
In Japan, small children take the subway and run errands alone (2015) - lighttower
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-are-little-kids-in-japan-so-independent/407590/
======
rdtsc
> Japan has a very low crime rate, which is surely a key reason parents feel
> confident about sending their kids out alone.

I grew up in a relatively high crime area but still walked to school and
sometimes took public transport. The only thing that made it somewhat unsafe
was the bullying by other school kids. Of course there is an overlap there as
yesterday's bullies are tomorrow's criminals, but still it wasn't enough to
have parents escort me. Sometimes strangers intervened to save me from a few
attacks by groups of older kids. So maybe there is an element there as well of
people not minding asking kids what's happening, why are they pushing this one
kid to the ground.

Now living in US in a much safer area I would think very well before sending
my kids to school by themselves at the age when I was going to school by
myself. The reason is neighbors who could report me to the police for "child
endangerment or neglect". It happened to a co-worker. One of the neighbors
reported them to the police while kids were playing out in the front by
themselves. It issue was resolved but not without embarrassing calls to work
and home visits.

~~~
emiliobumachar
There was one case where the mother was arrested for letting the kids play
outside.

So, the obvious first step to fixing this problem in the U.S. would be to make
it explicitly legal.

Something like "letting children unsupervised in public space for less than 5
hours shall not, by itself, be construed as child abuse or neglect."

Plausible? Any downsides?

Can any town do it by itself, or is an act of Congress needed?

~~~
lsc
The problem here is not the law, it is the people who think the fact that one
person (out of over 100 million families in America) got arrested for doing a
thing that sounds reasonable is a reason to change your behavior.

We need a reasonable threshold below which we do not worry about an event.
Figuratively speaking: "If it makes front page news, it's not how I'm gonna
die."

The threshold is going to vary from person to person; for me? if it's less
likely than me dying or becoming disabled in a transport accident today, then
the effort to prevent that thing is most likely better spent preventing
transport accidents.

I mean, my point here is that you want the best return possible on your
"prevent bad things from happening to me and mine" efforts, and there are a
lot of low-hanging fruit that you can grab in the area where there is the most
danger. Transportation and health are huge killers, much bigger than terrorist
and crazies.

I think this might be the biggest problem with America today; this idea that
systemic action needs to be taken for a 1 in 100 million chance seems like the
systemic problem with our society. Systemic action should be reserved for
things that happen frequently.

Even in America, the biggest danger to children is transport accidents; the
chances of getting killed or disfigured are so much higher in a car than in a
train that it almost certainly makes up for any "stranger danger" on the
train.

~~~
ramy_d

      The problem here is not the law, it is the people who think the fact that one person (out of over 100 million families in America) got arrested for doing a thing that sounds reasonable is a reason to change your behavior.
    

actually it is the law. We can't expect parents to gamble their parenthood and
their lives - even if the odds are 1 in 100 million. And i suspect the odds
are not that small, just in this thread there are multiple stories of social
services being called for what used to be common place attitudes towards
children and their autonomy. There's even a person fully admitting they would
also put in a report if they witnessed such a thing.

I'm not saying your arguments are bad. In fact, they are on point. But
perceived danger vs Actual danger is, from looking at the whole anti-vaccer
movement, the big contributor here. But if parents are getting put in
handcuffs for having their kids play outside then yeah, they need to be
protected from a systemic standpoint.

~~~
lsc
>We can't expect parents to gamble their parenthood and their lives - even if
the odds are 1 in 100 million

Every day when you strap your kid into your car seat, you are rolling those
dice, at odds considerably worse than 1 in 100 million.

You can't face risk by saying "we need to stamp it out, no matter how small
the chance or how great the cost" It doesn't help me if you protect me from
meteors if I'm millions of times more likely to be killed by a traffic
accident, and the same resources could drastically reduce the chance of that
death.

