Hacker News Reader

Comment by aklemm | Hacker News Reader

Well that headline sums it up. After 10 years of dealing with it and wondering "how the f did we get to this point", it's satisfying to hear it called what it is.

A small win in our family was in my son's final year of elementary school when he finally decided to try walking home 1.5 miles; that Spring was a delight for him. He was properly decompressed and had logged a minimum amount of physical activity for good sleep and all the rest.

Pay for the buses! Build the greenways! Normalize walking! And stop worrying about abductions for the love of gawd!

View on HN

Everyone here should watch the Japanese TV series, Old Enough!. 2-4 year olds are sent out on their own to run errands, etc. Yes, really, 2-4 years old. And they succeed and are fine.

https://www.ntv.co.jp/english/pc/2011/02/old-enough.html

Ngl if the price for that is a Japanese level of social control, conformity, and their mad justice system... I'll take a car line.

> I'll take a car line

Push this out thirty years. One set of kids was navigating the real world since they were 4. The other has been mollycoddled with overparenting and screen time. Which cohort do you think will be happier, better adjusted and better off?

Then realise that it's not uncommon to see grade schoolers taking the subway to and from school in New York.

There's more to growing up and being "well adjusted" than walking around as a child, for example the freedom to explore who you are without the "nail that sticks up is hammered down" treatment. I also enjoy a certain amount of diversity (in every sense, from thought to people) that simply isn't tolerated in Japan.

Forget Japan for a moment. Walking to and from school unattended is perfectly normal in many countries in the EU. The normalisation of car journeys in the US is bizarre .

There is no "US" where something like this is normalized, it's down to region, weather, urbanization and perception of safety. I grew up walking and biking to school because I was lucky enough to live in a nice suburb close to my school. For people who need to take a 20 minute *drive* to school obviously that isn't feasible.

The US is a massive country with a huge number of different climates and layouts, which is partly what makes articles and conversations like this so painful to read. Instead of the skeptical, critical thinking you'd expect from HN you get mess of "Car bad" "I wish we had European public transit" and broad generalization talk.

> I grew up walking and biking to school because I was lucky enough to live in a nice suburb close to my school

So did I. Have you been back? The kids in my school are dropped off when I biked.

Yeah, they're still walking/biking. I live in a state where I see kids walking to and from school all of the time.

> more to growing up and being "well adjusted" than walking around as a child

Sure. Which of those cohorts do you think has more freedom?

> also enjoy a certain amount of diversity (in every sense, from thought to people) that simply isn't tolerated in Japan

You’d have a point if Japan were the only culture in the world with competent 4-year olds. They’re not. We’re the exception. To the extent there is a bubble it’s the American culture of isolating and surveilling kids to and from school.

> Which cohort do you think will be happier, better adjusted and better off?

Yes, and have agency and think for themselves - a key requirement of democracy and freedom.

Consider that the fact that there’s a tv show about it means it’s a novelty in Japan as well.

It’s great that Japan has a civil society that makes a show like that possible, but don’t mistake it for more than it is. It’s the same mistake as generalizing from what you read in the news: it’s news because it’s unusual.

No, it really is commonplace in Japan. It makes good TV because little kids are cute as heck. Not everybody has kids, and even if you do, they don't remain five years old forever. So even mundane stories about little kids can stay popular.

The novelty is that the show has 3 year olds being independent. In Japan 5 year olds doing independent tasks is common and expected.

Don’t worry you’ll get the control and the car line soon enough

We can have a walkable community and still have things we love and do.

They also did an "Old Enough Canada":

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgBne2KTlDUyxLPg3oalg...

I really dislike it when Japan is brought up as a comparison with the US, especially when it comes to crime or schooling. The cultures, poverty levels, and crime rates are so vastly different that it's never helpful.

Maybe they are so different because you (and others) won't try to learn from different cultures. If not, probably nothing will change.

There is much to learn from them. However there are dark sides of their culture too. They have high suicide rates, and are very xenophobic (much worse than Trump in the US) for starters. We can learn, but be careful as it isn't always clear which factors you want to emulate are tied to things you don't.

