One thing to note though, is even with the crimes against children declining, it is still a really high number.
According to the chart in the article, it is around 3,000 per 100,000 population.
In comparison, the highest COVID mortality rate in the US is New Jersey with 253 per 100,000. The motor vehicle fatality rate in the US in 2018 was 11.18 per 100,000 population.
Compared to those numbers, the crimes against children rate is extremely high.
Yes, but how many of those crimes are from strangers? I've heard that most crimes are committed by those close to the victim - either family or friends.
I was surprised so clicked through on the graph. Looks like it is 3,000 per 100,000 people, not just children. Graph should have had more context in the article posted.
Children are very rarely harmed by strangers, when they are harmed they are overwhelming harmed by people they known - parents, family, friends, neighbors, etc.
When a young child is murdered, the killer is usually a parent or stepparent, not a stranger.
Not only that but you are comparing apples (mortality) to pineapples (crimes in general).
So what? So we should keep them in cages and walk them around on leashes?
Bad things happen sometimes. It's not a reason to emotionally stunt your kids by sheltering them from being able to leave their homes and experience the world around them.
Of all the missing children, less than 1% is non-family abductions. [1]
I live in a safe suburb far from any major city and I let my 6 and 8 year old take themselves on a walk around the neighborhood when they check in with me first. Literally every time they go on a walk one or two adults stops and asks them where their parents are and sometimes the adult even calls us to warn us of the dangers of kidnapping.
When I mention that we let our kids walk themselves to my parents I get lectured like crazy about how people will steal our kids. I am totally confident someone will lecture me in this thread. The stats don't match the fear.
It's unreasonable and unhealthy to deny your children the experience of self-reliance and exploration.
My parents raised me this way. And I must admit it was beneficial. I don't know if I'd be willing to do the same thing. I think as low as the prospect is, it might be because people tend to keep an eye on kids. Predators might be more likely to target kids who are around by themselves. Or prospective predators might be tempted by a kid they see walking around alone. If nothing else for the purpose of grooming.
Sure we don't outlaw cars, but it's reasonable to minimize unnecessary risk while cars are a necessity in most urban areas.
More importantly, there are greater dangers in the form of accidents. Kids aren't careful, they might run across the street where a driver has trouble seeing them. They might touch a down wire. There's a lot that could happen when you don't keep an eye on kids.
You've managed to turn a lived experience into an irrational fear. 100% safety cannot be guaranteed, for anyone in any place, but denying others the privilege for "what if" is in many ways a far worse suppression.
I too was given autonomy when growing up, and I credit it to giving me comparatively far better life skills than my peers. I walked home and cooked myself lunch since the 4th grade. I did my own laundry. I spent untold hours in the park. It taught me how to look after myself and make critical judgements, skills that I watched some friends learn and develop in university 10 years after me. The stress of which can lead to drastically worse decisions when you're 20+ than when you're 10.
I don't buy the dichotomy that many are presenting in this thread. The either your parents let you walk around on your own or you'll have less life skills. I think you can teach kids life skills and independence while also keeping an eye on them.
How much harm is caused by not teaching them to be safe in such circumstances?
More pointedly how much harm is caused by not giving them individuated and appropriate but also real independence? Skills take time and practice to develop. What would you expect to result from a failure to actively and persistently develop the independence that a child will require for the rest of their life?
The same dynamic has come up with COVID. There is known harm through infection but also through isolation. In my family we are extremely conservative and careful (probably overly, privileged-ly, and wastefully so) but we ensure regular playdates with a small set of children with careful parents so that our young child can still develop friendships and social skills. And, you know, be a kid. Taking a year off that, particularly at the current age of my child would be extremely harmful so we spend all of our risk chits on that.
Similarly, while never doing anything would reduce many active risks studies have shown being sedentary is more deadly than smoking.
A cost to benefit maximization process is almost always appropriate.
> Of all the missing children, less than 1% is non-family abductions.
How much of it is because stranger danger is false, and how much of it is because parents no longer let their children out of their sight? I am not making a statement, I am genuinely curious and I am asking a question hoping someone knows the answer. But I wonder if the reason so few children are harmed by strangers is that children's unsupervised interactions with strangers have now shrunk to almost nothing, so there is almost no opportunity for harm anymore.
This is not a new trend, it's always been the case. My quick search shows in 2001 in the US of 50,000 minors reported missing, around 100 were abducted by strangers. I didn't immediately find any older data but I've heard this same thing since I was a kid.
Does it mean that all of the missing cases apart from that hundred were resolved and confirmed as not abductions by strangers? Otherwise, how many of the remaining cases were? I suspect this number might make a world of difference.
I believe most of those cases were resolved, including adults there are only a couple thousand unresolved missing persons cases per year. Using different years of data for this, which isn't ideal, but in 2012 ~99.6% of missing persons cases were resolved. Those remaining cases wouldn't make a significant difference.
If the head of a self-driving car company exclaimed "100 car accident deaths per year is too many," we wouldn't say his opinion is wrong, we'd be throwing money at it. It's just that, an opinion.
Is there any non-zero number that's not too many in a real sense?
There is a balance in almost anything at the scale of hundreds of millions of people. People die in all kinds of ways. Some drown, but we still build pools. Some die on trampolines, but we still install those. Some die in the tub/shower, but we still clean ourselves.
I don't see any reason to think that there isn't any possible nuance on the balance between freedom to move as a kid and the danger of stranger violence. (I have two kids who aren't yet teens. The concept scares me, but I also let them swim, play on trampolines, ride in cars/airplanes, bathe, etc.)
"Stranger danger" as a concept is far older than 20 years, so you're just looking at the same type of statistic as OP. I'm guessing you need to go back well over 50 years for a meaningful difference in attitudes.
Edit: when I was growing up (well before 2001!) that was certainly the attitude – we didn't have the phrase "stranger danger" (maybe that's from the US?) but "don't take sweets from strangers" was common.
I also remember, as an adult, watching the film M and that finished with a strong message about not leaving your children unsupervised, and that's from 1931! But that message doesn't prove it was common at the time so I just mention that for curiosity.
There has been some level of distrust towards strangers in society forever. The comment I was replying to is about the rather recent complete segregation of children from possibly interacting with strangers.
