Ride the Train

The idea that people are scolding this woman for letting her nine year-old ride the subway home alone when that's what he wanted to do is absurd. Manhattan is a very safe place and he was taking a route he knew and understood. The city was a substantially more dangerous place back in 1990 when I was nine, so I think I was older by the time I was allowed to roam the streets.

Still, this is one of the major advantages of raising children in a city -- your kids can get places on their own! A teenager driving a car is way more likely to get hurt than a nine-year old riding the subway.

Comments

Oh Matthew, don't you know that we'd rather have 100 kids die in a car wreck than have one abducted by a stranger? Get your priorities straight!

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 11:01 AM

I suppose if your child boarded a train often frequented by Republican members of Congress there would be greater cause for concern. That or Catholic priests.

Posted by steve duncan | April 14, 2008 11:02 AM

"Absurd" is a little strong. Parents are being bombarded with the message that predators are lurking around every corner ready to snatch young children. Now, that is indeed an absurdity, but I don't blame the parents for failing to understand that. Rather, I blame the people who are promoting this notion in the first place.

By the way, 9-year-old kids can also get around on their own in the suburbs, on a thing called a "bicycle" (I don't blame an urbanite like Matt for being unaware of this invention).

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 11:08 AM

You're not wrong at all. But 9 is a bit young; and at least the first time, I would have followed him without him knowing.

Posted by robertl | April 14, 2008 11:12 AM

A teenager driving a car is way more likely to get hurt than a nine-year old riding the subway.

Love to know where you pulled that data from.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 14, 2008 11:14 AM

DTM, depends on the suburbs... In the ones I grew up in... neighborhood was bikeable, and did all the time to get to friends houses.... but try to go anywhere actually useful? yer gonna be roadkill

Posted by Joe | April 14, 2008 11:17 AM

DTM, depends on the suburbs... In the ones I grew up in... neighborhood was bikeable, and did all the time to get to friends houses.... but try to go anywhere actually useful? yer gonna be roadkill

That said, I'm all for making areas more navigable by bike

Posted by Joe | April 14, 2008 11:18 AM

duncan:
I almost thought to make a snarky comment about the DC Metro (our subway for visitors, and stand on right dangit!), but I realized just before posting it that members of Congress don't ride the subway.

Posted by James Hare | April 14, 2008 11:18 AM

A teenager driving a car is way more likely to get hurt than a nine-year old riding the subway.

No one who has ever let a 16-18-year old drive home from a party has any standing whatsoever to complain about this.

I'd also ask the complainers, "At what age do you think a kid should be able to ride the subway alone?" My bet is, they're mostly people whose honest answer is, "Never."*

My guess is that the proper age for this is the age at which you'd feel safe leaving your kid home alone for an hour or two. With some adjustments. Kids (like adults) vary wildly in their abilities 1) to realize when they're in trouble or in over their heads and get help and 2) to read maps and have a generally good sense of direction and the like. Ms. Skenazy's kid seems like someone who can figure maps out and know where he's going, and is probably pretty resourceful. Good for her for letting him be independent.

*Note: I have had the experience, a few blocks uptown from Bloomingdale's, of trying to get directions to the subway from a few of the well-dressed women who prowl that neighborhood. They didn't have a clue. I suspect they'd never taken the subway, and wouldn't do so under any circumstances. It was appalling.

Posted by David in NY | April 14, 2008 11:19 AM

I'd also ask the complainers, "At what age do you think a kid should be able to ride the subway alone?" My bet is, they're mostly people whose honest answer is, "Never."*

Nine just seems a little young. Eleven or twelve seems a lot more reasonable.

Posted by right | April 14, 2008 11:35 AM

This is a bigger issue to deal with than a blog comment thread has space for, but the "harm prevention and only harm prevention" model of parenting is a disaster for everyone.

Posted by Freddie | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM

Joe,

Fair enough. As I would put it, while a bike may be a good way to get around many suburbs, there is no guarantee a given suburb will have places worth getting to.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM

When you stop and contemplate the fact that the kid probably had a cellphone with his mom's cellphone on speeddial, it becomes doubly absurd.

