
How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations - bootload
http://www.freerangekids.com/how-children-lost-the-right-to-roam-in-just-4-generations/
======
noonespecial
I was thinking about this the other day. Ironically this is the safest time in
all of history to let kids do this. Crime is historically very low _and_ our
kids _want_ to carry around magical devices that lets us know where they are
at all times and contact them instantly.

This should be a golden age, yet we've turned it into jail. What gives
everyone?

Edit: And by "what gives" I mean literally, I live in the US and have children
ages 7-12 and I don't let them do these things solely because I'm afraid of
government busy-bodies. Not crime, not injury, not abduction. I'm frankly and
bluntly afraid of the limitless power a bored bureaucrat will help
himself/herself to over my family if given the slightest reason. That's what
gives for me anyway.

~~~
manmal
Crime is not the problem, traffic is. I grew up in a blind alley, and the
whole town was really low in traffic. I started cruising around with my bike
together with the neighbors at age 7, and we met a car every 10 minutes, tops.
They slowed down to a stop, mostly, when they saw us.

Fast forward, we are living in a city of 30k citizens now, though on the
outskirts; there is a major road about 200m away, and although we have a tight
speed limit in our area (30kmh), I'm not sure we can allow roaming around
before age 10. Cats are run over all the time here, people just don't look
before going around corners. And then there's the occasional report (or
rumor?) of people trying to spirit children away from their parents in the
local mall.

That being said, maybe I felt a lot safer as a kid in the same circumstances.

~~~
jessriedel
Yes. Everyone is falling over themselves in this thread to bemoan the
sensationalist media and irrational fear of kidnapping, but cars are a
dramatic difference in the risks of letting children wander that just didn't
exist 100 years ago.

~~~
mseebach
> but cars are a dramatic difference in the risks of letting children wander
> that just didn't exist 100 years ago.

100 years ago, sure[1] -- but there's also a dramatic difference in behaviour
from 40 years ago, and traffic is significantly safer today than then.

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

1: I'm sure more kids flat out died from catching untreatable infections when
playing outside 100 years ago than are even mildly hurt in traffic today.

~~~
jessriedel
We could continue this debate over whether the increase in restrictions is
rational, by me pointing out that as all-cause child mortality falls, and as
others methods of getting children from A to B become cheaper, it makes sense
for parents to take steps to avoid sources of risk that were acceptable in the
past. But that is not even really my point. The point is that the discussion
in the thread is hopeless if most commenters focus on feeling smug without
considering all these effects in detail.

------
kqr2
This American Life had a funny anecdote illustrating the opposite extreme
where a woman who doesn't quite understand the meaning of "summer camp" leaves
her kids at a campground by themselves for a week.

    
    
      My mother emigrated to the United States from Germany in 
      the '50s. And her understanding of American culture and 
      traditions wasn't always quite clear. And one of her 
      confusions was about summer camp. She knew that kids 
      should go to summer camp, but she didn't realize that it 
      usually involved 24 hour adult supervision. So one week 
      she drove us up to a campground on the coast of Malibu 
      and set us up in this tent, and left us some groceries, 
      and then she drove home to go back to work.
    

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/109/...](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/109/transcript)

~~~
ma2rten
I feel like this more than a cultural misunderstanding. It would not be
considered normal or acceptable to leave your children alone for so long in
Germany either.

~~~
cperciva
It's a cultural misunderstanding, but not the sort you're thinking of. The
mother in question wasn't following the culture she grew up in; rather, she
was _trying_ to follow the culture she had moved into, but failed in a
hilarious way due to her misunderstanding of American culture.

~~~
mseebach
But the more important point: She may have been baffled, but she was obviously
not terribly concerned by the level of danger she was exposing her kids to.

~~~
cperciva
Social proof matters. If everybody else is leaving their kids alone for a
week, clearly it's not as unsafe as it sounds.

(And as with raising funding from VCs, social proof depends on whether they
_think_ other VCs are investing, not on whether other VCs actually _are_.)

------
valuearb
When I was 6 or 7 years old, during the summers every morning my mom would
give me $1.25, and I would get on my bike and ride to the public pool with my
friends that was about 5 miles away in the center of our small town. We'd swim
all day and go to the Burgerville for lunch where I could get a wonderfully
tasty cheeseburger with fries and coke for my $1.25. Finally I had to be home
by dinner.

If we didn't go swimming, there was a 40 acre woods/orchard behind our houses
and we would search it for anything exciting, like bugs, squirrels or wild
animals.

When I turned 8 we moved out into the country and I had to walk a few miles
just to get to a friends house. We'd usually take our air rifles and go try to
shoot things. By the time I was 10 most of us had our own motorcycles and
parents who would let us borrow their shotguns for some real fun.

This was in the 1970s.

~~~
ahoy
I had a similar experience in the rural south in the 90s, for what it's worth.
I was largely given free reign to tromp around the (expansive) woods, had a bb
gun that I liked to tote around, and at one point had a motorcycle - a ratty
little 50cc honda dirtbike that I repeatedly wrecked into ditches and briar
patches.

Point is, at least for "country" millennials, I think plenty of roaming did
happen.

~~~
pshposh
At least for me this happened in suburbia too in the 90s. (Minus the
motorcycle)

edit: $1.25 at Burgerville is bonkers to me. We just had $0.29/$0.39
burger/cheeseburger Tuesday deal at McDonalds. Those days are gone...

~~~
brandonmenc
Ditto - early 90s, suburbia, Great Lakes region.

Latchkey kid, summers spent biking around a couple mile radius, walked to the
mall to play arcade games and eat McDonalds... magical times.

------
simonsarris
I suspect this is not just an American or British or _solely cultural_ thing
but also a number-of-children thing. This seems like it would also be the
natural response to having fewer children.

If you have 3-10 kids, you can "afford" to let them off the leash so to speak,
if only psychologically. Your kids going missing or getting hurt is an
eventuality anyway, maybe.

If you have 1 or 2 kids, you are investing a lot more mindshare per kid and
are probably a lot more worried about such roaming as a result.

The easiest way to get back the right to roam, I suspect, would be to simply
triple your number of kids. But almost no one is willing to do that for other
reasons.

~~~
jboggan
Only child, grew up in the 90's in a neighborhood of one and two child
families. We were all wild roamers, generally disappearing on weekends and
summer days from sun up to sun down. Usually at someone else's house or in the
creeks and woods between people's houses.

~~~
tluyben2
First child of 2 growing up in the 80s; I was allowed to go anywhere in our
village and a bit beyond. It was fun ;) Cannot phantom being restricted to our
garden...

------
tluyben2
That depends on the location I guess; where I live in Spain kids can basically
do whatever. Hell, they come to parties with their parents that last until 8
in the morning. There we do not have the paranoid thing that guys cannot pick
up / play with children of others without being called a sex offender either.
He is talking about western world, but I am in Cambodia now and here kids seem
to be allowed to wander (or boat in floating villages) very far and in cities
I saw almost no parents picking up kids from primary school; they all seem to
walk away alone.

In the Netherlands, for the parents I know, are also not very restrictive or
paranoid, even in cities.

Maybe this is fear induced US/UK stuff mostly? I do not know about the US but
the UK parents I know seen weirdly over protective to me as the article
states. Not sure that is good for children, especially considering that most
kids, if not allowed something, will try to do it anyway or excessively do it
when older and/or away from home. Like when relatively young UK guys came to a
campground in Amsterdam on their own, we (Dutch) were looking in horror at
17-18 year olds smoking weed, drinking, passing out and vomiting basically
24/7\. As my parents told me to try anything, I did not feel the inclination
to try a lot and as I did not have to sneak around, I never felt the need to
do things in excess when away from home.

~~~
mbroncano
Yup, one of the things I dearly miss from living in NL and/or Spain is really
having our kids safely roaming around with no worries of CPS or worse.

Here is the US it'd be mental to allow them more than a hundred feet away.

So much for the land of the brave and the free!

------
scandox
Another massive freedom kids have lost is the right to have independent
friendships with adults. Given what we have collectively understood about the
behaviour of some adults this is perhaps understandable. However it is a big
loss for the majority cases.

As a kid I spent whole days out on the farm with farmhands. Often just one on
one. One of them in particular taught me to drive a tractor and all about
plants and animals. Also I got all my ethics from him since my own father
didn't do ethics.

So I am sad for my kids that they will be very unlikely to have that
experience.

~~~
CalRobert
I don't even talk to kids because you never know which ones have hysterical
moms. Recently I was on a camping trip with a friend and a kid (about 13) came
over and chatted about fishing, etc. . We wanted to talk more, and their dad
seemed affable enough, but there was a definite "OK, we're going to stand on
the opposite side of the campground from you and have this conversation
loudly" vibe.

------
kriro
I have thought about this a lot. I pass my elementary school on my way to work
each morning. As kids we just walked there it was a 10-15 minute walk. At
around the 4th grade we took our bikes. We were accompanied by our parents the
first week or so and then just walked in groups. No danger, no incidents,
nothing. And this was true for all kids that attended the school. There were
maybe 3 out of the 40ish kids in my grade that lived too far away and arrived
by car. These days...there's traffic backing up all around the school, every
single kid arrives by car, the thingy where you can lock up your bikes is
completely empty.

Our days as kids looked like this: Back home from school, lunch, play until
the night...usually outdoors wherever we found interesting stuff. No set dates
or sheduling, you just walked over to your friends house and figured out what
to do, maybe pick up a couple of other friends. If someone wasn't there you
just tried the next house. The activities involved climbing trees, building
your own boat to paddle on a small creek and other things that would be
considered deadly activities these days. Lots of sports and getting dirty,
too. Surprisingly enough no kids got abducted. On the flip side I watched very
little TV (we didn't have a TV for a decent chunk of my childhood) and I
didn't have any computer for a good chunk of my childhood either.

I also think parents spent more quality time with their kids "back in my day".
Family trips to the zoo or just playing football in a park or something. I see
these parent/kid teams a lot less these days. It's a very strange development
because the benefits seem so obvious to me and the "downside" is spending more
time with your kids or letting them do more things they enjoy.

~~~
thirdsun
> These days...there's traffic backing up all around the school, every single
> kid arrives by car, the thingy where you can lock up your bikes is
> completely empty.

As a german this seems insane to me. For a long time I actually thought that
driving the kids to the school was just something that is misrepresented in
american media like films and tv shows.

We went to school on our own, regardless of distance, either by public
transport or by walking and biking.

------
Animats
Early episodes of Sesame Street now come with a warning: "These early Sesame
Street episodes are intended for grownups and may not suit the needs of
today's preschool child."[1]

This is episode 1.[2] This may terrify today's parents. Watch the first three
minutes.

[1] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sesame-street-for-adults-
only/](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sesame-street-for-adults-only/) [2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEiZmPNguU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEiZmPNguU)

------
jedberg
The biggest issue is the courts. I have a two year old, and her grandma lives
one mile away. I fully intend to let her walk there by herself when she is 6
or 7. Crime rate data supports me in that this is perfectly safe.

But I'll always have this nagging feeling in my mind of some local busybody
parent (and there are a lot) reporting me to CPS and then having to defend my
decision and hope that I get a data driven judge.

~~~
emiliobumachar
There's a way to pre-emptively ask a court whether it's legal to do something.

A few years back, some researches did just that in the USA, asking whether
they could publish their research despite some deal with the funding
corporation, which did not want it published.

I'm afraid I don't remember the details. May be a state-specific thing.

~~~
flukus
Never thought about this before but it really does make sense for every
government to provide a service like this.

------
kasey_junk
Honestly, this seems like a pretty short sighted view of the safety of
roaming. In any American city how far could an African American kid roam from
their neighborhood in 1926?

