I would say the root cause of children's independent mobility (or lack thereof) is parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile. Of course there's also a social angle, if all other parents gawp at you or even threaten to report you to social services for giving your kids more freedom, then you're most likely going to give in.
Car-centric planning is definitely a contributing factor, but I can think of others such as crime (or fear of crime), legislation (if it's a crime to let kids under X years unsupervised in public). Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too. You might need a car to get to any capital-p Places, but you can kick a football around the local cul-de-sac just fine.
You can also have places where there's safe and reliable public trnasport, and still have heated debates in the local parent-teacher association about when it's safe to let your kid ride on their own.
This is what it is. There were just as many cars when I was little (6 or 7 years old) but I could walk anywhere I wanted with my friends "exploring" most of the day and no one even had the thought that we would be kidnapped or murdered. Fast forward and I am not even sure about letting my 16 year old walk by himself 3 blocks down the road to the corner store. And it isn't about cars! Also, I would say that there was likely just as much violence in the 70's but we didn't hear about every single instance, now we do through social media and the news so it seems pervasive. Also, I will say that nearly all the kids I know very much prefer playing video games or being on a laptop or phone rather than out walking through the tick infested woods like I used to love.
>FYSA: There is almost certainly lower violent crime risk and higher car risk than when you were growing up.
I agree with you and that is why I said that the problem is that we hear about every single instance now and really didn't back then unless it was a "big deal" or involved someone we knew.
>So why are you not sure about letting your 16 year old walk by himself?
I am more worried about someone fucking with him and recording it for online points (upvotes, likes, whatever) than I am about him being run over by a car. Also there is a lot more very aggressive homeless people about now than when I was young (there were zero that I remember) and their unpredictability is an issue.
> parents' perception of how dangerous it would be to give kids that freedom - a perception that may or may not be strongly correlated with the real risk profile
I would guess correlated with the advent of the 24-hour cable news cycle.
I've head many people express that, but I can't imagine it. I think people had different concepts of child-rearing then. Because no one was doing it differently.
But as for caring less: having a child is like cutting out a chunk of your physical heart, and using it to make this baby. The mere thought of harm to your child feels like torture. That's why us parents develop the no-sense-of-humor disadvantage regarding our kids.
I get your point, but I sort of disagree. Maybe "caring" in the abstract isn't the exact word for it, but I have friends who had 8, 10 or 11 mostly older siblings, and their parents definitely didn't give them as much thought or care as kids who had 0, 1 or 2 siblings. Like, they never coached a sports team, or helped with homework, or gave any impression that they were going to help pay for college, or attended school events. They kids basically on their own and partially raised by older siblings.
> Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too
The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake.
More importantly, most people unsurprisingly live in the most densely populated areas, not in suburbs, and traffic there is awful, making it remarkably unpleasant to loiter, not to mention that there is hardly any public space to do so.
I'm talking from the perspective of a parent living in Toronto. It's a terrible place to raise independent children, and as a consequence you never see them around, and instead they are always being chauffeured from one structured activity to the next with zero agency or self-sufficiency.
> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places.
That's just your point of view, a point of view which results in helicopter parenting. When I was a kid I used to ride my bike 5 miles down country lanes into the nearby suburbs to play with my friends. The only rule was that I had to be back by dinner. This sort of thing remains a viable option for kids today, except their parents are too anxious to permit it.
And forget the "the roads are too dangerous now" argument. My elderly parents still walk those same roads with their dog every day. It's fine. They don't use reddit/etc so they aren't pumped full of hyperbolic propaganda about how dangerous walking in America is, and consequently, they're able to enjoy it just fine.
> That's just your point of view, a point of view which results in helicopter parenting
> They don't use reddit/etc so they aren't pumped full of hyperbolic propaganda about how dangerous walking in America is, and consequently, they're able to enjoy it just fine
Here's some of the data and context that informs my opinion.
I'm used to walking about 30-35Km a week in suburban Toronto. Close calls with cars happen on a weekly basis. I wear hi-viz clothing, look both ways, all that jazz.
You know who doesn't look both ways? Cars making right turns. Pedestrian safety statistics published every year in my area very much support this viewpoint [0].
As for the risk involved, if again you look at actual statistics you will find that pedestrian deaths have been increasing sharply in North America with the advent of ever larger vehicles like lifted pickup trucks and SUV [1]. This is happening in spite of far fewer people choosing to walk these days [2].
As for the volume of car traffic, it's worse than ever in my area [3].
So, with actual data at hand, it does look like walking is rather more dangerous than it used to be. You can look up cycling statistics if you feel like. Hint: they are much worse.
I’d also add that phones and in-car TVs are a huge distraction which didn’t used to be there. Something like 20-30% of people are driving around looking at their phones now and it’s common to see people watching videos on a phone or things like Tesla’s gigantic dashboard TVs. It seems like this is understood to be related to the rise in fatalities but the regulators don’t want to acknowledge it since they’d have to do something politically unpopular if they did.
