Is it paranoia? If it wasn’t for guns, cars would be the number killer of kids under 16. Note: This includes kids IN cars being ferried around from activity to activity.
Granted the numbers are lower now than before but that’s because of various safety and traffic calming efforts. Seems like we should push harder on that front, so parents can feel safe encouraging their kids to just pop over to their friends place on their own.
Well that's my point, the parents thinks its a dude in a white van to be scared off.
But the numbers say its the actual white van going too fast on a four lane road (speed limit 45mph) next to the park. This isn't that much of a problem in older European cities.
The city I grew up in was levelled by Nazis during WW2 and rebuilt to be car-centric.
The OP said that everyone is walled off by cars so they have a mindset of controlling their children, lest they get run over. You're saying that they're actually afraid of kidnappers etc., while they should be of cars. To me these points are contradictory.
In any case do you think removing cars will solve the problem? My guess is that no, because this mindset appeared decades after cars took over, and these things are actually not related.
If the cars caused the mindset then the mindset would necessarily be delayed by two generations because mindset and worldview changes require new humans.
It's paranoia. The pedophile panic of the last few decades led to nobody letting kids out of their sight.
Things like the sex offender registry "help" but don't at the same time. It's not something I ever concerned myself with ("I know the stats, it's usually a relative!") until someone encouraged me to do it while closing on a house. I'm now acutely aware of the fact that there are dozens of child predators within a 1-mile radius of my home.
I would say that American car-centric development and distrust of others go hand in hand. The more people wall themselves away into their castles in the suburbs, the less they feel part of a community, and the more they distrust others.
In theory I agree. But in practice, where I grew up, it was pure suburbia. I lived a few miles from school. No sidewalks, and roads very car centric. In elementary and Jr high I used to bike to school, regularly, and I don't remember it being abnormal; I remember a lot of kids doing it. I remember my dad commenting on it being weird that there was a crossing guard we had to wait for on our school corner (which crossed a 4 lane busy-ish street) on one of the rare days where he picked us up in his car.
I think a big part of this is just our risk tolerances change. We naturally want to protect kids, and looking historically we've taken safety to relative extremes compare to 20 years ago (and similarly before then). Its natural to want more security, and its obvious how it helps. But its not as obvious what we've given up in return.
Interestingly, I moved to Portland recently, and live mid way between suburbs and downtown; its fairly dense but mostly SFH or townhomes in my neighborhood, many businesses, some homeless. Kids of all ages walk to school and are... just everywhere, around here. Its quite normal to see people walking with their kids too. Its just got a really great mix of urban density -- you can walk to stores, bars, school. There's a few high traffic streets, but they are not large and the speed limit is 20mph. I think what this neighborhood has taught me is, while our risk tolerances are lower than ever, its still a bit of a design and culture choice to not let kids walk around. Its nice to see here, in Portland of all places, there's a bit of a counter trend going on. I hope its what the future looks like in other places (here and elsewhere) too.
