3 ms·

Not sure I see the crossover between activities performed at home and problems of car centric street design and the resulting poor pedestrian traffic safety?

bluGill 7mo ago
If I have to watch my kids 100% of the time they can't walk to the park. Nothing to do with street design - most suburbs have a park a safe walk near any house. That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
  > That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design. Some state legislatures are pushing back against this. Utah passed a law in 2018 which amends the definition of neglect to exclude this kind of thing. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html (c) "Neglect" does not include: [...] (iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including: [...] (B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities; A handful of other states have followed suit. This page shows a map of states with similar laws: https://letgrow.org/states/ https://letgrow.org/states/
  - bluGill 7mo ago
    Remember the first post that started this "require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them?" - if I have to secure all devices that means I can't let my kids out of my reach since they might find a device someplace. Raspberry pi's are cheap, you can dumpster dive old, but working devices. There is free wifi all over. In short the original post was subtly but very opposed to those very laws you are looking at. Mind you there is nothing about OS level age verification that stops any of the above - which is why I'm against it.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
      Right, my comment wasn't intended to be an argument against your points; quite the opposite, I was pointing out that many people see the value in letting kids be independent. Really, the context was that I had assumed the pull quote to be referring to over-protective parents and their ilk (the "this" in the first sentence) and I just wanted to show that some people have more sense, though I can see how it's not clear what I was getting at. Disallowing your kids from going outside for fear of potential danger is logically equivalent to disallowing them from using the internet for the same fear. But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws. Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)
- wussboy 7mo ago
  Your kids not walking there has everything to do with street design. Check out Not Just Bikes on YouTube for why and how.
  - bluGill 7mo ago
    I have - he is making huge logic errors. There is good stuff there, but some conclusions don't follow. Others are correct for one area but don't generalize. He isn't as bad as strongtowns but still you need to use care when following him.
__s 7mo ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-walked-mile-town-alone-2024-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-wal... there's a general issue with rise in protectionism
- superxpro12 7mo ago
  I am empathetic to 99% of this woman's case and the article. However, the ending though, really feels like they're one step away from anti-vax, anti-education, and pro-hate pro-bigotry. This case really feels like an over-reach. But to condemn the entire system because they have an interest in making sure the country functions and sets minimum standards of life and care is not a "bad thing". The government represents the collective decision-making of millions, hundreds-of-millions of people. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water because one cop (in rural Georgia of all places) over-reacted.

bluGill 7mo ago

If I have to watch my kids 100% of the time they can't walk to the park. Nothing to do with street design - most suburbs have a park a safe walk near any house. That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
> That kids are not walking there is nothing to do with street design. Some state legislatures are pushing back against this. Utah passed a law in 2018 which amends the definition of neglect to exclude this kind of thing. https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html (c) "Neglect" does not include: [...] (iv) permitting a child, whose basic needs are met and who is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm, to engage in independent activities, including: [...] (B) traveling to and from nearby commercial or recreational facilities; A handful of other states have followed suit. This page shows a map of states with similar laws: https://letgrow.org/states/ https://letgrow.org/states/
- bluGill 7mo ago
  Remember the first post that started this "require adults to secure the device before letting minors near them?" - if I have to secure all devices that means I can't let my kids out of my reach since they might find a device someplace. Raspberry pi's are cheap, you can dumpster dive old, but working devices. There is free wifi all over. In short the original post was subtly but very opposed to those very laws you are looking at. Mind you there is nothing about OS level age verification that stops any of the above - which is why I'm against it.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 7mo ago
    Right, my comment wasn't intended to be an argument against your points; quite the opposite, I was pointing out that many people see the value in letting kids be independent. Really, the context was that I had assumed the pull quote to be referring to over-protective parents and their ilk (the "this" in the first sentence) and I just wanted to show that some people have more sense, though I can see how it's not clear what I was getting at. Disallowing your kids from going outside for fear of potential danger is logically equivalent to disallowing them from using the internet for the same fear. But now I wonder: I doubt the law would actually consider that you let your kids outside and thereby gave them access to the unsecured device they found in a dumpster. From what I understand of the CA law, you would not be the "operating system provider" in that context, because you do not develop, license, nor control the operating system. I think, at that point, a prosecutor would probably be looking at neglect (if they really want to go after the parent) as the most viable charge, which would be protected by the independent kid laws. Still, to your point, that doesn't mean the OS law in question will be effective at what it's meant to do, so I similarly do not see a reason to support it. (One could assume "what it's meant to do" is remove liability from social media service providers, but that's not the ostensible reason even if it is the likely reason; regardless, I also wouldn't necessarily see that as a reason to support it.)
wussboy 7mo ago
Your kids not walking there has everything to do with street design. Check out Not Just Bikes on YouTube for why and how.
- bluGill 7mo ago
  I have - he is making huge logic errors. There is good stuff there, but some conclusions don't follow. Others are correct for one area but don't generalize. He isn't as bad as strongtowns but still you need to use care when following him.

__s 7mo ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-walked-mile-town-alone-2024-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/mom-arrested-after-tween-wal... there's a general issue with rise in protectionism

superxpro12 7mo ago
I am empathetic to 99% of this woman's case and the article. However, the ending though, really feels like they're one step away from anti-vax, anti-education, and pro-hate pro-bigotry. This case really feels like an over-reach. But to condemn the entire system because they have an interest in making sure the country functions and sets minimum standards of life and care is not a "bad thing". The government represents the collective decision-making of millions, hundreds-of-millions of people. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water because one cop (in rural Georgia of all places) over-reacted.