Hacker News Reader

Comment by closeparen | Hacker News Reader

I didn’t realize how good I had it growing up in a 1920s streetcar suburb of a Rust Belt city, where pretty much everyone walked or biked to school. Even people who are lukewarm on postwar suburbia usually hew to the consensus that it’s the ideal place to raise kids, and it makes no sense. Children need environments they can navigate under their own power.

View on HN

It's not just how they are built. I live 1/4 of a mile away from my kids' school. There are crossing guards and sidewalks. Many people still drive their kid to school in my neighborhood. It's crazy to me.

When I went to high school, I walked, as I lived only a few blocks away. So did most kids. During the morning dropoff time, it was mostly walkers, bikes, and busses, with a few cars here and there.

Today? Proportions are reversed. Just a few walk or bike, and an absolute catastrophe of cars dropping off kids. So many that they back up in to the surrounding neighborhood. It's bizarre to me.

I wonder if other parents these days would call CPS on you if they saw your kid strolling past the car pickup line?

You will read the occasional horror story of people getting CPS called on them by some out of touch busybody because they let their kids walk to the park, but honestly that is just as rare as stranger-danger abductions. It's on the order of a case every few years. Basically nothing worth worrying about.

It probably depends upon where you live.

I've seen kids in our neighborhood walking to school alone as early as the 3rd grade. And we have a pack of young kids - ranging from 2nd grade to kindergarten, that regularly roam without adults.

So at least where I live, this doesn't appear to be much of a concern.

I don't think it would be a problem here (Somerville MA): our oldest started walking to school alone in first grade, and home in second grade. Along with our middle child they are also often around the neighborhood on their own, going to the park by themselves or friends' houses.

Driving is the American way and our cities have always been built around roads, from the very first day that an American landed on the shores. It would actually be un-American to shun cars, as it were.

As the old patriotic hymn goes

"He is sounding forth the car horn that shall never ever cease. He is fastening the seat belt in his drivers side reclining seat. As he tried to make men Holy let us drive to make men free. His truth is rolling on.

Jesus Christ pick a lane ass-hole. Jesus Christ pick a lane ass-hole. Jesus Christ pick a lane ass-hole. And put your turn signal on!"

I heard the rythm and tunes of "Comfort Eagle" by Cake, while reading your hymn. Your hymn sort of fits, both in tone, sarcasm and meter of that song. Thank you

I was going for a parody of "Battle hymn of the Republic" / "John Browns Body" / "Blood upon the Risers" / "Solidarity Forever".

However true this may be, the difference between 30 years ago and today is still not explained by that.

I grew up in a very much car-centric suburb. My elementary school was 1.5 miles away. For the first 3 years I rode the school bus. As soon as I hit 4th Grade, I was riding my bike or walking. Most of my friends did the same.

I guarantee you that that same school today sees barely 10% biking/walking compared to 1990.

Agreed. I should have clarified in my post, but this is the same exact neighborhood and school. Demographics are roughly the same. And yet walking / biking is now seen as non-viable.

Might be the "stranger danger" hysteria that was responsible for that change.

Cars have gotten larger. They've gotten faster, accelerate a lot quicker, and can stop a lot faster. Take a look at any video of driving from from the '70s-1990 of American drivers. Cars were small and a bit uncomfortable, and accelerated slowly. The National Speed Limit Law also had some effect on keeping speed limits low. All of this made it more viable to be a pedestrian or a cyclist even with little dedicated architecture.

Today a collector road with a speed limit of 30 mph is seeing drivers at 45 mph, despite stoplights. Nobody is going to bike around 40 mph cars.

> Our cities have always been built around roads, from the very first day that an American landed on the shores

Roads maybe, but not cars (which of course hadn't even been invented when the America was founded). The US used to have extensive streetcar networks. The dominance of cars is a 20th century phenomenon.

You missed the joke.

That reminds me of a comment I once read about the roads in my city being too narrow to accommodate bicycle infrastructure because it was originally designed for horse and carriage. I had to laugh at that, because the streets were originally multi-use. People mostly walked or took a tram. The horses were there, but mostly for commercial use or the wealthy. The typical city dweller had neither the space to graze them nor the means to buy feed.