How much space could an unmarried female white expect to have before societal
conventions interfered in 1926?

What about an urban Irish boy in 1926 NYC, how much space could he roam in
safely?

~~~
pvg
In the 20s, poorer American children worked. Flappers were a thing. So I think
pretty far, in all cases.

~~~
kasey_junk
Its my impression from the histories I've read of my city (Chicago) that black
people certainly didn't have 6 miles of uninterrupted neighborhoods where it
would be safe for them to meander in.

Further, Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans were still very much segregated
into smaller enclaves than that. The Irish were only recently able to move
about freely at that point, and there were certainly places they couldn't go.

The larger point of this article seems to be, rural people have more space,
which doesn't seem to have much value as an observation.

~~~
pvg
I think the point of the article is that, societally, we are perhaps too
focused on children's safety to the point of depriving them of some perfectly
harmless freedom. The argument is not, as you seem to interpret it, strictly
geometric. In the 20s, the world was far less safe for children yet far more
independence and agency was _required_ of many of them. I'm sure not every
shoeshine or newspaper boy was engaging in these activities in their ethnic
ghetto.

~~~
kasey_junk
I guess I just don't understand the point of the article. To me it seems an
indictment of current parenting modes, based on the amount of geometric
freedom allowed _a very small subset of the population_ in comparison to the
amount of geometric freedom allowed another, different very small subset of
the population.

I guess what I'm saying is, its a pretty ridiculous article that doesn't line
up with reality now or then.

~~~
pvg
It's anecdotal but it doesn't seem that ridiculous, at least, not in the face
of your criticism which seems to be 'think of the disadvantaged kids'.
Disadvantaged kids may have had even greater constraints and lived in a more
dangerous world but that's a point in favour of the article - they _had_ to
get around and so did anyway.

I'm going straight to hell for using this as an example in a pointless forum
argument but since we got here (and I'm rationalizing it to myself that it's
somehow your fault, sorry) - Emmett Till's mother put him on a train in
Chicago and sent him, by himself, to visit relatives in Mississippi. At age 14
he was expected not only to travel solo cross-country but to safely navigate
an actually dangerous, pointedly racist world. The demands on disadvantaged
kids were even greater but the fact that they couldn't ride their bikes to the
municipal pool doesn't mean they just sat at home under the watchful eye of
their governess.

~~~
kasey_junk
So this actually gets to 2 different readings of the point of the article.

One reading, the one that maybe I'm reading into it, is that parents now are
viewing the world as more dangerous than it is, and are ignoring the dangers
that existed in the past to get to this viewpoint. This viewpoint is then
informing their view about what is appropriate for their children. That is, I
took the anecdote to mean, parents are misjudging the risks currently and were
viewing the past to be less risky than it was.

The other viewpoint, which I think you are presenting is, parents now don't
have any different assessment of the risks, they just have less _appetite_ for
risk. Given that interpretation, I'll buy the lesson of the anecdote is _just
have more appetite for risk_.

~~~
pvg
Oh! Are you not familiar with the 'free range kids' people? They've been in
the news a few times over the last few years. Their thing is that this is a
better way to parent _and_ they're being unreasonably prevented from doing so
by social norms and often laws. Without that context the article probably
looks a lot weirder than it is.

------
49531
Anecdotally I was born in 1990, I spent the first 10 years of my life in
Tacoma WA, USA where during summers I would leave in the morning and be gone
all day, all of the neighborhood kids would do the same.

When I was 10 we moved to San Diego, CA USA, where I lived until adulthood.
During the summers had the same freedom, I would roam free with the
neighborhood kids all day long.

Now I'm married with children of my own (3 and 0) and think about the
scariness of letting them roam free, but they're really young so I think that
is normal.

However, I also have 2 stepsons who are 13 and 11. During the summers they
roam free, we have a field behind our backyard which butts up against a forest
and an industrial park, and sometimes they're gone for the entire day.

The only real difference is they have cell phones now, and can call us if
there is an emergency.

------
icu
As a parent of a young child in London there is no way I'm letting my son
wander around our area without being within eyesight. There are just too many
degenerate members of British society to take a chance with my son's life and
welfare.

On the other hand, if we were to ever move to New Zealand where I lived most
of my life, or to the town in Poland where my son's mother grew up, this would
be an entirely different story.

Anywhere in New Zealand is quite honestly Disneyland compared to the UK (and I
am thinking of the 'hard' parts in New Zealand like Māngere or Ōtāhuhu)... and
Radomsko in Poland still has some nice forest areas and a lake that is walking
distance from the town.

I think the author needs to take into account that there are just some places
in the world where you must be on guard and be extra vigilant. This isn't
limited to London, for example Cape Town in South Africa or Rio de Janeiro in
Brazil spring to mind.

I am however very much aware of the impact my decision to keep my family in
London will have on my son's childhood and frankly I would rather move outside
of the M25, to say the outer edges of Surrey, where I would feel slightly more
at ease but still ever vigilant. Until I can afford to do that, holidays to
Poland will have to suffice.

------
Swizec
I remember when I was a kid, I was allowed to roam and go on adventures.
Especially at my grandma's house because she was next to the woods.

I thought I went so far. I thought I was so adventurous. Turns out the max I
ever dared go was about 1km. Maaaaybe 2km. The distances that used to look so
far and adventurous, don't even feel like a walk anymore.

Maybe that was just me, but it sounds like even if you give kids freedom to go
wherever, they won't really roam that far. So maybe it's pretty safe to give
them that freedom? They'll use it age appropriately.

By the time I would have roamed further than the 1 or 2 kilometers, I had
discovered books and internet and computers and I was like "lol why would I
leave the living room?"

~~~
sbov
I think it depends upon the kids and how far you have to go for adventure.

I grew up in San Jose and when we were in elementary school, we would take our
bikes to the surrounding hills all the time, anywhere from 1-10 miles. One of
my brothers, when he was in middle school, would regularly bike to Santa Cruz,
which is about 50 miles away.

~~~
Swizec
That, and I think my grandma used a trick. She'd let me out in the wild, but
the next meal was never more than 2 or 3 hours away. This limited how far I
could roam without feeling like it did.

You wouldn't just skip a meal when you're 6 or 7. Not when everything's so
delicious!

At home, in the city, it was similar. Sure I could do whatever I wanted
between school and when my parents came home 3 hours later. But there's only
so much you can do in 3 hours.

------
guimarin
I think there are a lot more roads/freeways now than back then as other
commenters have pointed out. We've built our cities for cars, not for people.
One possible side-effect of self driving cars, is it may make it safer for
kids to wander again. I know I'd love to just attach a GPS tracker to my now
1yr old daughter in 5 years, and let her go where she pleases here in SF.

~~~
stuckagain
Indeed, one does not simply double the population without limiting the
distance people can walk. It's a simple matter of geometry. The number of
households in the USA has doubled in the last 40 years. The number of major
roads has radically increased. Most (85%) live in urban areas so there is only
somewhere to walk in the woods if you live on the edge of the sprawl.

~~~
kuschku
Or if your city is built vertically, but with lots of forests throughout it.

~~~
stuckagain
That's very rare. American cities are built on "free market" principles as
distorted by politics. They are not built for livability, beauty, or any other
quantitative or qualitative measure.

I personally advocate for this type of development, but it's unlikely that I
will ever see it built:
[http://carfree.com/topology.html](http://carfree.com/topology.html)

~~~
oftenwrong
There's a critique of that design on new world economics:

[http://newworldeconomics.com/lets-kick-around-carfree-
com/](http://newworldeconomics.com/lets-kick-around-carfree-com/)

I think the author did a poor job of arguing there compared to his usual
articles, but he does make some decent points.

~~~
kuschku
The articles of this author are interesting, but he’s missing something.

Really narrow roads (<6m) work, but not always. In many cities you have
situations where the pedestrian traffic alone is enough to fill 15-20m wide
streets.

But he is right that the #1 priority is in proportions.

~~~
kuschku
(Replying to myself because I can’t edit)

For example, during large events, even smaller cities’ streets can look like
this: [http://www.bergmann-gruppe.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/vo...](http://www.bergmann-gruppe.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/11/vorschau_kiwo.jpg) (A picture taken during Kieler
Woche, one of the largest Volksfests in Europe.)

(Image description for the visually impaired: The image shows a roughly 20-30m
wide street directly at the edge of the water in a harbour, people completely
fill it, as densely as possible, in the background one can see that it
continues for hundreds of meters, all the while being this densely filled with
people)

------
Gustomaximus
As another in a long line that identifies with this, my partner and I are
taking steps to buy a small acreage on the outskirts of a city where we can
'free-range' our kids whilst giving me access to city work. While we also want
this lifestyle we think this is super important for our young'uns (5&7) and
I'm more than happy to accept the additional commute to give them this. This
will take my commute to about 90 min each way but I'll try and offset with 2
days a week working from home if possible.

So for all the people acknowledging the loss, it's completely an option to
give your kids a free range life if you willing to give up the inner city life
yourself.

~~~
tqkxzugoaupvwqr
Before you buy property and extend your commute to 3 hours per day, you should
test if such a long commute doesn’t slowly deteriorate your life. Start today.
Tell your wife you want to test the commute back home, then pick a route that
takes 1.5 hours. Tomorrow take a route that takes 1.5 hours to work. Repeat
for the next 3 months. Ask your employer for those 2 days per week home
office. See if it works for both of you. If your employer is not willing to
let you remote work now then it is going to be a big gamble later.

If you can keep it up without problems, I’m all for it, go ahead and buy that
property. My guess is after a while you might feel stressed and tired and
think “This commute sucks. Luckily this ends after three months!”. If you
catch yourself thinking this, you should reconsider your plan of moving this
far away from your job. (Or think about looking for a new job closer to that
property.)

~~~
Gustomaximus
Thanks for the insight. I currently have a 75 min commute so know what I'm
getting into. It's really is something to consider.

I find the travel time is OK when you have fairly direct transport where you
can do something. For me the significant majority time is on the train so I
work on my side business which works nicely having that time immediately
pre/post office hours. It does take much time from life so I personally
wouldn't do it if I was driving and unable to get stuff done.

------
nickjarboe
This short article is basically a bunch of quotes from:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-
children-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children-
lost-right-roam-generations.html) (2007).

------
iamleppert
I think this is highly dependent on the parents. I'm 32 and my parents let me
go all over town, pretty much where I wanted with no adult supervision, for as
long as I wanted. I was allowed to stay out past dark until about 9 on school
nights, later on the weekends and in the summer. All this _and_ I have a
medical condition that could get me seriously hurt or killed.

My parents trusted me, and they taught me early on to be responsible.

That said, I regularly see young kids in SF out by themselves. I'd say as a
parent, if you are one, get ahold of yourself and allow your kids some
freedom.

~~~
chmaynard
> I'm 32 and my parents let me go all over town

Your parents are taking a big risk. I hope you're carrying a cell phone.

------
jemfinch
There's nothing I want more than to let my kids roam like I did in the late
80s and early 90s. Sadly, I can't, because I'm quite literally afraid that
someone will take my kids (completely ignoring that the real dangers of the
foster home system _vastly_ exceed any risk I would let my kids take).

~~~
certifiedloud
Perhaps your worry is unfounded:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/theres-
never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/)

~~~
jemfinch
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not afraid of strangers, I'm afraid of
social workers for Child Protective Services. I'm afraid of legalized
kidnapping because my preferred way of parenting would expose my kids to small
risks now so they're at far less risk as adults.

------
BarkMore
When I was 15 years old in the 1970s, I went a 100 mile backpacking trip with
five youth between 15 and 16 years old. We thought it was normal at the time.
When I told my younger colleagues at work about this trip, they were shocked
that our parents sent us off without adult supervision. There was also some
concern that we went on this trip without a mobile phone!

~~~
ghaff
I suspect that a lot of people today would be seriously bothered by the fact
that mobile phones and other forms of emergency contact just weren't an option
until relatively recently.

I also went to college at 16 which I suspect would horrify some people today.

------
daxfohl
The strange thing is that CPS is considered the enemy here. It seems like CPS
should be a group that listens to the needs of parents and helps build a
community to cater to those needs, not some kind of self-important authority
figure. Maybe it should be rebranded as Child Development Services or
something.

------
bootload
_" When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere. It was 1926 and his
parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a
bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without
adult supervision."_

Thought about this a lot. In kinder it was 400m for me. PS, 20km and by the
age of 16 my range was more than 200 SqrKm. This was alone, on foot, by bike,
train or bus.

------
zanethomas
In 1956 I was 6 years old in Pasadena, CA. We lived in a trailer park on the
east side of town. Each morning I went down to Colorado Blvd, by myself, wait
for a city bus, rode half way across town, got off the bus and walked a few
blocks to a private school, reversing the trip each afternoon.

I don't think people have changed, I don't believe the world is more
dangerous, so why can't kids now do what I did?

------
NamTaf
When I grew up (in Australia) in the early-to-mid 90s I was allowed to roam
quite a bit. The rough rule of thumb was that I would need to be home by
sunset or have already called mum from a friend's house letting her know where
I was and agreeing to a plan to stay after sunset. I think my parents struck a
pretty good balance between driving me places when it made sense vs. just
making me ride a bike/walk to the local town area or to friends' houses when I
wanted to go of my own accord - it taught me responsibility and independence.

I really value it (still) and plan to allow the same freedoms if I have kids.

~~~
flukus
Same for me, go anywhere but be back by 6 when dinner goes on the table.

I wonder if this explains a lot about child hood obesity, when ever I go back
to where I grew up I'm amazed at the sheer number of miles I did everyday by
walking or by bike. If I stay with my parents now and go to the beach I'm
getting a lift or a cab, but we used to walk or bike from the same house,
often multiple times a day. Often laden with fishing gear as well.

------
kasey_junk
For what its worth, the vast majority of children in my south side Chicago
(gasp) neighborhood, walk to elementary school without a parent. They are
often without adult supervision in the hours after school lets out, and before
their parents come home from work.

There are frequently older siblings, but that doesn't seem like some vast
generational sea change.

Instead, I think this story is more about multi-generational moves from rural
to urban life, that resonates with parents who can afford to be over
protective of their children and feel bad about it.

------
remarkEon
A lot of the anecdotes in this thread seem to be from more rural areas or out
in a small town. I grew up in Minneapolis (born in the 80s) and could do all
these things in our neighborhood in the summers (except for shooting guns, but
I'd get that in the summer with my cousins in South Dakota). I'd meet up with
the neighborhood kids around 11 and my mom (or one of their moms) would have
lunch and snacks ready for us around 1 or so. We'd just roam around the
neighborhood all day playing street hockey or basketball or whatever.

...none of this goes on in my neighborhood anymore. One proximate cause that I
think we're missing is that a lot of us _moved away_ , and housing costs are
so high that I'm putting off buying a home and my friends are too - or are
doing so out in the suburbs. Demographic changeover could be a contributing
factor.

------
ianbicking
I was looking at this phone for kids recently:
[http://tinitell.com/](http://tinitell.com/) \- just GPS and voice, but let's
a kid be in contact.

I'd be curious if people have tried this sort of thing, and if it works...
mostly if it works psychologically. Do you find yourself really giving your
kid more freedom? Does it address the anxieties that keep us from giving kids
freedom?

It doesn't address the highly structured time, but at least I'm doing OK there
by just not opting in to most structured activities.

~~~
schlowmo
I don't want to blame any parents for the desire of knowing where their kids
are and that they're save. But at the same time I'm very glad that I was born
two decades before parents started to think that making their kids carying a
GPS tracker is the prequisite for "more freedom".

I'm sure my parents were better off many times with not knowing where I was.
So I think the psychological part isn't going to play out well - at least for
the kids.

------
dbancajas
I came from Philippines. Now in the US. When I was young I had a bike. I would
go out in the morning anywhere I want to go, come back for lunch to eat lunch.
Go out again and comeback before dinner. These days, this is not possible
anymore. I don't know why. I think people have less kids and are more afraid
of kidnappings etc. I miss those days and I wish I could give my children that
kind of freedom.

------
dba7dba
I think this phenomenon depends on the nation/neighborhood.

For example, I was watching videos of Seoul subways systems and the expat was
commenting how young kids were going about on their own to school and such,
without adult supervision.

Same with Tokyo too.

But yes, I don't let my kids out. I would only if I lived in a gated, nice
community. But I don't so they rarely go out on their own, except for soccer
games, school etc...

Man, what have we done?

------
tommynicholas
I was very excited to read this post, as it's premise appeals very strongly to
me. Wandering is crucial, and every bit of wandering I was allowed to do as a
kid I treasured then and treasure now.

She lost me immediately at

"Imagine if this had happened to any other group: If we kept restricting the
rights of women, or minorities — it would be seen as a terrifying, intolerable
assault on their freedom."

Come on.

------
gremlinsinc
This is kind of disconcerting.. It's like the government is forcing the future
generations to be acclimated to imprisonment or lack of freedom and lack of
independence... so that they can be controlled..

------
SZJX
Well one might also argue that there are much more unsafe factors out there
nowadays than before though. I guess the increasing inequality and social
segregation also has something to do with it. Generally, the modern life is
just factually much different from the life 100 years ago.

Though I definitely agree this shouldn't go too far. There was this article
that I just read a few days ago, that stated that Iceland was able to
drastically curb teenage drug/alcohol use with some measures, which included
after school interest clubs etc. and especially, a law that prevented them
from being outside after 0:00 (summer) or 22:00 (winter)... which I certainly
find way too draconian. You'd definitely still want to give the teens much
more freedom even if it entails a risk of them getting influenced by some
negative factors. Still, it's their life and you need to let them learn stuffs
and explore on their own.

------
sien
It's odd that mobile phones didn't change this trend.

You'd think the giving a 6 year old something they could use if they did get
in trouble and that enabled parents to talk to them would make it safer.

I walked to school in the 1980s and would really like my kids to do the same,
but my partner, who also walked to school, won't have it.