Posted by Brautigan | April 14, 2008 11:47 AM

By the way, 9-year-old kids can also get around on their own in the suburbs, on a thing called a "bicycle" (I don't blame an urbanite like Matt for being unaware of this invention).

This is borderline insane. I grew up in the suburbs and you could never get anywhere on a bike except around the immediate subdivision. To get any further than that, you'd have to go on roads made for, you know, cars.

I wouldn't ride a bike on those roads as an adult, much less let my kid do it. It's just not how the roads were designed to be used - they were made for car traffic traveling at 45 mph or so.

Plus, the very nature of suburbs mean that things are often far apart. I guess if you really wanted to, you could spend a couple hours going one-way on roads that are incredibly dangerous for biking to visit a friend. But I imagine most people would think their 9-year-olds riding the subway is an attractive option by comparison.

Posted by strannix | April 14, 2008 11:47 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23452668/

Car accidents is the leading cause of death of teenagers in America. And yet there is no public outcry when teens drive alone. Now a child riding the subway alone? Huge public outcry. What are the odds of this kid dying by riding the subway alone? Can any provide those statistics?

Posted by freddiemac | April 14, 2008 11:50 AM

kid didn't have a cell phone - see the story. mom didn't want him to lose it.

makes her even more sensible in my book.

Posted by atomiccafe | April 14, 2008 11:51 AM

Has any of the parents scolding this woman ever ridden a subway or a bus at around 3 pm? They're crawling with kids. I'm not excellent at judging ages, but yes, some are probably as young as nine. New York doesn't have yellow buses to ferry schoolkids home; they all get Metrocards.

Posted by Antid Oto | April 14, 2008 11:53 AM

strannix is right about bicycling in the suburbs. Older suburbs are often more bike-able, but newer ones are designed for cars and cars alone. No one wants to ride a bike along a curvy street for a mile just to get to the main street (a quarter of a mile as the crow flies) on which cars are traveling at 45mph+. Adults or kids.

Posted by jacobus | April 14, 2008 11:54 AM

Also, I lived in a suburb where biking was a very dangerous proposition. There were no sidewalks, so bikes had to use the soft shoulder, which is dangerous in itself, but with a winding road and fast driving speeds even moreso. Not to far from where I lived a man was permanently disabled because he was hit by a car that was going too fast. Many suburbs have no sidewalks, and biking on the road or shoulder is insanely dangerous. I generally recommend against biking in most suburbs.

Posted by freddiemac | April 14, 2008 11:55 AM

This is borderline insane. I grew up in the suburbs and you could never get anywhere on a bike except around the immediate subdivision. To get any further than that, you'd have to go on roads made for, you know, cars.

As others have noted, it depends on the suburb. I grew up in Orange County, CA and there were broad sidewalks everywhere. I wouldn't venture much more than 1/2 mile from home when I was 9, but by the time I was 11 I could go just about wherever I wanted. And that was before the age of cellphones.

Now I live in Austin, TX and despite advertising itself as an outdoors friendly place- it's only friendly towards adults. There are very few sidewalks or safe ways for kids to get around on there own in many neighborhoods.

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 11:55 AM

Nine just seems a little young. Eleven or twelve seems a lot more reasonable.
. . .
A teenager driving a car is way more likely to get hurt than a nine-year old riding the subway.

Love to know where you pulled that data from.

I think nine is younger than my boys rode the train alone, but don't rule it out of the question for some nine-year-olds like my nephew, who was the family navigator from about age 7.

About the driving-subway difference, I know one thing. In the small town upstate where I spend a lot of time, there are frequent newspaper reports of accidents, some deadly, involving cars driven by teen-agers in the surrounding county.