As of 2019, Japan's suicide rate is lower than the US.

good to know

America has an obsession with being different and has a thousand answers to why things that work elsewhere would not and could not possibly work here. It's the size, if it's not the size, it's the density, if it's not the density it's ... repeat ad nauseam.

Yea, when someone claims “this could not possibly work in the USA! It’s too large and the population not dense” or whatever, then ask why it wouldn’t work in just New Jersey which is about as large and dense as some European countries.

What exactly are you suggesting?

Japan is a monoculture and strictly traditional, not to mention very xenophobic. Everything works because the social penalties for violating those norms are severe. It’s effectively an ethnostate and not that long ago revered their god-emperor.

The U.S. is by contrast a diverse (geographically and demographically), broad culture of immigrant communities based on a concept of rugged individualism where states and townships run things as they see fit.

If you want to reshape the U.S. in the model of Japan … well

> What exactly are you suggesting?

Not to reshape America into Japan, but attempt to keep the parts that are nice while integrating the best parts of other nations. America loved to claim it was a nation of immigrants; the French even sent you a gift for how much America would take the best of other countries (the brightest minds, the hardest workers), and build with that.

Maybe that's not how the country works any more, but it was a nice fantasy.

That difference has squat zero with kids walking or playing.

Rugged individualism seems to have been lost given the context here.

It is if you consider cultures, poverty levels, and crime rates to not be immutable geographic traits, but a result of policy choices. The US can't take a giant leap to kids having Tokyo-like freedom, but it can look at what Japan does differently that results in such a society (eg. its public education system, public transit, policing, street design, typical vehicle size, etc).

You cannot legislate positive cultural attributes into being. There's no way to fine people into reading to their kids, picking up trash when they see it, deciding to put the grocery cart back, prioritizing academic achievement, etc.

It takes a lot more than legislation, but Japan's modern culture is in large part the product of its education system. It has a strong focus on teaching exactly that sort of prosocial behaviour.

It's taught in the home too and Americans will teach children how to use welfare before throwing away their own trash

Even then, Japan’s homogeneity allows its government to teach a certain lifestyle to kids with no backlash. That’s unworkable here in the US.

> Japan’s homogeneity allows its government to teach a certain lifestyle to kids with no backlash.

Are they teaching 'lifestyle' - how specifically? Does the US not teach it? And do you have any evidence that homogeniety has something to do with it?

Often "homogeneity" is a dog whistle for blaming minorities.

> You cannot legislate positive cultural attributes into being.

You can legislate environment, e.g., when all you have is car-centric sprawling suburbs, it's harder to walk / cycle to school.

I grew up in a 'streetcar suburb', and was walking to school on my own (or with friends) by grade four (my dad woke me up, made breakfast, and then left for work: I knew I had to leave for school after G.I. Joe finished (at 8:30, for 9:00)).

In grad school, a friend from China explained that he stayed home on his own starting at like age 3. He was going down to the market outside his high rise apartment, buying basic groceries, and entertaining himself all day. It blew my mind, he saw nothing wrong with it.

There's nothing wrong with it.

It's actually impressive that you can entertain yourself at 3-4 years old.

My perception of time at that age would have been such that I'd probably be very fearful of being abandoned if left alone for more than 2-3 hours.

But kudos to him.

That’s quite a tale you were told. As a parent I can tell you my children barely even remember being 3yo, let alone have the ability to reach the shelves and pour their own beverages at that age

As a HN denizen, I can tell you that your anecdote does not overide someone else's anecdote.

That wouldn't work in US until the whole culture changes. An individual family may do this, and then someone will call child protective services because there is a lost, unaccompanied child.

Happened to my coworker: kids were playing outside and a neighbor called the authorities on them. Not clear if they really thought the kids were in danger, or just did it out of spite, but what ensued was a nightmare of CPS calling the workplace and a few follow-up house visits. The sad part is everyone involved can turn around and claim "we were worried about the children" and use that as a shield for whatever overzealousness or maliciousness may hide underneath.

>That wouldn't work in US until the whole culture changes.

This is one of those things laws are great at. Delete the power of idiot Karens and the culture will return to normal.

It works for Utah (and to a point, Texas); it can work for your polity, too.

