4 ms·
Crime is not the problem, traffic is. I grew up in a blind alley, and the whole town was really low in traffic. I started cruising around with my bike together
by manmal 10y ago
Crime is not the problem, traffic is. I grew up in a blind alley, and the whole town was really low in traffic. I started cruising around with my bike together with the neighbors at age 7, and we met a car every 10 minutes, tops. They slowed down to a stop, mostly, when they saw us.
Fast forward, we are living in a city of 30k citizens now, though on the outskirts; there is a major road about 200m away, and although we have a tight speed limit in our area (30kmh), I'm not sure we can allow roaming around before age 10. Cats are run over all the time here, people just don't look before going around corners. And then there's the occasional report (or rumor?) of people trying to spirit children away from their parents in the local mall.
That being said, maybe I felt a lot safer as a kid in the same circumstances.
- jackmott 10y agomore cars bigger cars faster cars cars in a hurry because they live 1 hour from work and hate life
- Groxx 10y agoAlso more soundproof cars. You can't hear kids playing two feet away in modern vehicles if the windows are up.
- mseebach 10y agoYou also can't hear kids playing two feet away in 40 year old cars, windows or not, because they are too noisy. And if you rely on hearing for detecting kids, especially two feet away, you're going to have a bad time, even with the windows down.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jessriedel 10y agoYes. 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.
- throwanem 10y agoI do not believe there are likely to be many centenarians among those here disagreeing with the idea that daily life is so much more deadly now as to justify the degree of restriction under discussion.
- mseebach 10y 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_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great... 1: I'm sure more kids flat out died from catching untreatable infections when playing outside 100 years ago than are even mildly hurt in traffic today.
- jessriedel 10y agoWe 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.
- hashhar 10y agoTotally off topic but the way you used 'spirit away' made me realise the title for Hayao Miyazaki's "Spirited Away". I never bothered to look it up and felt it was about ghost 'spirits'.
- brw12 10y agoI think the title (the English version, at least) is supposed to evoke both meanings.
- neap24 10y agoTraffic doesn't have to be a problem. My city has significant sidewalk infrastructure. Also, the right way to do this is to start off by taking long walks as a family and training kids to cross the street properly and be vigilant of their surroundings. My 3 year old already has a natural fear of large, fast-moving vehicles.
- flukus 10y agoI grew up on a fairly busy road, 60Km/h two lanes both ways, not exactly a highway but still quite busy. We were crossing unassisted with no lights or zebra crossings since about the age of 6 or 7.