You need to look at what resources you are willing to spend on risk
mitigation, and then look at where you can spend those resources to most
effectively mitigate risk.

~~~
ivanhoe
It's pointless to discuss if it makes sense mathematically because humans
don't function that way, we're just not very good in probability. Everyone is
looking at eliminating the risks with the simplest possible solution. When you
strap kids in your car seat you use special kid seats to insure that they'll
be protected as much as possible. If there's a chance that you loose your kid
because you've let it go play on its own outside, you will not let it go
anymore. It's as simple as that, perfectly normal human reasoning.

------
brndnmtthws
I had a somewhat unique childhood, in that I spent my early years (before the
age of about 10) living in many different places around the world. My parents
always made me walk or ride a bike to school, although sometimes I would go
together with my 2 older sisters (who were only a few years older than me).
Specifically, we lived in places like Caracas (Venezuela), Kuala Lumpur
(Malaysia), and Africa (Nigeria, Ghana). Eventually my family settled in
Canada where I mostly grew up, and I continued to transport myself to/from
school every day without an escort.

Not only was I never harmed whilst traveling to/from school (except for one
time when I fell off my bike while riding to school when I was 6 or 7 years
old in Venezuela and I had to get stitches on my knee—I've still got the scar
to prove it), but today I live mostly without fear and don't subscribe to most
of the BS that fear-driven people do. Depending on how you look at it, I seem
to have turned out fine. I also spent most of my childhood playing outside
eating dirt, and go figure, I have no allergies or immune problems.

American parents today who coddle their children are robbing them of learning
and growth experiences they deserve. Experiences which, in my opinion, would
help make them better people. More tolerant, more empathetic, more
intelligent, and healthier.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
America used to be like this also. I remember playing with fire ants and
rattle snakes when I was 5-6 years old (had to go to the hospital for the
former, hyperbole on the latter), I climbed the mountain in front of our house
(Red Mountain before it became vineyards). Later we moved to Toledo, not known
for being the safest city, and we still roamed the neighborhood at will.

As the newish father of a baby, I really worry that my son won’t be able to
experience that unless we move to China or some other country. Heck, it’s even
better today since you can send them out with a cellphone.

~~~
pwaai
Fascinating. I mean just the general American nuclear family values from
1950s, 60s are still being actively replicated in other predominantly
homogeneous countries with strong patriarchy: ex. South Korea where men are
the breadwinner, soldiers on command, women are expected to follow and take
care of children.

Japan and Korea have highly homogeneous on the confucius spectrum....I believe
this uniting values is what allowed people to stay in lanes so to speak.....
Honestly, I think it will be a long time before these countries open up their
doors to "outsiders". Italian Koreans or French Japanese? I'm disgressing but
I'd argue in those European countries you probably won't see kids walking to
school alone and for strong safety reasons.

Still, even in conservative places like Korea, liberal changes like those seen
in American societies of the 70s mixed with credit fueled bubble frenzy of the
late 1980s have begun to appear.

Anyways these are just my crazy theories, like seeing the parallel rise of GDP
& scantily clad women in mainstream TV in 1980s (focus on legs) Japan, similar
to S. Korea's hyper-sexual K-pop movement (once again legs are in) similar to
America's craze for legs during the 80s, 90s. Now it's all about big butts, an
economic indicator a new bull run?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemline_index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemline_index)

Anyways, I don't know how I arrived at this subject but I'm always fascinated
by America 70 years ago especially when described from older HN users vs
today, and it's echoing impact on the world.

~~~
4bpp
> I'm disgressing but I'd argue in those European countries you probably won't
> see kids walking to school alone and for strong safety reasons.

I don't know for sure about Italy or France (though I'd be very surprised if
they were not basically the same), but in Germany, I walked to school alone
starting in first grade, and from fourth grade onwards I in fact had a 40min
public transport commute to the neighbouring city that involved several
interchanges; from what I can tell, this was normal at least from fifth grade
onwards (since you choose secondary schools fairly carefully based on subject
specialisation). Also, as far as I can tell, very little changed about this
even in the face of recent paranoia about refugees.

------
djsumdog
I'd often seen kids on the tram in Melbourne. Rarely on their own though,
almost always in groups. In Wellington, you'd see them occasionally too in the
mornings. They had dedicated school buses (city buses with the "School" sign
on the front), but if kids were running late and missed their bus, you'd often
see them on regular public transport.

One of the big problems is the lack of public transport in the US. Even with
cities with good transit, the minimum age for kids on buses/trains is usually
12 (wasn't there an article on HN earlier about a New York man who's kids rode
the bus in a group of three and how social services said he couldn't do that
any more until one of them turned 13? I can't seem to find it now..)

Crime is more perception then a real issue. You're always most likely to be a
victim of a crime by a family member at home. Actual child abductions are more
hollywood and rarely real life. When it does happens, it's usually someone who
knows the child via family.

I feel like this is yet another problem that could be solved via real transit
and which will just be made worse by self-driving cars.

~~~
Stratoscope
I don't know if this is the article you're thinking of - it is a similar
situation with a family in Vancouver, BC that I believe was discussed here
recently:

[http://5kids1condo.com/very-superstitious-how-fact-free-
pare...](http://5kids1condo.com/very-superstitious-how-fact-free-parenting-
policies-rob-our-kids-of-independence/)

~~~
slavik81
The minimum age for a child to be home alone in Ontario is 16? How did that
become law?