When children are at far greater risk of abuse and abduction by concern trolls and the State, and they very much are in New World countries, your society is broken.

Nice. What laws are you referring to?

"Free range" laws. You search those terms and find a ton of information including which states have them.

But free range laws are a good thing right?

Free range laws say the opposite: that a kid over a certain age is allowed to be alone and the parents CANNOT be charged for it. It’s to encourage free range parenting.

> children are at far greater risk of abuse and abduction by concern trolls and the State

Is there evidence of that? And would you define 'concern trolls' (beyond 'people who have concerns different than mine')?

>people who have concerns different than mine

"Trying to abduct my child either directly or by proxy" is not merely a question of polite differing concerns.

Who is trying to do that?

People who call CPS just because children are outside unaccompanied? It's obvious taking children away from the parent is a possibility when one makes that call.

OK, but ... those people may not be 'concern trolls' at all (whatever that means).

I think in this case ‘concern troll’ means someone who can’t mind their own business and chooses to troll someone by stirring up unnecessary drama or conflict, using insincere concern as a pretext.

We know the concern is insincere because the OP’s example (children playing in their yard) cannot be considered concerning by a reasonable person.

I think you're creating a fine definition but based on context and your own intellectual sophistication; we don't know what the author of those words meant.

Based on my experience with children who actually need protective services help, calling about kids playing outside is not even close to getting a home visit let alone anyone taking your kids. Maybe it happens, but not in my east coast state.

> This is one of those things laws are great at. Delete the power of idiot Karens and the culture will return to normal.

How? Those idiot Karens are the ones writing the laws. They get on your state legislature and local town ordinances, and prevent more housing from being built too.

They have no competence and they do everything in the name of "safety", so you can't challenge them with logic or reason.

They are usually very privileged people with plenty of time on their hands so you can't play asymmetric warfare with them and expect to win.

That does not mean attempts to defeat them should not be made. Sometimes they even succeed.

Karen delenda est.

> The sad part is everyone involved can turn around and claim

As a mandatory reporter if I don't report such a thing I can be put in prison. Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters (only mandatory reporters are allowed to go camping with scouts). I'm specifically told not to think, if there is any possibility I must report it and let the experts figure out if there is a problem or not.

This of course means the experts have to spend a lot of time/effort investigating where it is obvious there is nothing but they have to get enough evidence of that to close the case. This time is taken away from all the kids that really need help. Note that I have no idea how many kids who need help are discovered this way.

> As a mandatory reporter if I don't report such a thing I can be put in prison. Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters (only mandatory reporters are allowed to go camping with scouts). I'm specifically told not to think, if there is any possibility I must report it and let the experts figure out if there is a problem or not.

There are some issues here with what you're saying.

Mandatory reporter classifications are a legal construct. Activities can't make people into mandatory reporters. Only some mandated reporters are subject to reporting requirements when off-duty (for example, in many jurisdictions, your scout camp 'chaperones' may well not be obliged to mandatory report. Teachers and HCPs may, however, be. And it may vary for WHAT they are reporting.)

> Activities can't make people into mandatory reporters. Only some mandated reporters are subject to reporting requirements when off-duty

What is all that based on? Are you a mandatory reporter?

It might be dangerous to give advice. Even if you know your jurisdiction, others will vary.

I am a mandatory reporter (healthcare provider), and I specifically called out that jurisdictions, occupations, and events or situations may tweak that.

> Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters

I was specifically commenting that an activity doesn't make someone a mandatory reporter. That is you are a mandatory reporter based on your occupation, status, and what is happening. The OPs comment makes it sound like "if you're camping overnight with children, you become a mandatory reporter"

versus, for example, "The BSA's policy is to only allow people who are already designated mandatory reporters to chaperone camping overnight with scouts". The BSA cannot ... mandate ... that you are a mandatory reporter (in the legal sense, with protections and responsibilities accompanying) just by virtue of you saying "I'll chaperone this event" (though they can certainly say "it is our policy that you act as-if").

Their policy is probably only act as if. The training I'm given doesn't go into such details though.