On the other hand, I've lived in New York City for over 35 years and have no recollection of a news story about a child being abducted in the subway. (And it would have been big news.) The only dangerous activity I know for kids on the subways is teen-aged boys "surfing" subway cars (or whatever they call it) and getting injured or killed, but my guess is Ms. Skenazy knew her son well enough to know whether he'd be actively courting death. The subways, especially during rush hours and the daytime, are very safe.

Don't forget, lots of kids in New York have been riding the subway on a regular basis since they were four or five years old. That's how they've always gotten to school. It's not a scary place to them.

Posted by David in NY | April 14, 2008 11:56 AM

strannix, i think you're lumping all suburbs together. They aren't all created equally I grew up in a working class suburb that had a downtown area and friends' houses all within good biking distance. It depends on what kind of suburb you mean. They aren't all the same.

Posted by Ryno | April 14, 2008 11:58 AM

SomeCallMeTim:

Why the snark ? Was MY's point remotely contentious ? Are you aware of large percentages of folks (of any or all ages) being harmed on the NYC subway ? Conversely, aren't you generally aware of the gruesome accident rates among teen drivers ?

Posted by boonie | April 14, 2008 12:09 PM

Agreeing with Ryno here. I grew up in an older LA suburb built on a street grid. I rode my bike everywhere, because you could get anywhere without having to ride on the main commercial/commuter routes. In fact, my brothers and I all had paper routes which we delivered on our bikes, just like you see in old movies. That will give you an idea of how long ago this was, but I can't believe the area is any less bikeable today.

The modern cul-de-sac-and-collector road suburbs -- no.

Posted by roac | April 14, 2008 12:14 PM

members of Congress don't ride the subway.

Sure they do, I just found out they have their own special subway (and have had since 1909.)

Posted by Rich McAllister | April 14, 2008 12:17 PM

By the way, 9-year-old kids can also get around on their own in the suburbs, on a thing called a "bicycle" (I don't blame an urbanite like Matt for being unaware of this invention).

Not quite. In older suburbs, sure. But in many newer suburbs, built without adequate sidewalks, you'd be taking your life in your hand to ride a bike anywhere.

And even then, there's obviously a time and distance limit on how far and how fast a 9 year old can be expected to bike, which there isn't really on a subway. Many suburbs are so far-flung that the child's possible destinations (school, piano lessons, friend's house, whatever) could be ten, twenty miles away.

Posted by Stefan | April 14, 2008 12:20 PM

Matt and all the commenters are correct.

(And how often does that happen?)

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 14, 2008 12:30 PM

I get the feeling that people who've never been to NYC (or have only visited as tourists) just can't get their heads around the idea that there are young children living in the big, tall, scary city.

Still, the first time I saw a class of uniformed kids milling out of their school, it occurred to me that it wasn't the sort of thing I associated with Manhattan, so I can sympathise a little.

You'll generally see plenty of primary-age children going to and from school on the Tube in London. As for me, I walked a mile or so to primary school (from about 7-11 y.o.) then took the bus or biked a couple of miles.

I'll back up the bikes/burbs commenters: you have to take into account the fact that kids on bikes will likely be sharing the roads with people driving large vehicles, and may also be chatting on their cellphones and/or coralling kids in the back. Most importantly, they don't expect to see anyone on a bike, so lack the experience and training to leave enough room or check their side mirrors appropriately.

I'd be more afraid of a kid being treated like a speedbump by an idiot SUV driver than running into danger on the subway.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 14, 2008 12:35 PM

I read about this sometime last week; from the perspective of this native New Yorker, this is a total non-issue! I was taking the subway everyday to and from school starting when i was 9 years old! And this was back in 1985, when the city was really more dangerous than it is now. However, a large number of parents are quite paranoid when it comes to this issue, for reasons I do not understand. Well, that is their right; but how is this story worthy of any media attention whatsoever?

Posted by Surabaya Stew | April 14, 2008 12:35 PM

I grew up in the city of Chicago and started riding the el & buses by myself at the age of 13 to get to highschool. It was great having the freedom to get around without needing my parents.

