undefined | Better HN

0 pointsPantaloonFlames1h ago0 comments

The article is confused. The opinion is, it's so much safer _now_ than it was in the 1970s, it makes no sense to restrict children's wanderings.

But the article doesn't consider whether restricting children's wanderings is the REASON it is so much safer for children now.

"We have so many fire-safety rules in the building codes in Seattle. But get this: we haven't had any major fires since 1889! It's obvious we don't need these rules!"

It's true there is a cost to restricting children. But let's be a bit more realistic about the tradeoffs.

0 comments

bryanlarsen1h ago

This article may not address this, but many articles of this type by Lenore Skazeny and others do address it. IIRC the findings:

- stranger danger was worse in the 70s than it is now. - safety in numbers was better in the 70s -- if all kids are outside it's more likely to be somebody else's kid that is snatched. If your kid is the only one, ... - car danger was worse in the 70s. Cars are bigger/faster now, but there were more drunk drivers then. This varies widely by jurisdiction.

It's hard to balance the factors -- it's not clear whether or not it was safer to let your kids outside today than it was in the 70's.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bryanlarsen1h ago

This article may not address this, but many articles of this type by Lenore Skazeny and others do address it. IIRC the findings:

It's hard to balance the factors -- it's not clear whether or not it was safer to let your kids outside today than it was in the 70's.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse