13 ms·

The title blames "helicopter parenting" while the actual study blames the lack of independent mobility: > Considerable research, mostly in Europe, has focused

The title blames "helicopter parenting" while the actual study blames the lack of independent mobility: > Considerable research, mostly in Europe, has focused on children’s independent mobility (CIM), defined as children’s freedom to travel in their neighborhood or city without adult accompaniment Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? Children and teens can't safely roam the streets on foot or by bike because of the awful amount of car traffic everywhere. Urban sprawl is the direct cause of car dangerous and noisy car traffic everywhere, as well as the reason why interesting places are often too far apart to walk between them. I'm currently trying to find a place to live where my kids can become more independent and it's surprisingly difficult to find places like that in Canada. Suburbia may have little traffic, but they are also devoid of "third places" where teens can be teens.

csydas 3y ago
I would largely agree with this viewpoint having grown up in the US in a medium sized city. Everything was a few miles away, public transit was present but not reliable (missing a bus meant waiting 40+ minutes for the next one), no bike lanes or paths except for one outside of the city, etc. as a child bikes were our only option to meet friends but this meant biking in traffic or on sidewalks, neither pleasant or convenient. While i survived fine, it was in spite of the childhood, not because of it. I still don’t want to bike in a city unless they have well defined and protected bike lanes; too many close calls, not so close calls that ended up in disaster, bike theft, etc. After moving to Europe and seeing how mobile kids are without cars even, i wish i had that growing up, as just seems so much nicer to be able to meet friends and do things without needing a car or having to survive biking in traffic. I’m glad i had internet very early to make hanging out with friends easier and keeping up with what’s going on way easier. instead of having to do a bunch of phone calls or go visit and make plans, we could just do IRC or AIM or Skype chats and it’s much like it is nowadays for planning and joining/declining meetups. I do wonder what my teens years would have looked like if we had the same public transport options as most EU cities do.
- filoleg 3y ago
  > After moving to Europe and seeing how mobile kids are without cars even, i wish i had that growing up, as just seems so much nicer to be able to meet friends and do things without needing a car or having to survive biking in traffic. Same, but in regards to moving to NYC recently. Seeing just random groups of kids who look no older than middle schoolers riding on subway along with everyone else and just going about their day and visiting places on weekends makes me feel happy for them. Just knowing that people are able to have that kind of experiences I only could dream of having as a child. Makes me feel hopeful, knowing that at least some of the kids in get to grow up like this. I am very confident that helicopter parenting was the biggest hindrance when it came time for me to get out into the real world. The level of preparedness that those kids growing up in NYC will have is a great advantage. Quite a few of my friends who grew up in NYC (and other places with similar cultures around public transport usage; ofc almost all of those other ones were outside of the US) definitely have that “just built different” feel to them. And that feel mostly extends to things like going to places, trying new things, independence/drive, etc., which all feel like extensions of those experiences I described above. Not trying to say “NYC-grown people are special, and people from the rest of the US is all the same and lame,” that’s entirely false. Lots of different parts of the US with people who grew up there having their own unique culture and “built different” feel (SoCal, south-east, north-east, PNW, Texas, etc.). But in terms of that independence and just being able to go places and do things on your own from a very early age (way before you can get a driver’s permit/license in any US state), it absolutely feels like it gives people something that is very difficult to replicate otherwise.
Dah00n 3y ago
>Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? If it is, then comparing EU versus US should show a clear difference, as US cities are much, much more car-centric than most (any?) EU city. Personally, I don't see “children’s independent mobility” as a problem (I live in Denmark). At least, not an issue that is any different from when I was a child. The only major difference I see is that kids aren't allowed the same mobility by helicopter parents (everything is too dangerous these days, even though in reality it is better).