~~~
nfbush
Or because they have phones they are using them to communicate instead

------
paradite
This phenomenon is also very pronounced in China, mostly due to urbanization I
think.

When my parents or grandparents were still children, most of them live in
small towns or countryside, where facilities are far away and main mode of
communication is walking or cycling. There was nothing wrong with travelling
far distance as a child, because there was not much danger. Also, there wasn't
really any alternatives to travelling alone if your house is 2km away from the
school or kids-playing-place and your parents have better things to do than
sending you there.

Now most children grow up in cities, where cars and large density of
population can both pose danger to children wandering around. Plus parents
will just drive their kids to school which costs only a few minutes.

------
bamboozled
This story fits amazingly well with the lyrics from "Where do the Children
Play" by Cat Stevens, released back in 1970. [1]

Just felt like it was worth mentioning because, let's face it, he's asking a
great and important question :)

    
    
      Well I think it's fine, building jumbo planes.
      Or takin' a ride on a cosmic train.
      Switch on summer from a slot machine.
      Get what you want to if you want,
      Cause you can get anything.
    
      I know we've come a long way,
      We're changin' day to day,
      But tell me,
      Where do the children play?
    
      By Cat Stevens
    

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_vy-
eWGKSk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_vy-eWGKSk)

------
brohoolio
What's up with parents driving kids to school? My generation, born in the late
70s, was rarely dropped off or picked up from school.

~~~
magic_beans
I grew up in LA. I lived half an hour from school and there was no school bus
service, so my parents HAD to drive me.

------
robochat42
I think that this has been largely caused by the media. Every time that a
child was attacked or taken in the UK during my childhood, the press would go
crazy for weeks. 'Stranger Danger' was a phrase that often came up. The
resulting parental hysteria restricted the freedom of children and now it has
become normalised. Now it is negligent to allow your kids to roam free and you
might get in trouble for it.

------
intrasight
I think it happened in one generation. My generation roamed quite extensively
starting at about 7 years old. My daughter's generation did not. We drove her
to her friends houses (or their parents to ours). Sometimes they would play
outside. And I'm not saying there was no roaming, but it started much later
and was not as geographically broad.

~~~
galfarragem
And the worse part: by driving them to their friends' houses, it's implied
that you need to like/approve their parents. During my childhood I could
befriend kids whose parents would never be friends of my parents. The actual
status quo intensifies segregation.

------
julienmarie
One thing lacking though is a view on the evolution of the area between the
times of the great grand father and the son. How did the urbanization evolved
? I remember 25 years ago, aged 9/10, when I was living in ( really ) rural
France, I was riding by bicycle at least 10 kms around, walking in woods,
building tree houses.

------
cafard
Every several months something like this is posted on HN, and I log in to post
a couple of things:

1\. During the baby boom, there was a lot of intermittent surveillance. Fewer
mothers worked, and every ten or fifteen minutes one might give a look out the
back window to see what was going on. This was not intrusive, but it kept down
the mischief level on the one hand and the anxiety level on the other.

2\. People on HN have a way of talking about suburbs as if they are all cul-
de-sacs surrounded by highways. I grew up in a close-in suburb of a large
Midwestern city. I was three blocks from school and library, two blocks from
grocer, baker, and five-and-dime. In sixth grade, after a transfer, I did take
the bus to and from school, though I could and sometimes did walk. Junior high
was a mile and a quarter, usually reached by bike.

~~~
bootload
_" During the baby boom, there was a lot of intermittent surveillance. Fewer
mothers worked, and every ten or fifteen minutes one might give a look out the
back window to see what was going on."_

@cafard sort of applies to suburban areas. In semi-rural hilly country on
bikes and foot, there is no houses for miles. My folks and others wouldn't
have been able to see me or my friends, though we'd tell them where we'd been.

------
daxfohl
There's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma working here too. If you're the only
family that lets their child wander, your child is far more likely to be the
one that's abducted. Therefore nobody lets their kids wander, so everyone's
kids have a substandard childhood.

------
temp2093745
When I grew up in Berlin in the 90s I was not really given restrictions on how
far I could roam. I just had to leave a note or give a call if I wanted to
stay out beyond a certain time.

I remember being given keys to the apartment being a big deal since it meant
freedom to me, less hassle for my parents - since they didn't have to fetch me
from school or kindergarden every day - and they did a lot of emphasizing that
I should never ever forget or lose them somewhere.

And that was in a big city. Now I live in a bit more rural area where many
kids cycle several kilometers to school every day and I also see them on
bikeways during school vacations, so it seems like most parents here are fine
with letting them roam.

------
peter_retief
In the 70's I used to roam for miles on foot and on bike. My own children
hardly venture outdoors. The fear of crime is much greater now. What did we
give up to lose our freedom?

------
OpenDrapery
I saw it written somewhere that when we were young, we had freedom but no
information. Today, kids have all the information, but no freedom.

Proof once again that life is a series of tradeoffs.

------
frankosaurus
I'm tired of this claim that kids today are less free-roaming. Such articles
never seem to provide empirical evidence to back it up. The term "helicopter
parent" is thrown around as if it has some sort of scientific definition. In
actuality, it is just a pejorative used to label any parent we have observed
being overprotective.

These claims about a societal shift serve only to tickle persons' biases that
kids today are coddled, lack personal responsibility, and generally thin-
skinned. (On the contrary, parenting styles are as diverse as children
themselves.)

Never mind that adults' personal anecdotes about their childhoods are
unreliable and subject to massive bias. Think about it: Most people have
scarcely any vivid memories of their 0-5 years. Many claim that they were
allowed to roam free back in the day. Adults remember being allowed to run
around, seemingly unsupervised. They are oblivious to protective steps taken
by their parents. Most everyone with children knows the parenting tactic of
giving kids the impression of freedom while taking discreet steps to protect
them from harm.

