Hacker News Reader

Comment by pembrook | Hacker News Reader

In neighboring Finland, teens are allowed to drive ATVs on public roads.

Both are bizarre and unsafe solutions to the problem that the Nordics have a driving age of 18, and yet, people under 18 who live outside the city still need to go places.

Nordic politicians in the cities pleasure themselves to the thought of a world without cars (cars and gasoline are taxed into oblivion), while ignoring the reality that the sparsely populated nordics lack the density necessary for good public transportation outside of the central districts of the biggest cities.

So if you’re a young person who does sports or has an after-school job, you’re out of luck if you don’t have well-off parents with a flat in city.

Hence, this weird outcome.

View on HN

The general "city dweller" politian vs. people living on the land seems to be an issue in many countries.

This is one of the reasons the US has a senate that over represents rural populations.

Which has its own problems, of course.

Not really. It's just an effect of it. The explicitly stated purpose is to represent the states, not the people, as the original conception of the US was more like the EU than, say, Switzerland.

It’s funny you use Switzerland as your example, which has the Cantons. To an outside observer they are a first order approximation of US states. They even have citizenship!

Hah. That is fair. It admittedly was a poorly thought out comparison.

The Articles of Confederation were more like the EU, yes. The current US government as established by the US Constitution was definitely not, as it establishes a strong, central federal government with ultimate authority. The makeup of the senate, where each state no matter the size, has two senators was part of a bargain between the big and small states.

The reason the US has a Senate with two senators per state, along with a clause that makes it the only section of the constitution that cannot be modified by amendment, is because of the institution of chattel slavery. The slave states had a much smaller voting population than non-slave states and feared that majority rule would eventually remove their ability to keep slaves.

I’m not sure if you can say for certain the exact intentions of individuals who prepared the constitution hundreds of years ago.

Why not?

The founders were literate and routinely wrote down their thoughts (see citations at the bottom of wikipedia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_C... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

You'll have to do better than linking the entire history of the US Senate if you want to prove that the only reason the US has two senators per state is slavery. I don't doubt that it factored into it at the time, but to tell people in Alabama that the sole reason their vote is valued how the way it is is due to slavery seems incredibly revisionist and ignorant to me.

Consider that in Canada's House of Parliament, we similarly have votes in rural areas overrepresented compared to their urban counterparts. Did that system arise from slavery as well? Of course it didn't, and any Canadian suggesting so would be laughed at.

> Did that system arise from slavery as well? Of course it didn't, and any Canadian suggesting so would be laughed at.

Can you explain why? I probably have a childlike understanding of the histories of Parliament and slavery in Canada.

Close, but no cigar! The Connecticut compromise certainly did include additions about slavery, but in the end the 3/5ths compromise REDUCED the population count for slaves states, decreasing their proportional power. States like Delaware, with small populations were in favor of it.

The US constitution precedes the abolition movements by almost a century, slavery was widely accepted by the time the senate was created. This is false and revisionist.

The reality is that the early US was a lot more similar to a federation of independent states at its birth than today. A senate ensured the spirit of a federation would be kept.

"A True History of The United States": https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/612519/a-true-histo...

This book definitely agrees with GP and disagrees with you. You might want to check it out.

Thanks. it has true in the title. it definitely is the ultimate source of truth. Geez guys, just because ONE book says something it doesn't mean you have to believe it as the gospel.

Jesus Christ this community has fallen to shit. Shame on you

Interesting, I want to believe you, but while the Constitution was signed in 1787[1], while the first state that partially abolished slavery (PA) did so a few years earlier, in 1780. Was Pennsylvania not necessarily representative of the majority population? (the next few states abolishing slavery definitely come a few years later)

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm....

[2] https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/12/before-there-w....

This is BS. The reason we have the senate is because the small states (like NH and NJ) would have never given the constitution their blessing without a say in the legislature.

Here's the 1802 house just to drive the point home. I suggest sorting by the "seats" column

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1802_and_1803_United_States_Ho...

Of course it is. These two groups have wildly different day to day lives and living styles.

I think the reason we see more EPA tractors is that parents choose to pay for an EPA tractor rather than spend the time to drive their kids to sports/after-school jobs and then spend the time again to pick them up. It might also be related to the fact that both parents are more likely to be working today than in the past, thus less time available for driving the kids around.

In addition, the public transportation system has been steadily declining in the last 30 years. If I remember right, they even removed laws some time in the early 2000s that required public bus service in remote areas. I also recall that it wasn't that uncommon for lines to be usually empty or with just a handful of passengers, but this was part of the costs of having an available public mass transportation system. They also combined the then national postal service with bus service so that those mostly empty buses provided a secondary service of transporting mail.

