Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fear Will Keep the Local Parents In Line
Great one-two blogpunch by Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias off this column by L.J. Williamson.
Although statistics show that rates of child abduction and sexual abuse have marched steadily downward since the early 1990s, fear of these crimes is at an all-time high. Even the panic-inducing Megan's Law website says stranger abduction is rare and that 90% of child sexual-abuse cases are committed by someone known to the child. Yet we still suffer a crucial disconnect between perception of crime and its statistical reality. A child is almost as likely to be struck by lightning as kidnapped by a stranger, but it's not fear of lightning strikes that parents cite as the reason for keeping children indoors watching television instead of out on the sidewalk skipping rope.
And when a child is parked on the living room floor, he or she may be safe, but is safety the sole objective of parenting? The ultimate goal is independence, and independence is best fostered by handing it out a little at a time, not by withholding it in a trembling fist that remains clenched until it's time to move into the dorms.
Yglesias adds:
The very most dangerous thing your typical middle-class child is likely to do is to . . . be driven in a car somewhere by his parents. Obviously, fatal car wrecks are reasonably rare -- tons of people drive every single day and the overwhelming majority survive. But people are still much more likely to be killed in car wrecks than by criminals.
To be fair, local news doesn't skimp on the scare stories about bad drivers and "something in your car that might kill you!" But Yglesias is saying that regular, non-exploding tires or driver-on-cellphone accidents occur so frequently as to render the "predators gonna gitcha!" scares meaningless. The difference, though, is that journalists and politicians can convince parents that the the predator problem can be solved. Either the parents can clamp down on everything their kids do, or the state can pass awesome new laws banning MySpace in schools, etc.
Darth Moose|3.30.07 @ 11:36AM|#
"The very most dangerous thing your typical middle-class child
is likely to do is to . . . be driven in a car somewhere by his
parents."
that's because they're as clumsy as they are stupid.
|3.30.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a car is insignificant next to the power of the Press.
|3.30.07 @ 11:46AM|#
I would certainly spare Piett for his failings, but the Emperor is not as forgiving as I.
|3.30.07 @ 11:48AM|#
I just posted the link to this same story on another
thread.
What's the point of moving out to the middle of nowhere so you can
live in a safe neighborhood, if you're going to be terrified of
ever-lurking danger anyway?
Although, to be completely fair, auto fatality rates also include
cyclists and pedestrians who get run over. But even taking that
into account, the parents are still ridiculous for thinking of
child abductions instead of car accidents.
Also, accident, injury, and fatality rates for pedestrians and
cyclists are lowest in the most densely developed areas. Drivers
there are are forced to slow down by congestion, and are used to
having to think about what else is going on in the road.
|3.30.07 @ 11:58AM|#
But Yglesias is saying that regular, non-exploding tires or
driver-on-cellphone accidents occur so frequently as to render the
"predators gonna gitcha!" scares meaningless.
It doesn't render those fears meaningless whatsover, though.
Ignoring rational fear is a recipe for "something bad" to happen,
to use a generic Greek-ism. Frequency of one event does not
eliminate or lower the chances of another event occuring, even if
it may seem relatively unimportant.
Likewise, there is a lot at stake concerning child abuse. It's not
only a matter of emotional scarring and damage inflicted on the
child. It's the deeply-ingrained societal attitudes about it that
worsen the effects -- people (mistakenly) view victims of abuse as
damaged goods, social outsiders, etc. It can really affect
someone's ability to socialize normally and lead a normal life.
It's not a here-and-over event like a car accident. At least I
wouldn't categorize it as such. That's not to say that it isn't
important to inform people of proper traffic safety, car
precautions, safe driving, etc. That is just as important, I think.
Not getting killed in an accident is obviously a priority. But that
shouldn't diminish other concerns for someone's well-being.
Which scenario should provoke more panic: the possibility that
your child may become one of the approximately 100 children who are
kidnapped by strangers each year, or one of the country's 58
million overweight adults?
No, she di'in't! She did not just write this. Enough with the fat
fear epidemic! This is disgusting to me. When did parents abandon
their role as protectors and become drill seargents and fat camp
counselors? Call me insane, but I think protecting children from
would-be wrongdoers is more important than keeping them out of the
snack cupboard.