Posted by kouman | April 14, 2008 12:42 PM

Nine just seems a little young. Eleven or twelve seems a lot more reasonable.

I've seen this sentiment a couple of times and it makes no sense to me. You folks realize that kids don't all grow and mature at exactly the same rate, right? There are nine year olds that are better equipped to do what this kid did that 12 and 13 year olds. I'm not really sure how anyone can comment on this kid being "too young" for this without actually having met the kid, or at least seen him on TV or something.

Certainly there are kids who are responsible enough to drive a car at 14 or 15, just as there are people too irresponsible to drive at 17 or 18 (or 28 or 38, etc. for that matter). Just because we occasionally set arbitrary age limits for things doesn't mean that people are one size fits all.

Not quite. In older suburbs, sure. But in many newer suburbs, built without adequate sidewalks, you'd be taking your life in your hand to ride a bike anywhere.

It's illegal in many places (everywhere I've ever lived, including the city of Chicago and the L.A. suburbs) to ride your bike on the sidewalk, so I'm not sure what larger sidewalks have to do with anything. Bike lanes would be (and are) nice, though.

Posted by Seitz | April 14, 2008 1:09 PM

I've seen this sentiment a couple of times and it makes no sense to me. You folks realize that kids don't all grow and mature at exactly the same rate, right? There are nine year olds that are better equipped to do what this kid did that 12 and 13 year olds.

Well, sure. But would you let a three-year old take the subway by himself? Certainly not. A six-year old? Doubtful. A nine-year old? As I said, it just seems a little young. Maybe he's a tough and precocious nine year old, but I don't know. It gives me pause.

Posted by right | April 14, 2008 1:21 PM

Grew up in Boston (city itself, not suburbs) in the 70s and 80s, walked to school with no grownups (but with other kids) from grade 1 to 6, rode public bus and train to public school downtown then on. Also, walked or took public bus by ourselves to library, skating rink, pool etc for after-school activities.

The only children we knew who ever came to any sort of accidental harm at all were hit by cars, sometimes in the presence of parents.

The current model of never letting children out of adult presence for a moment is insane, and it keeps intensifying. My 15 year old niece in the suburbs has less autonomy then we had as 8 year olds.

Posted by lordnelson | April 14, 2008 1:29 PM

When I was 9 I used to take the bus from Capitol Hill to Georgetown to go to school. This was in the 1970s. In fact my friends and I would wander unsupervised around Garfield Park, even stroll over to the Capitol to play in that Congressional subway mentioned above. I don't remember there being any security of note at the Capitol at all in those days, or maybe they just didn't see 9 year old boys as a threat. Funny how now the 1970s seems like a tranquil innocent time, when at that time we thought we were living in a depraved crime ridden Mad Max world compared to the innocence of the 1950s.

Posted by vanya | April 14, 2008 1:41 PM

1. Regarding riding on sidewalks. In Davis, CA (a suburb whose logo is a "penny-farthing" bicycle) riding on the sidewalk outside the business district is legal (but not on the UC Campus; there bicycles must be on the black asphalt roads and bike paths, not on the white concrete sidewalks). Kids riding downtown is a bit problematic with all the cars but the rest of the town is pretty safe.

2. When I was 8 living in Sacramento I started riding the bus downtown to visit my Dad's office. Only got lost once and a passer-by pointed me in the correct area. Then in the glorious year of 1967 we were run out of Sacramento and went into exile in San Francisco (Oh no, Brer Fox, don't throw me into that briar patch!). I was ten, in a City that was way more dangerous than it is now...and probably than Manhattan is now as well. Anyway, to make a short story long, on one of our first weekends there, my mother introduced me to the Muni (public transit) maps in the middle of the phone book, and in my first six months I had taken myself to the Zoo, Playland at the Beach, the fly-fishing club in Golden Gate Park, the old ships at the Hyde Street Pier, 49ers games at Kezar, and started a life of frustration as a fan of the San Francisco Giants.

My mother gave me the freedom of the City. I salute her, and the wise woman in New York, for that priceless gift.

