3 ms·

My take after reading this is a bit different than the others. I think it's absolutely insane that a three year old has to learn traffic rules to not be mauled

My take after reading this is a bit different than the others. I think it's absolutely insane that a three year old has to learn traffic rules to not be mauled to death by passing cars. What a fail of society.

altacc 5y ago
Even in countries with zero child deaths due to traffic, children need to have some traffic sense, and that's part of what helps keep the accident rate low. Cars exist and a child running into the road unexpectedly can still be injured by the safest possible car driven by the safest possible driver. Learning to cross the road is a basic skill children benefit from learning. Having traffic sense also gives them more freedom and a better roaming range. My son was very traffic conscious from a young age, so I could let him run ahead on the pavement and freely run around small parks near roads. Other parents held their kids close because they were constantly worried they would run into the road. My son started walking to school at age 7 as he knew how to cross roads. These things gave him a lot of trust & freedom early on than other kids don't have.
- hvusslax 5y ago
  This is the norm in many places in Europe and elsewhere. 6 year olds walking to school by themselves and crossing multiple roads on the way. America is a bit different. It is also built completely differently when it comes to car-oriented infrastructure.
afandian 5y ago
As someone with a child the same age, I see it very differenly. The way I explain it is that traffic lights, roads, crossings, etc, are a mechanism by which society co-operates. Everyone's trying to do something a little different, and if we work together and buy into a shared understanding then we can all do what we want to do. That's a really positive thing. We can all get on with what we need to without resorting to ideology which isn't relevant to the task at hand. Also, I think it's important for children to learn about everything around them, to see how the world works. It's irresponsible to leave a black hole of knowledge. Especially for things that can be dangerous. Mine knows all about volcanoes, dinosaurs, power tools, chisels, hammers, etc. And he's learned how to interact with at least some of those safely. Otherwise it's quite literally learned helplessness!
- immibis 5y ago
  They are mostly a mechanism by which car drivers ensure they don't run over other people.
- matsemann 5y ago
  It's not co-operation if one part lives at the mercy of the other.
mcv 5y ago
A 3 year old shouldn't be in traffic unsupervised of course, but it can't hurt to help them understand what's going on around them. Even at age 3, kids are interested in that stuff. And eventually they do have to learn this, and by the time they're old enough to be in traffic unsupervised, they should already know it. So you start early.
- matsemann 5y ago
  > And eventually they do have to learn this Yes. But they shouldn't have to. It's just a testament to how car-infected society is, that you have to move around based on their demands. Why should a car be able to drive straight through my street, while I have to go out of my way to find a safe crossing? It should be the opposite.
  - mcv 5y ago
    That is absolutely true. I'm all for car-free spaces, and an abundance of safe crossings. Although for any crossing, "safe" still depends on the responsibility of the car driver; I always point out to my kids that even if they do have right on way on a zebra crossing, they still need to watch both ways. Still, cars or not, there will always be dangers, and you're always going to have to teach kids how to deal with them. I live in a former docks area; lots of water, and my youngest still doesn't have a swimming diploma, for example. And even bikes can hurt you if you are careless around bike paths.

altacc 5y ago

Even in countries with zero child deaths due to traffic, children need to have some traffic sense, and that's part of what helps keep the accident rate low. Cars exist and a child running into the road unexpectedly can still be injured by the safest possible car driven by the safest possible driver. Learning to cross the road is a basic skill children benefit from learning. Having traffic sense also gives them more freedom and a better roaming range. My son was very traffic conscious from a young age, so I could let him run ahead on the pavement and freely run around small parks near roads. Other parents held their kids close because they were constantly worried they would run into the road. My son started walking to school at age 7 as he knew how to cross roads. These things gave him a lot of trust & freedom early on than other kids don't have.

hvusslax 5y ago
This is the norm in many places in Europe and elsewhere. 6 year olds walking to school by themselves and crossing multiple roads on the way. America is a bit different. It is also built completely differently when it comes to car-oriented infrastructure.

afandian 5y ago

As someone with a child the same age, I see it very differenly. The way I explain it is that traffic lights, roads, crossings, etc, are a mechanism by which society co-operates. Everyone's trying to do something a little different, and if we work together and buy into a shared understanding then we can all do what we want to do. That's a really positive thing. We can all get on with what we need to without resorting to ideology which isn't relevant to the task at hand. Also, I think it's important for children to learn about everything around them, to see how the world works. It's irresponsible to leave a black hole of knowledge. Especially for things that can be dangerous. Mine knows all about volcanoes, dinosaurs, power tools, chisels, hammers, etc. And he's learned how to interact with at least some of those safely. Otherwise it's quite literally learned helplessness!

immibis 5y ago
They are mostly a mechanism by which car drivers ensure they don't run over other people.
matsemann 5y ago
It's not co-operation if one part lives at the mercy of the other.

mcv 5y ago

A 3 year old shouldn't be in traffic unsupervised of course, but it can't hurt to help them understand what's going on around them. Even at age 3, kids are interested in that stuff. And eventually they do have to learn this, and by the time they're old enough to be in traffic unsupervised, they should already know it. So you start early.

matsemann 5y ago
> And eventually they do have to learn this Yes. But they shouldn't have to. It's just a testament to how car-infected society is, that you have to move around based on their demands. Why should a car be able to drive straight through my street, while I have to go out of my way to find a safe crossing? It should be the opposite.
- mcv 5y ago
  That is absolutely true. I'm all for car-free spaces, and an abundance of safe crossings. Although for any crossing, "safe" still depends on the responsibility of the car driver; I always point out to my kids that even if they do have right on way on a zebra crossing, they still need to watch both ways. Still, cars or not, there will always be dangers, and you're always going to have to teach kids how to deal with them. I live in a former docks area; lots of water, and my youngest still doesn't have a swimming diploma, for example. And even bikes can hurt you if you are careless around bike paths.