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Growing up in a rural area I rode my bike all over the place. Should see a difference with rural vs urban as well.
  - voisin 3y ago
    I grew up in a rural area as well but in my mind it is no different or possibly worse - farther distances meant biking was a necessity versus walking, zero bike infrastructure so I had to be commingled with vehicular traffic, and that traffic was going much faster than in a city due to the wide openness of the roads and no need to stop for far distances. I think it was far more dangerous.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Yet we biked everywhere and had no issues remaining mobile. Kids are more trusted to look after themselves in rural areas, adults are as well really.
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        Of course, the kids who got killed by drivers aren't around to give their perspective.
unstuck3958 3y ago
As much as I hate cars, it's not just the cars, but also the social isolation that is a signature of urban environments.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  How is it a signature of urban environments? I moved from the countryside to a city a few months ago and have already made more friends than I did in years in the country.
  - cantSpellSober 3y ago
    Interesting anecdote. It's been studied though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Social https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Social
    - dgacmu 3y ago
      Urban sprawl is a feature of _suburban_ expansion at low density. It's exactly the opposite of a dense, connected urban environment. (1) My kids spend a lot of time at the neighborhood park, as one example. It's within walking distance and we see a ton of families there. Density (with infrastructure like parks) creates opportunities for connection. (1) from the Wikipedia article you cited, "Reid Ewing has shown that sprawl has typically been characterized as urban developments exhibiting at least one of the following characteristics: low-density or single-use development, strip development, scattered development, and/or leapfrog development (areas of development interspersed with vacant land)"
      - cantSpellSober 3y ago
        Right. Maybe I lost context, urban sprawl results in lack of independent mobility. Like you pointed out I use my local park frequently, see you there :)
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> Suburbia may have little traffic, but they are also devoid of "third places" where teens can be teens. When I was a teen there was no pre-made concept of "third places". We made our own. Most of the time, this meant being outside doing something active. We didn't want to be inside. We didn't want to watch TV or even binge-play video games. We created our own ways of keeping us busy, entertained, socially connected, etc. Let's not forget, scarcity breeds creativity and innovation.
- chownie 3y ago
  You may not have used them but there were definitely third spaces for children and teens in the form of play areas and parks. Add skate parks to that list if you grew up in the early 00s, and probably something else before that.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Maybe. But we got on our bikes and went there. We'd sonetime bike 20 miles in a day...for kicks. Just to bike. There's a third place in every kid's head - and every adult's head - if we don't exercise that muscle (so to speak) we will lose it. The evidence seems to say we are losing it. The adults, and in turn the kids. Fwiw, I liken the situation to Legos. When I was a kid you bought "raw" legos and then created whatever TF we could imagine. No. Wrong. Answers. Today, Legos are highly kit-focused. That is, build THIS. There is a right and wrong answer. Ffs Legos today intentionally mitigate the opportunity for kids to color outside the lines. Just the though of that straight-jacket is demoralizing. p.s. Yes we occasionally went to a skateboard park. But we also built our own ramp for when we couldn't. We also found a drainage ditch in the woods off Rt 195 that we frequented in the summer. 100% adult-free. The "Dogtown and Z-Boys" story could never happen today. Not to belittle depression but that's depressing.
    - klyrs 3y ago
      Lego still sells buckets of bricks. When we take our kid to the store, he wants the kits in pop culture themes. When he's home playing, he wants more basic blocks. Classic example of industry selling to our wants, not our needs. But good news, it's lego: the kits rarely stay assembled longer than a few days. https://www.lego.com/en-ca/themes/classic https://www.lego.com/en-ca/themes/classic
MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]
red_admiral 3y ago