Posted by Marcus Sitz | April 14, 2008 1:43 PM

My 15 year old niece in the suburbs has less autonomy then we had as 8 year olds.

I find this sort of weird. I hear people saying they've moved to the suburbs "for the kids," but as near as I can tell, the city is a lot better for the kids than the suburbs. And the subway is in large part responsible for this. As teen-agers, my kids could go all over the city (well, Brooklyn and Manhattan in practice), without being chauffeured and without risking their lives in a car being driven by a teen-ager. And, unlike the suburbs, there were actually places to go -- interesting cultural places like museums, interesting neighborhoods, interesting places to eat, interesting places to shop, interesting movies or even plays (finances permitting). Sure, we don't have 10,000 sq. ft. of lawn (thank god), but we have lots better stuff, and a teen-ager can get to his without risking his or her life.

Posted by David in NY | April 14, 2008 1:45 PM

I was on a bus in San Francisco the other day and about 6 or 7 eight or nine year old girls got on the bus. The amazing thing was that they cursed like sailors. I mean, they absolutely turned the air blue. Of course, that part of it isn't exactly relevant.

My point was that it was certainly considered pretty reasonable for all of these girl's parents to let them ride the bus in SF to wherever they were going. Aside from the cursing, nobody on the bus seemed to think there was anything unusual about their presence. They were 9 at the oldest. I believe they might have been a bit younger.

Posted by brent | April 14, 2008 1:53 PM

Just to clarify again, I understand that not all suburbs are bikeable, and not all bikeable suburbs have a lot of places to go within bike range of each residence. But some do.

Incidentally, my reason for bringing this up is that all too often, urbanites (and I am one) push the benefits of urban living a little too hard, making it sound like those benefits can only be achieved in a city. But lots of the benefits of urban living can be achieved in small towns and suburbs, provided they are planned accordingly. So, you don't actually need to live in the city to make it possible for your kids to get to places on their own, but you do have to live in a place (city, town, or suburb) that was planned in such a way to make that possible.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 1:56 PM

Maybe he's a tough and precocious nine year old, but I don't know. It gives me pause.

Well, great. But if 11-12 is the age that "seems" right, then chances are there are individuals on either side of that age who show the tendencies of a normal 11-12 year old. And since we're talking about one individual, and not a legion of nine year olds, then what the average nine year old "seems" like is completely irrelevant. And the 3 and 6 year old thing is a completely ridiculous strawman.

The average high school freshman is probably taking algebra. But there are also sixth and seventh graders who are smart enough to take algebra, and 11th and 12th graders who can't figure it out. If someone asked me if their kid was ready to take algebra, the kid's grade level might be a nice data point, but nowhere near dispositive.

When the conversation turns to a particular kid out of millions, I'll feel comfortable withholding judgment until I know a lot more about the kid than his/her age. Otherwise, it adds nothing to the conversation other than my own personal biases, which hopefully no one particularly cares about.

Posted by Seitz | April 14, 2008 1:59 PM

I hear people saying they've moved to the suburbs "for the kids," but as near as I can tell, the city is a lot better for the kids than the suburbs. And the subway is in large part responsible for this. As teen-agers, my kids could go all over the city without being chauffeured and without risking their lives in a car being driven by a teen-ager.

And there's the gospel truth.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 14, 2008 2:03 PM

Nine just seems a little young.

Much like voting for Republicans might "seem" a little stupid to me. We're talking about an issue, and you're droning on and on about how it makes you "feel."

Posted by Tyro | April 14, 2008 2:06 PM

Much like voting for Republicans might "seem" a little stupid to me. We're talking about an issue, and you're droning on and on about how it makes you "feel."

Oh?

They are having loads of fun with this over at The American Spectator right about now. This line of Matt's was too precious not to abuse...

Manhattan is a very safe place and he was taking a route he knew and understood. The city was a substantially more dangerous place back in 1990 when I was nine, so I think I was older by the time I was allowed to roam the streets.

