9 ms·

As a parent, I relate to all this. Great piece. When the kids were babies we had the standard debate of move to the countryside for fresh air and gambolling in

• ensocode 11mo ago
  I can relate. Nice article. We had that same debate and ended up moving to the countryside. Surprisingly, it worked out well. + real forests. With today’s e-bikes, even hills or longer distances aren’t really a blocker for kids anymore. In the end, it feels like the bigger factor is how you organize daily life, not whether you’re in a city or in a rural area.
  • jimbob45 11mo ago
    Whitewashing motorcycles as e-bikes scares me more than anything else for the next generation.
    • CalRobert 11mo ago
      Limited to 25 kph they seem fine (if only just, and a helmet is a good idea at that speed) but violations and disabled limiters are common
    • goodcanadian 11mo ago
      Legal e-bikes are fine. The ones you are complaining about are probably illegal, not that there is any real enforcement.
      • mlrtime 11mo ago
        Serious Q: What is the fundamental difference between a legal and illegal e-bike. This largely is differentiated by the location but I don't know what illegal e-bike means.
        • awjlogan 11mo ago
          Maximum power output and maximum (assisted) speed are generally legislated. In the UK, an e-bike is up to 250 W and 25 kph. More than that, it would classify as a motorbike and you'd need a license (not particularly onerous). The bike itself is often built differently to accommodate the different power profile. As a pedal cyclist, I feel that's a reasonably sensible limit as much faster than that you should be more experienced as a cyclist to control the bike and anticipate the conditions.
        • beAbU 11mo ago
          In addition to the other answer you got. E-bikes are pedal assist, so illegal ones usually have throttles in addition to more powerful motors. This depends on the region though.
          • avhon1 11mo ago
            In the United States, throttle-only ebikes that go up to 20 miles per hour (Class 2 ebikes) are legal pretty much everywhere. They're required to have functional pedals, but no pedal assist function is required.
        • strix_varius 11mo ago
          E-Bikes are sold & regulated in "classes" (at least where I live in the US). A class 1 e-bike is pedal-assist and stops assisting beyond 20mph (mine, for instance, tapers off starting probably around 15 mph). A class 2 is the above, plus a throttle. A class 3 is anything that assists over 20mph. The "basically motorcycle" set exists here.
          • shkkmo 11mo ago
  • netdevphoenix 11mo ago
    >With today’s e-bikes, even hills or longer distances aren’t really a blocker for kids anymore Unlike public transport, with an e-bike, the chances of getting a puncture or a malfunctioning battery increase with usage. Plus, there is also the very common bike theft and road accidents if you live in a country where bikes need to go on the road (like the UK)
    • Toutouxc 11mo ago
      It doesn’t take much time to fix a puncture with a tiny kit the size of a matchbox. There are also tubeless tires with liquid sealant. An e-bike with a dead battery becomes a heavy bike. Theft and accidents, okay, but the first sentence is just fearmongering.
      • netdevphoenix 11mo ago
        > It doesn’t take much time to fix a puncture with a tiny kit the size of a matchbox. That's a dependency. Now you need to remember to have that kit with you. This is like solving the short battery life in phones with a portable battery charger. You still have to remember to charge the charger beforehand and bring it with you. Small kits are easy to lose sight of that by the time you need them so you don't know where they are. Tubeless tires are sadly not compatible with most bikes. I am not trying to be downer, this is just my experience (losing the kit and finding out that the bike I bought is not compatible with tubeless tires). I do agree though that bikes are definitely the way to go. But I wouldn't rely on them too much, especially on the electric components. Humans have a tendency to aim for convenience above all and being stranded in the middle of nowhere with dead phone and a bike with a dead battery in winter is not fun
        • acdha 11mo ago
          > That's a dependency. Now you need to remember to have that kit with you. You put it on the bike and don’t worry about it. This is less onerous than remembering your bus pass or cars keys.
        • HeinzStuckeIt 11mo ago
• reeredfdfdf 11mo ago
  There's a middle-ground between a big city and full countryside. I lived my childhood in a place with about 4000 people in it. School, friends and everything else I needed was within walking, or at least biking distance. My parents didn't have to drive me everywhere. Obviously there weren't as many possible hobbies and events as in big cities, but mobility wasn't an issue.