Of course, I recognize that's a personal parenting choice. If you
as a parent are more concerned with your child's waistline than
their general welfare, well, that's your prerogative, I guess.
|3.30.07 @ 11:59AM|#
"I find joe's lack of faith in the Suburbs disturbing."
Not "the suburbs," just certain types of suburbs.
And I seem to have more faith in them than these parents.
President Merkin Muffley|3.30.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Dr.
Mooselove,
Could a doomsday device protect children from abductors and
molesters?
Millions of Moose crying out|3.30.07 @ 12:06PM|#
and now, your planningness, we will discuss the hidden location of your suburb
clone12|3.30.07 @ 12:07PM|#
My guess is that as a parent, the fewer kids you have, the more paranoid you are about their safety, statistically speaking.
Passim|3.30.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I have a theory in two parts:
(1) Good parents are afraid for their children.
(2) They are, however, most afraid of the things and places their
children are least likely to encounter.
#1, I believe firmly, is a very good thing.
#2 is shit.
Dan T.|3.30.07 @ 12:13PM|#
My guess is that as a parent, the fewer kids you have, the
more paranoid you are about their safety, statistically
speaking.
Agreed.
|3.30.07 @ 12:25PM|#
I have two kids--twins--but I don't coddle them. In fact, I tortured my daughter twice, and I chopped off my son's hand, not long after I killed his "mentor". They're both successful already, and I expect one or even both of them to help me overthrow the Emperor and rule beside be as father and son and/or daughter.
|3.30.07 @ 12:26PM|#
If you consider custody disputes in which one parent "kidnaps" the child(ren) as a separate category, you will see a sharp downward revision in the child abduction numbers.
Dan T.|3.30.07 @ 12:29PM|#
I guess what it comes down to is that parents fear "stranger
abduction" is because that's about the worst possible thing we can
imagine happening to our kids.
Fear is a primal emotion, not a rational one. Nobody reads actuary
tables and then determines what they should be scared of.
|3.30.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Pro Vaderate-
Have you, perchance, any home movies of the, ahem, "spicy" variety?
In which the twin children, whose parentage may or may not be fully
known to them.....
I know this guy who runs a bar, and he says such an artifact might
be quite valuable, to the right sort of person.
Seitz|3.30.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Another good point of the original article is how stupid parents
are today.
"I don't think I would ever do that," she replied. "The world
is a very different place now than it was when we were growing
up."
Did she really think the number of child molesters and kidnappers
in the world had increased in the last 20 or 30 years, I asked?
"Oh, yes, I think it is increasing. Because of the
Internet."
Maybe she hasn't thought it through, but this overprotective moron
seems to think that before legislatures passed laws that forced sex
offenders to register, there were no such thing as sex offenders.
As if, before the internet, no one even thought of abducting and/or
molesting kids.
I'm kind of surprised that people this stupid were able to figure
out how to breed.
|3.30.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Smacky,
You are insane.
"If you as a parent are more concerned with your child's waistline
than their general welfare, well, that's your prerogative, I
guess."
How is worrying about a child's health (aka "waistline") different
than worrying about their general welfare?
|3.30.07 @ 12:37PM|#
How is worrying about a child's health (aka "waistline")
different than worrying about their general welfare?
Fat kids are less appealing to child molesters. Except for the
chubby chasers.
|3.30.07 @ 12:38PM|#
In retrospect, I wish my kids would have been stolen and as punishment the kidnapper would have been forced to keep them.
|3.30.07 @ 12:40PM|#
How is worrying about a child's health (aka "waistline")
different than worrying about their general welfare?
Neu Mejican,
It isn't different. But it seemed like a false dichotomy to me in
the way she presented it. Just because you don't want your kids to
get fat doesn't mean that you are supposed to take some retarded
columnist's advice to relax and stop keeping an eye out for your
kids' well-being in other respects. What is it to her if my (future
hypothetical) children are coddled? This is just another column
written to sew dissent among various parenting techniques, it
seems.
JN|3.30.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Remember the time we passed that law banning MySpace in
school?
That was awesome.
wsdave|3.30.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Since we're using statistical models to judge people's attitudes against, is there some great repository of statistics where I can actually look up my chances of getting married after 40 vs. being hit by lightning vs. becoming president vs. going bankrupt?
|3.30.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Is fear of abduction really at an "all-time high"? Do you have
statistics to prove that? Could such a statistic even exist?