I live in a downtown century home neighborhood with the elementary school right around the corner (Waterloo region, Canada), and most kids walk, but there are a handful whose parents drop them off on nearby side streets or whatever. Possibly on the way to work or something? Obviously there may be individual considerations, but overall it just seems nuts that anyone would consider that option given how small the catchment is.

Anyway, the school has a tiny parking lot (like 20 slots) just for staff use, but they’re constantly facing calls to expand it, add “pull-in” spots, and so on. I’m glad they’ve been able to resist these as I could well imagine many parents teetering on the edge of comfort level with walking, and potentially switching if it was only slightly more convenient to drive or slightly more scary to walk.

I wonder if there's some sort of game-theory esque problem with cars.

As in, the more people drive to a destination, the less pleasant and convenient it is to walk the same route, and the more attractive driving becomes.

I think, also, the more driving you do in general, the more it feels like the default.

It's the school drop-off paradox: https://blogsmedia.lse.ac.uk/blogs.dir/120/files/2022/01/Pic...

Yes, absolutely both of those are factors. Walkability is a classic tragedy of the commons.

Which is why it is important and justifiable to occasionally decide collectively to do things that may be perceived as “anti-car”, such as removing (or refusing to build) new car-serving infrastructure such as parking spaces.

This is definitely the case - I used to work next to a bakery and a shopping market with a deli - great lunch options - but that option was rarely exercised because they were built in the classic American "island in the middle of a sea of parking spaces" style that meant the walk was incredibly unpleasant. Folks who lived with half a mile of the grocery store would drive over just to avoid spending five minutes walking (and dodging cars in) the parking lot.

Car oriented infrastructure makes cities less habitable.

I'd drive to my grocery store a 1/4 mile away because I don't want to carry a weeks worth of groceries home

I have a friend whose family of five is car free and he does big grocery runs with a hiking pack or even bike trailer.

But certainly point taken— that type of thing is well outside the norm. Most carfree urban dwellers I think handle this by just breaking up the shopping into more, smaller trips. Going every two days instead of every seven, and paying a slight premium for smaller packs of stuff like TP vs stockpiling 48 rolls at once.

And honestly, some of it is a mindset shift more than anything else. Like a lot of people who do these big whole-week mega shops still seem to be "popping out" to the store (in the car, of course) every other day anyway for some single item they forgot, emergency snacks, whatever. So maybe if you're there anyway, do the work and extend the meal plan another day or two, bring a backpack’s worth of stuff home, and avoid or defer the mega shop that justifies owning a car in the first place.

I would agree that it is manageable to make shopping work without a car, but I'd rather not spend more time going to and from the store, and I'd rather drive a little further to cheaper stores for bulk goods. Also, I don't think the mega shopping is what justifies owning a car, it's more a product that I already have a car because I need to go to work. The car is a sunk cost in most of America.

I feel like both justify the other in some ways: I need a car to do big shopping trips <-> I need to do big shopping trips because I have a car

Or, as you say, having a car is just a given most places in America, so there’s not really a question of it being any other way.

As someone who has lived car free I both agree and disagree with your point. What we tend to do for shopping is occasionally cab/instacart big heavy bulk stuff (like dried beans, canned goods, spices, the 3lbs cut of beef) from Costco/equivalent and then do random small shops through the week to pickup vegetables, fruit and other perishables - it works out quite well and it's nice to be able to plan recipes pretty flexibly.

Again, it's totally manageable to come up with ways to shop without a car. I already have a car though, so it would take more time and effort for me to not use it at this point.

Sort of? Walking to the store, and generally being outside, is healthy and if you're going to the gym already then the occasional walk is an easier way to get some exercise for free.

Sort of? It’s absolutely more time and effort if I include “exercise time” in my now every few days grocery runs. So rather than take 5 minutes each way in a car once a week traveling to the store you’d like me to walk to the closer expensive store several days a week and say it’s only sort of quicker and easier? You have to construct reasons to make it better and even then a walk to the store isn’t the same as a gym workout. I’m much happier walking to the park several times a week with my family than walking to the store with them.

Basically.