> It might also be related to the fact that both parents are more likely to be working today than in the past, thus less time available for driving the kids around.

I don't think so: Back in the days when Mum was more likely to be a housewife, families were also much more likely to possess only one car, rather than two. And that one car was parked outside Dad's job during the workday, so Mum couldn't drive the kids anywhere unless Dad was around to do it himself anyway.

I can see the argument for that, but having grown up in the rural areas of Sweden, almost everyone had two cars. Usually one half-decent and a second much less so. This also don't account for tractors.

A crappy car that cost around or less than $1000, standing there for the primary reason that two adults with children has an occasional use for a secondary car.

You must have grown up a good while after I did, or in a more prosperous area. (Södra Dalarna, 1970-/tidigt 80-tal.)

> So if you’re a young person who does sports or has an after-school job, you’re out of luck if you don’t have well-off parents with a flat in city.

I come from a town of about 30k, and I’ve never once felt the need to go anywhere outside of town for any of those things. Given the total number of sports or work locations available, I think that’ll hold true until around the 5k people mark.

As far as I can see it’s not really related to being well-off or not. More related to expectations.

> I think that’ll hold true until around the 5k people mark.

The towns that are "important regional centers" in Northern Scandinavia are often smaller than that.

Like what? What town would you classify as an important regional centre that has less than 5000 inhabitants?

Example: De Smet, South Dakota. Regional hospital, county seat, population 1000. Area is 1/10th the size of New Jersey.

The De Smet, South Dakota example is a good one.

For a more northerly North American example, High Level Alberta, Canada has a population of 3100 and a service population of 20k. First settlers in 1947, it was incorporated in 1965. There is a paved airstrip long enough for a 747, and a hospital.

It would be the sleepiest of little villages in southern Europe and/or the USA, and would have a service area not much bigger than its population.

The further north you go, the more towns have and require outsized services.

But none of them are in Scandinavia.

Sveg?

I think the problem is that these are only ‘regional centers’ by virtue of there being absolutely nothing else around.

I don’t think it invalidates the point that you can’t expect to find all amenities if you live in a community that cannot support them.

I’d be willing to bet that 95% of people lives in more populated places, and 90% of the remaining 5% lives so out of the way by choice (e.g. if they _wanted_ to move closer to a more populated place it wouldn’t be an undue financial burden).

30k is a decent-sized city in Finland. There are only 22 cities of that size in the entire country.

The place I grew up was around 1k.

I come from a town of about 30k

Even in America, 30K is not a small town. I've lived in and visited probably a hundred places with populations in the hundreds or low thousands.

There are counties in America bigger than New Jersey with less than a thousand people.

I think the issue is more for all those kids living 10km outside that 30k town.

Take a bicycle? Cycling half an hour (or less, can go pretty fast on empty roads) is good for your health.

There are moped cars that are expensive, unreliable and quite unsafe.

There was the initiative to install a speed limiter to regular cars to turn them into "light cars" for kids but that didn't pass for some reason. EU regulations? How is it possible in Sweden?

Countryside can be really sparse, with current amount of people a kid's nearest friend might live 5 km away. Cars make so much sense there. Lots of people learn to drive really young with a "peltoauto", a field car. That's legal as it's on private property.

5km is more of a bike ride length than a car ride length, so to me cars still don't make sense

Try doing a 5km ride on ice in -15 C, and then report back about making sense.

Studded tires and pogies work. My dad commuted regularly to work by bike more than 5km in the winter in Alaska at those temps.

Edit: He lives in Fairbanks, where the fat bike originated. He doesn't ride one since he doesn't like the bounce, but people ride them all winter for fun. I think, like many places, the key is having trails to ride on to improve safety.

Sure, it works. I've done it.

You'll wish you were in a car the whole time you're doing it though.

He owns a car and regularly chose to commute by bike during the winter. Now that he is retired, he still bikes during the winter purely for fun, as do many other people. That may not be the choice everyone would make, but my point us that it can make sense and bikes are quite feasible during the winter.

Of course, the availability of trails has a huge impact on that choice and it's safety. Sled dogs, snow machines, and now other bike rider make sure that there are lots of trails all over.

That's a routine & enjoyable commute for a lot of people (usually that weather means more packed snow than ice though). Along with doing a lot of recreational outdoor stuff at that weather. You want proper clothing of course.

What's the weather like in Northern Scandinavia?

Have you ever taken a 30 minute bike ride over ice-and-snow-covered roads, in -20C temperatures, in the dark, on roads with no street lights or sidewalks (the sun sets at 2:00pm)?

If so, good for you, you rugged badass! But I’m not sure we need to force everybody to do the same.

I think it's not that bad, I've done similar in the past and still cycle everywhere, no mtter the weather.