It seems odd to chastise people's misunderstanding of probability
while displaying your own hysterical false beliefs.
|3.30.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"my chances of getting married after 40 vs. being hit by
lightning vs. becoming president vs. going bankrupt"
I'll take bankrupt by 3-1 over your odds on married over
40/lightning/president as a group. [Is this online gambling? - See
Antigua thread above.}
|3.30.07 @ 2:16PM|#
I guess what it comes down to is that parents fear "stranger
abduction" is because that's about the worst possible thing we can
imagine happening to our kids. Fear is a primal emotion, not a
rational one. Nobody reads actuary tables and then determines what
they should be scared of.
True, and if parents want to keep their children locked in a
sensory deprevation chamber in their basement NBC-proof bomb
shelter, I don't really care.
What I mind if when the irrational fears of paranoid parents are
the primary concern in making laws that govern all of us. Right
now, the insane, irrational, border-line paranoid schitzophrenic
fears of gated community suburban moms is the core of our judicial
system.
It isn't different. But it seemed like a false dichotomy to me
in the way she presented it. Just because you don't want your kids
to get fat doesn't mean that you are supposed to take some retarded
columnist's advice to relax and stop keeping an eye out for your
kids' well-being in other respects. What is it to her if my (future
hypothetical) children are coddled? This is just another column
written to sew dissent among various parenting techniques, it
seems.
The idea is that you are too busy protecting your children from the
boogey man, to actually raise them properly. If drive your kids to
school because you are worried about kidnappers, you are not only
putting your child at a far greater risk of death by auto accident
during that one trip than their entire lifetime risk of abudction
-- but you are depriving them of exercise and physical activity
which will eventually cause health problems. Not to mention, you
are depriving them of becoming self-sufficient and
independant.
I am not saying that we should force you to raise your kids
differently. I think you should have 100% control on how to raise
your kids. If you think that giving them a diet of exclusivly
marshmallows and pepsi is the only way to protect them from alien
preditor abduction (the worst possible thing that can happen to a
child), I think you have that right. But, don't expect me to
pretend that you are somehow helping your children, when you are
not. And don't try to make a law requiring anyone else to follow
your retard child-raising priorities.
|3.30.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Also, it is not fear of abduction which has lead to the demise
of children playing outdoors. For some parents, this is obviously a
concern and I'm sure it is a small cause.
The bigger causes are the advent of high quality video games,
better TV programming during the day, the Internet, etc. Basically,
kids have more entertainment choices during the day, and fewer and
fewer are choosing to play outside.
This is not just my theory; I don't have link but the US Gov't and
outdoors product retailers both commissioned seperate surveys to
find out why kids don't hike/camp/climb/play outdoors anymore, and
they found the leading cause to be video games.
Basically, playing kickball can't compete with playing grand theft
auto..
|3.30.07 @ 2:20PM|#
For more evidence that it's not the parents locking kids
indoors, it's the kids choosing to stay indoors...
A few months ago, we had a windstorm around here that knocked the
power out for ten straight days. If parents were really paranoid,
they would have never let the kids outside during this time period,
because of the danger of falling tree limbs, running chainsaws, and
downed powerlines. And yet, every day the power was out, I saw
dozens of groups of kids outside, playing.
When the TV, Internet, and video games were taken away - the kids
went outside.
|3.30.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Another point - the kids playing outside phenomenon is sort of a
classic "tipping point" issue. Smaller families, more homework,
more indoor entertainment options, all lead to fewer kids outside.
When their are no friends outside to play with, the kids won't go
outside.
I have two kids now, and I'll probably have another two or three. I
want my kids to play outside all summer like I did when I was
young, but unless the power goes out, there will be no one for them
to play with...
|3.30.07 @ 2:24PM|#
Satanic cults will kidnap your precious little angels from
daycare and sacrifice them during a hideous ceremony in Al Capone's
vault.
Marilyn Manson will be playing gangsta rap from a giant boombox on
his shoulder. He'll sport a Raiders jersey and his pants will be
super baggy and drooping down his ass plainly showing his boxer
shorts.
Rush Limbaugh will be handing out autographed copies of Cigar
Afficionado magazine with him on the cover.