~~~
ghaff
I've seen this reported on several occasions but it's not clear whether it's
actually true. See, e.g.
[https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2014/08/28/when_can_kids...](https://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2014/08/28/when_can_kids_stay_home_alone.html)

Certainly, it would be pretty ridiculous in general if it were. That would
have been a problem with my going off to college :-)

~~~
slavik81
The source seems to be 79 (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. C.11 [1]. I'm not a lawyer, but from my reading, it seems like
specifying an age actually narrows the law. It's more like a maximum than a
minimum:

\---

 _Leaving child unattended

(3) No person having charge of a child less than sixteen years of age shall
leave the child without making provision for his or her supervision and care
that is reasonable in the circumstances._

\----

Having read through a bunch of this stuff to find the law in question, things
actually look pretty reasonable. If there's a problem, it seems it would be
with the application or interpretation of the law by the bureaucracy or the
courts. Legislation can correct those things, but I guess my point is that it
_looks_ reasonable, so there's no obvious easy fix.

[1]
[https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c11](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c11)

~~~
ghaff
That seems like a rational reading.

"that is reasonable in the circumstances" may be ambiguous and in the eye of
the beholder. But it certainly suggests that a normal 16 year old doesn't need
to be automatically under constant adult supervision at all times.

ADDED: This may or may not be the correct reading, but I take that as saying
you can't kick your 15 year old out of the house and tell them you're on your
own.

------
Taniwha
I walked to school at 5 in New Zealand, took the bus to town at 10 to go to
the library or the pool.

My son at 11 took the BART to and from school from Berkeley/Oakland to El
Cerito, other parents were horrified - we moved back to NZ a couple of years
later, handed both kids a bus timetable and a phone and sent them off to town
to explore.

One of our main goals as a parent is to create independent kids who can
function alone in the world - we don't want them still living in the basement
at 30

~~~
throwaway613834
> One of our main goals as a parent is to create independent kids who can
> function alone in the world - we don't want them still living in the
> basement at 30

FYI this is a cultural thing. Not every culture's parents kicks out their
children when they turn 18. So if it doesn't work out this way for whatever
reason, don't view it as right or wrong unless you feel it's wrong to go
against the culture (which also isn't inherently wrong either).

~~~
Taniwha
Oh we didn't kick them out, they left when they wanted to go, and have come
back at times when it has made sense (after college for a while to save money
for example).

------
wimagguc
How children lost the right to roam in four generations - highly related
article and previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13547089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13547089)

From the comments there it seems that it's not about (perceived) risks at all,
it's more about peer pressure. If no other parents in your group would let
their kids go about on their own, you surely won't want to be the only one.

~~~
eru
See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15945543](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15945543)
about the German situation.

------
solresol
The other day I accidentally left my son at a busy station in Tokyo. He was
more annoyed than upset. He just found the right platform to go home and
planned to email me when he got back to say where he was.

We underestimate children's ability to navigate, which is silly because if
they were really bad at it our species would have died out long ago.

~~~
bamboozled
How do you accidentally leave your son at a train station in Tokyo ?

~~~
solresol
There were 8 of us because my daughter's old school friend's family was here
on holidays. They speak a Chinese dialect that I don't speak well.

Anyway it was like herding sheep to get them anywhere. In the rush to get them
onboard a train where we taking them back to their hotel from a shopping
trip... well... I kinda left my youngest on the platform.

~~~
nasredin
I know it looks ridiculous but if you are in charge of a gang of kids put them
in the brightest eye-burning tee shirts you can find.

You won't even have to look at their dirty, disgusting faces, just count them
like cattle.

In a large city like NYC, neon-green would stands out very nicely.

~~~
Piskvorrr
Sounds foolproof, right? Well, let me introduce you to _my_ town, where _each_
of the tourist groups had this very same bright (sorry) idea. As the textile
is mass-produced and apparently highly standardized, this results in streets
being awash in ~8 hues of nigh-identical neon t-shirts (yellow, green, orange
x2 each, red, blue). Now, which one, out of the sea of identical SCREAMING
colors was yours? Yup, Red Queen Principle - back to square 1.

------
jpalomaki
A study from 2015, "Children’s Independent Mobility: An International
Comparison" [1] and the actual report [2]. Report covers 16 countries, US was
not included.

Unfortunately I could not find any summary articles (except in Finnish). The
charts summarizing the results seem to start on the report page 14.

[1]
[http://www.psi.org.uk/children_mobility](http://www.psi.org.uk/children_mobility)
[2]
[http://www.psi.org.uk/docs/7350_PSI_Report_CIM_final.pdf](http://www.psi.org.uk/docs/7350_PSI_Report_CIM_final.pdf)

------
looperhacks
Living in Germany, I've walked to the kindergarten alone (I think when I was
four years old) and after knowing the way to school, I was walking there with
my friends and without parents. We spent hours outside without our parents
knowing where we are because we knew where we were allowed to go and what we
where allowed to do (This didn't mean we listened, though).

~~~
gtirloni
Same in Brazil in the 80's.