> I'm used to walking about 30-35Km a week in suburban Toronto. Close calls with cars happen on a weekly basis.
Can you expand on how exactly do you have close calls with cars ever, let alone weekly?
I don't walk as much as you but a decent amount. I've had close calls with cars... literally never. I'm having trouble picturing how that happens?
I walk on sidewalks, zero chance of close calls with cars there. For busy streets, I cross on pedestrian crossings which are protected by red lights, so no issue there either. On quiet streets I cross wherever, but only after making sure no traffic, so no issue.
So how does it happen? Are you forced to walk on the street due to lack of sidewalks? That's the only scenario I'm able to think about.
Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians.
Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians.
Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges.
In winter, cars driving too fast relative to the amount of traction they actually have on icy streets.
While cycling, by far the most common problem I have is drivers passing me far too close. It only takes a very small percentage of drivers to drive carelessly to put people at serious risk of injury.
> Drivers backing from driveways without looking for pedestrians.
> Drivers speeding at crossings that have poor visibility due to hedges.
Both of these are things you should be watching for. When approaching driveways, look for people inside the car, that means the car might move. And a crossing with poor visibility for the driver probably has poor visibility for the walker as well, so don't cross until you're sure there is no traffic.
If you truly are having close calls with cars all the time, it might be benefitial to walk more defensively. I can see having close calls in the above if one isn't paying attention, but not otherwise. Always make eye contact with drivers to get a sense of what they're doing, they might wave you to go first or you can wave them to go if in doubt.
> Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians.
Wait, if they are turning on red it means the pedestrian also has a red.
> In winter, cars driving too fast relative to the amount of traction they actually have on icy streets.
That I could see. Thankfully no winter as such here (silicon valley).
> While cycling
Yes, cycling is much more dangerous, since you're sharing the road with cars. I still bike a lot but yes, it's more dangerous.
Walking shouldn't be though, since you have a separate sidewalk and as long as you pay attention when crossing.
> Wait, if they are turning on red it means the pedestrian also has a red.
Not sure about OP but the dangerous situations I've seen when car turning on red was not looking around untill it reached the cross traffic that was a danger to him. Happily driving without looking through pedestrian crossing perpendicular to the direction he was comming from that now had green light.
> Both of these are things you should be watching for
Not sure what makes you think that isn't the case already. There is only so much a pedestrian can do when cars have tinted windows and they are parked right at the limit of the sidewalk, as they often are, which means that as soon as the car starts moving it will hit any pedestrian there.
> > Drivers making right turns on red only looking left for oncoming traffic without also looking right for pedestrians.
> Wait, if they are turning on red it means the pedestrian also has a red
Think of an intersection with the shape of a plus sign, where the driver is going North and the pedestrian is coming from the East. The driver only looks at the West because that's where the oncoming traffic is.
This issue is particularly common in T-shaped intersections with or without street lights.
> Walking shouldn't be though
Cycling shouldn't be dangerous either, yet here we are. A very small percentage of poor drivers is all it takes.
> > Both of these are things you should be watching for
> Not sure what makes you think that isn't the case already.
Obviously I don't know you, but what made me think that is your assertion that you are having close calls with cars every week. Something needs to be done differently if you are almost getting hit by a car every week.
The most dangerous roads are multilane roads e.g. highways: "among 60 roads that had the most pedestrian deaths during 2001-2016, all were roads with adjacent commercial retail space, nearly all were multilane roads"https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i...
If you simply choose to follow basic common sense, then these population-level statistics don't represent the actual risk to yourself. You're getting yourself freaked out by numbers that don't actually apply to you (or shouldn't if you have any sense.)
> Most pedestrian result from pedestrians doing stupid things like walking in the middle of the road at night wearing black while drunk
According to the local statistics I have [0], in something like 75% of car collisions the pedestrian had the right of way, and the immense majority of them occur at intersections rather than in the middle of the road.
> 60% of pedestrian deaths occur on high-capacity urban roads
And how does that compare to the amount of walking that happens on one area vs the other?
> Men account for 70% of pedestrian deaths, because men are more inclined to have a severe disregard for their own safety
What percentage of pedestrian Km are walked by men vs women?
> You're getting yourself freaked out by numbers that don't actually apply to you (or shouldn't if you have any sense.)
I am concerned for my safety because I actually walk and have noticed how often drivers don't even see me, in spite of wearing hi viz clothing. The statistics merely confirm what the risk I already noticed empirically: what sort of vehicles are dangerous to pedestrians (SUVs and pickups), where the danger occurs (busy intersections) and whose fault it is (predominantly drivers).
Finally, it there is an inherent contradiction in the simplistic narrative that people barely walk anymore "even though nothing has changed": there is far more car traffic now precisely because people barely walk anymore.
Walking doesn't kill, cars kill, so more traffic means more dangerous streets. It is rather obvious.
> Most pedestrian result from pedestrians doing stupid things, like walking in the middle of the road at night wearing black while drunk.