They will then have an impromptu Rainbow Party and later play the
asphyxiation game.
|3.30.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Dan T had the best post on this. It's just too horrible to contemplate. No, it's not rational to fear child abduction more than car accidents, but then, having kids to begin is not rational, so what do you expect!
Dan T.|3.30.07 @ 2:36PM|#
One might say that the parent's fear of their child being kidnapped is similar to the libertarian fear of "Big Brother".
|3.30.07 @ 2:37PM|#
I've maintained for a while now that becoming a parent makes you
stupid. The paranoia comes later.
It's a genetic switch in the head. Before my youngest was born, I
couldn't have cared less about kids, except for overcooking them
and ruining a good meal. Now, I still don't trust my 8-year old to
cross the street without supervision.
Why? Well, 1) people drive like fucking idiots on my street, with
little regard to the 25 MPH speed limit and school zone. 2) she's
impulsive and easily distracted. 3) If anything happened to her, it
would absolutely destroy me.
It sucks that the media circus for sensationalism has made us this
paranoid. My best times as a kid were just going out without
parental supervision. I *almost* blew myself up once, but I
survived. Sweet! But now, my kids don't leave my sight.
:::sigh::: It sucks. I know that the chances are almost
unmeasurable that something will happen to one of them, be it
criminal or just an accidental, but my mind always goes back to one
thing: Somebody makes up the statistics. It ain't gonna be one of
mine if I can help it.
Oh, and this deal keeps getting worse all the time.
Princess Moose Organna|3.30.07 @ 2:41PM|#
"Oh, and this deal keeps getting worse all the time"
(nice one!)
you certainly have your way with people!
wsdave|3.30.07 @ 2:54PM|#
Ok, all kidding aside; does any one know where these stats are
located?
For example, I've heard that front end crashes are the most common,
but that side impacts are the most deadly (far less protection on
the side).
Where does one find such info?
|3.30.07 @ 2:55PM|#
Reason's Hit & Run blogport. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Grand Moff Lunchstealer|3.30.07 @ 3:01PM|#
does anybody know where these stats are located?
Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the
Rebel statistics, I have chosen to test this station's destructive
power on your home planet of Alderaan.
|3.30.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Okapi is really winning this thread.
That's a very good point - the author blames the hysteria on people
hearing anecdotes and overestimating how widespread the problem is,
and yet his evidence for this hysteria is anecdotal.
Moose Windu|3.30.07 @ 3:26PM|#
http://reason.com/blog/show/119394.html#669309
hey - High# - there can be only one Grand Moff here.
woo ti di!
Viking Ronin|3.30.07 @ 3:27PM|#
d'oh - lunch, not high.
mea culpa.
*commits seppeku with light saber
|3.30.07 @ 3:35PM|#
The Suburbs are great!
"Viva! Suburbs! Live at First Avenue (Twin/Tone 1994)"
I was actually there for this recording. It was probably the best
concert I've been to other than seeing Cracker play for free in
downtown SLC.
|3.30.07 @ 3:58PM|#
1.) If there is actually anyone who isn't letting their kids
play outside because of this sort of fear, they're probably also
semi-retarded hypochondriacs who spend all their time watching
stories about the latest white chick-napping on cable news.
2.) Anyone who believes the urban myth that most suburbanites won't
let their kids out to play because they live in terror of the
boogey-man getting their kids is probably equally semi-retarded,
and relying on some goofy article from the LA Times to support
their personal, stereotypical view of people who don't live in
urban areas.
"That's a very good point - the author blames the hysteria on
people hearing anecdotes and overestimating how widespread the
problem is, and yet his evidence for this hysteria is anecdotal." -
joe
joe's irony filter is obviously failing him, considering that on
the other thread he's using the article (he linked it first!),
which relies on two unsourced, anonymous anecdotes from the author
to both mock AND perpetuate the urban myth that suburbanites won't
let their children play outside for fear of the boogey-man.
|3.30.07 @ 4:10PM|#
"which relies on two unsourced, anonymous anecdotes from the
author"
Um, it relies on the rules adopted by the school district.
Apparently, this fear is so mythical, and reflects the mindset of
that communities' parents so poorly, that the school board adopted
it.
|3.30.07 @ 4:11PM|#
But it's good to see your concern with me is as unabated as
ever.
Do you have a poster of me above your bed, rob?
|3.30.07 @ 4:18PM|#
Rob- "perpetuate the urban myth that suburbanites won't let
their children play outside for fear of the boogey-man."
joe - "Um, it relies on the rules adopted by the school
district."
There is no rationale for the rule given in the article. I would
bet it resulted from a lawsuit. Some kid got hit by a car riding
his bike home from school. The school is liable until the kid gets
back home, and got sued. They wrote a new policy to avoid the next
lawsuit.
|3.30.07 @ 4:26PM|#
"joe's irony filter is obviously failing him, considering that
on the other thread he's using the article (he linked it first!),
which relies on two unsourced, anonymous anecdotes from the author
to both mock AND perpetuate the urban myth that suburbanites won't
let their children play outside for fear of the boogey-man."
Based on this response to my taking a second look at the situation
and revising my position, is it any wonder that rob continues to
support the Iraq War?
It's not a sign of intellectual failure to be able to give
something a second thought. It is a sign of shallowness and
insecurity to treat consideration of other people's points as a
shortcoming.
|3.30.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Kids should all be kept inside at all times, so as not to annoy
me. New neighbors' kid was outside the apartment at 9 PM last night
screaming and crying. Hell, I'll give the kid my XBox so he never
leaves the apartment again.
Anecdotal evidence: Growing up, my sisters and I did not have a
game system. My mom hated them and wouldn't allow them in the
house. My cousins had Nintendos. My sisters and I were always
outside playing. We had drag my cousins out of the house. They even
had cooler outside toys because they lived in the country. So, I
will agree that newer technology is partly responsible for kids not
being outside.
Now, where is Solo?
|3.30.07 @ 4:35PM|#
The bigger causes are the advent of high quality video
games, better TV programming during the day, the Internet, etc.
Basically, kids have more entertainment choices during the day, and
fewer and fewer are choosing to play outside.
That would be true, if kids were allowed to participate in outdoor
activities that they did 20+ years ago.
Kids nowadays aren't allowed to play baseball in an empty lot. Kids
nowadays aren't allowed to play football or hockey in the
street.
Kids nowadays are not allowed to skateboard or roller-blade/skate
in public places. Kids nowadays are not allowed to ice skate on the
frozen pond.
Kids nowadays are not allowed to play wrestle and play fight
without someone calling the police. Kids nowadays are not allowed
to have toy guns.
Even the parks that kids can go play in suck... No monkey bars, no
swing sets, no teeter totters... Just some VERY VERY safe things to
walk around on.
Are you telling me, that if kids could get together with a bunch of
cheap walkey-talkies, and cap guns, and dig fortifications in the
old empty lot and play war, they would choose a video game over
that? No way!
Are you telling me that if kids could get together some old wood
and build a treehouse, without having to get permission from a city
planner, they would rather play videogames inside?
Kids choose video games because the modern version of "playing
outside" involves standing around your back yard, being very very
careful. Sure, parents will let their kids go outdoors, and say
they are happy to have them play outside, but they most certainly
aren't going to be allowed to get into the mischief that any of us
were able to get into as children.
|3.30.07 @ 4:43PM|#
I believe that any visible presence of children may violate our homeowners' association rules. That's why I'm teaching our kids How Not to be Seen.
|3.30.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Neu Mejican - Thanks for pointing out that joe is attributing
the bicycle policy to the urban myth, while no reason is given in
the article. I'd bet it's a lot more likely that you're right about
lawsuits than that the school board decided its easier for
predators to catch kids on foot than on a bicycle!
joe - How much sloppy thinking are you going to display today?
Urban myth stereotypes of terrified suburbanites aren't enough for
you?
"Based on this response to my taking a second look at the situation
and revising my position, is it any wonder that rob continues to
support the Iraq War?" - joe
Huh? Wrong thread, man. You're obviously REALLY getting confused.
it's OK, tho, it's happened to me when I get multiple threads going
where I'm rhetorically beating you you like a pinata. I can imagine
that being on the receiving end is even more disorienting than
being the one delivering the rhetorical beating.
"It's not a sign of intellectual failure to be able to give
something a second thought. It is a sign of shallowness and
insecurity to treat consideration of other people's points as a
shortcoming." - joe
So, care to revise your position on the likelihood that the no
bikes rule came about because of your urban myth hypothesis or the
much more likely rationale given by NM?