~~~
xiaoma
I think your weariness at seeing a claim which from all evidence appears true
not backed up by "empirical evidence" is a bit self-indulgent. I've met many N
American adults whose own childhoods align with what the article says and
almost none who said they had a shorter leash than children do now. I've seen
more children taking the metro by themselves in Japan in a one week visit than
I did living the US for three years. It's also undeniable that social workers
taking children from families due to them having been unsupervised is
something that the state barely had resources for 100 years ago even if,
contrary to numerous historical accounts, it had the will.

No, I don't have statistics on exactly how far away the average 9 year-old was
allowed to bike in various years. History books also don't come with a stack
of empirical evidence to back them up. At some point, you have to either
accept them until seeing more compelling conflicting accounts or dig into the
sources and do the research yourself.

If numerous anecdotal claims and published accounts isn't good enough for you,
then the onus is on you to provide a more convincing argument in the opposite
direction.

~~~
frankosaurus
My claim is that persons' own recollection of their childhood is inherently
biased. As kids, they weren't privy to many of their parents' protective
actions. Never mind nostalgia, selective memory, etc.

~~~
xiaoma
Yes, but things like "walked half a mile to school every day at age 5", "was
allowed to bike 5 miles from home after entering the 5th grade and 10 miles
after 6th grade" are pretty clear cut.

------
vidoc
Very interesting, irrational fears and obsession for safety affect so many
things nowadays. Every-time I go snowboarding I'm stunned at how in just 20
years, we pretty much went from zero to something like 90%+ skiers wearing
helmets.

~~~
ci5er
That's funny. I didn't know that had happened. I can't think of any serious
skiing accidents that have happened in/near my social circle, nor on the news,
where a helmet would have been determinative to the outcome.

In what percentage of serious skiing accidents would a helmet help. Or is it
merely one of those "precautionary principle" things: why take a chance?

~~~
vidoc
> In what percentage of serious skiing accidents would a helmet help. Or is it
> merely one of those "precautionary principle" things: why take a chance?

I'm not quiet sure about the percentage, but I'm certain wearing a helmet
_does_ lessen the chances a bit. The problem really is that the majority of
ski injuries are not exactly what we imagine - it's pretty natural to imagine
smashing our skulls on a rock or on some ice, it's very graphic too, I'm not
saying they don't exist, but I can tell you that spine/cervical injuries are
_way_ more common. In addition to avalanches of course where the helmet isn't
particularly useful, another frequent (and graphic!) one is beeing traversed
by a tree branch :P

Just to be clear, I'm not saying helmets are useless tho, but I note that may
give a false sense of security.

------
forestriver
Relevant: [https://www.outsideonline.com/1928266/we-dont-need-no-
educat...](https://www.outsideonline.com/1928266/we-dont-need-no-education)

------
sgarrity
It's cars, cars, cars. That's what I'm afraid of for my kids.

------
MichaelMoser123
I don't think it's that bad nowadays. My ten year old daughter is walking
quite a distance in pursuit of her pokemon. kids tend to take as much freedom
as they need (as they grow older)

------
chrisgd
Could this also have as much to do with the baby boomer generation growing up
with more children nearby? In our neighborhood, there are only two other
children my son's age.

------
cavanasm
I'm highly skeptical of all the claims made by this blog, as the author isn't
exactly making a well reasoned argument for unleashing children on the
wilderness again (although I do find all the discussion here about child
roaming positively riveting); citing a Daily Mail puff piece is one thing, but
the crime stats (and interpretation) are pretty awful.

The "Stranger Danger?" subsection in particular seems insane. 3% of children
under 5 being murdered by strangers absolutely does not mean your child is
safer with strangers.

------
ghola2k5
Also lost the right to catch polio

~~~
stuckagain
Working on that.

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/trump-kennedy-
antiva...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/azeenghorayshi/trump-kennedy-antivaccine)

------
FrancoDiaz
I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some
reason.

In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat
breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out
again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight
tag.

I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3
years in the future) was doing stuff like that. And frankly, I think I've been
conditioned to think that I would be a negligent parent if I did this.

The media is part of the problem. 24/7 news, social media, and channels like
ID (real life murder 24/7) scare the bejeezus out of people. But besides that,
we have an acceptance of nanny-state government - that the government should
be a much closer "partner" in child rearing than 40 years ago.

I always say, there's a consequence for everything, including seemingly
innocuous laws to protect people.

But as a parent of a 4-year old in 2017 (and a 7 year old in 2020), I know I
would be gnashing my teeth if my kid was roaming the streets and woods all day
long...even if I did it.

~~~
Kluny
Media is part of it, but the other part is this, taken from the first comment
on the linked article:

"I can’t help but notice how many freeways and roads are between Sheffield and
Rother Valley. We can’t blame parents alone for the loss of childhood freedom.
Since 1919 We have purposely designed our cities to maximize vehicle
throughput and require car ownership and the result is an environment that is
lethal for 8 year olds. You can’t blame parents for wanting to keep their
children safe when it’s barely safe to cross the street."

