> But, and this is key, I didn't simply hand Rosy some money, a grocery bag, close my eyes and send her to the market up the street.

The article does note that there was a whole process leading up to sending the kid out on an errand. Lots of out-and-about skill acquisition in gradually more-independent settings, culminating in the trip to the store. One assumes that if the child was particularly prone to distractions like that, it'd have come up and been worked on.

The article describes the child was already engaging in dangerous behaviour (climbing the roof) and pushing boundaries. By giving errands you are (gradually) setting new boundaries for the child you have at least some control over, instead of them suddenly discovering they can go into the neighbourhood or wherever that you don't know about. At least that is what I understand from it. The alternative would be more/stricter boundaries I think. But that would just lead to more undesired and dangerous behaviour from the child to break those boundaries.

Having seen 1 though 5 year old children in save indoor spaces at a nursery and the woodlands with rusty fences: the latter group moves more up a muddy hill with bolders then the protected group walks over a carpet.

But okay, the amount of bruises increases in the wilderness. The amount of crying over that decreases by 99 percent.

I think the point is, if it's generally accepted culture in the community then others will be mindful as well because they know what's going on.

And 4 yr olds are harder to see for drivers. I guess rear cameras have probably made suburbia safer for unaccompanied small children (less reversing out of drive risk) but the growth in large trucks with poor visibility [0] has probably otherwise made roads less safe.

[0] https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-danger...

A large number of adults get distracted by their phones and get run over. The child is probably more aware of its environment than most adults.