  • qweiopqweiop 11mo ago
    Likewise. All my friends were within cycling distance and we had nature to play in. Personally I can't imagine growing up in a city like London.
  • wongarsu 11mo ago
    Smaller cities with about 40k-200k inhabitants can also be a nice sweet spot: big enough to have a decent number of events and hobby opportunities, small enough that you have low-traffic sidestreets within walking distance of the city center, and nature is still very much in reach Assuming a European city layout where a city center exists and the 200k inhabitants aren't all spread out into suburban sprawl. Suburbia quickly kills the idea of walking and biking distances
    • Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
      I live in suburbia in a sprawling European city of 200K inhabitants, and design can fix a lot of that. The neighbourhoods are designed like little towns themselves, each having stores, schools, day cares, sports / leisure activities, restaurants and other businesses of their own, as well as playgrounds and nature areas which are often used by local youths to build shelters and play in. The old city center - museums, historical buildings, big library, cinema, theater etc - is a longer trek, but still doable in ~20 minutes cycling. Plus there's trains and buses. TL;DR, suburban doesn't mean it should kill things being in reasonable distances. However, big caveat, it's all kind of built in a compact way; garden space is often limited (total ground is usually 2x the house itself, so 50m2 ground floor space + 50m2 garden), roads are narrow (but this is good because it's bike / pedestrian optimized, cars can't go fast), etc. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinex-location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinex-location for a superficial description, or look at a map of Dutch suburbs or houses (https://www.funda.nl/ https://www.funda.nl/) to see what it's like.
• paxiongmap 11mo ago
  I have just done the opposite - left London for the countryside and am currently very much enjoying it. As our toddler gets older it will interesting to see how we deal with the challenges of letting them find their own space.
  • iso1631 11mo ago
    There's two aspect of "country" relative to somewhere like London. There's an estate in various towns, where there's plenty of actual public space, playing fields and grounds, walk into town, to shops, bus/train to larger towns. Plenty of open space. Then there's the real country, where there's very little public space - nowhere to ride a bike other than narrow country roads, you can walk but only in restrictive footpaths over fields - some of which are sabotaged by farmers (I file 2 or 3 complaints with the right-of-way office each year as footpaths get blocked, barbed wire put over stiles, etc). We have an open forest area, but it's a 2 mile walk. There are 4 children in our village at the "local" primary school, across the 7 years. My youngest's nearest friend is 6 miles away - again via 60mph roads. That means having to be driven to places. There is a school bus (which for americans reading is relatively rare in the UK -- you get one upto age 11 if you live more than 2 miles from the nearest school, or 3 miles for 11-16), but that doesn't help for after school clubs. A toddler isn't going to be independent with travel, so driving them places is fine. In a few years though, you want them to be able to travel and meet friends, go to the shop etc, independently. That's easy enough in a city or in a town, not in the country. That said, just having that access doesn't mean they will use it. My 13 year old's main social interaction is via minecraft sessions where they have a group call and yell at each other, doesn't matter if someone lives nearby (which one of the group does), or 30 miles away (which another does). (It's worth highlighting that UK suburbia is very different to US suburbia)
    • windward 11mo ago
      You're right. Personally, now that it's getting wet and cold, I'm getting kind of landlocked by mud. There's one tarmac road out in both directions, but only one of them leads to somewhere that somewhat resembles civilisation, or has pavement.
    • 11mo ago
• gyomu 11mo ago
  Wait, how old are your kids, that they gallivant around London on their own? Are we talking about teenagers? Because yeah, I agree with you that in that sense cities are better than the often car-centric countryside for teenagers; but for young kids (elementary school and below, which is what the article covers) it's a very different equation.
  • jddj 11mo ago
    Why? Plenty of elementary aged kids use the tube
    • djtango 11mo ago
      Do they? I don't think I've seen anyone younger than 12 unattended on the tube
      • jddj 11mo ago
        The DLR at some hours between some stops is practically a school bus. I guess it's possible they're small but not <12yo
        • prmoustache 11mo ago
          Are you calling 12y olds small? That is an age many female already have their periods. My youngest daughter is 12y old and almost 1m70 (5'7"). In some countries and even US states this is already an age you can marry.