Just get a good bicycle light (B&M have some dynamo powered 80lux or 100lux lights) and then it's easily possible.

Country roads might be ok for biking, even in winter with the right equipment (clothes, spike tires) but there can be roads with 100 km/h traffic and very narrow shoulders. And the flying sleet and salt etc... Sure, there are quite many bike roads and side roads but not available everywhere. And there are some buses too. But again, since it's so sparse, buses are hard to make work. Taxis do work.

Basically, some parts of the country are really "car country" - and it makes total sense there.

One shouldn't try to shoehorn cars into city centers, I agree about that. This is something else.

And you want young teens driving in those conditions? Remember, these “tractors” are speed limited to a fraction of 100km/h too.

Yes, much rather I'd have the teens driving "light cars" which are regular cars at 80 km/h in those conditions than for example flimsy moped cars. Cars have a tremendous amount of safety nowadays, and you get a lot of features for a little bit of money.

We have excellent driver training, including training how to drive in slippery conditions, cars have regulation that they need automatic light leveling, there's yearly checkups for cars etc.

I wouldn't want a teenager driving on ice and snow covered roads in the dark on roads with no street lights.

That’s like saying you wouldn’t want a teenager driving in the city vs the suburb, or a freeway vs regular road. These are normal conditions in Sweden.

The grandparent was making out the roads to be incredibly dangerous, that you couldn't possibly ride a bike on them. (Dark, ice covered, no street lamps!). If they are really so dangerous that you can't ride a bike on them then they are too dangerous for a teenager to be driving on.

So, lock the kids up during winter? Where I live, the roads are barely walkable during winter. Public transport is 8km away.

Cars with proper winter tires is far easier to keep steady, than a bike. Especially if windy.

Most teens out here drive tractors to get around. Personally, I'd prefer if Finland went the Swedish route here - an old Volvo with limited speed is still less dangerous than a large tractor.

Haha, ever heard of winter tires? Or winter driving instruction courses? Which btw are mandatory at least in Finland

Ever heard of fat tires? Snow doesn't mean you can't bike.

This is false.

I grew up in rural Michigan, so similar weather and density to the Nordic countries. There are PLENTY of times when driving is perfectly safe and I wouldn't bike. And I prefer walking/biking to driving most of the time.

There is a large difference between using a bike on icy roads covered in snow and using a car on the same road.

I wouldn't want a teenager driving on ice and snow covered roads in the dark on roads with no street lights.

So, pretty much outside city limits in every state in America that gets snow?

Most roads are in cleared of snow and ice and are usually well lit. If the street is not well lit and it is covered in ice then yes a teenager should not be driving on it.

I live in suburban Minneapolis. We go weeks with ice covered neighborhood streets, and they are lit only at intersections. Teens learn to drive safely in this environment.

Teens have a higher fatality rate than almost every other driving cohort except 80+ and winter driving conditions are more dangerous than non winter conditions. Teens do not drive safely compared to other age groups in this environment or any other environment.

Fatality rate is more or less irreverent. Pretty much nobody is dying from snow caused mishaps.

Teens die a lot because of gross errors in judgement, drunkenly flying off a cliff on their way to prom with eight people in the car, that kind of stuff. Those kinds of errors mostly tangential to snow and lighting.

By "outside city limits" I believe OP was being general, not specifically talking about large cities.

I live in a rural area. I can think of exactly four street lights that are within a 10-mile radius of my home, and I'm not that far outside town. So yeah, it's pretty dark at night.

Yes, roads around here are mostly cleared of snow and ice, but they're still dirt/gravel roads and the snow is usually pushed off to the shoulders where a bicycle would be riding, and even then, I'm sure you can understand that dirt absorbs water and will then refreeze. It's not a particularly safe place to be riding a bike.

> Have you ever taken a 30 minute bike ride over ice-and-snow-covered roads, in -20C temperatures, in the dark, on roads with no street lights or sidewalks (the sun sets at 2:00pm)?

This is exactly the circular problem that everyone in Sweden always points at: the roads are too dangerous and poorly developed for people to cycle on safely - therefore the answer is... more cars driving unsafely on the roads, making them too dangerous for cyclists.

It's a car-culture here. Nothing will ever happen to change that.

Incidentally, anyone romanticizing this as some sort of grassroots, badass rebellious movement should bear in mind that around big cities like Stockholm, parents buy their teenage kids Porsches to be converted to EPA-traktors.[0]

[0] https://www.dn.se/sthlm/han-kor-porsche-i-30-kilometer-i-tim...

let me guess: you live somewhere where winter is 10C with occasional rain? nordic winters are brutal - riding a bike in winter is suicidal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

Riding a bike in Finland seems to work just fine, given decent infrastructure. (Where "given decent infrastructure" is a constraint for practically any vehicle).

