I think your weariness at seeing a claim which from all evidence appears true not backed up by "empirical evidence" is a bit self-indulgent. I've met many N Ame

I think your weariness at seeing a claim which from all evidence appears true not backed up by "empirical evidence" is a bit self-indulgent. I've met many N American adults whose own childhoods align with what the article says and almost none who said they had a shorter leash than children do now. I've seen more children taking the metro by themselves in Japan in a one week visit than I did living the US for three years. It's also undeniable that social workers taking children from families due to them having been unsupervised is something that the state barely had resources for 100 years ago even if, contrary to numerous historical accounts, it had the will. No, I don't have statistics on exactly how far away the average 9 year-old was allowed to bike in various years. History books also don't come with a stack of empirical evidence to back them up. At some point, you have to either accept them until seeing more compelling conflicting accounts or dig into the sources and do the research yourself. If numerous anecdotal claims and published accounts isn't good enough for you, then the onus is on you to provide a more convincing argument in the opposite direction.