I would say the root cause of children's independent mobility (or lack thereof) is parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile. Of course there's also a social angle, if all other parents gawp at you or even threaten to report you to social services for giving your kids more freedom, then you're most likely going to give in. Car-centric planning is definitely a contributing factor, but I can think of others such as crime (or fear of crime), legislation (if it's a crime to let kids under X years unsupervised in public). Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too. You might need a car to get to any capital-p Places, but you can kick a football around the local cul-de-sac just fine. You can also have places where there's safe and reliable public trnasport, and still have heated debates in the local parent-teacher association about when it's safe to let your kid ride on their own.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  > parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile I would guess correlated with the advent of the 24-hour cable news cycle.
- rtcoms 3y ago
  I think people having less number of kids is also makes parent care more about safety of their kids.
  - CapitalistCartr 3y ago
    I've head many people express that, but I can't imagine it. I think people had different concepts of child-rearing then. Because no one was doing it differently. But as for caring less: having a child is like cutting out a chunk of your physical heart, and using it to make this baby. The mere thought of harm to your child feels like torture. That's why us parents develop the no-sense-of-humor disadvantage regarding our kids.
spamizbad 3y ago
That’s part of it. But a bigger part, at least in the United States, are laws that basically require you (or another adult) to supervise your child at all times until they are 12-15 depending on the state.
- microtonal 3y ago
  This is just so weird for me as a European. We were just roaming around I guess from age 6 or 7 onwards without parents. Another factor though I think are pervasive use of smartphones. We could explore the world (80ies/90ies) and do the stupid stuff that kids do, without the risk that someone films it and shares it among peers, makes a meme about it, or whatever. I think at a certain age children's behaviors are much more controlled (or staged) nowadays as a result of the awareness that you could be filmed.
  - alanfranz 3y ago
    In some EU countries (Italy) it can be illegal until 14. The law didn’t change since the 40s, but since the end of the 90s judges have started considering the concept of “temporary abandonment” and suing parents who’re letting children out by themselves. Very shitty.
CalRobert 3y ago
If you're Canadian and interested in this you've no doubt watched plenty of NotJustBikes, but I believe there's a car-free island you can check out? We just gave up and moved to the Netherlands. It's worth a look. I love it here.
mattmaroon 3y ago
America was no less a car culture in the 80’s and yet we had much more mobility. I was walking to school by myself as a six year old, and everyone else did. Now your parents did. It’s only the perception of risk that changed.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Both perception of risk and tolerance of risk.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    I’ve heard it theorized that the reason we are less tolerant is that we have fewer children. It was once not uncommon, not even that long ago, for a family to have several children, and one did not make it through childhood. It was still tragic, of course, but I think people find it significantly more tragic if you have one child, and that child does not make it through childhood. But I definitely agree that both are factors. I think the perception comes largely from the Internet. Everyone thinks crime is going up, even when it is going down, and the only reason that makes any sense is that we simply hear more about it.
- userinanother 3y ago
  The actual risk has changed. The risk vector is different though. Where before the risk was from a predator, now the risk is from a “Karen” calling CPS on you as well as the social costs of other people judging you as a bad parent.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    That had to follow the change in societal norms though. When I was a kid if you called CPS because somebody let their kid walk to school they wouldn’t have done anything. The norms changed due to different assessment of risk, then, perhaps other risks followed
    - userinanother 3y ago
mgbmtl 3y ago
If you can tolerate the crazy politics and French, I grew up and live in Montreal central-ish neighborhoods, and have a very independent teen in high school who takes public transport or bikes to go just about everywhere in the city. It's not always efficient, but teens have time (saving a few minutes by using a car would make me waste a ton of time). Personally I have a car, but I bike most of the time to go downtown because it's 15-20 mins away and there are those new bike paths that are clean in winter too (and much faster/fun than driving).
