4 ms·

>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

by 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.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      I think you need to give the country, as the infrastructure in a rural area varies widely. In Britain every road is for cars, and in rural areas they can travel at 80km/h on them. There will be footpaths within a village, but not necessarily on the roads between villages. Cycling on footpaths is illegal, including for teenagers. Other countries (Netherlands, Denmark, probably more) can have roads only for use by residents or farmers plus cyclists/pedestrians (e.g. gates at each end), or roads with much lower speed limits, or guaranteed footpaths. I've visited but not lived in a rural area like this, so I'm not sure how well it works in practise.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Rural places can be, and should be, one of the best places for independent mobility in kids, but unfortunately are often the worst, since you have no footpaths (aka sidewalk or pavement) and the roads are full of high speed traffic with no shoulder. Disclaimer - I made it - but I talk about this a bit in a short video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba7xHUdeew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba7xHUdeew about my experience biking in rural Ireland with kids.
- HlessClaudesman 3y ago
  Survivorship bias. The rural kids riding their bikes all over the place who unfortunately got eliminated by cars didn't get to write hacker news posts. My own 6 year old has to cross a busy main road to get to school. Have I damaged him mentally by personally making sure he gets across twice a day, or have I mitigated the low risk of a catastrophic outcome?
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Why not both?

by Dah00n 3y ago

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.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    I think you need to give the country, as the infrastructure in a rural area varies widely. In Britain every road is for cars, and in rural areas they can travel at 80km/h on them. There will be footpaths within a village, but not necessarily on the roads between villages. Cycling on footpaths is illegal, including for teenagers. Other countries (Netherlands, Denmark, probably more) can have roads only for use by residents or farmers plus cyclists/pedestrians (e.g. gates at each end), or roads with much lower speed limits, or guaranteed footpaths. I've visited but not lived in a rural area like this, so I'm not sure how well it works in practise.
CalRobert 3y ago
Rural places can be, and should be, one of the best places for independent mobility in kids, but unfortunately are often the worst, since you have no footpaths (aka sidewalk or pavement) and the roads are full of high speed traffic with no shoulder. Disclaimer - I made it - but I talk about this a bit in a short video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba7xHUdeew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba7xHUdeew about my experience biking in rural Ireland with kids.
HlessClaudesman 3y ago
Survivorship bias. The rural kids riding their bikes all over the place who unfortunately got eliminated by cars didn't get to write hacker news posts. My own 6 year old has to cross a busy main road to get to school. Have I damaged him mentally by personally making sure he gets across twice a day, or have I mitigated the low risk of a catastrophic outcome?
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Why not both?