This video is from the fifth largest city in Finland, so that hardly counts as a rural area with long distances

This is what the roads looks like in the rural areas during winter https://www.google.com/search?q=maantie+talvella&source=lnms...

I have cycled 12km everyday to school when I was young, but it was on flat roads. In winter it was sometimes -5 to -15 and around those temps, sometimes I would fetch a ride, because I agree, in winter it can be harsh, but other then that, it was biking every day.

Rain is even worse than snow by the way. Wind is also killing. But if it was a snowy day with not much wind, cycling is actually fun.

Seeing the comments here I am happy for the swedes that Americans with their safety obsession are not allowed to vote in Sweden.

> quite unsafe.

For the occupant yes. Less so for everyone around.

> that didn't pass for some reason.

It's still a 1500kg block of steel in the hands of people with lesser developed sense of danger (still applies to some adults but that is a different discussion). I get the "people need to go places" but apparently there are no adults who can provide the "service" of driving someone somewhere in the countryside.

The tractor exception was valid in my place as well and was dealt with in a updated law, it's not european afaik simply most countries banning it.

One can put a limit to 1000kg and 50km/h for cars that can be driven from 15-16 years old. The way it is today, at 16 you can fly a plane in most of Europe but you cannot drive a car. Does this make any sense?

> It's still a 1500kg block of steel in the hands of people with lesser developed sense of danger.

In the US people start driving at 16, no? In Austria and Germany you can get an early license with 17.

I got my moped license with 15, but that is probably a hard sell in the north ...

I'd say reduce the age at which people can get a license, make drivers education better, and put a limit on horsepower (same way it is done with motorcycle licenses).

For the US driving at 16 is common especially in the rural states. We could also get our learners permit at 14 so I could drive with my parents in the car. Mostly for me it meant I was the one then doing the 5hr drive to my grandparents place.

Also several of my friends got mopeds at 14 and would drive them around town. Not good for driving on gravel roads but was great for the kids in town.

The farm kids out of town would drive their parents trucks/cars in and around their property starting around 13/14 but that was generally to haul feed and equipment around.

Most US states allow you to get a learners permit at 15.5 years, so that you can get your license when you first turn 16.

There are limitations- an accompanying adult, number of non adult passenger restrictions to limit distractions etc, but the reality is they are still in control of the vehicle.

Out in the country, it is relatively common to drive yourself to school the last year or two. Trying to raise the age to 18 would not go over well at all!

> Countryside can be really sparse, with current amount of people a kid's nearest friend might live 5 km away.

What do kids who aren't old enough for homebuilt pickups do to visit such friends?

The crazy solution we had in the more southern part of Europe - we used bikes. Crazy, I know.

I think the "more southern" part of Europe applies here. It's probably about "not being covered in snow for most of the year" which helps cyclists. Yeah, you can use bicycles on snow, but it's not pleasant. Most people hide their bicycles for winter and I'm south from Sweden.

Hmm, I've seen plenty of biking infrastructure un Umea and Lulea (including heated bridges that are used in winter), not to mention people using them even in colder times. It seems not all your countrymen agree with your thinking about winter biking.

Of course not everyone agrees. I see someone on bicycle almost every day, but those are either very dedicated cyclists or those who have no other means to move faster than walking but still need to.

Heated bridges? I've never seen one and roads are not even fully desnowed in my town.

Biking, online, and school meetups.

My dad and friends used to do 50 mile round trips on bikes back in the day. I hung out and talked to people online. It was also normal to do things like go home with a friend after school to hang out and have a parent pick you up when they got out of work, or hang out at practices after school. So it's doable but it requires a lot more logistics on the part of the adults, which is why everybody's happy when the kids can drive.

It's possible in Sweden because these "aren't cars, they're tractors". They're required to be modified so they can't go faster than 30 km/h [~18 mph] (or is it 50 km/h [30 mph] nowadays, I can't remember).

It's a remnant of wartime legislation, when farmers had a genuine need to be able to use modified old cars for field work, because real tractors weren't available. In return for the lighter taxation on farm equipment, they were glad to accept the requirement; probably had to gear them down anyway, to be able to pull a plow etc.

So they're legally registered as tractors, not cars. The moniker "EPAtraktor" has nothing to do with the US Environmental Protection Agency; it's an originally derogatory reference to Enhets(P)ris(A)ktiebolaget, a long-defunct low-price retail chain. So, ~ "Dollar Store tractor". (Or "Alepatraktori"?)

But what about mopeds and bicycles? And motorcycles?

all nice in summer. in winter though?

They're fine if you have the right infrastructure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

Probably not as "nice". But the below video makes a strong case that it is quite possible

Reply on news.ycombinator.com