jokethrowaway 3y ago
In all the eu countries I've been, most cities or even local towns are car centric and I grew up in one. Walkable options I've experienced: Uk towns in the country with a large walkable area and plenty of shops (and I've heard about some spanish cities although I have not seen them) or London with frequent transport. Even though my city was definitely car centric I could roam freely as a kid wherever I wanted by bike. Since I was ~16 immigration from Africa, the middle east and balkans became a massive problem and every week there was someone getting knifed in the park in front of the train station. I didn't lose my right to roam freely, but that's because I was already big enough. I moved country (still eu unfortunately) and immigration is becoming a problem here as well. It's like when I was 16 all over again. In comparison, in my own home country my grandma stopped going out in the city centre because it's so dangerous. It goes without saying I am not going to let my kids roam freely here. Maybe if we move somewhere else safer, eg Dubai.
- alexanderchr 3y ago
  > in my own home country my grandma stopped going out in the city centre because it's so dangerous Has it gotten so dangerous that she cannot go outside or is it the perception of the danger that has changed?
skwirl 3y ago
> Suburbia may have little traffic, but they are also devoid of "third places" where teens can be teens. Could you unpack this? I grew up in a small town, moved to a very walker/public transit friendly city for 10 years, and now live in a close suburb. I didn’t really see any extra third spaces geared towards teens in the city. In fact, I rarely saw kids out on the street or congregating anywhere. In the suburb I am in now, they are everywhere, biking to each others houses and hanging out in the town center.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Teens make their own third spaces unless actively chased away, which happens much more now for various reasons. In low crime/low vandalism areas there’s less chasing away.
naveen99 3y ago
Some parents / countries even limit independent television, phone, and internet use.
CapitalistCartr 3y ago
I'm a Boomer. As you hear about, we had total freedom on weekends, as long as we were home for meals. Our bikes were our only limits. But we did some crazy, reckless stuff, too. My son is five (youngest by 33 years); we don't let him do any such thing.
- alanfranz 3y ago
  5yo could be a bit young. What you describe sounds fine to me starting 8/10yo.
oooyay 3y ago
> Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? I think this probably leaning into a bias more than anything. If this were true we'd see data going back starting from the 20s that begins to correlate to this. What's more likely is that each generation has become successively less likely to let their kids walk to school on their own, ride bikes through town, go adventuring, etc. Combine that with that there's often limitations on spaces kids can use. I remember a lot of parking lots wouldn't let kids loiter, malls didn't want us hanging around unless we were buying, and even being in the woods by a certain time was considered suspicious.
gumballindie 3y ago
> Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? Thats not much if an issue in Europe. Here the problem is the risk of violence and crime. Particularity in western europe, walking alone at night is risky even as an adult. For kids it would be equally risky during the day.
- thargor90 3y ago
  Maybe I'm biased, but in my opinion crime risk is higher in the US, where you have "no-go-zones" than ok most parts of Western Europe, where this concept does not really exist.
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    No-go zones definitely exist in Western Europe, thanks to „refugees” from Africa and Middle East. https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023/02/16/2854650/sweden-s-top-cop-has-no-explanation-why-country-is-overrun-with-crime https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023/02/16/2854650/sweden...
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    > where this concept does not really exist. This concept absolutely exists. First time I witnessed it was in Denmark and Sweden with plenty of stories from locals that were beaten or threatened by local gangs for simply entering their "area" and the police did nothing. Then there are stories I heard from Paris, and Berlin. However, overall, all areas except maybe small towns and villages pose sufficient risk for children. Edit: I dont think it’s because of “refugees” as someone else wrote, I think it’s a policing issue.
jjav 3y ago
> places like that in Canada Ottawa seems great with bike paths everywhere connecting parks and neighborhoods.
scotty79 3y ago
It's ironic that people are moving to suburbia to raise children in safety.

