The article makes a mention of people not having friends to walk with because all their friends are 'virtual', which seems a little lazy.
In the US, a real problem is that our population is so distributed that even if you had people to hang out with in person at one point, it's pretty likely that none of them live within walking distance of you. So to meet up with friends or acquaintances, you have to drive (or use public transit, if you're lucky enough to live in a place where that's possible). Once you've driven somewhere to meet with someone, if you're going to go somewhere else you'll probably drive too, and then you'll drive home.
In my case I almost never had cause to walk for I guess what would be 'typical' reasons, despite not really growing up with a ton of technology or lots of 'virtual friends'. I just never had a reason to walk over to visit someone, so it was limited to walking to the grocery store or to the bus stop for college. Everyone I knew lived a 15+ minute drive away. Reaching college on public transit took over 3 hours, so I ended up getting a car pretty quick.
In someplace more dense like the UK, are people's friends all within walking distance?
Because we don't reach out to our neighbors the same way anymore, because they already have lives as do we. It's a self-reinforcing trend.
I suspect the origin of the trend was, once we had the freedom to select friends out of a greater geographic region we happily did so, because there really is no guarantee the ten people living nearest to you are into the same things you are.
Growing up all of my friends were within walking or biking distance; it as the only way we got around. Anyone that lived outside my group of friends radius of travel usually got left out because they didn't have an easy way to come hang out with us.
Once we got into high school traveling by car was mandatory. At that point everyone was so spread out that walking, biking, or even public transit was too much of a hassle.
This seems fairly superficial. I suspect that if you factored in where people are living (suburbs versus urban areas), age would seem to make less of a difference.
I'm barely within the 18-25 range, and I walk everywhere. I live downtown and don't drive, and I suspect that I get far more exercise than a middle-aged person who lives in the suburbs and drives to work, the grocery store, and wherever else they need to go.
The article comes off very much as old people wanting to look down on the habits of the young, but I very easily feel the same way about suburbanites who drive into my neighbourhood, almost kill all the pedestrians at cross-walks, and block up the streets by milling about and walking as slowly as possible from the parkades to the restaurants.
My work made me carry a pedometer. It really surprised me some days, when I would just stay home at my apartment how little I walked. Sub 500 steps in a day. Basically, being at home is being on your ass all day, but I would think I would move around at least a little more than that.
I've recently made the unintentional discovery that this and many other problems of modern life, self-improvement, and so on can be obviated by the simple expedient of getting a dog.
WTF on the headline picture, why are you picking a guy preparing to play pond hockey as walking, I mean before or after this picture one can assume he's going to be doing more strenuous activity, the connection is lost on me... confused.
Yeah this seems pretty worthless without separating responses by location. Living in the city you're going to walk a ton without even thinking about it, and most suburbs/rural areas are set up to make walking anywhere an 18-24 year-old would want to go difficult, if not impossible.
It's not just young adults; it's starting earlier than that. I see parents happily wheeling their 7-year-olds around in strollers all the time because it's easier than having to keep up with them. Everyone's just lazy as hell these days.
21 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 63.2 ms ] threadhttp://www.bupa.com/media-centre/press-releases/uk/17-oct-20...
In the US, a real problem is that our population is so distributed that even if you had people to hang out with in person at one point, it's pretty likely that none of them live within walking distance of you. So to meet up with friends or acquaintances, you have to drive (or use public transit, if you're lucky enough to live in a place where that's possible). Once you've driven somewhere to meet with someone, if you're going to go somewhere else you'll probably drive too, and then you'll drive home.
In my case I almost never had cause to walk for I guess what would be 'typical' reasons, despite not really growing up with a ton of technology or lots of 'virtual friends'. I just never had a reason to walk over to visit someone, so it was limited to walking to the grocery store or to the bus stop for college. Everyone I knew lived a 15+ minute drive away. Reaching college on public transit took over 3 hours, so I ended up getting a car pretty quick.
In someplace more dense like the UK, are people's friends all within walking distance?
I suspect the origin of the trend was, once we had the freedom to select friends out of a greater geographic region we happily did so, because there really is no guarantee the ten people living nearest to you are into the same things you are.
Once we got into high school traveling by car was mandatory. At that point everyone was so spread out that walking, biking, or even public transit was too much of a hassle.
I'm barely within the 18-25 range, and I walk everywhere. I live downtown and don't drive, and I suspect that I get far more exercise than a middle-aged person who lives in the suburbs and drives to work, the grocery store, and wherever else they need to go.
The article comes off very much as old people wanting to look down on the habits of the young, but I very easily feel the same way about suburbanites who drive into my neighbourhood, almost kill all the pedestrians at cross-walks, and block up the streets by milling about and walking as slowly as possible from the parkades to the restaurants.