I hardly feel safe roaming my own town as an adult, and it's mostly due to the
rivers of high-speed traffic that cut up the city, that I have to cross to get
to anywhere interesting.

~~~
erikpukinskis
> We have purposely designed our cities to maximize vehicle throughput and
> require car ownership

This is just one specific example of the broader phenomenon, which is
corporations seek to remove _all_ of our abilities to take care of ourselves
and our communities, so that they may resell those things to us as products.
Requiring cars to move around is just the surface.

We go to coffee shops and restaurants to see our friends.

We purchase MP3s or concert tickets to hear music.

We order food instead of cooking it let alone growing it.

And of course this is all a luxury to some: many of us would be happy to never
have to walk significant distance, cook, or listen to a local musician ever
again.

But it's in the corporations best interest that children aren't really given a
choice. And that serves nation states' best interest, which is to grow the
GDP. But the result is a world of people who, without a credit card, are
babies unable to care for themselves. Short of someone putting food in our
mouths and maintaining the grounds around us, we would be lost. Luckily we
have the cash to afford these things.

And those who fall through the cracks of being able to hold a job are eaten
up.

All hail GDP. All hail capital. Thank you Gates, Koch, Slim, Walton, for
providing us with internet connectivity, petrol, and toilet paper this day.

~~~
clarkmoody
> corporations seek to remove all of our abilities to take care of ourselves
> and our communities

Please.

It's in a corporation's best interest to give the customer _exactly what he
wants_.

We still have "our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities,"
but we also have the option of a corporation providing for our every whim.

~~~
JammyDodger
Then why do corporations spend billions of dollars each year on advertising?
Surely it's to convince you to buy something that may not be exactly what you
want.

A corporation's main goal is to drive up profits and if it's more convenient
for them to manipulate a populace into acting a certain way than it is to give
the populace exactly what they want then that's what they'll do.

There is probably not a conspiracy from corporations or government to
undermine people's freedom and what not but it doesn't mean that it isn't the
end result.

~~~
kqr
Advertising is 99% about making you aware that theproduct exists and fulfills
the needs you already have, and at most 1% about making you want theproduct.

~~~
JammyDodger
How is that true? What about all the various gadgets that exist that nobody
wanted until they were advertised to them? If you don't know about something
then how can it possibly be exactly what you want? You wouldn't want it if you
didn't know it existed. Or how about brands like Coca-Cola, everyone knows
they exist but they keep advertising, surely it's to make you want it!

~~~
icebraining
_If you don 't know about something then how can it possibly be exactly what
you want? You wouldn't want it if you didn't know it existed._

You may want something with accomplishes some goal without knowing exactly
what. If a person thinks "I have to go out but I'm waiting for a call", they
may not imagine the cellphone as an object, but they still want something that
solves their problem.

That said, 73.6% of all statistics are made up. Many ads in fact are designed
with both goals in mind.

------
shard972
More immigration will fix this.

~~~
stuckagain
From or to where?

~~~
imron
Parent was missing a /s

~~~
shard972
whoops yea i should add one for HN. I wish I could say something intelligible,
but it's so complicated I don't even know what's going on anymore with western
culture.

------
driverdan
> This Daily Mail piece...

Lost me in literally four words. This is blogspam about something from the
Daily Mail, guaranteed to be terrible.

This may be talking about a legitimate problem but sure isn't citing a
legitimate source.

~~~
redsummer
Oh my god the daily mail!!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2z-AdzgKjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2z-AdzgKjY)

------
cowardlydragon
I think most of this is the one-child family effect.

You have three or four kids and one gets lost.... well, it is a tragedy, but
you still have kids.

You have one kid, and it's all your eggs (mostly literally) in one basket.

------
zizzles
Early-mid 2000's kid here. I roamed without second thoughts: Explored forests,
cities, trespassed on forsaken enchanted lands and everything in between. I
admit there has been stark differences in outdoor activities; but this isn't a
"it's too dangerous for Johnny to go outside" scenario, it's a "Johnny is too
glued to his iPad 8.0 to enjoy going outside" scenario.

------
antoniuschan99
At what age can a child roam without supervision these days?

Aren't there laws that require kids below 12 to be with adult supervision at
home?

------
HillaryBriss
as a child, i used to go over to my friend's house on my bike and a bunch of
us would play D&D in the basement. afterwards, we'd get on our bikes and ride
through the foggy streets alone, trying our best not to accidentally cross the
path of a demogorgon.

one time, we met this weird girl with really short hair and telekinetic
powers. she needed a place to stay, so we hid in her in my friend's basement.

it was pretty creepy. sure am glad that's over.

~~~
rimantas
I have seen stranger things than this.

------
wallace_f
Crime in many parts of America is higher than it was in medieval and middle
ages in Europe, judged by intentional homicide rates. Also, crime approximated
by intentional murder rate, outside of periods of war, is historically higher
now than in history.

source:
[https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/#germany](https://ourworldindata.org/homicides/#germany)

~~~
_yvjs
I've heard that there was a sharp increase from the early 20th century to the
70s-80s, then a small decline since then (maybe due to deleading gasoline
among other things), and it seems to have happened in other countries too
[http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olym...](http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-
britain/crime-and-defence/crimes-of-the-century/).

It's a bit hard to judge since there are only a few crimes where measurement
has been consistent and good, e.g., homicide and violent crime. And there you
have to take into account the decline in lethality due to better medical care:

[https://twitter.com/RAVerBruggen/status/754446756805509120](https://twitter.com/RAVerBruggen/status/754446756805509120)

[https://twitter.com/RAVerBruggen/status/756512858331082752](https://twitter.com/RAVerBruggen/status/756512858331082752).

I'd like to see the trend in assaults, which would be most relevant to free-
range parenting, but haven't been able to find it anywhere.

~~~
wallace_f
>I've heard that there was a sharp increase from the early 20th century to the
70s-80s, then a small decline since then (maybe due to deleading gasoline
among other things), and it seems to have happened in other countries too
[http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olym...](http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olym...).

That's true. However there are estimates that historically, during periods in
peace and without severe economic hardship, the murder rates had settled at
very low numbers in America (lower than today). In the data I linked it is
1/100,000 in 1800 which is lower than around 4 today, and around 50 in several
cities. However, there are problems with the datasets as you mentioned, but
some of those problems would make the historical homicide rate even lower than
higher (i.e. better survival rate from medical care).

