antisocial behavior" You are describing teens being social. You dont get to define what antisocial means.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#428

Post by nicoburns »

eloisant wrote: post #371
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But life is full of safety vs. living tradeoffs. That's not even the issue. Suppose that more people wanted to live in a city than currently do. The market implies that -- the price per square foot is higher in cities. And that's the problem, when the city isn't allowed to grow. The existing city already has tall buildings, so if there is more demand than supply, to create more of it you need to add more somewhere…

The problem isn't that the city is full. It's that suburbs are made for cars. You could have suburbs designed as walkable neighbourhoods with shops. Look at Japan, each area around a station is like a small village. Even if you commute to the "big" city, the area you live can still be a nice walkable place.

Isn't the issue that there are zoning laws preventing the conversion of the suburbs into more city?

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#429

Post by ghaff »

grvdrm wrote: post #285
ghaff wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the infrastructure as well. I'm about a 7 minute drive from my local commuter rail but it's essentially unwalkable as that 7 minutes is basically along an interstate. I do take the commuter rail if I'm going into the city 9-5 on weekdays but that's very rare.

Right. I find this whole topic reductive in general. Specifics matter quite a bit. I don't disagree with some of the article but it feels very gloomy compared to suburban life I see around me.

Yeah, it depends on your definitions I guess. I'm certainly not in classic suburbia. I think ESRI says I'm in an exurb. In any case, I'm certainly not walking anyplace except down to the river or to a couple adjacent neighbors or conservation land within a 100+ acres total. Where I grew up was similar. This is considered urban by the US census by the way.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#430

Post by parineum »

alex_young wrote: post #375
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously they haven’t gone up, all rates are massively down. They’re just a worrier. It’s a perfect example from the article. “I totally would let my kid leave the house, but [made up danger]”

Pedestrian vehicle fatalities are up over 40 years, have increased significantly recently, and are a very real problem. https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...

The chart there is certainly worrying but it lacks a per 1000 column (but does include it in this quote, "The rates of pedestrian crash deaths per 100,000 people are highest for people ages 20 and over.").

Population is up but less people are walking (probably). Is it more dangerous to be a pedestrian now than it was at some point in the past? That chart doesn't have that information.

Post reply on HN