csydas 3y ago

I would largely agree with this viewpoint having grown up in the US in a medium sized city. Everything was a few miles away, public transit was present but not reliable (missing a bus meant waiting 40+ minutes for the next one), no bike lanes or paths except for one outside of the city, etc. as a child bikes were our only option to meet friends but this meant biking in traffic or on sidewalks, neither pleasant or convenient. While i survived fine, it was in spite of the childhood, not because of it. I still don’t want to bike in a city unless they have well defined and protected bike lanes; too many close calls, not so close calls that ended up in disaster, bike theft, etc. After moving to Europe and seeing how mobile kids are without cars even, i wish i had that growing up, as just seems so much nicer to be able to meet friends and do things without needing a car or having to survive biking in traffic. I’m glad i had internet very early to make hanging out with friends easier and keeping up with what’s going on way easier. instead of having to do a bunch of phone calls or go visit and make plans, we could just do IRC or AIM or Skype chats and it’s much like it is nowadays for planning and joining/declining meetups. I do wonder what my teens years would have looked like if we had the same public transport options as most EU cities do.

filoleg 3y ago
> After moving to Europe and seeing how mobile kids are without cars even, i wish i had that growing up, as just seems so much nicer to be able to meet friends and do things without needing a car or having to survive biking in traffic. Same, but in regards to moving to NYC recently. Seeing just random groups of kids who look no older than middle schoolers riding on subway along with everyone else and just going about their day and visiting places on weekends makes me feel happy for them. Just knowing that people are able to have that kind of experiences I only could dream of having as a child. Makes me feel hopeful, knowing that at least some of the kids in get to grow up like this. I am very confident that helicopter parenting was the biggest hindrance when it came time for me to get out into the real world. The level of preparedness that those kids growing up in NYC will have is a great advantage. Quite a few of my friends who grew up in NYC (and other places with similar cultures around public transport usage; ofc almost all of those other ones were outside of the US) definitely have that “just built different” feel to them. And that feel mostly extends to things like going to places, trying new things, independence/drive, etc., which all feel like extensions of those experiences I described above. Not trying to say “NYC-grown people are special, and people from the rest of the US is all the same and lame,” that’s entirely false. Lots of different parts of the US with people who grew up there having their own unique culture and “built different” feel (SoCal, south-east, north-east, PNW, Texas, etc.). But in terms of that independence and just being able to go places and do things on your own from a very early age (way before you can get a driver’s permit/license in any US state), it absolutely feels like it gives people something that is very difficult to replicate otherwise.

Dah00n 3y ago

>Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? If it is, then comparing EU versus US should show a clear difference, as US cities are much, much more car-centric than most (any?) EU city. Personally, I don't see “children’s independent mobility” as a problem (I live in Denmark). At least, not an issue that is any different from when I was a child. The only major difference I see is that kids aren't allowed the same mobility by helicopter parents (everything is too dangerous these days, even though in reality it is better).

willcipriano 3y ago
Growing up in a rural area I rode my bike all over the place. Should see a difference with rural vs urban as well.
- voisin 3y ago
  I grew up in a rural area as well but in my mind it is no different or possibly worse - farther distances meant biking was a necessity versus walking, zero bike infrastructure so I had to be commingled with vehicular traffic, and that traffic was going much faster than in a city due to the wide openness of the roads and no need to stop for far distances. I think it was far more dangerous.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Yet we biked everywhere and had no issues remaining mobile. Kids are more trusted to look after themselves in rural areas, adults are as well really.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      Of course, the kids who got killed by drivers aren't around to give their perspective.

unstuck3958 3y ago

As much as I hate cars, it's not just the cars, but also the social isolation that is a signature of urban environments.

CalRobert 3y ago
How is it a signature of urban environments? I moved from the countryside to a city a few months ago and have already made more friends than I did in years in the country.
- cantSpellSober 3y ago
  Interesting anecdote. It's been studied though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Social https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Social
  - dgacmu 3y ago
    Urban sprawl is a feature of _suburban_ expansion at low density. It's exactly the opposite of a dense, connected urban environment. (1) My kids spend a lot of time at the neighborhood park, as one example. It's within walking distance and we see a ton of families there. Density (with infrastructure like parks) creates opportunities for connection. (1) from the Wikipedia article you cited, "Reid Ewing has shown that sprawl has typically been characterized as urban developments exhibiting at least one of the following characteristics: low-density or single-use development, strip development, scattered development, and/or leapfrog development (areas of development interspersed with vacant land)"
    - cantSpellSober 3y ago
      Right. Maybe I lost context, urban sprawl results in lack of independent mobility. Like you pointed out I use my local park frequently, see you there :)

chiefalchemist 3y ago

> Suburbia may have little traffic, but they are also devoid of "third places" where teens can be teens. When I was a teen there was no pre-made concept of "third places". We made our own. Most of the time, this meant being outside doing something active. We didn't want to be inside. We didn't want to watch TV or even binge-play video games. We created our own ways of keeping us busy, entertained, socially connected, etc. Let's not forget, scarcity breeds creativity and innovation.

chownie 3y ago
You may not have used them but there were definitely third spaces for children and teens in the form of play areas and parks. Add skate parks to that list if you grew up in the early 00s, and probably something else before that.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Maybe. But we got on our bikes and went there. We'd sonetime bike 20 miles in a day...for kicks. Just to bike. There's a third place in every kid's head - and every adult's head - if we don't exercise that muscle (so to speak) we will lose it. The evidence seems to say we are losing it. The adults, and in turn the kids. Fwiw, I liken the situation to Legos. When I was a kid you bought "raw" legos and then created whatever TF we could imagine. No. Wrong. Answers. Today, Legos are highly kit-focused. That is, build THIS. There is a right and wrong answer. Ffs Legos today intentionally mitigate the opportunity for kids to color outside the lines. Just the though of that straight-jacket is demoralizing. p.s. Yes we occasionally went to a skateboard park. But we also built our own ramp for when we couldn't. We also found a drainage ditch in the woods off Rt 195 that we frequented in the summer. 100% adult-free. The "Dogtown and Z-Boys" story could never happen today. Not to belittle depression but that's depressing.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    Lego still sells buckets of bricks. When we take our kid to the store, he wants the kits in pop culture themes. When he's home playing, he wants more basic blocks. Classic example of industry selling to our wants, not our needs. But good news, it's lego: the kits rarely stay assembled longer than a few days. https://www.lego.com/en-ca/themes/classic https://www.lego.com/en-ca/themes/classic