I believe the major US panic about "stranger danger" arose in the 1980s and early 1990s—in particular, there were a couple of high-profile cases of children going missing in the early '90s that were sensationalized far beyond what made any sense. As a child growing up in the '80s, I was allowed to poke around the neighborhood unsupervised, but by the time I was a teenager, I was already hearing about children being strictly watched at all times as "the norm".
There were a few cases of multiple children missing in major cities (like the Atlanta child murders, 28 dead in two years), and also the proliferation of cable news. The former was a valid, regional, concern but people let it blow up into a more national fear.
Cable news, in turn, started emphasizing singular disappearances/killings (not serial cases), which further exacerbated this fear. When you have 24 hours of coverage on CNN and 10 of them are about "Missing Girl in California", your perception of how common this is gets distorted. It's a singular case, but seeing it all the time causes people to perceive it as a frequent thing instead of the relatively rare thing it is in most of the country.
Imagine for a moment that you are the most evil person ever. Why would you harm/kidnap a child? There is no gain for the most part - the kid's parents probably cannot afford enough of a ransom to pay for your time. and even if they do it is hard to collect without getting caught. There are much better crimes you can commit to satisfy your evil desires.
i generally agree that stranger danger is overblown
but your point is definitely in error. if you are the most evil person, and desire to rape, torture, and murder a person, then a child is the best target. they are least able to fight back, and are the most naive so they can be tricked into going somewhere unsafe.
Oh, please, terrible people who enjoy abusing children just create their own children to abuse. Why would anyone abuse other people's children when they can make their own and have complete control over them?
Ask me how I know.
You guys are acting like there's some sort of vetting to become parents, it's bizarre.
You're assuming this person would be thinking rationally about a crime they'd like to commit, when it's often a very specific urge that overcomes their fear of consequences.
> Of all the missing children, less than 1% is non-family abductions.
This can be interpreted to mean that the ensemble probability of an abduction -- the expected number of abductions from a single walk around the neighbourhood -- is low.
However, the practise of letting your children walk results in many walks over time, and it takes just one abduction to make the situation really bad. In other words, over time, the probability of an abduction will (albeit slowly) go towards 1.
Have you made any attempt at calculating this "lifetime probability" of abduction, instead of looking just at the probabilities of one-off walks?
Not lecturing; genuinely curious because I will soon have to make this decision for my oldest and I want to base it on data, but with a representative model.
(My instinct is, of course, to raise my children the way I was raised and that aligns with my feelings on the subject, i.e. "Let them have walks!" but I'm looking for a nuanced perspective on both sides before submitting to my biases.)
I'm not sure what's funny. I'm looking for nuanced perspectives on both sides before I default to my biases, and I prefer arguments to be based on evidence. That's all.
I'm sorry, I did not want to sound mean, but the statistical claim made just felt so wrong to me as to be amusing. I can not formally prove it wrong, it just... Triggered the hummour detector.
> This can be interpreted to mean that the ensemble probability of an abduction -- the expected number of abductions from a single walk around the neighbourhood -- is low.
Not just low, very low, for the lifetime probability to be low enough for it to be that number.
Consider for your analysis: if you're walking in the same neighborhood, even for many many walks, those walks' risks will actually be quite correlated. So it's not like the probabilities combine the same way they would for independent random samples. The vast majority of children could not force an abduction to happen to them in their life even if somehow they spent all their waking hours outside. Thinking the probability approaches 1 is pretty absurd, and I suggest reflects some poor probabilistic thinking.
Notice that demand for abducted children is inelastic in regard to number of children walking around the neighborhood. This means there are two equilibrium points of walking children market: first is letting them play as much as they wish, making probability of abduction of _your_ children as small as it can be; second is letting them out almost never, with probability of abduction for a walk being 1. Which of that do you prefer?
> However, the practise of letting your children walk results in many walks over time, and it takes just one abduction to make the situation really bad. In other words, over time, the probability of an abduction will (albeit slowly) go towards 1.
They will die of old age long before the chance of abduction gets anywhere close to 0.1 much less 1.
To be conservative, assume that 1% of US children are allowed to go unsupervised walks (~750k children) and that there is 0% chance of abduction by a stranger without allowing unsupervised walks. Each year about 350 children are abducted by strangers[1]. Under those assumptions, there is a 0.04% chance of abduction each year. That would be less than 1% lifetime chance assuming that they do this for all 18 years of their childhood. Even less if you make more realistic assumptions (I certainly hope that more than 1% of 17 year olds are allowed to go on walks and that parents are waiting until after their children can walk before letting them go on walks by themselves).
Though with three children under the same policy, you get just over 2 % risk that at least one of them get abducted. The upside is hard to quantify (especially for me who view it as obvious that children should be allowed unsupervised walks) but I can totally see how the 2 % number with a very serious downside can get someone to doubt.
(I know what "conservative estimate" means, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)
About 1/3 of lightning injuries occur indoors, per the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata.html (that's admittedly an injury figure, not a fatality figure, but it's probably wildly more common than you'd guess)
Personally, all I can say is thank you and keep it up. I am almost 18 myself and my parents have been raising me in manner where I had little meaningful responsibility delegated to me during my earlier years. Because of this and with college just around the corner adulthood feels incredibly overwhelming.
I highly recommend you look up the work of Social Phycologist Jonathan Haidt. Specially his work regarding the book “The Coddling of The American Mind.”
If you restrict it to abductions, the picture is less rosy: around 1 in 6 abductions are non-family abductions.
The stand-out statistic is over 90% of missing children are runaways. Working on this risk, reducing the chance that your kids will choose to run away, does look the better risk-reduction strategy.
When I was young I lived in a semi-urban area (circa 1990-1996). From about second grade on, I was free to roam to neighborhood, and I did. I spent most of my time playing unsupervised with neighborhood kids, walking to the comic book shop, the book store, the convenience store, the hobby shop, the pool, the playgrounds, the parks, and so on. I never once had any kind of issue.
I wish I could give my kids the same experience, but sadly I live in a much less dense area these days, and there is nothing within a mile or so for them to really do, and no friends. It’s sad.
I think the ratio is likely much greater than 1% simply because what most people consider an "abduction" doesn't include "non-custodial parent took off with the kid(s)."
Child abductions seem to suffer the same problem as "mass" shootings. Most of the research is being done by people who have a vested interest in making them look common so they create a definition that includes a bunch of stuff that most people wouldn't consider to be applicable (gang/drug violence in the case of mass shootings, non-custodial parent taking off with the kid(s) in the case of child abductions).