The same parents that were okay with me going to kindergarten by myself and
sometimes cooking partial meals alone, now are horrified that such things
happened (with their consent).

I think it speaks a lot to how much society has changed, their current mindset
would not accept the same behavior they themselves had a few decades ago.

I remember being stopped by strangers asking "where are you going? School? Ok,
watch out when crossing the streets". Nowadays nobody would intervene
directly... They would probably call the police and take me into custody.

"Practical Wisdom" (Barry Schwartz) is a good book about this.

------
FabHK
In Germany, we had cycling safety classes in primary school (and you got a
badge at the end, yay!), so we could cycle to school (or anywhere else,
really).

In many countries in Asia, kids with parents can just go to a restaurant (for
example) and let the kids roam - everyone else (waiters, other patrons) will
take care of the kids collectively.

~~~
swimfar
We had this in the US as well in elementary school. They had it every year,
and I think all kids could participate (grades 1-6). It was a combination of
safety instruction and some skills tests (riding in a figure 8, using turn
signals properly etc.)

~~~
FabHK
Oh, cool! So, parents let kids cycle, but not take public transport? Is that
it?

In Germany, public transport would be considered even somewhat safer than
cycling (which has its risks, even with bicycle paths etc.), I'd think.

~~~
kaybe
Elementary schools are usually within walking distance and not well served by
public transport. In this case, biking is nice.

------
Ice_cream_suit
"What accounts for this unusual degree of independence? Not self-sufficiency,
in fact, but “group reliance,” according to Dwayne Dixon, a cultural
anthropologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Japanese youth.
“[Japanese] kids learn early on that, ideally, any member of the community can
be called on to serve or help others,” he says."

~~~
wklauss
Probably the same pretty much anywhere in the world. I have a hard time
imagining a kid asking an adult for help and the adult refusing, even if it's
a stranger.

~~~
intopieces
I have a hard time imagining a kid asking an adult for help. "Never talk to
strangers," was the takeaway I got from elementary school. "Never tell an
adult who you don't know where you live unless they know your codeword your
parents shared with you" (in this case, the password was 'skateboard'.)

------
babayega2
Live in Burundi (Africa) which has been plagued by insecurity since 90s. We
used to go by public transport even at age of 10. My little bro and sisters
still doing so.

I personally think it's related to culture. How the community like to make
kids mature earlier.

I've also lived in Tanzania where communism had made in the 90s, pupils not
pay public transportation. So even little kids were riding buses.

------
kyberias
In Finland, kids walk to school by themselves from age 7. Depends on the
distance of course.

~~~
gambiting
In Poland, when I was 7 years old, by the time I had to go to school my
parents have already gone to work,so I had to make myself some food, lock the
door behind me, and walk for 15 minutes to school. But we also had kids taking
buses to school, and they were normal public buses, not a dedicated school
bus(never heard of such concept in Poland to be honest).

~~~
cube2222
To comment on this - also living in Poland. The concept exists in Poland, but
only in a few private schools, mainly those marked as "American schools".

I think the main reason is that public transit is magnitudes better and more
widespread here, than in the US.

~~~
mamon
School buses are the real thing in Poland, my father has been driving one for
the last 15 years :) It's just that they are more popular in rural areas (you
know, grabbing kids from all those small villages and driving them to school
in the nearby town).

In big cities, like Warsaw there actually aren't any, as schools are usually
within walking distance, and if they aren't then the normal public transport
is supposed to fill in.

------
Lunatic666
I’m also letting my 10 year old daughter use the MRT in Singapore on her own,
but also really only in Singapore, any other country I’d be worried too much.
There is MRT staff everywhere who help everyone and after I explained to her
that the police helps everyone here, so she asked a patrol when she wanted to
try a new route. The streets might be cleaner in Tokyo, but I think the sense
of community is similar

~~~
kalleboo
Japan also has something called the "Kids 911 home" (こども110の家) which are signs
on police stations, convenience stores, shops, taxis etc that show where
children can go for help if they feel threatened

------
lukego
I'm raising kids in Switzerland. Here it will be more-or-less required for
them to walk to school (kindergarten) themselves from age 5.

