3 ms·

Getting hit by a car is the leading cause of death of children[1]. Its not helicopter parenting its knowing that more kids die from cars then by any preventable

Getting hit by a car is the leading cause of death of children[1]. Its not helicopter parenting its knowing that more kids die from cars then by any preventable cause. Anyone with kids knows the danger having kids on or near busy roads, and because people insist that they _need_ to have the convenience of a car right now and not in 5 minutes we make it so our kids can't walk to school or the park without them getting hit by a car going too fast in a residential neighborhood. 1. https://www.qualityhealth.com/childrens-health-and-parenting-articles/common-causes-death-children https://www.qualityhealth.com/childrens-health-and-parenting...

sfgweilr4f 7y ago
"It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without me or another adult." Sounds like helicopter parenting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent
- dkhenry 7y ago
  It doesn't and the fact you latched onto that statement makes me thing you don't actually understand it. You want to believe this is just over protective parenting, but you don't understand how the sprawl of modern development has made it impossible for kids to be kids. Take a look at this development[1] which was built in the 70's and is very idiomatic of how communities have been built post WWII. It is surrounded by highways, with no sidewalks, and its miles from any kind of playground or commercial center. You literally can't go anywhere without an adult taking you. Even today in area's that were once roamable by kids the increase in population growth in population without changing how we move people around means its no longer able to be navigated without being in a car. This isn't just kids either, even as an adult I am finding it hard to get around not being in a car. 1. https://www.google.com/maps/place/1406-1416+Wolftrap+Run+Rd,+Vienna,+VA+22182/@38.9435585,-77.2615547,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sWolf+Trap!3m4!1s0x89b64a7249aa4441:0xb016e9d46bd9b1d!8m2!3d38.9435585!4d-77.259366 https://www.google.com/maps/place/1406-1416+Wolftrap+Run+Rd,...
  - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
    You admitted to a fear based on not letting children out of your sight and subsequent anxiety when they are not under constant supervision. In reality I cannot know your situation. I did read what you wrote however, so I've definitely revealed something you're sensitive about far more than you admit by this comment. But you are denying that. That's fine.
    - dkhenry 7y ago
      Its pretty common to have to deal with Ad hominem attacks when your pushing for change so all I can hope for is you can see how much your resistance to change is hurting those around you.
      - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
        I made a statement about you made based on something you actually wrote. Quoting latin at me doesn't strengthen your argument. Nor does emotionally asserting I'm hurting people. So despite being in favor of pedestrian safe zones while simultaneously wanting sane speed limits I'm, in your mind, resistant to change. Interesting. I've seen plenty of people dead at vehicle incident scenes. Often a call in the early morning. I know exactly what the cost versus benefit really looks like. Note that I don't use the term "accident". I think I've seen a bit more than you'd expect. My dot points still stand and you haven't eliminated any of them. When I and many others got sane speed limits put in place so that people slow down around schools and nearby shops we completely succeeded no matter what you say. But nonsense speed limits that are intended only to raise revenue aren't about safety. I'm talking about examples like 5 speed limit changes within 300 metres. That's ridiculous. But that's the kind of idiocy involved. I'm resistant to bad changes and poor legislation. I sense you don't appreciate that kind of nuance and anything other than black or white is unacceptable to you.
arcticbull 7y ago
Risk exists, and it's okay [1]. Yes, bad things may happen, but learnings to be independent and manage risk is a critical part of growing up. Of course cars are a leading cause of death for children -- but that's only because children tend not to die of natural causes. They don't don't really get sick: they don't really die of heart disease, stroke or cancer. They certainly don't die of old age. That means they're basically only going to die of negligence and/or stupidity (their own or someone elses). The chances of dying in a fatal car accident are low, 0.01% per year for the average individual. We should get rid of cars in urban areas, but it's because they're a livability issue, not because of the (low) risk associated with them. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
- dkhenry 7y ago
  But what you don't see in that 0.01% statistic is we have already acclimated to a world where kids are fortified against being hit by cars ( and it still happens ). The days of walking to school, the local playground, or a corner store are very much in the past and one of the major reasons is because we have built a car centric world where you can't walk or ride. You can't teach kids to be independent if you have made it so they can't be independent which is exactly what car culture has done to kids. Kids can't be independent until they reach driving age, because any other independence is far too dangerous.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > The days of walking to school, the local playground, or a corner store are very much in the past and one of the major reasons is because we have built a car centric world where you can't walk or ride. No, they're gone because many parents don't want to let their children out of their sight because humans are terrible at balancing the tiny risk of a very serious negative outcome, and many Americans have lost all appetite for risk. What you're suggesting isn't strictly true, and is more of an American phenomenon. In Japan (which also has cars) children as young as 5 or 6 are regularly sent out to run errands on their own. [1] This has nothing to do with cars, and independence comes with both risk and reward. It's not true that "any other independence is far too dangerous" and it's not "because cars." In 1969, 44% of kids walked or biked to school ([2]) and America definitely had cars back then. Granted, fewer (500 cars per 1000 people vs 800 today). [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-little-kids-in-japan-so-independent/407590/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-littl... [2] http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_walking_and_bicycling.cfm http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...
dane-pgp 7y ago
For what it's worth, that article says "Updated: February 18, 2010", whereas this chart from The Economist seems to have data up to 2014, extrapolating to 2020: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150110_USC666.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/ori... Arguably, however, the category of "people aged 15-24" in that chart is not representative enough of "children".