Of course if the goal is to prevent the named event using a watered down definition that mostly captures other stuff to build your data sets is not going to build you a very informative data set for that goal.
Half this article feels like whataboutism. Sure, child abuse comes from people known by the child, but it doesn't mean that if I don't let my kid out, she'll get abused by her mother.
The car accident thing is also unrelated. Kids are more likely to die from swimming pools than stab themselves with kitchen knives, but I'm not going to let them play with kitchen knives.
I also have doubt that "crimes have fallen" is a valid reason. Perhaps this is because of the prevalence of the Stranger Danger mindset?
That said, I think it has gone a bit far. Kids and teenagers used to run around several generation ago. I'd rather my daughter take a bike ride outside, than sit in her room playing with Omegle.
Wow that’s the first time I’ve heard of Emmett Till. Thanks for bringing than to my attention. That anecdote is very relevant to a discussion about long term trends in aggregate crime rate statistics.
Yes is had critical errors that caused harm, but it was also life saving machinery.
To be taken seriously on this topic, you need to look at harm vs good. And unfortunately perceived harm as well, since we live in a clown land and it affects reality.
Therac 25 did stop a lot of innovation because of societies unwillingness to accept computer errors equivocal to human errors.
Pay wages high enough that one parent can be home all the time because the other is making more than enough to support the family and buy a house. Problem solved.
Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved.
Oh, but you forgot about those implications of the past, didn't you?
>"Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved."
Break out of the car-centric mindset and the better solution becomes "arrange city and traffic planning so that the majority of people don't need multiple cars or even any cars at all."
If Adam shoots Bill with the intent to kill him, leaves the scene, and paramedics rush Bill to the hospital, and he lives, Bill is not murdered. Bill was the victim of an aggravated assault
I can't vouch for the reliability of this source[1], but it will serve for my example here. The murder rate in the US was 5 and 5.1 in 1960 and 2019 respectively. The aggravated assault rate was shot from 86 to 250.
Life didn't get safer, we just got better at saving lives.
Then again, this looks like its probably based on UCR data, which is sent to the FBI from local/state law enforcement. I imagine there are certain demographics, especially in 1960s America, that didn't get crimes against them reported with full accuracy.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Especially regarding crime. "Gun violence" can include suicide in some reporting systems, and not in others. Some will put a shooting at a bank robbery in with the same category as a single mother shooting an intruder in her home, and some wont.
My point is that the subject of safety is far more complicated than "See, less people are dead, it's safer". Imagine a special forces team of 20 conducts 100 hostage rescues in a year, gets in a firefight in every one, takes multiple injuries, but no one dies. Now imagine the logistics unit of 20 that performs maintenance, paperwork, administrative functions, etc, at a forward operating base has one of their members crushed by a vending machine.
1 in 20 people in logistics died, 0 in 20 in the special ops team died. Most people would not reasonably argue that the logistics team was more dangerous.
My initial comment is about the crime rate but he responded with a reference to the homicide rate, which is a clear deflection. For some reason the general person has a hard time reckoning with the fact that 1950s America was drastically safer than 2020s America. It’s very interesting.
It's not a clear deflection it's an attempt to break down the numbers instead of indistinct notions.
I picked murder because I thought it would be more straight forward because people are pretty clear about who was killed whereas rapes and assaults might go unreported especially if the victins were minorities.
I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s.
> I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s.
>= 90% of the US population in the 1950s were middle class white people. Ignoring that, the national aggregate crime rate was lower for non middle class white people then as well. On what are you basing that claim that it wasn’t safe for them?
I think you are using a different definition of middle if you believe 90% of people fall within it. If the population was 85% white and 60% middle class white middle class people were about half of the population. The portion of the population actually privileged in 1950 was basically the male half of that demographic so around 25% of the population.
A substantial minority of that segment now shrunk to more like 17% wish they could have the 50s back for some reason despite how bad the total picture was for most people.
Do you have a cite on the 1950s being substantially safer? Please note an actual and official source of data wherein data collection is to a uniform standard over the time frame discussed. For example a system where figures are collected from some areas and not others and coverage increases towards 100% over time will show an increase in crime rate even when there isn't one. Conversely a system where crimes against minorities aren't investigated or punished will see fewer crimes reported even when reported crimes are faithfully counted.
An example of a bad source is disastercenter.com which doesn't obviously cite how its data is collected, whose frontpage says nothing about who runs it. It is at best a summery of other sources which you aren't at liberty to inspect. Wherever they get their data might be a good source but its impossible for me to ascertain this.
It seems to support my position not yours. The notion that the homicide rate has gone down only because superior medical care in particular seems ridiculously unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Its not clear that reporting standards for rape and assault would be similar across 70 years.
Do you have a source that isn't so deficient? The home page is a weather website which doesn't state who is behind the site or how they collected their data. When I see numbers without information about how they arrived at them I just naturally assumed they made up whatever numbers aligned with their ideology and since its from AK I'm assuming this is a conservative one.
If you can't vouch for a source then using it to make a point is wasting your time and mine.
The data wasn't to prove a point. The data was there as an example that you can construe different results from the same data. Given that data, you can make claims of "safety" quoting a lower murder rate, disregarding other factors such as improvements in emergency medical services and treatment of major wounds.
I'm not asserting whether things are safer or not. Im asserting that judging "safer" cannot be accurately done with metrics such as "murder rate".
The nationwide homicide rate has been dropping for the last 27 years. You have switched gears from the nationwide rate which you agree is has been approaching 1950s levels for years to a cherry picked population of cities from a survey you have declined to even name let alone link herein. Given a 27 year trend line I don't feel like I have to substantiate that a 30% increase in some cities during a year that has been in every other way an aberration isn't a trend.
You have changed the topic from the overall homicide rate to a survey you wont link or even name. I offered speculation but in truth I didn't need to respond to your strategic digression. I do not know if my theory is correct. I DO know you haven't shown one whit of proof that 2020s overall murder rate was higher. I will continue until you do to operate under the assumptions.
- it represents a small increase in the 2020 homicide rate that doesn't change the national situation. The proper topic of our discussion.
- Given a 27 year trend line an increase at a time when our nation is going through a time of extreme crisis logically represents an aberration not a trend.