~~~
intellectronica
Yes, it's completely normal and expected (and indeed charming) to walk around
children as they go about their day going to schools and other activities in
Zürich. It's a very safe city, of course, but also must be something in the
culture. Another thing I noticed is that playgrounds are not "safe" \- the
kids can climb tall structures, play with animals, etc. Kids are expected to
progressively develop the ability to independently take care of themselves and
of each other. I have not heard of any catastrophes.

~~~
InternetOfStuff
> Another thing I noticed is that playgrounds are not "safe" \- the kids can
> climb tall structures, play with animals, etc. Kids are expected to
> progressively develop the ability to independently take care of themselves

My sister talked to a playground designer in Germany once.

He explained that they deliberately make the toys slightly dangerous -- if you
fell off a structure, you wouldn't need to go to hospital, but it would hurt
enough to teach a lesson.

They explicitly want to school kids' sense of risk, and at the same time,
self-reliance. And offer a sense of achievement if you dare and master, say, a
"dangerous" climb.

------
twobyfour
It's a change in culture. When I was a kid, it was pretty normal for a 9-year-
old to take the public bus to school alone and then the subway to an after-
school program. In New York City. In the 1980s (aka the "bad old days").

The level of parental paranoia and of cultural concern has skyrocketed. We're
so concerned about actual neglectful parenting and so paranoid about
infinitesimally low-probability events that we are afraid to give our children
what would once have been considered age-appropriate levels of autonomy and
responsibility; and parents who do attempt to are under threat from a safety
net originally intended to prevent qualitatively different behaviors.

~~~
hashkb
In Japan, the culture of safety, trust, and respect is greater than anything
we ever had here. You need only take one subway trip through Tokyo to realize
this.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Unless you're a woman.

------
horsecaptin
I know a lot of parents in the US who would like for their kids to go out and
play, and go places on their own. What prevents them:

\- Stories of overzealous Child Protection Services agents, child neglect and
abuse laws being used to punish parents.

\- Stories of neighbors, teachers, and other overly concerned people,
sometimes with malicious intent calling CPS.

\- Stories of lawsuits because children trespassed, caused noise in the
neighborhood.

\- Stories of child rapists and serial murderers.

When you live in an litigious, social-media and 24-hour news addicted society,
some of the side-effects are ugly. Even if a parent wants to raise their
children like "when I grew up", it is very difficult not to get either swept
up or cut out.

------
the_solenoid
I worry that american culture has gotten so paranoid that kids don't get to
roam free any more.

I remember growing up in the 80's I could bus/walk all around town and do
whatever as long as I got back by night or called.

Remember, none of those cheating cell phones!

------
mnm1
I did this too at those ages in Eastern Europe and even in the US. This is
hardly unique at all. It's hardly newsworthy. Keeping kids locked up at home
under supervision until they become adults is a neuroticism seemingly unique
to American (and possibly Canadian) culture. I wonder if parents really think
through the consequences of their actions in these cases. Do they weigh the
high likelihood of their children suffering and not developing into adults
properly because of the parents' actions against the tiny chance they might be
harmed if they were allowed on their own? Clearly, as a society, we have
adopted the paranoid, scared point of view, a point of view that has defined
culture in the US for the last two decades. It makes sense that the culture
would appeal to the lowest common denominator, the most paranoid of the
paranoid. Unfortunately, these people have codified their paranoid delusional
culture into laws that now affect everyone else.

I simply cannot see myself raising children in the US. Just like my parents
gave up everything to bring me here, I will give up everything to bring them
to a society that respects them, where they have the opportunity to grow into
adults without them or me getting arrested for being independent human beings.
The way we treat children in the US at the moment is sick, disgusting, and
simply unacceptable to me. Children are human beings too.

------
lagadu
Might as well replace the title with "In <not the US>, small children take the
subway and run errands alone (2015)". Children are expected to get to school
and to go to whatever by themselves from age 6-7 in pretty much all of Europe.

------
skc
I grew up in Zambia, in the capital city in the 80's and to this day this is
still a fairly common thing.

No subways of course, but small children will walk to the store or school
unaccompanied all the time.

I live in South Africa now where it's probably not a great idea.

Pretty sad.

------
konart
>Kaito, a 12-year-old in Tokyo, has been riding the train by himself between
the homes of his parents, who share his custody, since he was nine.

Normal thing here in Russia. Why would 9-10 year old need a guardian on his
way to school anyways? Same for some shopping.

~~~
tehlike
Fear. When i grew up this was pretty common, but over time it got less and
less frequent.

~~~
konart
I was growing up during the 90s. In Russia.

    
    
        "I must not fear. 
        Fear is the mind-killer. 
        Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. 
        I will face my fear. 
        I will permit it to pass over me and through me. 
        And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. 
        Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

------
ptaipale
I think children, 7 years or even younger, move about on their own almost
everywhere in the world, except North America.

------
geff82
Welcome to my world in Germany :)

------
rsynnott
This used to be far more common in Ireland a few decades ago than it is today,
though you certainly still see it. Funnily enough, the crime rate was much
higher back then; it’s not a risk thing.

------
wayanon
Reminds me of the Scandinavian woman prosecuted in 1980s/90s NYC for leaving
her child in a pram outside a cafe. In Scandinavia this is (or at least was)
extremely common, you get a cluster of prams outside cafes with babies still
in them.