"Do you have a poster of me above your bed, rob?" - joe
Gee, I don't. But if you'd e-mail me some pictures of yourself, I
could use print-outs of photos to make a nice papier mache pinata
so that I had a real pinata to go with my "virtual joe pinata!"
|3.30.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Child Number 2, can Not be Seen. Please stand up.
Oh, dear. Well, that demonstrates the value of not being seen to
the other children, I guess.
The Colonel|3.30.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Here's his neighbor who told us where he'd be. Nobody likes a
nosey dick.
Now! ATTACK ME WITH A BANANA! Here you are, Pro Apricot. Attack me
with the banana!
(it's spaceball 1! They've gone plaid!)
Mr. Pither|3.30.07 @ 5:20PM|#
P-I-T-H-E-R. Spelled as in "brotherhood" but with a "PI" instead of the "BRO" and no "hood".
|3.30.07 @ 5:25PM|#
"So, care to revise your position on the likelihood that the no
bikes rule came about because of your urban myth hypothesis or the
much more likely rationale given by NM?"
OK. It is the public's rationale for supporting the policy, rather
than its genesis, that is demonstrated in the article to be based
on irrational parental paranoia, or at least somewhat so. The
original motivation for the policy is unlclear. It's most likely to
be based both on traffic conerns and general cable newish paranoia
about how dangerous the world is. Fear of lawsuits isn't
exclusively applicable to traffic accidents.
Schools that have meetings about traffic problems around the
school, and where, 'When we arrive, other kids look at us in
amazement and ask questions like "Why do you ride a bike?" and
"Don't you have a car?"' are generally schools in communities where
it really is unsafe to try to get around on foot or on a bicyle due
to the traffic. So it's certainly plausible that that could explain
the source of the policy.
|3.30.07 @ 5:38PM|#
"It is the public's rationale for supporting the policy, rather
than its genesis, that is demonstrated in the article to be based
on irrational parental paranoia, or at least somewhat so." -
joe
Where in the article does it say this? Now you're just pulling crap
completely out of your posterior!
"The original motivation for the policy is unlclear." - joe
Ahh... but it's not "unclear" - it's completely unmentioned. Why
would that be, do you think?
"It's most likely to be based both on traffic conerns and general
cable newish paranoia about how dangerous the world is." -
joe
But you can't even show this in the article as the rationale, can
you? Do you think that maybe you're stretching quite a bit to fit
an unsupported urban myth hypothesis into this scenario?
Here's EVERYTHING from the article about the bike restriction - it
doesn't even mention your urban myth hypothesis when referring to
the bike restriction, so where did that bit come from other than
your over-heated imaginings about the terrified thought processes
of suburbanites?
"Our hyper-anxiety about the safety of children is creating a
society in which any outdoor activity that doesn't take place under
the supervision of a coach or a "psychomotor activities" mandate
from the state is too risky to attempt. An example: My son's school
has a written rule that students in grades K-4 may not ride their
bicycles to school. My son and I cheerfully ignore this
restriction; I think school rules belong on campus, not off. As we
ride together each day, I remember the Huffy Sweet 'n' Sassy I rode
to school when I was a kid. Hot pink, with a flowered wicker
basket, it stood out among the other bikes parked in the crowded
racks, its tall orange safety flag flapping in the breeze. Now, my
son's bike stands alone, always the sole occupant of the school's
tucked-in-a-faraway-corner bike rack. When we arrive, other kids
look at us in amazement and ask questions like 'Why do you ride a
bike?" and "Don't you have a car?'"
Even the following paragraphs don't talk about the urban myth of
terrified suburbanites as the reason for the bike
restriction:
"Although statistics show that rates of child abduction and sexual
abuse have marched steadily downward since the early 1990s, fear of
these crimes is at an all-time high. Even the panic-inducing
Megan's Law website says stranger abduction is rare and that 90% of
child sexual-abuse cases are committed by someone known to the
child. Yet we still suffer a crucial disconnect between perception
of crime and its statistical reality."
It's clearly onto the next, mostly unrelated, piece in a fairly
choppy editorial that my old J-School profs would have hammered -
even as an editorial piece - for failure to provide anything to
support the claims made.