America isn't meaningfully more dangerous on average than it was in the 50s although it was in the 50s and is now more dangerous than some of our more civilized neighbors.
The lead author things the pandemic is a significant factor.
> One lead author of the study told the Associated Press he believed part of the problem was the pandemic forced police officers off the streets all around the country.
> Even when on the job, social distancing requirements kept officers from interacting closely with the community. He said, “That really reduced the ability of law officers to engage in the kinds of proactive policing that can reduce crime.”
> The study found that the pandemic “has disproportionately affected vulnerable populations, placing at-risk individuals under additional physical, mental, emotional, and financial stress.”
Are we to believe your grasp of the topic is better than the researchers who conducted the study.
So just getting this straight here, the VOA news article that you link to is your evidence that the pandemic is the cause of the increased homicide rate?
Correct?
Rather than automatically othering people prejudicially, it's better to know the signs of which people, including strangers, seem off. My mom said she was almost abducted by a stranger in a car trying to lure her in with candy, but this a rare occurrence. It happens, and kids need to be prepared to not blindly trust or mistrust everyone
I really recommend you all look up the work of Social Phycologist Jonathan Haidt. Specially his work regarding his book “The Coddling of The American Mind.”
In it he covers the consequences of over-protective parenting on today’s American youth and how those consequences have spilled over onto college campuses in the form of over-protective policies. As a kid myself I feel as though his work really resonates with me and I *highly* consider all current parents to become at least familiar with his research.
This is completely cultural. Here in Israel kids as young as 5 walk to school alone (not legally, just reality), and you'll frequently see a 6 year old taking the bus. The community looks out for them, parents give them cellphones (dumb phones), and we don't worry about stranger danger in this way.
I send my 7 year old to the corner store a couple of times a week (pre British Super-COVID) to buy missing ingredients, a bottle of wine... basically whatever's missing. It takes a village to raise a child, and we're all responsible for society's coherence.
Came here to say this. I think it's more than cultural, it's a US obsession to helicopter parent. We're in the uk and kids are widely allowed to roam, and good on the parents and kids for giving them autonomy. We live by the sea in a small town: my kids are 13 and 16 now but have been encouraged out for some years. How else are they going to learn how to interact with the world, learn how to negotiate roads, know not to fall in the sea?
I'm sounding blase. I'm not, they're my kids and as such are as important to me as it gets, but parenting - maybe the hardest thing about parenting - is about letting go, knowing that you're making strong, independent adults.
I really like that idea of making strong, independent adults. I firmly believe the whole point is to help them be better than I am, to guide but not push (well, push sometimes), and I think that independence is the key part of this.
It has subtle ways of teaching other skills like critical thinking, story telling, decision making, communication, math, and others. I could never go back to the old model.
In Sweden here, my 6 y.o. takes the city bus to school from our town to the town a couple km away.
When I lived in Germany, I would regularly see fairly young kids taking the U-Bahn, though I don't exactly know how young they were. Probably older than 6, but maybe not much older.
One thing that I like in Sweden (and the same most likely goes for other European countries, too): kindergarteners are routinely taken on field trips via subways, commuter trains and busses. By the time they are out of kindergarten they know the public transit system even better than some adults.
Worse than that, even as community cohesion has evaporated, US culture still encourages Mrs. Kravitzes (from the tv show Bewitched), who hand-wring about other people's parenting for sport. It's the worst of both worlds.
Why is that? Because the adults in these locales are anti-social? Something else? Whatever the problem, we should take responsibility and try to better our neighborhood for our kids.
I'm glad I wasn't raised and don't currently live in such locales of the US. I knew all my neighbors and a lot of store owners growing up. I know a lot of the neighborhood kids today, and luckily it's never come to this, but I hope they know they can knock on my door if they need something.
I would also throw "rising inequality" in the list of causes, but also a lack of unifying culture beyond nihilism, which isn't conducive to holding people together.
There is an excellent podcast, You're Wrong About, which goes into the disparity between things we fear and what actually happens. Similar and relevant topics they cover:
A very common theme is "do-gooders" trying to do what they very naively think is a good thing but without data or rationality to back it up. Or, worse, people who manipulate those do-gooders into accomplishing other, more selfish/nefarious/evil goals.
Does anyone know if there has been an increase in pedestrian fatalities in the last 5-10 years, on account of distracted drivers? I walk my baby in a stroller most days and it seems like 1/4 to 1/3 of drivers are looking at their cell phones. Some of the time they look up when they realize there’s a pedestrian, but I can’t imagine that there hasn’t been an uptick in pedestrian fatalities/injuries.
I am very careful when I’m out walking (checking to see where the driver is looking, checking to see if there are other cars/obstacles that the driver might need to maneuver around at the point where he’s passing me, etc), but kids would never be this careful. Partly it’s because they can’t predict what a driver would do because they don’t know how to drive, and partly because kids are more likely to be goofing off and not paying attention. Also, kids heads/torsos are more at fender-level, making accidents more likely to be fatal.
I do think the stranger danger piece is overblown, but I simultaneously wonder if there aren’t other dangers that have started increasing in the half decade or so since smartphones became very common.
This. Stranger danger isn’t what I’m concerned about at all, instead it’s can my kid be careful enough to not be killed by a car driven by someone not paying attention.
Society in the US and EU is safer overall than it has ever been before, and the trend is towards ever greater safety.
Yet we still get constant reminders of stranger danger and horrible crimes in the news. Instead of focusing on those, perhaps we should collectively focus a lot more on making traffic better and safer for pedestrians and cyclists, prioritize them heavily over cars.
Distracted driving especially is something we could do something about, if we chose to do so.
Yes, and we should focus more on implementing self-driving cars, which if widely implemented, will see rapid incremental improvement through trial and error, until fatal car accidents are reduced to nearly zero as human error is taken out of the picture and software error approaches zero.
The anti-profit/SV mindset needs to be rejected in favor of a pro-innovation mindset of libertarianism.
Even better than that, we could have large shared vehicles, driven by a single professionally trained person, but able to service 50 or even 100 people at the same time.
We could do this today with current technology, without the drawbacks of trying to get autonomous driving working on roads designed for human drivers.
We could give it a name that signifies that it is for everyone, perhaps some kind of "omnibus" service, where a nominal fee is charged per trip, accessible to everyone.