          • AnnikaL 11mo ago
            Without court approval, no one under 16 can get married in any US state.
      • Symbiote 11mo ago
        I used to live round the corner from a private school in London (ages 5-16 or 5-18, not sure). They were never on the tube with me, but plenty of children would be arriving at about 8:15, as I was departing to get to work for 9:00. Private school children are more likely to have a longer journey to school, therefore less likely to have a direct bus, and presumably more likely to have parents who will pay for the tube/train. (Only buses are free for children.)
• dukeyukey 11mo ago
  You're more thinking suburban, or super rural. I grew up in a rural Welsh town (~3000 people), and was is walking distance of basically everyone we knew. I walked to school, to the pool, to the shops, my friends, everything.
  • Cthulhu_ 11mo ago
    Same, somewhat bigger town but it had everything within walking or cycling distance, it was only when I was 17 or so that I had to cycle to the next town over for school. But small towns are emptying out too, a lot of aging, elementary schools are merging and closing, local shops and amenities are closing down. The town used to have a bank, post office and police station, but banking and mailing changed to the point where it was no longer viable to have those services in town.
  • startupsfail 11mo ago
    When I was growing up 90-ies, a mix of using public metro and buses to roam the city (since I was in second grade, when I was allowed to take metro to do afterschool karate) and spending summers in various countryside locations where my grandparents resided was a good mix. I disagree that the kids need or want to roam without grownups all the time. Grownups are not the problem. Kids are fun for the parents, the company of parents and their peers is kinda amazing. Systems and institutions are the problem. When kids are stuck in the daycare or school, in a very limited space, grownups are stuck at the office and grandparents are in a different state for tax purposes - that is the problem. I don't know if this is true, but Patagonia claimed at some point that they used to maintain daycares and allow kids to roam the campus...
  • lanfeust6 11mo ago
    Rural in Wales is not like rural in most of North America.
    • dukeyukey 11mo ago
      The post I responded to mentioned this: > But so glad we stayed in London So I figure they are UK based and not in North America.
• ErigmolCt 11mo ago
  Cities feel riskier, but in many ways they offer more room to grow. Kids don't just need nature; they need space to navigate the world on their own terms
  • mlrtime 11mo ago
    I'm going to get criticism because I feel HN is mostly urban based... but I don't think kids need "cities" to grow. They need nature. I picture rural/suburban areas that aren't fully built out with small wooded areas , creeks and playground 5-10 minute walk. They need to get dirty, play in water etc. When I think cities, I think dense urban areas that rarely offer this unless living in a expensive or unique neighborhood (like within 1-2 blocks of Central Park or Prospect Park).
    • BobaFloutist 11mo ago
      The thing that cities provide that's harder to access in the countryside is exposure to people other than you, with different (not necessarily incompatible) perspectives and value systems. I think it's actually really important for kids to be exposed to people that disagree with their parents and learn that people can disagree with their parents while still being reasonable, kind people that their parents more or less trust in their presence. Rural and suburban communities are far more likely to be a monoculture than cities, which, if you're not careful, can make your child's social development trickier. It's by no means universal or impossible, just a consideration I don't see verbalized a whole lot.
      • cons0le 11mo ago
        I also really like that you can find groups of people doing the same thing you like to do, no matter how niche it is.
      • bluGill 11mo ago
        You can find mono-culture in both cities and rural areas. In cities there are more options, but in rural areas you can really get into it. In cities you can select from several different mono-cultures and ignore all others. In rural areas you can really get deep though because a commune can ensure you never encounter anything else, while in cities you still see them on the streets you just don't interact (though my experience is communes have outsiders come in for various supplies from time to time). If you don't live in a commune though rural areas don't provide choice - your neighbor is the only option no matter how strange they are.