MrRolleyes 3y ago

[dead]

red_admiral 3y ago

I would say the root cause of children's independent mobility (or lack thereof) is parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile. Of course there's also a social angle, if all other parents gawp at you or even threaten to report you to social services for giving your kids more freedom, then you're most likely going to give in. Car-centric planning is definitely a contributing factor, but I can think of others such as crime (or fear of crime), legislation (if it's a crime to let kids under X years unsupervised in public). Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too. You might need a car to get to any capital-p Places, but you can kick a football around the local cul-de-sac just fine. You can also have places where there's safe and reliable public trnasport, and still have heated debates in the local parent-teacher association about when it's safe to let your kid ride on their own.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
> parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile I would guess correlated with the advent of the 24-hour cable news cycle.
rtcoms 3y ago
I think people having less number of kids is also makes parent care more about safety of their kids.
- CapitalistCartr 3y ago
  I've head many people express that, but I can't imagine it. I think people had different concepts of child-rearing then. Because no one was doing it differently. But as for caring less: having a child is like cutting out a chunk of your physical heart, and using it to make this baby. The mere thought of harm to your child feels like torture. That's why us parents develop the no-sense-of-humor disadvantage regarding our kids.

spamizbad 3y ago

That’s part of it. But a bigger part, at least in the United States, are laws that basically require you (or another adult) to supervise your child at all times until they are 12-15 depending on the state.

microtonal 3y ago
This is just so weird for me as a European. We were just roaming around I guess from age 6 or 7 onwards without parents. Another factor though I think are pervasive use of smartphones. We could explore the world (80ies/90ies) and do the stupid stuff that kids do, without the risk that someone films it and shares it among peers, makes a meme about it, or whatever. I think at a certain age children's behaviors are much more controlled (or staged) nowadays as a result of the awareness that you could be filmed.
- alanfranz 3y ago
  In some EU countries (Italy) it can be illegal until 14. The law didn’t change since the 40s, but since the end of the 90s judges have started considering the concept of “temporary abandonment” and suing parents who’re letting children out by themselves. Very shitty.

CalRobert 3y ago

If you're Canadian and interested in this you've no doubt watched plenty of NotJustBikes, but I believe there's a car-free island you can check out? We just gave up and moved to the Netherlands. It's worth a look. I love it here.

mattmaroon 3y ago

America was no less a car culture in the 80’s and yet we had much more mobility. I was walking to school by myself as a six year old, and everyone else did. Now your parents did. It’s only the perception of risk that changed.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Both perception of risk and tolerance of risk.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  I’ve heard it theorized that the reason we are less tolerant is that we have fewer children. It was once not uncommon, not even that long ago, for a family to have several children, and one did not make it through childhood. It was still tragic, of course, but I think people find it significantly more tragic if you have one child, and that child does not make it through childhood. But I definitely agree that both are factors. I think the perception comes largely from the Internet. Everyone thinks crime is going up, even when it is going down, and the only reason that makes any sense is that we simply hear more about it.
userinanother 3y ago
The actual risk has changed. The risk vector is different though. Where before the risk was from a predator, now the risk is from a “Karen” calling CPS on you as well as the social costs of other people judging you as a bad parent.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  That had to follow the change in societal norms though. When I was a kid if you called CPS because somebody let their kid walk to school they wouldn’t have done anything. The norms changed due to different assessment of risk, then, perhaps other risks followed
  - userinanother 3y ago

mgbmtl 3y ago

If you can tolerate the crazy politics and French, I grew up and live in Montreal central-ish neighborhoods, and have a very independent teen in high school who takes public transport or bikes to go just about everywhere in the city. It's not always efficient, but teens have time (saving a few minutes by using a car would make me waste a ton of time). Personally I have a car, but I bike most of the time to go downtown because it's 15-20 mins away and there are those new bike paths that are clean in winter too (and much faster/fun than driving).