A ridiculous notion not supported by anything you've linked. Somehow it's the most vulnerable road users that are at fault?
If that's the case, then why are pedestrian death rates in the US so bad compared to Europe? Do european pedestrians do fewer stupid things? Do they drink less?
> The most dangerous roads are multilane roads e.g. highways: "among 60 roads that had the most pedestrian deaths during 2001-2016, all were roads with adjacent commercial retail space, nearly all were multilane roads"
If there's adjacent commercial space, it's not a highway, it's a stroad. The article explains it quite well:
"There’s no single explanation for why it’s getting more dangerous to walk on US roads, but there are a few major contributing factors. One is deadly road design."
"A stroad is the worst of both worlds, and is incredibly dangerous to pedestrians. The data bears this out: In 2021, the latest GHSA report says, 60.4 percent of pedestrian fatalities happened on such roads, which often lack infrastructure that would make it safe for pedestrians, such as good lighting and frequent crosswalks. As a consequence, many of the people killed last year were struck at night."
"Another major factor contributing to climbing pedestrian fatalities is the American love affair with big vehicles. Over the last 20-plus years, US consumers have turned away from the small cars that used to dominate our roadways in favor of increasingly larger SUVs and light trucks. These larger, heavier vehicles create big blind spots and are more deadly to pedestrians when they strike them — especially children. From 2000 to 2019, smaller vehicles such as sedans dropped from 60 percent of all vehicles to around 40 percent, while the number of SUVs surged, from 10 percent to over 30 percent. In 2021, trucks and SUVs made up more than 80 percent of new vehicle sales, and there’s little sign of that trend abating"
Personal responsibility isn't a useful concept when it comes to safety. Safety can only be achieved when the infrastructure is designed for it.
Putting up a speed limit sign isn't going to slow down a vehicle, shining a red light at it is not going to stop it, a line on the road isn't going to prevent a vehicle from crossing it. That's how pedestrians and cyclists die.
Reducing lanes down to one will stop overtaking and narrowing lanes will slow vehicles down, as will introducing turns and twists. Putting up a physical barrier between the road and a cycle path will prevent cars from intruding on the cyclists. Safety by design, not by wishful thinking.
See all that red? That's what it's like for most people in the US, minus all the sidewalks. You might be lucky enough to live in a place like I do where there's enough green and orange and walkable shoulders to make walking and cycling viable if you live in the right neighborhood or close to a bus stop.
Also take special note of the situation on Prince Avenue. It has clearly marked, wide, dedicated bicycle lanes you can easily make out on a satellite view and it's still orange. People have died there, recently. You can at least get a bicycle across with the racks on buses. Most people don't have buses.
People still walk it and ride it. And people die often enough doing it to validate the concern.
That link centers the map on Prince Ave in Athens-Clarke County. Look that road up, it's a 4 lane road. I would never bike on that road, of course it's dangerous. If you avoid roads like that, you avoid most of the risk. It's common sense but a substantial portion of adult male cyclists obstinately refuse to apply such common sense because they'd rather die as some sort of martyr for their right of way than stay alive.
In fact most of the roads on the map you just linked to are marked as green. If I zoomed out and the first red road I saw was Broad Street. That is four lane road as well. No surprise. Multi-lane roads are very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, so you should tell your children to avoid them. That's what I've always done, so I have much less to worry about than the crudest population-level statistics would suggest.
> It's common sense but a substantial portion of adult male cyclists obstinately refuse to apply such common sense because they'd rather die as some sort of martyr for their right of way than stay alive
Let's stop for a moment and reflect on these words. Notice the implausibility of what this person is saying. Observe how they place the blame squarely on the person bearing the risk, rather on the inadequate infrastructure or the pervasiveness of the mode of transportation that causes the most fatalities per Km. Not even a faint attempt at understanding what could be behind the cyclist's behavior, other than painting them as zealots.
> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake.
That makes no sense; population densities were even lower 150 years go, yet kids walked to school.
A lot of it is how those suburbs are laid out. To walk to a point that is a 100 meter beeline, you may have to navigate 500 meters of labyrinth, to avoid going through people's backyards.
Could it be that the schools are larger, serving a larger catchment? I.e. schools in suburbia are perhaps modeled too closely after schools in denser urban areas.
> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake.
All of North America is quite a big area. Clearly as a generalization that's incorrect.
Here in a very suburban town in northern California one can walk around no problem. Easy walk from this neighborhood to the middle school. My office window faces the street of the school and when classes end I see hundreds of kids exit the school and they all walk off in various directions, a smaller number bike or skateboard.
Car-centric planning is definitely a contributing factor, but I can think of others such as crime (or fear of crime), legislation (if it's a crime to let kids under X years unsupervised in public). Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too. You might need a car to get to any capital-p Places, but you can kick a football around the local cul-de-sac just fine.
You can also have places where there's safe and reliable public trnasport, and still have heated debates in the local parent-teacher association about when it's safe to let your kid ride on their own.