That's a problem when a pandemic hits and strangers sharing a vehicle stops being viable, or when the unionized bus drivers strike because they can leverage the monopolistic position labor laws grant unionized workers to try to extract economic rent, or when like in my city, law-and-order breaks down after decades of progressively more left-wing governments which increasingly take a hands off approach to policing while insisting on not committing the mentally ill, leading to mentally ill drug addicts making people fearful of getting on public transit, or when people live in low-population density areas which don't allow for regular bus service between all points.
Personal vehicles face fewer limitations and are more durable in various failure modes. But first people need to shed their utopianist ideals about how society should pursue its objectives, and allow profit-motivated investment and consumer-preference-moderated technological innovation find solutions.
That's an overly simplistic / too-low-resolution analysis. As always, it depends on the specific problem. In the case of self-driving vehicles, regulations are the primary impediment. Some for good reason mind you. But undoubtedly the technology would advance more quickly with fewer regulations on its deployment.
As for the Texas outage, regulations could potentially have prevented, but the question is at what cost.
"Move fast and break things" is a valid approach in motorsports, where the track and surroundings are uniform and predictable, and where the drivers are trained and behave predictably, because they're all going the same direction at roughly similar speeds in very similar vehicles. The drivers have also all opted in to the greater level of risk that is inherent when trying to push the limits.
It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash. Moving fast and breaking things in a public road context means maiming and injuring innocent people, who have not been consulted on whether they want to participate in semi-controlled tests of self-driving cars.
The advancement of technology is not a goal in itself.
There is an argument for using self-driving technology on motorways, because they are very uniform and simpler than other types of roads. They have traffic flowing in one direction only, segregated from other types of traffic. Get that working properly, and we may consider rolling self-driving tech further onto other types of roads.
RE: Texas, they literally chose to cut off ERCOT from the east and west power grids of the US, in order to avoid regulation. If they had not done so, they could have drawn on power from other states, significantly lessening the impact of the snowstorms, which would have saved both lives and property. By choosing to cut themselves off from the larger interconnected grid, the politicians in power put their constituents in a severely disadvantaged position, for purely ideological and irrational opposition to sensible regulation.
>>It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash.
That's a fair point. Making public roads dangerous would go against basic human-rights/libertarian principles, on the basis that the public could never unanimously consent to it.
With respect to Texas, I'm not informed enough to comment on the recent power outages. I suspect there are a huge number of factors involved, and I would need to familiarize myself with most of them, and preferably by reviewing sources that aren't reflexively anti free-market/profit, before I would feel confident in providing any kind of over-arching summary of the main causes.
> Does anyone know if there has been an increase in pedestrian fatalities in the last 5-10 years, on account of distracted drivers?
The answer to this is YES - there has been an increasing trend of pedestrian fatalities, at least in US/UK where i saw the statistics. 2018 was a local high for fatalities. It seems to correlate to smartphone uptake.
I do think it’s important to let children wander and roam unsupervised. The lack of open play and self direction is a malaise that I've anecdotally seen the effects of in younger employees entering the workforce. Like all things, balance is important. It’s okay to let them wander off while also teaching them to be alert and to trust their gut instinct when they sense danger (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear).
These constraints sound batshit-crazy in a society where children play around the neighborhood, walk around the streets freely, go to school and back walking, play in city squares and such. Which includes a large chunk of the world, from western european countries, to Japan, to "dangerous" countries in Africa and Latin America.
This used to be the case in the US too, up until the 70s-80s or so, and the advent of helicopter parents. And that in a period that general crime statistics were worse than now, but nobody would bat an eye if kids roamed and played around. The "stranger danger" idea is more cultural (about total control and isolation to private bubble) than about actual threat.
Your narrative is actually completely in reverse. Crime came at an absolute peak in the 90s, while growing exponentially in the two decades before that. This is why gradually all parents became helicopter parents: because the high-trust society they had grown up in just disappeared in front of their very eyes.
Now, it's funny to see people like the author arguing that "Crimes against children have fallen since the early ’90s." when the 90s were the absolute crime peak and reason why this social change happened. But the crime levels are still nowhere near their base level (first half the 20th, 50s, 60s), that allowed people to trust each other enough to let their kids roam outside...
In France the crime rate peaked in the 2000s, and all parents from the late 90s until now are helicopter parents.
I would be willing to believe that crime rates in the 50s and 60s are a false baseline for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the statistics about what is reported are going to be off. It seems like culturally (or at least anecdotally), we were less likely to lay formal charges and collect statistics about crime, especially crime related to mental health (We used to have doctors lock people up instead of cops). Additionally there are a lot more crimes to commit in modern times
I'd say that of course you would be willing to ignore that data, since it explicitly runs counter to a few of your viewpoints... Those points you're making would anecdotally influence the global tendency that shows violent crime (the one that makes you take your kids off the streets, not illegal downloading, mind you!) peaked in the 90s, from very low (aggregated) levels throughout the century.
(Also, I am currently being locked up by doctors so let's agree that this is not a good sign that society has improved since then alright. :-))
I agree that crime peaked in the 90s. I’m just saying that crime statistics from 70 years ago shouldn’t be compared to more modern numbers since the non-anecdotal part of my argument (policing is entirely different, violent crimes exist today that didn’t exist/weren’t enforced the same as back then) still stands.
> Considering that vast majority of child abuse is at the hands of someone they know, rather than a stranger (see this DOJ report, page 10), it begins to feel as if keeping kids indoors — with a babysitter, parent, relative, sibling, or step-parent — is actually LESS safe than them getting on their bikes and riding around. Let’s not restrict kids’ freedom due to a misunderstanding of actual risk.
The majority of child abuse happening at the hands of someone the kids know could be because we don't let kids out of our sight more. If we let kids out of our site more would that number still be true?
Point #2 reinforces this idea (anecdotally). It shows that child abuse has slowly been declining since 1991. The article says, "yeah well all crime has gone down" but are there any studies that show how that number correlates to increased protectiveness?
I'm not saying the concept is wrong (I believe kids should have more freedom and wish my kids did). Just saying this article could tighten up its arguments better.
128 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadAccording to the chart in the article, it is around 3,000 per 100,000 population.
In comparison, the highest COVID mortality rate in the US is New Jersey with 253 per 100,000. The motor vehicle fatality rate in the US in 2018 was 11.18 per 100,000 population.