I was in Berlin last week and was amazed to see bikes being locked to bollards
on the street only waist high, so you only had to lift it a foot if you wanted
to steal it.

~~~
prodent
> you only had to lift it a foot if you wanted to steal it.

Which is exactly what happens.

------
dmitriid
In Sweden kids are taught how to navigate by public transportation while they
are at kindergarten. 7-9-ish might still be considered too young to travel
alone (probably because kids are easily distracted), but it's not uncommon for
a 9-10 yo to take care of a 6yo and take him home by commuter train.

Traveling long distances by commuter train and then switching to bus is not
uncommon for kids ages 11 and up.

------
kapad
This is even more common and ubiquitous in India. From reading the article, I
would say way more common.

~~~
kapad
I started using the public buses alone at the age of 5/6\. Usually, to go
visit my grandparents who lived about 20 minutes away. I started cycling alone
at the age of about 8/10\. And not short pleasure rides but to actually go
from one place to another. School, gymnastics classes etc. etc.

And getting groceries (from the corner or kirana store) wasn't even considered
"going out alone". Everyone did that as soon as we learnt to properly count
money. Mostly even before that, since the kirana stores could be trusted not
to give incorrect change and steal from a kid. I'd have a list of items from
my parents, hand it over to the storekeeper with the money, and he'd give me
the stuff in a bag along with the change.

There's another interesting story from when I was 4/5\. I wanted a new toy and
refused to sleep until my parents agreed to buy it for me the next day. They
kept refusing so I threatened my parents that I'd run away from home if they
didn't buy it for me. Their response was to simply tell me that I could
runaway if I wanted, but I wasn't getting that toy (and remember, I'd been
throwing this tantrum past bedtime, sonit was about 10/11 at night). I packed
a little bag with some toys and clothes and left home. My parents idea of
keeping me safe at this time was to ask my 6/7 year old brother to secretly
follow me, which he did, but I had no idea about. Getting back to me, I left
my apartment, walked out to the main road, walked for a bit, didn't know where
to go, so I caught a bus and went to my grandparents house. They were quite
happy to get a surprise visit from me. Though I asked them not to tell my
parents I was there (I was 5, but didn't want my parents to think I was an
idiot) they called my parents and let them know I would be staying over at
their place. The next day I found out my brother had caught a cab and followed
the bus, saw I went to my grandparents place and returned home in that same
cab.

Lastly, in India, every public transport service, offers a half price ticket
for children. Even if travelling alone. Also, kids studying in government
schools, get a card which allows them to travel from home to school by
bus/train for free. It's actually very common to see kids traveling via public
transport alone. In trains and buses it's also quite common to offer or see
others offering their seats to small kids that can't reach the over head
handles while standing.

~~~
manish_gill
This is very interesting. I can't imagine a 6/7 yo following on cab much less
a 4/5 year old catching a bus late night anywhere in New Delhi! Which city was
this in?

~~~
kapad
Bombay. More than 20 years ago when the city was much safer. :)

------
m1sta_
The safety that allows a child to travel alone should be a defining factor of
a “first world” region.

------
raarts
Related:
[http://web.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/06-20/0063_world_cup_s...](http://web.kitsapsun.com/archive/1998/06-20/0063_world_cup_soccer__japanese_cleani.html)

------
jsemrau
In Singapore my kids take the school bus. They could technically take the MRT
/ Bus by themselves, but I don't trust Singapore's traffic. When I grew up, I
walked to school. But German drivers are really well educated (mostly).

------
rurban
Not only Japan, everywhere. I believe the US is the only country which would
be worried of kids go to school by themselves. Sick.

But the most trust into their kids I saw amongst Africans.

------
coldtea
There's a great article on the topic (for USA) by Michael Ventura of Austin
Chronicle:

A little clause set between commas in a missive from a reader about a recent
column ["Hero vs. Superhero," July 25] -- in that piece I wondered about the
effect of today's movie superheroes on little children as opposed to what
children saw, say, in John Ford's 1956 The Searchers. The reader was
intelligently critical of the piece, but in that clause he doubted that many
7-year-olds ever went to movies like The Searchers. A natural mistake -- he
was clearly too young to remember, and how else would he know? But, for me,
his error brought back a lost world.

In today's America, where parents chauffeur kids to "play dates," only on the
poorest streets do 7-year-olds still roam free ... but they don't go to movies
much because tickets are so pricey ... the concession stand is even more
expensive ... and you can't just walk into any movie (it might not be rated
for kids) ... and you have to know the exact time a film starts ... and
shopping-mall movie theatres are rarely within walking distance. Today you're
blitzed by TV ad campaigns and product tie-ins in fast-food joints, so you
know all about a Hollywood film before it starts ... and today's urban parents
panic if their grade-school children disappear, unaccounted for, for hours on
end.

