Hacker News Reader

Comment by scribu | Hacker News Reader

> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations.

Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get?

Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues?

Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unattended to play in the streets, yet they are not abducted, get hit by cars etc. (Source: I grew up in Romania.)

View on HN

I think the problem is imagined. The “problem” of safety has made its way out to the burbs now too. The public world is mostly safe, and kids are mostly capable of navigating it on their own and in small groups — the adults in America have chosen not to believe that, and written laws forbidding parents from allowing their children to even attempt it.

These choices may have resulted in a few less kidnappings, but they’re also core to the creation of the loneliness epidemic, as kids never learn how to engage with the world on their own.

Stranger danger isn't the only risk to children. Being hit by fast moving vehicle traffic is much higher on most people's worry list.

Well I feel much more worried about being a pedestrian in the suburbs than in a city. Drivers seem to forget people and bikes exist unless they’re constantly reminded of their presence.

Trying to get from point A to point B? Absolutely. Just hanging around near point A? Absolutely not. Point A in the suburbs invariably has a space within 2 blocks that sees two to three cars a day (excluding rush hour).

I dont think ive ever seen a fast car on a dense city street (difficult to go fast when theres gridlock) whereas speeds above 55 mph were common on the 'nice' suburban street I grew up on

The fatality rate spikes around 30mph. Most city traffic is definitely in that range (at least that I've experienced).

> speeds above 55 mph were common on the 'nice' suburban street I grew up on

Thats not a suburban street, thats a highway interconnecting the suburb. Non-driving connection within a suburb is certainly a huge problem.

I mean it was a street with on street parking, sidewalks, a school etc. I am unsure how you can make such a universal statement unless youve experienced literally every suburb in america.

In san Francisco, most city traffic is less than 30 mph because of high density

A 55mph road is a highway regardless of other factors (in my opinion).

Sucks that a school is on it

I mean if you redefine everything to fit your preconceived notions then you shouldnt be surprised that everything matches

"If I redefine everything to fit my parameters, then nothing can contradict me."

I mean, okay, but if you want to avoid being intellectually disingenuous you can't do that anymore. You don't get to just randomly redefine things until they fit your arguments better.

A lot of this goes back to 80s and 90s daytime TV and its sensationalization of a small number of kidnapping cases. An example would be the Johnny Gosch case which almost single handedly ended the job of paper boy. (There is a crime podcast called Faded Out that looked deeply into this one, starting by examining the sensational claims but later finding a much more likely explanation.)

The top risk to kids outdoors is cars. Strangers don't even rank. >90% of child physical or sexual assaults are committed by someone the child knows.

I would say John Walsh as well. On the one hand, he didn't want others to go through what he went through. On the other hand, he scared the poop out of an entire generation of TV watchers.

Media really distorts risk perception. People are afraid of random child predators, terrorists, and mass shootings when none of these things even compare to car accidents, standard issue child abuse by someone the kid knows, cancer, heart disease, etc. Another example is that people are more afraid of nuclear power than coal when coal is dirtier and drives scary things like ocean acidification and climate change.

One 9/11, random kidnapping, etc. has more "virality" than a constant undercurrent of far larger risks.

My take is it's not about gross safety statistics. It's about feeling safe. A lot of unsightly activity in your hood may make it feel totally unsafe even though statistically it's pretty safe.

>> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations.

> Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get?

I don't feel safe as an adult living in downtown seattle due to the homeless population (this person's experience 100% matches mine [0]) and homeless people are going to naturally gravitate towards high density areas where there are more people to panhandle from.

Also, it's much riskier to commit a crime in a low density population where you can be recognized much more easily.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20422473

> Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get?

I don't know, and its a good question; the answer should definitely inform regulations like these. Though, even if the fear is imagined, it will still affect your behavior and how you're able to parent. I think its also important to note that it isn't just safety at risk here- its opportunity. High density areas are unlikely to support multi-use infrastructure since the primary use will force out secondary uses (e.g. playing kickball in the street).

There are also a variety of other things you can slot into that sentence that dont invoke the sanctity of kid safety. Admittedly, a lot of them are more personal decisions that don't require regulations enforced on others.

From what I can tell, most of the people arguing that cities are safe for kids also seem to think that letting street people do whatever they want in the urban core is okay. You can cite all the stats about stranger danger that you want, but no sane parent is going to let their kids play outside in American urban cores as they currently exist. Urban cores are not human friendly places. Adults put up with it so they can live in a more stimulating environment. They are not suitable for children to wander in the same way that my kids can wander in our neighborhood in the suburbs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com