Compared to those numbers, the crimes against children rate is extremely high.
When a young child is murdered, the killer is usually a parent or stepparent, not a stranger.
Not only that but you are comparing apples (mortality) to pineapples (crimes in general).
Bad things happen sometimes. It's not a reason to emotionally stunt your kids by sheltering them from being able to leave their homes and experience the world around them.
I live in a safe suburb far from any major city and I let my 6 and 8 year old take themselves on a walk around the neighborhood when they check in with me first. Literally every time they go on a walk one or two adults stops and asks them where their parents are and sometimes the adult even calls us to warn us of the dangers of kidnapping.
When I mention that we let our kids walk themselves to my parents I get lectured like crazy about how people will steal our kids. I am totally confident someone will lecture me in this thread. The stats don't match the fear.
It's unreasonable and unhealthy to deny your children the experience of self-reliance and exploration.
[1] https://www.missingkids.org/footer/media/keyfacts
Sure we don't outlaw cars, but it's reasonable to minimize unnecessary risk while cars are a necessity in most urban areas.
More importantly, there are greater dangers in the form of accidents. Kids aren't careful, they might run across the street where a driver has trouble seeing them. They might touch a down wire. There's a lot that could happen when you don't keep an eye on kids.
I too was given autonomy when growing up, and I credit it to giving me comparatively far better life skills than my peers. I walked home and cooked myself lunch since the 4th grade. I did my own laundry. I spent untold hours in the park. It taught me how to look after myself and make critical judgements, skills that I watched some friends learn and develop in university 10 years after me. The stress of which can lead to drastically worse decisions when you're 20+ than when you're 10.
More pointedly how much harm is caused by not giving them individuated and appropriate but also real independence? Skills take time and practice to develop. What would you expect to result from a failure to actively and persistently develop the independence that a child will require for the rest of their life?
The same dynamic has come up with COVID. There is known harm through infection but also through isolation. In my family we are extremely conservative and careful (probably overly, privileged-ly, and wastefully so) but we ensure regular playdates with a small set of children with careful parents so that our young child can still develop friendships and social skills. And, you know, be a kid. Taking a year off that, particularly at the current age of my child would be extremely harmful so we spend all of our risk chits on that.
Similarly, while never doing anything would reduce many active risks studies have shown being sedentary is more deadly than smoking.
A cost to benefit maximization process is almost always appropriate.
How much of it is because stranger danger is false, and how much of it is because parents no longer let their children out of their sight? I am not making a statement, I am genuinely curious and I am asking a question hoping someone knows the answer. But I wonder if the reason so few children are harmed by strangers is that children's unsupervised interactions with strangers have now shrunk to almost nothing, so there is almost no opportunity for harm anymore.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150216071609/http://www.crimel...
https://www.npr.org/2013/05/07/182000622/majority-of-missing...
Same as there is a >0 number of car crash deaths with optimal policy. And a >0 amount of rat droppings in our food.
And in your personal life, a >0 chance of dying of avoidable accident.
There is a balance in almost anything at the scale of hundreds of millions of people. People die in all kinds of ways. Some drown, but we still build pools. Some die on trampolines, but we still install those. Some die in the tub/shower, but we still clean ourselves.
I don't see any reason to think that there isn't any possible nuance on the balance between freedom to move as a kid and the danger of stranger violence. (I have two kids who aren't yet teens. The concept scares me, but I also let them swim, play on trampolines, ride in cars/airplanes, bathe, etc.)
No because he does not mention the denominator and is thus free to increase it ;)
Edit: when I was growing up (well before 2001!) that was certainly the attitude – we didn't have the phrase "stranger danger" (maybe that's from the US?) but "don't take sweets from strangers" was common.
I also remember, as an adult, watching the film M and that finished with a strong message about not leaving your children unsupervised, and that's from 1931! But that message doesn't prove it was common at the time so I just mention that for curiosity.
Cable news, in turn, started emphasizing singular disappearances/killings (not serial cases), which further exacerbated this fear. When you have 24 hours of coverage on CNN and 10 of them are about "Missing Girl in California", your perception of how common this is gets distorted. It's a singular case, but seeing it all the time causes people to perceive it as a frequent thing instead of the relatively rare thing it is in most of the country.
Imagine for a moment that you are the most evil person ever. Why would you harm/kidnap a child? There is no gain for the most part - the kid's parents probably cannot afford enough of a ransom to pay for your time. and even if they do it is hard to collect without getting caught. There are much better crimes you can commit to satisfy your evil desires.
but your point is definitely in error. if you are the most evil person, and desire to rape, torture, and murder a person, then a child is the best target. they are least able to fight back, and are the most naive so they can be tricked into going somewhere unsafe.
Ask me how I know.
You guys are acting like there's some sort of vetting to become parents, it's bizarre.
This can be interpreted to mean that the ensemble probability of an abduction -- the expected number of abductions from a single walk around the neighbourhood -- is low.
However, the practise of letting your children walk results in many walks over time, and it takes just one abduction to make the situation really bad. In other words, over time, the probability of an abduction will (albeit slowly) go towards 1.
Have you made any attempt at calculating this "lifetime probability" of abduction, instead of looking just at the probabilities of one-off walks?
Not lecturing; genuinely curious because I will soon have to make this decision for my oldest and I want to base it on data, but with a representative model.
(My instinct is, of course, to raise my children the way I was raised and that aligns with my feelings on the subject, i.e. "Let them have walks!" but I'm looking for a nuanced perspective on both sides before submitting to my biases.)
Somehow, I doubt the statistics of this so much that my first reaction is to chuckle.
I edited my original comment to clarify this.
Not just low, very low, for the lifetime probability to be low enough for it to be that number.
They will die of old age long before the chance of abduction gets anywhere close to 0.1 much less 1.
To be conservative, assume that 1% of US children are allowed to go unsupervised walks (~750k children) and that there is 0% chance of abduction by a stranger without allowing unsupervised walks. Each year about 350 children are abducted by strangers[1]. Under those assumptions, there is a 0.04% chance of abduction each year. That would be less than 1% lifetime chance assuming that they do this for all 18 years of their childhood. Even less if you make more realistic assumptions (I certainly hope that more than 1% of 17 year olds are allowed to go on walks and that parents are waiting until after their children can walk before letting them go on walks by themselves).
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wisconsin-missinggirl-dat...
(I know what "conservative estimate" means, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)
Although I do agree the risk of stranger danger is overblown.
I wonder what it is when adjusted to the cohort of people standing out in the open during a storm that is currently striking things on the ground.
Or to put it another way, 100% of lightning deaths occur when standing outdoors in a storm.
I highly recommend you look up the work of Social Phycologist Jonathan Haidt. Specially his work regarding the book “The Coddling of The American Mind.”
The stand-out statistic is over 90% of missing children are runaways. Working on this risk, reducing the chance that your kids will choose to run away, does look the better risk-reduction strategy.
I wish I could give my kids the same experience, but sadly I live in a much less dense area these days, and there is nothing within a mile or so for them to really do, and no friends. It’s sad.
Child abductions seem to suffer the same problem as "mass" shootings. Most of the research is being done by people who have a vested interest in making them look common so they create a definition that includes a bunch of stuff that most people wouldn't consider to be applicable (gang/drug violence in the case of mass shootings, non-custodial parent taking off with the kid(s) in the case of child abductions).
Of course if the goal is to prevent the named event using a watered down definition that mostly captures other stuff to build your data sets is not going to build you a very informative data set for that goal.
The car accident thing is also unrelated. Kids are more likely to die from swimming pools than stab themselves with kitchen knives, but I'm not going to let them play with kitchen knives.
I also have doubt that "crimes have fallen" is a valid reason. Perhaps this is because of the prevalence of the Stranger Danger mindset?
That said, I think it has gone a bit far. Kids and teenagers used to run around several generation ago. I'd rather my daughter take a bike ride outside, than sit in her room playing with Omegle.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till
Reminds me of how the exceptional case of the Therac 25 shows us that medical devices are generally dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
Yes is had critical errors that caused harm, but it was also life saving machinery.
To be taken seriously on this topic, you need to look at harm vs good. And unfortunately perceived harm as well, since we live in a clown land and it affects reality.
Therac 25 did stop a lot of innovation because of societies unwillingness to accept computer errors equivocal to human errors.
Or limit cars so that you can only have one for every 3 families and then nobody can move around anymore. Problem solved.
Oh, but you forgot about those implications of the past, didn't you?
Break out of the car-centric mindset and the better solution becomes "arrange city and traffic planning so that the majority of people don't need multiple cars or even any cars at all."
I can't vouch for the reliability of this source[1], but it will serve for my example here. The murder rate in the US was 5 and 5.1 in 1960 and 2019 respectively. The aggravated assault rate was shot from 86 to 250.
Life didn't get safer, we just got better at saving lives.
Then again, this looks like its probably based on UCR data, which is sent to the FBI from local/state law enforcement. I imagine there are certain demographics, especially in 1960s America, that didn't get crimes against them reported with full accuracy.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Especially regarding crime. "Gun violence" can include suicide in some reporting systems, and not in others. Some will put a shooting at a bank robbery in with the same category as a single mother shooting an intruder in her home, and some wont.
My point is that the subject of safety is far more complicated than "See, less people are dead, it's safer". Imagine a special forces team of 20 conducts 100 hostage rescues in a year, gets in a firefight in every one, takes multiple injuries, but no one dies. Now imagine the logistics unit of 20 that performs maintenance, paperwork, administrative functions, etc, at a forward operating base has one of their members crushed by a vending machine.
1 in 20 people in logistics died, 0 in 20 in the special ops team died. Most people would not reasonably argue that the logistics team was more dangerous.
[1]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
I picked murder because I thought it would be more straight forward because people are pretty clear about who was killed whereas rapes and assaults might go unreported especially if the victins were minorities.
I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't particularly safe to be anything but a straight middle class+ white person in the 50s.
>= 90% of the US population in the 1950s were middle class white people. Ignoring that, the national aggregate crime rate was lower for non middle class white people then as well. On what are you basing that claim that it wasn’t safe for them?
A substantial minority of that segment now shrunk to more like 17% wish they could have the 50s back for some reason despite how bad the total picture was for most people.
Do you have a cite on the 1950s being substantially safer? Please note an actual and official source of data wherein data collection is to a uniform standard over the time frame discussed. For example a system where figures are collected from some areas and not others and coverage increases towards 100% over time will show an increase in crime rate even when there isn't one. Conversely a system where crimes against minorities aren't investigated or punished will see fewer crimes reported even when reported crimes are faithfully counted.
An example of a bad source is disastercenter.com which doesn't obviously cite how its data is collected, whose frontpage says nothing about who runs it. It is at best a summery of other sources which you aren't at liberty to inspect. Wherever they get their data might be a good source but its impossible for me to ascertain this.
My claims of the safety in america are based on aggregate crime rate statistics since the 1960s from the FBI UCR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Cri...
So now you’re rejecting official data without any evidence to support your skepticism. Interesting.
You still have yet to provide any basis for the claim that 1950s america wasn’t safe for non middle class white people. Why not?
If you can't vouch for a source then using it to make a point is wasting your time and mine.
I'm not asserting whether things are safer or not. Im asserting that judging "safer" cannot be accurately done with metrics such as "murder rate".
"A group of 34 of America’s biggest cities suffered a 30 percent total increase in homicides in 2020, according to a new survey published Monday"
5.3 + (5.3 * 0.3) is not approaching 5.1.
- it represents a small increase in the 2020 homicide rate that doesn't change the national situation. The proper topic of our discussion.
- Given a 27 year trend line an increase at a time when our nation is going through a time of extreme crisis logically represents an aberration not a trend.
America isn't meaningfully more dangerous on average than it was in the 50s although it was in the 50s and is now more dangerous than some of our more civilized neighbors.
* Edited for clarity and correctness*
https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-homicides-rose-2020-study-fin...
The lead author things the pandemic is a significant factor.
> One lead author of the study told the Associated Press he believed part of the problem was the pandemic forced police officers off the streets all around the country.
> Even when on the job, social distancing requirements kept officers from interacting closely with the community. He said, “That really reduced the ability of law officers to engage in the kinds of proactive policing that can reduce crime.”
> The study found that the pandemic “has disproportionately affected vulnerable populations, placing at-risk individuals under additional physical, mental, emotional, and financial stress.”
Are we to believe your grasp of the topic is better than the researchers who conducted the study.
In it he covers the consequences of over-protective parenting on today’s American youth and how those consequences have spilled over onto college campuses in the form of over-protective policies. As a kid myself I feel as though his work really resonates with me and I *highly* consider all current parents to become at least familiar with his research.
I send my 7 year old to the corner store a couple of times a week (pre British Super-COVID) to buy missing ingredients, a bottle of wine... basically whatever's missing. It takes a village to raise a child, and we're all responsible for society's coherence.
I'm sounding blase. I'm not, they're my kids and as such are as important to me as it gets, but parenting - maybe the hardest thing about parenting - is about letting go, knowing that you're making strong, independent adults.
It has subtle ways of teaching other skills like critical thinking, story telling, decision making, communication, math, and others. I could never go back to the old model.
When I lived in Germany, I would regularly see fairly young kids taking the U-Bahn, though I don't exactly know how young they were. Probably older than 6, but maybe not much older.
I'm glad I wasn't raised and don't currently live in such locales of the US. I knew all my neighbors and a lot of store owners growing up. I know a lot of the neighborhood kids today, and luckily it's never come to this, but I hope they know they can knock on my door if they need something.
I would also throw "rising inequality" in the list of causes, but also a lack of unifying culture beyond nihilism, which isn't conducive to holding people together.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone
- Satanic Panic - Human Trafficking - Murder - Stanford Prison Experiment
etc.
A very common theme is "do-gooders" trying to do what they very naively think is a good thing but without data or rationality to back it up. Or, worse, people who manipulate those do-gooders into accomplishing other, more selfish/nefarious/evil goals.
Really interesting stuff overall.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1112270
I am very careful when I’m out walking (checking to see where the driver is looking, checking to see if there are other cars/obstacles that the driver might need to maneuver around at the point where he’s passing me, etc), but kids would never be this careful. Partly it’s because they can’t predict what a driver would do because they don’t know how to drive, and partly because kids are more likely to be goofing off and not paying attention. Also, kids heads/torsos are more at fender-level, making accidents more likely to be fatal.
I do think the stranger danger piece is overblown, but I simultaneously wonder if there aren’t other dangers that have started increasing in the half decade or so since smartphones became very common.
Yet we still get constant reminders of stranger danger and horrible crimes in the news. Instead of focusing on those, perhaps we should collectively focus a lot more on making traffic better and safer for pedestrians and cyclists, prioritize them heavily over cars.
Distracted driving especially is something we could do something about, if we chose to do so.
The anti-profit/SV mindset needs to be rejected in favor of a pro-innovation mindset of libertarianism.
We could do this today with current technology, without the drawbacks of trying to get autonomous driving working on roads designed for human drivers.
We could give it a name that signifies that it is for everyone, perhaps some kind of "omnibus" service, where a nominal fee is charged per trip, accessible to everyone.
Personal vehicles face fewer limitations and are more durable in various failure modes. But first people need to shed their utopianist ideals about how society should pursue its objectives, and allow profit-motivated investment and consumer-preference-moderated technological innovation find solutions.
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-tx-regulation-power-down
As for the Texas outage, regulations could potentially have prevented, but the question is at what cost.
It is absolutely not an acceptable methodology on public roads, where conditions vary wildly and unpredictably, many different kinds of vehicles are on the road, plus pedestrians, animals and various buildings and structures that are not designed to dissipate forces in the event of a crash. Moving fast and breaking things in a public road context means maiming and injuring innocent people, who have not been consulted on whether they want to participate in semi-controlled tests of self-driving cars.
The advancement of technology is not a goal in itself.
There is an argument for using self-driving technology on motorways, because they are very uniform and simpler than other types of roads. They have traffic flowing in one direction only, segregated from other types of traffic. Get that working properly, and we may consider rolling self-driving tech further onto other types of roads.
RE: Texas, they literally chose to cut off ERCOT from the east and west power grids of the US, in order to avoid regulation. If they had not done so, they could have drawn on power from other states, significantly lessening the impact of the snowstorms, which would have saved both lives and property. By choosing to cut themselves off from the larger interconnected grid, the politicians in power put their constituents in a severely disadvantaged position, for purely ideological and irrational opposition to sensible regulation.
That's a fair point. Making public roads dangerous would go against basic human-rights/libertarian principles, on the basis that the public could never unanimously consent to it.
With respect to Texas, I'm not informed enough to comment on the recent power outages. I suspect there are a huge number of factors involved, and I would need to familiarize myself with most of them, and preferably by reviewing sources that aren't reflexively anti free-market/profit, before I would feel confident in providing any kind of over-arching summary of the main causes.
The answer to this is YES - there has been an increasing trend of pedestrian fatalities, at least in US/UK where i saw the statistics. 2018 was a local high for fatalities. It seems to correlate to smartphone uptake.
This used to be the case in the US too, up until the 70s-80s or so, and the advent of helicopter parents. And that in a period that general crime statistics were worse than now, but nobody would bat an eye if kids roamed and played around. The "stranger danger" idea is more cultural (about total control and isolation to private bubble) than about actual threat.
Now, it's funny to see people like the author arguing that "Crimes against children have fallen since the early ’90s." when the 90s were the absolute crime peak and reason why this social change happened. But the crime levels are still nowhere near their base level (first half the 20th, 50s, 60s), that allowed people to trust each other enough to let their kids roam outside...
In France the crime rate peaked in the 2000s, and all parents from the late 90s until now are helicopter parents.
(Also, I am currently being locked up by doctors so let's agree that this is not a good sign that society has improved since then alright. :-))
I agree that crime peaked in the 90s. I’m just saying that crime statistics from 70 years ago shouldn’t be compared to more modern numbers since the non-anecdotal part of my argument (policing is entirely different, violent crimes exist today that didn’t exist/weren’t enforced the same as back then) still stands.
The majority of child abuse happening at the hands of someone the kids know could be because we don't let kids out of our sight more. If we let kids out of our site more would that number still be true?
Point #2 reinforces this idea (anecdotally). It shows that child abuse has slowly been declining since 1991. The article says, "yeah well all crime has gone down" but are there any studies that show how that number correlates to increased protectiveness?
I'm not saying the concept is wrong (I believe kids should have more freedom and wish my kids did). Just saying this article could tighten up its arguments better.