Fifty years ago, none of that was so. In the larger cities, two or three movie
theatres were in walking distance of most neighborhoods. Each had but one
screen. The program began with a newsreel, a few cartoons, and brief "coming
attractions" (not today's compilations that tell the whole story). Then the
"features" began -- plural, features, for all neighborhood theatres played
double, sometimes triple, features, two or three movies for the price of one
ticket. Nothing was rated, there were no sex scenes or obscenities; anyone
could go to any movie. Admission price for a kid was rarely more than a
quarter. Popcorn for a dime, a Coke for a nickel. They weren't supposed to
sell kids tickets during school hours, but they did. As for kids roaming about
-- "Go play in traffic," our parents would say, and they wouldn't be surprised
if we didn't walk in 'til dinnertime, which in our immigrant neighborhood
wasn't until after 7. ("Go play in traffic" wasn't so harsh a phrase as it
sounds. Where else could we play?)

And you didn't go to a movie, you went to "the movies." You rarely knew the
title of the film you were going to see until you saw the marquee -- and even
then you might not recognize the title. Big productions were advertised on
billboards, but there weren't so many billboards. No ads on the sides of
buses, and none in supermarkets (and there weren't that many supermarkets).
Second features were never advertised. TV ads for movies? Very rare in the
early Fifties, and not so common by the end of the decade. Except for Davy
Crockett's "coonskin" hats (and that was for television), massive product tie-
ins were decades away. So adults and kids alike went to the movies, to see
whatever was playing -- especially during the hot months, because in those
days the big pull was to go to "an air-conditioned movie," as the phrase went.
Into the early Sixties, movie theatres were among the only air-conditioned
public buildings, and nothing was more rare for working-class people (on the
East Coast anyway) than an air-conditioned residence. (I didn't live in one
until I was 29.)

And there was this, a fact that can't be overestimated: Almost all movies
(with Disney the major exception) were made for adults. Kids went to the
movies, but few movies were calibrated for kids. Yet no ticket-seller I ever
encountered thought it strange for a 7-year-old alone, or a group of three or
four, to show up. I went every time I could scrounge the change, and I don't
remember ever being turned away.

My birthday is late in October, so I was still 7 in 1953 when I saw my first
film without "parental guidance" \-- or parental presence. Frankly, it kind of
shocks me to write that, for I can't imagine the parents of 7-year-olds today
allowing their children to go to the movies alone. In fact, I doubt a lone
7-year-old would be sold a ticket now anywhere in this country. But once upon
a time, it was no big deal. (All of which makes urban parents of 50 years ago
sound permissive. They weren't. We would never have dreamed of speaking to our
parents, or to any adult, as I now hear so many minutely supervised kids speak
to theirs. Disrespect was not tolerated. Neither was whining. I know that
sounds like an exaggeration. It's not.)

So, at the age of 7, three or four other urchins and I saw Vincent Price in
House of Wax -- in 3-D, no less. It was deliciously scary in a harmless sort
of way. But that same year I felt true horror at seeing (alone) The Robe; the
Jesus I prayed to -- I watched him be crucified, watched the nails entering
his hands, and it was among the more shattering experiences of my little life.
And then, a different kind of shattering, that same year: The War of the
Worlds -- the scene where the crazed mob throws the scientists out of their
truck, destroys their work, and so (seemingly) ends all hope that mankind
might survive the martian invasion. When later I became an obsessive reader of
history, I had occasion to think of that scene many times.

In the spring of the next year, when I was 8, my 6-year-old cousin Tony and I
"went to the movies," and what was playing was what I now know to be one of
the rarest films by a major director and major star: William Wellman's The
High and the Mighty, my first John Wayne film. Tony and I sat through it twice
-- that is, we sat through The High and the Mighty, a second feature that I've
forgotten, and The High and the Mighty again. For in those days once you
bought a ticket you could sit there till the theatre closed. Also, since you
just "went," you almost always walked in the middle of whatever picture it
was, stayed through the second feature, and watched the first feature until
the scene you walked in on. That's the origin of the saying, "This is where I
came in" \-- people would often leave at that point, with those words on their
lips. Not me. I always stayed 'til the end, even if I didn't like the picture.
I was (and am) stubborn that way. The High and the Mighty was about a haunted,
limping co-pilot (John Wayne) who'd survived the crash that killed his wife
and child. He redeems himself by managing to land a (propeller-driven)
airliner that otherwise would have been destroyed. Tony and I walked out
whistling the haunting theme music. We went back the next day. Which was the
first time I ever went to a movie. I can still whistle that theme, but I've
never seen that film again -- to my knowledge it has yet to appear on TV, VHS,
or DVD. What happened to it? In any case, I kind of fell in love with John
Wayne. He was the man my 8-year-old wanted to be.