• madaxe_again 11mo ago
  I relate to this as the parent I am and the kid I was. I went to boarding school in the 80’s and 90’s. There were houses, there was the school, the masters, the usual abuses - but there were also the gangs. They’d all have a name along the lines of “The Orcs” or “The Goonies”, and a clubhouse built of scrap and brush somewhere in the woodland attached to the school, usually accessible only by crawling through tunnels of brambles and a hidden trapdoor, and knowing where the tripwires and murderous sash weights were concealed. Most would have a few dozen boys in them, spread over the five years of the school. Younger boys would be skivvies, diggers, and by the time you were 12 you’d be a war chief, and organising and leading raids against other camps. Old pool cover was a particularly sought after commodity during raids - not only did it keep the rain out, but it kept the place warm in the winters. Outside of term I’d go and saunter around abandoned factories and rail yards near our home. Anyway. I think they cut the woodland down decades ago to replace it with more playing fields. That thing, however - that little, tribal community of kids - is very much live and kicking, but non the west, very much no longer in the physical world. My kid is being raised in a forest - and I’m acutely aware that sooner rather than later she is going to need a gang.
• schnitzelstoat 11mo ago
  I grew up in a town outside of London (100k pop.) and it was pretty decent as I could walk pretty much everywhere. I live in a massive city now (1.5m pop.) and I'd be nervous to let my kids walk around alone because there's quite a lot of crime. I feel a town is probably the sweet spot.
• vanderZwan 11mo ago
  The other comments already pointed out that there is plenty to do for kids growing up in villages - it's not until they're teenagers that it becomes limiting, really (speaking from personal experience and what I was told by friends who also grew up in the countryside). Funny that you're talking about having to drive them everywhere though, because the main worry I have as a parent is the impact of car traffic on child safety. I grew up in a Dutch village of 1500 people, and my parents let me wander about from when I was five, six years old or so. If I still lived there I would feel completely comfortable with giving my child the same freedom (once she's old enough - she's only a toddler now). The main reason for that is that there is only one road that goes through village. Everything else is a street (see the wiki page on "stroads" for a clarification about the distinction [0]). And anyone driving through the village knows there might be kids playing there. Contrast that with where I currently live: in apartment block in a city that is right next to a crossing of two stroads. We actually have very nice parks and playgrounds within walking distance. But to get here we have to cross at least one road or stroad. The thought of letting a six year old do that by herself scares me. On a rational level I'm aware that this is probably my sheltered upbringing and that she will understand the dangers of car traffic better than I did at the age of six because she's growing up in a city, but I can't help but worry that she'll underestimate it until she's a bit older - a voice in my goes "it doesn't matter how often she does do it right, she only has to absentmindedly cross the road and get herself run over once." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroad
  • dgacmu 11mo ago
    I dunno - I have a seven year old whom I try to allow to be as feral as possible. We let him go alone to the neighborhood park, which requires seven small residential street crossings. But I would hesitate also about a multi-lane stroad if there wasn't a lot of pedestrian traffic. Kids are small and cars have gotten huge and drivers are very distracted, especially post-pandemic. (We're in the US, and I draw the line at letting him cross ordinary 25mph residential streets but not the "25mph" artery road on which many of the drivers go 40mph. It's only one lane in each direction but there are no lights or crossings and the effective speed is quite high.)
• carlosjobim 11mo ago
  Didn't you have a bicycle?
• catlover76 11mo ago
  [dead]
• m463 11mo ago
  This sounds really different from present-day America where helicoptering seems to be the new default. sigh. I grew up with something different - "go out and play", coming back for dinner.
• nine_zeros 11mo ago
  [dead]
• abbadadda 11mo ago
  Curious what age you started letting them ride the tube on their own? I’m in London as well and we’re starting to have the “walk to school” conversation but it is still early days and a 15 minute jaunt so not nothing.
  • retube 11mo ago
    for travel to school was 10, but was direct no changes and only a short walk the other end. then for social etc from around 12, by 13 travelling all over london on trains, buses, tubes, albeit always with friends, then alone probably 14
• bamboozled 11mo ago
  We live in the mountains , our kids ski all the time , lots to do in the summer, can bike and walk everywhere, not sure what you’re on about?