The Cost of Safetyism
33 points by obscurette 2 hours ago | 20 comments

paulmooreparks 2 hours ago
I'm 55. Growing up in Florida in the 70's and 80's, I was outside for hours at a time. I would wander in the woods, following streams to their source and actually mapping the entire forest (I still have the map). I rode my bicycle all over town, by myself and with my equally adventurous friends, getting into all sorts of dangerous things. I went fishing by myself, literally dodging moccasins and alligators. I'd clean the fish with a very sharp knife when I got back. I still have scars all over my body reminding me of all the trouble I got into.

Damn, I'm glad I got to grow up then.

reply
obscurette 41 minutes ago
I'm in my sixties and my experience is same. But now we live in the world, where my granddaughter (12) got into real trouble because a birthday present I gave her – a real Leatherman (pink of course). Of course she brought it to the school, it was confiscated, she, her parents and I was questioned by police etc.
reply
cucumber3732842 24 minutes ago
That has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with "safety" being a magic word that gets way to many people to turn off their brains so the school is using as a pretext to enforce capricious rules and basically teach the kinds "do what the system says, however stupid, or else".

200yr ago they'd have used some Victorian morals bullshit or religion to the same end.

reply
object-a 45 minutes ago
Do you have kids? Did you let them grow up the same way?
reply
obscurette 26 minutes ago
I'm father of three daughters and they grew up almost like this in nineties. My grandchildren don't have this chance any more. It's a little bit about changing times, but mostly because of public – it's just not acceptable for others to do all these things and parents would get into real trouble. When I was 10, I drove tractor, had already several scars from knife and axe and visited my grandmother more than hundred km away alone. My daughters would be arrested if they would let their kids to do any of it.
reply
ryandrake 14 minutes ago
> My daughters would be arrested if they would let their kids to do any of it.

Yea, the problem isn't that we don't want to give kids the freedom we had as kids. The problem is the nosy public that won't mind their own business and instead call the cops when they see someone out just playing. Not willing to risk involvement with poorly-trained, amped-up, armed law enforcement.

reply
alex_young 27 minutes ago
I want to let my kids walk wherever they want to. It’s great for them.

My 5 year old bikes to school, accompanied by an adult. It’s a bit more than half a mile away from the house.

I’d like to tell him he can do this on his own next year, but there’s a single intersection he has to cross that makes this difficult.

I’m not worried about him getting lost, abducted by a stranger or any host of movie plot scenarios. I’m worried about vehicles. Specifically pickup trucks and SUVs.

40 years ago a 5 or 6 year old mostly had to contend with sedans with hoods lower than 30 inches. Today there are large numbers of vehicles twice that high, where even an adult can’t look the driver in the eye at close distances.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says:

  Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front ends angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44 percent more likely to cause fatalities.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...

I’ll probably let him bike alone anyway. But it’s a different equation because of the cars.

reply
delichon 2 hours ago
A large part of the protectiveness of children is about the fertility trend. Parents with four children think about safety very differently than parents with probably ever only one. I saw this on my home street growing up. The girl next door was an only child who her parents hovered over relentlessly. When I was ten, with three brothers, and told mom I was going exploring, she made sure I had a quarter to phone home if my bike got a flat and told me to have fun.

We joke about having a main child and an emergency backup child, but deep down it's not a joke, it changes our behavior.

reply
andai 2 hours ago
Yeah, as an only child it's a weird burden to be the guy who makes or breaks the whole bloodline. No pressure right ;)

But that pressure is on the parents too. There's this weird two-way feedback loop.

Single child household has made parenting culture neurotic. Because if you screw it up it ends your entire bloodline.

But the neurotic attitude makes child rearing feel like such a burden, people can hardly imagine doing it more than once...

I am told this attitude does not produce beneficial outcomes in the children either. Apparently people grow up healthier when their parents are relaxed.

reply
boelboel 29 minutes ago
I'm not sure if single child households have done this to parenting culture as much as neurotic culture/economic incentives have pushed single child households. When everyone is competing it makes sense to focus on one child as you don't want your child to be at a disadvantage vs those who can spend on tutors/extra curriculars/.... It's a problem in Italy and some eastern countries, a bad and anti-social evolution in my opinion but I doubt it's going to change.
reply
m3kw9 2 hours ago
people still think about bloodline when having kids or when caring about safety? I would think that would be the last thing to worry about with kids safety.
reply
JV00 54 minutes ago
They are wired by biology to think like that, consciously or not
reply
XorNot 2 hours ago
This feels like assigning intent where economics is more correct: your priority is your children, but if you have three then by necessity you didn't multiply your attention or time in proportion.

Even going from one child to two.. suddenly you don't have numbers on your side in dealing with things.

reply
Fraterkes 50 minutes ago
Which parts are not a joke? If someone asked you who your main child was you’d be able to answer?
reply
PantaloonFlames 11 minutes ago
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.

reply
GeekyBear 26 minutes ago
The notion that children are not allowed to play outside within a couple of blocks of their home seems like a mass delusion to me.

However, I'm GenX and having all my friends and I roam the neighborhood from the time we got out of school until our parents got home from work with no supervision seems perfectly normal.

"Come home when the street lights come on" and television PSAs asking "It's nine o'clock, do you know where your children are?" were the norm in the 70's.

reply
billfor 2 hours ago
History Channel has a good series about what gen X and baby boomers grew up with: https://www.history.com/shows/hazardous-history-with-henry-w...

In general there is excessive alarmism, and the internet makes it possible.

reply
m3kw9 56 minutes ago
Is likely due to how humans react to issues. They fix it or make a big deal to over fix it when someone gets hurt. The baseline risk shifts and people will get scared looking back doing a mental calculation: lower risk better then higher risk.

Stuff like training wheels, bike helmets when you are just doing leisure rides. Don't get me started with bike helmets, people wear them and do risker things, drivers drive less careful around them, and you get a false sense of superiority instead of being more careful. If you're on the road/off roading, sure, but now you can get fined in some place for not wearing is one small example of safetyism taking over.

reply
AlotOfReading 35 minutes ago

     Don't get me started with bike helmets
Bike helmets mitigate one of the most serious and common forms of injury while riding bikes. You can fall or be hit by a car/tree branch anywhere. They don't prevent you from doing anything you would otherwise do.

I'm someone who advocates for rolling back helmet laws because they decrease ridership, but helmets are a fantastic example of reasonable PPE, not overactive safetyism.

reply
debo_ 43 minutes ago
As a commuter cyclist of over 20 years, my favorite recent trend are is wearing a bike helmet and giant noise-cancelling headphones at the same time.
reply