5 ms·
> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. Is that factually accurate, or just a false impress
by scribu 7y ago
> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations.
Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get?
Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues?
Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unattended to play in the streets, yet they are not abducted, get hit by cars etc. (Source: I grew up in Romania.)
- thrav 7y agoI think the problem is imagined. The “problem” of safety has made its way out to the burbs now too. The public world is mostly safe, and kids are mostly capable of navigating it on their own and in small groups — the adults in America have chosen not to believe that, and written laws forbidding parents from allowing their children to even attempt it. These choices may have resulted in a few less kidnappings, but they’re also core to the creation of the loneliness epidemic, as kids never learn how to engage with the world on their own.
- Misdicorl 7y agoStranger danger isn't the only risk to children. Being hit by fast moving vehicle traffic is much higher on most people's worry list.
- Redoubts 7y agoWell I feel much more worried about being a pedestrian in the suburbs than in a city. Drivers seem to forget people and bikes exist unless they’re constantly reminded of their presence.
- Misdicorl 7y agoTrying to get from point A to point B? Absolutely. Just hanging around near point A? Absolutely not. Point A in the suburbs invariably has a space within 2 blocks that sees two to three cars a day (excluding rush hour).
- tathougies 7y agoI dont think ive ever seen a fast car on a dense city street (difficult to go fast when theres gridlock) whereas speeds above 55 mph were common on the 'nice' suburban street I grew up on
- Misdicorl 7y agoThe fatality rate spikes around 30mph. Most city traffic is definitely in that range (at least that I've experienced). > speeds above 55 mph were common on the 'nice' suburban street I grew up on Thats not a suburban street, thats a highway interconnecting the suburb. Non-driving connection within a suburb is certainly a huge problem.
- tathougies 7y agoI mean it was a street with on street parking, sidewalks, a school etc. I am unsure how you can make such a universal statement unless youve experienced literally every suburb in america. In san Francisco, most city traffic is less than 30 mph because of high density
- Misdicorl 7y agoA 55mph road is a highway regardless of other factors (in my opinion). Sucks that a school is on it
- tathougies 7y agoI mean if you redefine everything to fit your preconceived notions then you shouldnt be surprised that everything matches
- TulliusCicero 7y ago"If I redefine everything to fit my parameters, then nothing can contradict me." I mean, okay, but if you want to avoid being intellectually disingenuous you can't do that anymore. You don't get to just randomly redefine things until they fit your arguments better.
- api 7y agoA lot of this goes back to 80s and 90s daytime TV and its sensationalization of a small number of kidnapping cases. An example would be the Johnny Gosch case which almost single handedly ended the job of paper boy. (There is a crime podcast called Faded Out that looked deeply into this one, starting by examining the sensational claims but later finding a much more likely explanation.) The top risk to kids outdoors is cars. Strangers don't even rank. >90% of child physical or sexual assaults are committed by someone the child knows.
- JustSomeNobody 7y agoI would say John Walsh as well. On the one hand, he didn't want others to go through what he went through. On the other hand, he scared the poop out of an entire generation of TV watchers.
- api 7y agoMedia really distorts risk perception. People are afraid of random child predators, terrorists, and mass shootings when none of these things even compare to car accidents, standard issue child abuse by someone the kid knows, cancer, heart disease, etc. Another example is that people are more afraid of nuclear power than coal when coal is dirtier and drives scary things like ocean acidification and climate change. One 9/11, random kidnapping, etc. has more "virality" than a constant undercurrent of far larger risks.
- shrimpx 7y agoMy take is it's not about gross safety statistics. It's about feeling safe. A lot of unsightly activity in your hood may make it feel totally unsafe even though statistically it's pretty safe.
- danharaj 7y agoThe reasons you will get will all be euphemisms for "I think black people are criminals".
- Misdicorl 7y agoThis is disingenuous. Lets admit that there are racist people who use and/or co-opt these types of regulations and address the genuine arguments in their favor. Then maybe we can find compromises that help both `sides`.
- eropple 7y agoAssuming that one "side"--the one inventing things about people with more melanin--is in any way deserving of compromise is immediate and irrevocable surrender. The white-supremacist contingent understands this and are not looking to compromise. They'll take whatever compromise is handed to them and immediately refuse to change their behavior at all.
- Misdicorl 7y agoAs far as these regulations are a proxy for racism, yes absolutely they need to be removed. But lets understand the arguments that aren't based in racism, and I think they exist, to try and accommodate those aspects of single family home neighborhoods. I think if 1/4 of high density space is dedicated to public parks, that would go a long way towards addressing the real issues. Those parks can't just be space 'somewhere' either. There has to be one within ~two blocks of every home in my estimation.
- Misdicorl 7y ago> Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? I don't know, and its a good question; the answer should definitely inform regulations like these. Though, even if the fear is imagined, it will still affect your behavior and how you're able to parent. I think its also important to note that it isn't just safety at risk here- its opportunity. High density areas are unlikely to support multi-use infrastructure since the primary use will force out secondary uses (e.g. playing kickball in the street). There are also a variety of other things you can slot into that sentence that dont invoke the sanctity of kid safety. Admittedly, a lot of them are more personal decisions that don't require regulations enforced on others.
- toasterlovin 7y agoFrom what I can tell, most of the people arguing that cities are safe for kids also seem to think that letting street people do whatever they want in the urban core is okay. You can cite all the stats about stranger danger that you want, but no sane parent is going to let their kids play outside in American urban cores as they currently exist. Urban cores are not human friendly places. Adults put up with it so they can live in a more stimulating environment. They are not suitable for children to wander in the same way that my kids can wander in our neighborhood in the suburbs.
- mrep 7y ago>> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. > Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? I don't feel safe as an adult living in downtown seattle due to the homeless population (this person's experience 100% matches mine [0]) and homeless people are going to naturally gravitate towards high density areas where there are more people to panhandle from. Also, it's much riskier to commit a crime in a low density population where you can be recognized much more easily. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20422473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20422473