sfgweilr4f 7y ago

"It makes it so I am afraid to let them go anywhere without me or another adult." Sounds like helicopter parenting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent

dkhenry 7y ago
It doesn't and the fact you latched onto that statement makes me thing you don't actually understand it. You want to believe this is just over protective parenting, but you don't understand how the sprawl of modern development has made it impossible for kids to be kids. Take a look at this development[1] which was built in the 70's and is very idiomatic of how communities have been built post WWII. It is surrounded by highways, with no sidewalks, and its miles from any kind of playground or commercial center. You literally can't go anywhere without an adult taking you. Even today in area's that were once roamable by kids the increase in population growth in population without changing how we move people around means its no longer able to be navigated without being in a car. This isn't just kids either, even as an adult I am finding it hard to get around not being in a car. 1. https://www.google.com/maps/place/1406-1416+Wolftrap+Run+Rd,+Vienna,+VA+22182/@38.9435585,-77.2615547,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sWolf+Trap!3m4!1s0x89b64a7249aa4441:0xb016e9d46bd9b1d!8m2!3d38.9435585!4d-77.259366 https://www.google.com/maps/place/1406-1416+Wolftrap+Run+Rd,...
- sfgweilr4f 7y ago
  You admitted to a fear based on not letting children out of your sight and subsequent anxiety when they are not under constant supervision. In reality I cannot know your situation. I did read what you wrote however, so I've definitely revealed something you're sensitive about far more than you admit by this comment. But you are denying that. That's fine.
  - dkhenry 7y ago
    Its pretty common to have to deal with Ad hominem attacks when your pushing for change so all I can hope for is you can see how much your resistance to change is hurting those around you.
    - sfgweilr4f 7y ago
      I made a statement about you made based on something you actually wrote. Quoting latin at me doesn't strengthen your argument. Nor does emotionally asserting I'm hurting people. So despite being in favor of pedestrian safe zones while simultaneously wanting sane speed limits I'm, in your mind, resistant to change. Interesting. I've seen plenty of people dead at vehicle incident scenes. Often a call in the early morning. I know exactly what the cost versus benefit really looks like. Note that I don't use the term "accident". I think I've seen a bit more than you'd expect. My dot points still stand and you haven't eliminated any of them. When I and many others got sane speed limits put in place so that people slow down around schools and nearby shops we completely succeeded no matter what you say. But nonsense speed limits that are intended only to raise revenue aren't about safety. I'm talking about examples like 5 speed limit changes within 300 metres. That's ridiculous. But that's the kind of idiocy involved. I'm resistant to bad changes and poor legislation. I sense you don't appreciate that kind of nuance and anything other than black or white is unacceptable to you.

arcticbull 7y ago

Risk exists, and it's okay [1]. Yes, bad things may happen, but learnings to be independent and manage risk is a critical part of growing up. Of course cars are a leading cause of death for children -- but that's only because children tend not to die of natural causes. They don't don't really get sick: they don't really die of heart disease, stroke or cancer. They certainly don't die of old age. That means they're basically only going to die of negligence and/or stupidity (their own or someone elses). The chances of dying in a fatal car accident are low, 0.01% per year for the average individual. We should get rid of cars in urban areas, but it's because they're a livability issue, not because of the (low) risk associated with them. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...

dkhenry 7y ago
But what you don't see in that 0.01% statistic is we have already acclimated to a world where kids are fortified against being hit by cars ( and it still happens ). The days of walking to school, the local playground, or a corner store are very much in the past and one of the major reasons is because we have built a car centric world where you can't walk or ride. You can't teach kids to be independent if you have made it so they can't be independent which is exactly what car culture has done to kids. Kids can't be independent until they reach driving age, because any other independence is far too dangerous.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > The days of walking to school, the local playground, or a corner store are very much in the past and one of the major reasons is because we have built a car centric world where you can't walk or ride. No, they're gone because many parents don't want to let their children out of their sight because humans are terrible at balancing the tiny risk of a very serious negative outcome, and many Americans have lost all appetite for risk. What you're suggesting isn't strictly true, and is more of an American phenomenon. In Japan (which also has cars) children as young as 5 or 6 are regularly sent out to run errands on their own. [1] This has nothing to do with cars, and independence comes with both risk and reward. It's not true that "any other independence is far too dangerous" and it's not "because cars." In 1969, 44% of kids walked or biked to school ([2]) and America definitely had cars back then. Granted, fewer (500 cars per 1000 people vs 800 today). [1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-little-kids-in-japan-so-independent/407590/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-littl... [2] http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_walking_and_bicycling.cfm http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/introduction/the_decline_of_...

dane-pgp 7y ago

For what it's worth, that article says "Updated: February 18, 2010", whereas this chart from The Economist seems to have data up to 2014, extrapolating to 2020: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20150110_USC666.png https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/ori... Arguably, however, the category of "people aged 15-24" in that chart is not representative enough of "children".