Come to think of it, they say it is mandatory to report, but are careful to avoid talking about the law. However it is recorded I have training. I would honestly expect the courts decide that I'm legally a mandatory reporter if it was discovered I should have seen something, even if I don't technically meet the law. (at least if they can find any way to read the law to get me)

That makes absolute sense. And I think it's quite deliberate to not talk about the law. And I have no objections to a policy that 'we expect you to report concerning things' and disqualifying you if they learned you didn't.

All of this is of course on top of any moral or ethical imperatives about reporting suspected abuse, mandated or otherwise.

You are mandatory reported for kids playing outside?

I understand that’s terrifying in the moment to have CPS at your door, but maybe the erroneous CPS visit is a one time cost we have to pay to change the culture, until CPS learns to ignore phone calls with no more details other than “children are outside”. If they don’t learn to ignore them - that sounds like lawsuit territory

Change requires someone that doesn’t accept the status quo

(I don’t have kids, but hope to have some in the future, so this is me talking out of turn)

> If they don’t learn to ignore them - that sounds like lawsuit territory

It's the reverse. CPS could be found liable if they ignored a report where there were indeed problems.

Also, I have family that work in CPS and it's really not the bad guy everyone that's "anti-CPS" seems to think. They have a HIGH bar to go over before they'll remove kids from a home. Things have to be particularly bad. And even then, the organization is slanted to get the kids back into the home ASAP. The state doesn't want to have to take care of kids.

Most of the time, it's work with the parents to make the environment safe.

If a single report from a source of unknown credibility is enough to send agents to upend an innocent person’s life, then that system is broken. The same is true for swatting. A single phone call should not result in an armed police response.

CPS agents didn't come in guns ablaze (that aren't armed). It's a simple investigation and interview with the parents.

It's quite literally the same thing as a cop checking up on someone for a reported domestic disturbance.

It's not as instant jail sentence or separation of parents from their kids.

Like I said, those are literally tools of last resort. Things have to be really bad. Like, for example, a kid that shows up with bruises and stories of violence from the parents won't instantly be removed. That's how far CPS bends over to avoid family separation. The research is pretty clear that family separation is about the worst thing you can do to a kid. That's why instead CPS generally will deploy things like mandatory therapy (if that). Or life skills lessons. And that's assuming they see major problems at the initial interview. If it's a false claim the actual most likely thing that will happen is they'll show up and say "looks like a false claim" and leave, probably ignoring future reports.

It's actually wild to me how anti-cps people are.

Family separation is the most extreme outcome. There is a long spectrum of stress and uncertainty between "CPS merely knocks on your door and leaves" and "Forcible family separation." You really don't want to land anywhere on that spectrum. Encounters with the government and law enforcement tend to escalate depending on how busy/belligerent/bored their agents are, so what might be a routine "checking up" today can snowball into a series of more and more serious encounters and harassment as time goes by.

I'm not really anti-CPS as much as I'm anti unnecessary involvement with unaccountable people who can wreck other people's lives.

> depending on how busy/belligerent/bored their agents are

Or on how caring, responsible, and capable they are. You're making a lot of assumptions about a lot of people.

People say these things casually but let me point out that it's not at all trivial: Demonization is the first step used by the right-wing to oppress and harm people: Democrats, liberals, LGBTQ (esp trans people), immigrants, FBI, CDC, any regulators, high-ranking government officials in national defense, government workers, city residents in blue states (when will the National Guard be sent in?), ...

The casual spread of such ideas, which makes them more insidious because few people notice their significance, is a big part of demonization.

>kids were playing outside and a neighbor called the authorities on them

The worst part is that someone would thing this is the appropriate thing to do rather than observe the kids and in any case approach them and ask if they’re OK. The US has grown a culture of “don’t get involved” cowards hidden behind the legal system.

The coworker never found out who that was and talking about he kind of suspected it was a just a neighbor that didn't like them. And like you said, they can always hide behind "I don't know I was just worried about the children".

This seems community specific. In my town, kids as young as 2nd or 3rd grade walk home alone, and one of the biggest issues in town are the roving gangs of bike kids riding through town en masse. This is mostly only possible due to tight zoning. No big yards or huge McMansions, but it allows independent kids without child services being called.