America’s high parking requirements are one example for this. The parking lot is usually between a sidewalk (if it hasn’t gotten eaten to expand said parking lot) and the front entrance, reducing a given spot’s walkshed, and both being within a parking lot or crossing its driveways to pass one are not pleasant.

I think it's more than that. The more cars are going the less pleasant it becomes for everyone, also cars themselves. But a large amount of people does what everyone else does and just rationalises/justifies it somehow when challenged.

I see the same with children. When I was young nobody wanted to be dropped off by their parents, everyone wanted to bike. I see it with my kids somewhat (they are still a bit young to bike to school alone here) and some colleagues kids (who are older) and it is an argument to bike to school. Interestingly this seems to be very school dependent some schools have almost all kids biking while others have none. It is almost like a phase transition.

I have a 1 year old, whom I've been taking to playgrounds nearby me here in San Francisco since he was 6 months old. He is on his naked feet, in a public space, almost daily and gets great joy out of it, and there are lots of super clean, really nice facilities here. I've also been biking him since he hit 20 pounds, at 9 months.

There are acquaintances of mine closer to 2-10x as wealthy as I am, and they have never taken their 1 year olds to a playground. They drive everywhere. They don't childproof their homes, they are filled with designer furniture. They have big playpens. They're definitely elite educated. They are certainly aware of the benefits of this kind of development / play for their children. They own all the same Wirecutter approved crap as I do, so they are online, they have read this stuff.

These are cultural differences. They are not motivated by racism or something like that - you know, potentially encountering the "other" at the playground is not really what it's about.

People feel the outside world is dirty and their babies are clean and that dirt is stress. Imagine this for 10 years. You will be driving your kids a quarter of a mile.

The best thing to do would be a viral Instagram momfluencer campaign. This is just how the "clean" people think and consume. You do not comprehend how stressful children are for this group. It's bimodal.

Yup, a friend of ours turned into one of these "babies are clean" moms, down to wiping their hands with baby wipes every time before they were allowed to touch food.

Unsurprisingly the kid's completely undeveloped immune system decided to compensate by developing severe allergies to wheat, milk, eggs and peanuts.

> People feel the outside world is dirty and their babies are clean and that dirt is stress.

I just stumbled across this the other day... "How mud boosts your immune system" - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220929-how-outdoor-play...

> Children love getting dirty. They are drawn to puddles like muddy magnets, with no regard for footwear or the colour of their clothing. But getting mucky could have a powerful effect on their wellbeing, too.

> "Don't get dirty!" was once a constant family refrain, as parents despairingly watched their children spoil their best clothes. Whether they were running through farmers' fields, climbing trees or catching tadpoles, it was inevitable that children's whites would turn brown before the day was over.

>These are cultural differences. ... People feel the outside world is dirty and their babies are clean and that dirt is stress. Imagine this for 10 years. You will be driving your kids a quarter of a mile.

No wonder younger Americans all have deadly allergies to so many common things like peanuts.

This is usually because the design of the streets is still terrible, even if there are sidewalks.

There are plenty of streets with sidewalks in the US that are less walkable than sidewalk-less alleys or narrow streets in Japan. Having sidewalks is certainly better than no sidewalks, but there are other variables.

It's gotten fairly engrained to drive for some people. A lot of people in the US never consider using the bus, simply because they have no experience with it. It doesn't matter how good the service is.

My friend showed me this podcast episode [1] about a Japanese TV show where young kids embark on their first independent errands. The episode discusses how a mix of street design, neighborhood groups, and school policies make many Japanese neighborhoods safe enough for children to “navigate under their own power” to schools and stores.

[1]: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/first-errand/

I just bought a house in a streetcar suburb of Philadelphia, and this is among the reasons why. I've lived in some places that were more walkable and some places that were more car-dependent, and I know for sure that when I'm raising kids I want them to be able to get around on their own. I (mostly) had that benefit growing up and I don't want to deny that to them.

Postwar suburbia was designed for cars, not people.

At first, they were isolated enough that kids could still be kids, while their parents went crazy. Then the kids weren't even allowed to roam free and "be kids." And the suburbs and their homes got so close that there might not be trees in the yards, let alone a grove to go play in. And so, at the same time these youth demographics were marketed to for the first time ever, they were also stifled and smothered out of their autonomy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com