Other movies I saw solo or with buddy-urchins: The Blackboard Jungle, East of
Eden, Rebel Without a Cause when I was 9 ... The Searchers when I was 10 ...
age 11, I saw Edge of the City (the complex friendship between John Cassavetes
and Sidney Poitier turned my young head around about race). Eleven, too, when
I saw A Face in the Crowd and The Three Faces of Eve. Face left me absolutely
stunned -- so much so that I couldn't stand to see the film again until I was
well into my 40s. I know this will sound incredibly naive to a modern ear, but
Face taught me that those smiling faces on TV were laughing at me. Baby, that
changed me. I stopped believing a lot of things that year -- and stopped
calling myself a Catholic. I didn't trust a priestly smile anymore. As for The
Three Faces of Eve -- my mother had been in and out of mental hospitals, so
Eve taught me more than I wanted to know, earlier than I could absorb it, and
to this day I've not been able to watch it again.

All of which is to say ... there are good arguments for and against a child
seeing such things, though I'm glad I did. Good arguments for and against
children roaming dangerously, freely. Yes, disasters happened. You had to
learn how to handle men who sat next to you and groped (that was rare, but
once was plenty); I'd always grab an aisle seat, and I took to the trick of
spilling Coke and popcorn on the seat next to me. But, as W.D. Snodgrass said
when asked why he didn't write poems about A-bombs: "I've seen more people
killed in their living rooms." It isn't much of an exaggeration to say "the
movies," as an entity, raised me. It was like listening in to the
conversations of the grownups. Which, we now forget, is how children have been
raised for eons. So, reader, yes -- 7-year-olds did see The Searchers, in
another world, and in a freer, riskier, more exciting, and inviting country.

[https://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2003-08-22/174046/](https://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2003-08-22/174046/)

------
chrischen
In suburbia there are no subways to use, although parents do let their 15 year
old kids take their cars and run erands alone.

------
jordache
when I was 9-10, while living in Munich around 1989-1990, I rode the U-bahn
(subway) to school with 2 other kids around the same age everyday. Had to do a
transfer in between also....

------
quantumofmalice
This is not surprising: Japan is a high trust, low crime ethnostate.

------
cjbenedikt
In Germany too

------
artur_makly
and u can eat off the subway floor’s its that clean there

------
merloen
Is there any nation in which kids are less independent than in the U.S.?

~~~
forkerenok
I'm observing a massive decline in children independence in Russia as well
compared to the "good old Soviet times" and early (pretty violent though) 90s.

It is a helpless feeling that emerged is the age of kidnappers, organ
harvesting etc. Or has nothing really changed since then and it is just that
we're exposed to massive amounts of FUD in the new era of mass media?

~~~
djsumdog
I think it's a lot more fear, uncertainty/doubt. Kids are most likely to be a
victim of crime at home by family members. That's where most abuse happens.
The random kidnapping is more in the movies that reality.

~~~
briandear
That’s a fact. Doug Stanhope has a great bit about how your kid can go his
entire life without being raped by a man in a van.

------
Frogolocalypse
I used to do this in Australia many years back when I was six and seven. It
never even occurred to anyone that it was an issue.

~~~
jpatokal
These days, in Queensland, it's illegal for children under 12 to walk to
school on their own. (Although, for better or worse, both the letter of the
law and its enforcement are unclear.)

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-09/how-long-is-too-
long-t...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-09/how-long-is-too-long-to-
leave-a-child-unattended/8335692)

~~~
Frogolocalypse
Yes, I remember when that law was introduced. I vaguely remember that it was
in response to a child being murdered after being picked up while waiting for
a bus.

It's certainly a different world now. But I have a 10-year-old, and he goes to
the shops around the corner to buy milk and/or bread. There'd be no way I
could trust him to make public transport decisions at this stage though. Maybe
a year or two more.

~~~
Zak
> _It 's certainly a different world now._

What do you see as the relevant differences?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
My sister said the same thing, but I pointed out that the crime rates are
actually lower vs. when we were kids.

~~~
Zak
And most people don't seem to know it: [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/11/16/voters-perce...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/11/16/voters-perceptions-of-crime-continue-to-conflict-with-
reality/)

------
christmasity
Is this news worthy? This is also the case in NYC and probably every city
around the world. Kids take the subway, bus, etc all by themselves to go to
school, malls, theaters, friends' homes, etc. My siblings and I did. All my
friends did.

------
lerie82
Did you know they still hang people in Japan? Anyway, America has more
freedoms and also more crime.

[http://www.nationmaster.com/country-
info/compare/Japan/Unite...](http://www.nationmaster.com/country-
info/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime)

Not sure why this is newsworthy, seems like they are just trying to stir the
pot up.

------
ekianjo
Good, but too bad Japan does not let kids be as free to think for themselves
at school a little more. If you limit autonomy to walking to school, it won't
bring much benefits in the end.