> And they succeed and are fine.

They also literally had a camera and crew on standby while also blocking off streets (off screen).

I don't know what you read, but there are plenty of scenes of the kids crossing streets that have traffic.

This is a reality TV show. They have a full crew following the kids around.

Like any reality TV, you're only seeing the story they want you to see.

Nobody should be gauging reality based on what you see on reality TV shows.

The crew is often in disguise, and the kids have no idea who they are. At 3, do you know what a cameraperson is?

Edit: Occasional parts of the show are the camera people trying to avoid the kid who has turned and is walking right toward them.

Sure, but if you spend time in Japan you really will see five-year-old kids walking long distances and taking transit to school and running errands unaccompanied.

Agreed, I saw it firsthand while I was there. The elementary school was near the train station I had to take to get to university, and there was always a line of little kids walking themselves there every morning.

It is importamt to understand the whole cultural picture of this practice:

1. Neighbors and friends are notified in advance. "If you see my daughter and she looks lost, please help her, she is doing an errand."

2. The destination is usually notified. "My daughter is coming to buy rice, let me know if she isnt there in two hours."

3. This practice is somewhat old-fashioned and rural. Many parents wouldnt consider it today.

Remember, the show was aired to a Japanese audience. If it were universal, it would not be worth televising.

Have you seen the show? It's often (usually?) filmed in towns, and I don't recall adults often being notified.

In Switzerland, 5 years old walk alone to school. In Germany 6 years old.

TFA seems to be making the point that it could become more common in the US if the school commute were more walkable - shorter and safer from cars.

I have observed many kids walking and biking to and from schools when these conditions seem to exist. Crossing guards help out for crossing busier roads near the school. However, there is also a car queue, perhaps for students who live farther away.

This is not real though.

This show makes my spouse anxious! It’s a blast to watch from time to time.

My dad grew up in 1930’s Detroit and would tell us about how when he was five his mother would give him a little money and have him walk a few blocks to the baker to get a loaf of bread.

I grew up in the 70’s where after maybe eight we had pretty much free rein. I rode my bike several blocks away and crossed two busy four lane roads to get candy at 7-11.

The world is no more dangerous now than it was then, and yet here we are, with parents being treated like criminals for letting their kids play in their own front yard.

> The world is no more dangerous now than it was then

It's a lot safer than the 1970s in most places.

When they started the pickup lines, I started just parking about half a mile away from the school. He knew exactly where I would be and we completely avoided the traffic and insanity of that nonsense.

We live about a mile from his current school, so he rides his bike whenever the weather permits. He's always in a good mood when he gets home.

I think it's funny that when he gets older, he'll be able to say that it was uphill both ways since we have a sizeable hill between home and school.

My kids having been cycling a mile each way to school since they were 5 years old. It's definitely doable, although we're fortunate enough that we aren't both working long days, and are well off enough that school is that close.

A mile is not close. Disclaimer: I am european. Grew up in ireland. Lots of cars, but unless you're in the countryside or its raining, it's generally walk/cycle to school. In Stockholm now, you are 'shamed' if you drive to school to drop your kids off. "Normal" parents have cargo bikes to bring their small kids to school if it's a long distance (like 500m or more).

You must have a lot of schools. I walked or biked about a mile each way to school starting in third grade (age 8-9), and the only reason I didn't do it a year earlier was that the two other kids who would accompany me were a year younger.

I only got dropped off if it was raining (that can be quite severe and thunderstorms are common) or if I was so late that I couldn't make it. In the latter case, I walked home.

Four years later, my school was miles away. No choice but dropoff lines (private school, no bus service). Had I been in the public school system, I would have needed to bus or be dropped off for junior high (that year and two after it, ~4 mi/6.5 km away traveling on and crossing multiple arterial roads without bike lanes or sidewalks for most of the way), but could have walked/ridden/driven myself to high school.

Housing in Europe is very different from what it is in the US.

A lot of it will look something like this [1].

In England, it's actually somewhat unusual to have any space between two homes. Semi and fully detached homes command a fairly high price.