jokethrowaway 3y ago

In all the eu countries I've been, most cities or even local towns are car centric and I grew up in one. Walkable options I've experienced: Uk towns in the country with a large walkable area and plenty of shops (and I've heard about some spanish cities although I have not seen them) or London with frequent transport. Even though my city was definitely car centric I could roam freely as a kid wherever I wanted by bike. Since I was ~16 immigration from Africa, the middle east and balkans became a massive problem and every week there was someone getting knifed in the park in front of the train station. I didn't lose my right to roam freely, but that's because I was already big enough. I moved country (still eu unfortunately) and immigration is becoming a problem here as well. It's like when I was 16 all over again. In comparison, in my own home country my grandma stopped going out in the city centre because it's so dangerous. It goes without saying I am not going to let my kids roam freely here. Maybe if we move somewhere else safer, eg Dubai.

alexanderchr 3y ago
> in my own home country my grandma stopped going out in the city centre because it's so dangerous Has it gotten so dangerous that she cannot go outside or is it the perception of the danger that has changed?

skwirl 3y ago

> Suburbia may have little traffic, but they are also devoid of "third places" where teens can be teens. Could you unpack this? I grew up in a small town, moved to a very walker/public transit friendly city for 10 years, and now live in a close suburb. I didn’t really see any extra third spaces geared towards teens in the city. In fact, I rarely saw kids out on the street or congregating anywhere. In the suburb I am in now, they are everywhere, biking to each others houses and hanging out in the town center.

bombcar 3y ago
Teens make their own third spaces unless actively chased away, which happens much more now for various reasons. In low crime/low vandalism areas there’s less chasing away.

naveen99 3y ago

Some parents / countries even limit independent television, phone, and internet use.

CapitalistCartr 3y ago

I'm a Boomer. As you hear about, we had total freedom on weekends, as long as we were home for meals. Our bikes were our only limits. But we did some crazy, reckless stuff, too. My son is five (youngest by 33 years); we don't let him do any such thing.

alanfranz 3y ago
5yo could be a bit young. What you describe sounds fine to me starting 8/10yo.

oooyay 3y ago

> Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? I think this probably leaning into a bias more than anything. If this were true we'd see data going back starting from the 20s that begins to correlate to this. What's more likely is that each generation has become successively less likely to let their kids walk to school on their own, ride bikes through town, go adventuring, etc. Combine that with that there's often limitations on spaces kids can use. I remember a lot of parking lots wouldn't let kids loiter, malls didn't want us hanging around unless we were buying, and even being in the woods by a certain time was considered suspicious.

gumballindie 3y ago

> Isn't that lack of independent mobility largely caused by car-centric urban planning? Thats not much if an issue in Europe. Here the problem is the risk of violence and crime. Particularity in western europe, walking alone at night is risky even as an adult. For kids it would be equally risky during the day.

thargor90 3y ago
Maybe I'm biased, but in my opinion crime risk is higher in the US, where you have "no-go-zones" than ok most parts of Western Europe, where this concept does not really exist.
- Detrytus 3y ago
  No-go zones definitely exist in Western Europe, thanks to „refugees” from Africa and Middle East. https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023/02/16/2854650/sweden-s-top-cop-has-no-explanation-why-country-is-overrun-with-crime https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023/02/16/2854650/sweden...
- gumballindie 3y ago
  > where this concept does not really exist. This concept absolutely exists. First time I witnessed it was in Denmark and Sweden with plenty of stories from locals that were beaten or threatened by local gangs for simply entering their "area" and the police did nothing. Then there are stories I heard from Paris, and Berlin. However, overall, all areas except maybe small towns and villages pose sufficient risk for children. Edit: I dont think it’s because of “refugees” as someone else wrote, I think it’s a policing issue.

jjav 3y ago

> places like that in Canada Ottawa seems great with bike paths everywhere connecting parks and neighborhoods.

scotty79 3y ago

It's ironic that people are moving to suburbia to raise children in safety.