"Fear of lawsuits isn't exclusively applicable to traffic
accidents. Schools that have meetings about traffic problems around
the school, and where, 'When we arrive, other kids look at us in
amazement and ask questions like "Why do you ride a bike?" and
"Don't you have a car?"' are generally schools in communities where
it really is unsafe to try to get around on foot or on a bicyle due
to the traffic. So it's certainly plausible that that could explain
the source of the policy." -joe
Would you say that traffic concerns are MORE, or LESS, plausible
than the idea that suburbanites got together to keep their kids
from being on bicycles because of their fears of the urban myth of
a predator lurking in every neighborhood?
(Also, not really germaine, but, would you say concerns about
traffic are MORE, or LESS, of a rational concern for parents?)
|3.30.07 @ 6:46PM|#
Rex Rhino:
You don't know what you're talking about. Every playground around
here has swingsets and monkey bars. A few still have teeter-tooters
and merry-go-rounds. I know because I take my son to the park while
my wife trains for her stupid marathons.
Kids are allowed to play baseball or football or do whatever the
hell they want - they just don't want to... When the power was out,
kids were all outside playing football, sledding, tossing
snowballs, throwing rocks at the ice on the lake. No one called the
cops or attempted to stop them.
Unfortunately, when the power came back on, the kids went back
inside.
|3.30.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Some stats on kids and outdoor activities...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5233a1.htm
"Although parents generally perceived the same barriers to
participation in physical activities regardless of the child's sex
and age, concerns about transportation, opportunities in their
area, and expense were reported significantly more often (p
|3.30.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Let's try that again...
Some stats on kids and outdoor activities...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5233a1.htm
"Although parents generally perceived the same barriers to
participation in physical activities regardless of the child's sex
and age, concerns about transportation, opportunities in their
area, and expense were reported significantly more often (p 0.05)
by non-Hispanic black and Hispanic parents than by non-Hispanic
white parents (Table 2). Concerns about neighborhood safety were
reported more frequently for girls (17.6%) than for boys (14.6%)
and were reported more frequently by Hispanic parents (41.2%) than
by non-Hispanic white (8.5%) and non-Hispanic black (13.3%)
parents. Overall, parents with lower incomes and education levels
reported more barriers."
Another...
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 4 , November 2003, Pages 273-276
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier
Science Inc.
Research article
Commuting to school
Are children who walk more physically active?
Ashley R. Cooper PhDCorresponding Author Contact Information,
E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Angie S. Page PhDa, Lucy J.
Foster MSca and Dina Qahwaji MSca
a University of Bristol, Department of Exercise and Health
Sciences, Centre for Sport, Exercise and Health, Bristol, United
Kingdom
Available online 17 October 2003.
Abstract
Background
The journey to school is an opportunity for increasing children's
daily physical activity. However, the contribution that active
commuting to school makes to overall physical activity is unknown.
This study used objective measurement to investigate the physical
activity patterns of children by mode of travel to school.
Methods
Primary-school children wore an accelerometer programmed to record
minute-by-minute physical activity for 7 days and completed a brief
questionnaire describing their usual travel to school. The total
volume of physical activity and the time spent in activity of at
least moderate intensity, as recorded by the accelerometer, was
estimated for weekdays and the weekend, and groups of children were
compared by mode of transport to school. Data were collected in
May/June 2002.
Results
Of the 114 children (59 boys, 55 girls; aged 10.4±0.8 years) who
took part in the study, those who walked to school (65%) were
significantly more active than those who traveled by car
(712.0±206.7 vs 629.9±207.2 accelerometer counts per minute,
p=0.05). Analysis by gender indicated that the major differences in
physical activity between travel groups were seen only in boys.
Hourly activity patterns demonstrated that boys who walked to
school were more active after school and throughout the evening
than were car users.
Conclusions
In boys, walking to school was associated with higher physical
activity after school and during the evening. Active transport may
contribute to a more physically active profile, at least for boys,
supporting walk-to-school initiatives to increase children's
physical activity.
Redux Grand Mof Moose|3.31.07 @ 10:03AM|#
they could find a study, however unlikely, and publish it.
But I've just received word from the Editor. He has permanently
dissolved the peer review board. The last remnants of the old House
have been swept away...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245