Roads were also not built for cars, so they tend to be much narrower than what you'd find in the US. All that means you'll find a much higher population density. You can even find a bunch of cobblestone roads without much effort.

I'd also say that cities are FAR more walkable than they are in the US. It's almost the reverse of what it is here, it can be easier to walk to the store than drive simply because there's a billion little pathways that lead everywhere.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraced_houses_in_the_United_...

Ironically, i rode a rented electric scooter over hundreds of year old cobbles yesterday - needed to make a meeting on time. New meets old.

Typical (nice) appartment housing in Stockholm

https://whitearkitekter.com/news/kvarter-7-the-starting-poin...

I've traveled enough in Europe, and not just major cities, to understand this about housing.

However, what is the average size of a graduating class from secondary education? My high school class was quite small, just under 100, but it was an oddity and classes before and since were more like 120-150. Even in elementary school we had around 75 in each year. It is not unusual in larger metro areas in the US to have over 1000 students in each graduating class.

This will probably wildly diver from country to country, but typically in elementary school where 50 kids, and for high school around 100-120.

I was brought up in the UK and not all of it is a city centre. My schools were miles away. We lived in the suburbs.

Stockholm is a high density urban environment. Appartment living. 4-6 floor high buildings is the norm. Schools every mile or so would be my guess. Ours is like 300m away. Next closest is 1km and 1.5km. Quite normal, i speculate.

> A mile is not close

It's close enough for a 5-year-old to cycle, which is my point.

And bicycles! A bike path takes half the width of a single car lane, there is absolutely no excuse not to have a network of bike paths almost everywhere there is a road. Literally just throw concrete barriers on one of the outermost lanes and you're most of the way there.

The impact this has on the quality of life of everyone, but particularly those that can't/won't drive, is enormous.

> After 10 years of dealing with it and wondering "how the f did we get to this point"

While it's a lot of parental idiocy, please do consider that lack of enforcement action around bullying is also part of the answer.

I mean, walkability is a big problem for me. My kid would have to cross multiple busy streets in order to get to school (which is ~3 miles away). We don't have crossing guards either, the only ones we do have are literally at the school property.

"he decided" is probably one of the issues here. back in the day it would have been "this is what your doing now kid"

Every generation grows and becomes better than the last*.

/me says "ok boomer" in gen-z

* Certain exclusions may apply

You're right. We would have been mocked "It's a mile and a half, I'm not picking you up when you have two perfectly good legs."

There's a difference when everyone is walking home (so you often walk home with a few friends who live nearby) vs being alone walking home.

That kind of upbringing worked out really well for the boomers, we are in this mess because of that. Kids should have agency and independence, but also a feeling of safety, trust, and security. You cannot force a kid to work against their own safety instinct because of your own selfish comfort.

Wtf

> You cannot force a kid to work against their own safety instinct because of your own selfish comfort.

I got this kind of reaction from my son for all kinds of things I made him do by himself that made him uncomfortable. Now that he's 18, he thanks me for it and wonders why all his friends are so entirely unable to do almost anything out in public without help.

Their safety instinct is wrong. You have to work them through it

Providing a feeling of "safety, trust, and security" contradicts "Kids should have agency and independence." The only way they have safety is if you are with them 100% of the time which means 0 independence. I'm not worried about kids because they will natuarally avoid danger. I'm more worried about adults causing harm to kids (America).

“but also a feeling of safety, trust, and security”

i agree a little bit. But at what point does the “growing up” part happen? you know…when they turn 18, and have to get a real job (or go to university), doing things that are uncomfortable and maybe not fun?

The process of growing up and becoming more mature is accomplished by challenging yourself and pushing boundaries, to grow as a person.

i guess im saying, it depends. its not as black and white as you suggest. Is the fear irrational? Maybe therapy would help. Or a buddy to walk home with. But you need to _somehow_ help kids grow independent.

Parenting isn’t just about defending your kid’s boundaries on their behalf. It’s also helping your kid to grow and expand those boundaries, and giving them the skills to manage them independently.

The end goal is to create a happy, fully functioning adult.

His choices were bus or walk (my experiences in the car lines are from days when kids needed to picked up for an occasion) before you jump to too many conclusions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com