Gee, Matt, ya think? And what might have happened in the intervening years to New York to bring that safety about? Anybody seen Rudy hereabouts?

Sometimes what Yglesias actually leaves out of his posts speaks volumes about how liberals think.

Posted by section9 | April 14, 2008 2:53 PM

Growing up in the residential oakland hills, we rode and/or walked everywhere from a young age (8-9 maybe?). Sidewalks are limited, but it didn't matter because, as others have noted, you didn't ride on sidewalks anyways. Yeah there were cars but as long as you were careful and the drivers were careful, all worked out fine. The worst part of it was having to bike up long steep hills. I'm sure it's the same today

Posted by tim | April 14, 2008 2:56 PM

I find Matt's posts also "speak volumes" about how all liberals are deeply concerned about robot uprisings, think the Celtics are underrated despite their record, and are named Matthew Yglesias.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 3:04 PM

My fellow moms were aghast when I allowed my 2nd grader to walk to school alone (2 blocks down a street that was in the interior of an upper-middle-class suburban residential neighborhood. She loved it -- made her feel like Henry Hudson or Sir Francis Drake. I remember in my own childhood being allowed to take the bus to the library and the swimming pool by myself at age 9. We infantilize our children to their detriment.

Posted by bemused | April 14, 2008 3:14 PM

As a veteran of both city and suburban life as a kid, I can say that the suburbs -- in the 50s -- were better. Today, I can't imagine anything duller. In the 50s, there were kids everywhere. If you were fortunate to live in a Catholic neighborhood, there might be hundreds within a couple of stone throws. Kids poured out of houses like a cartoon. Long summer dusks in a northern, largely Catholic suburb ... that, my friends, was heaven. Even if you don't believe in Heaven.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 14, 2008 3:17 PM

Kids are going to be safe because they typically don't have money to steal and there's typically no motive to hassle them. In the school district I grew up, they had the K-1 school (there was a 2-3 school & 4-5 school & junior high & high school) within short walking distance of a notorious open-air drug market. This was Amityville, New York. I don't know if that corner has been cleaned up since the 70's, but parents didn't worry about it since 6-7 year olds aren't drug consumers. At least not back then.

Posted by American Citizen | April 14, 2008 3:29 PM

To add to the chorus, I grew up in Brooklyn and took the city bus home alone (or with other kids) from school starting at age 9, and I was riding the subway home alone (1 hour each way) by the time I was 11. Never ran into any serious problems.

Posted by danathan | April 14, 2008 3:38 PM

As a nine y.o. in suburban southern calif and southern honshu (1969), i bicycled all over God's creation without a problem. I walked two miles to school in both situations.

I think the child snatching meme took hold while i was overseas yet again in the late 70's.

Posted by cmholm | April 14, 2008 3:41 PM

Nine is a good age to start being given some independence, which would include going along a familiar route by foot, bike, or public transit. Another common example is staying home for a short time--not hours, but long enough for a parent to go pick up a pizza or a gallon of milk. I do see kids who seem to have little independence even at 15. You gain independence by being given a little bit and, if it works, a little bit more. Following your kid would be sure to undermine all the confidence being "trusted" enough to do it on his own was meant to instill.

As for the statistics: I heard the author on the radio; a child is many, many times more likely to be killed in a car crash than to be abducted.

People who move to the suburbs for the kids usually have little kids, and you can interpret that as a) We want good schools, and b) We want to be able to say "Run outside and play." We lived in the city until my daughter was 4, and the half-dozen playgrounds within half an hour's walk was traded against the fact that the closest was about 10-15 minutes away, and she couldn't do any outside play without a parent along--no "run out back while I make dinner."
Now that she's 12, better transit (able to bike to her friends' north of the big road, or in the city with bus and subway) would be a plus, whereas the ability to play in the yard will be less and less important.

As for DTM's point: correct, but such towns are hard to find. It's so desirable a lot of people are priced out. When we looked to move out of the city, my first choice was 2 towns, Lexington and Concord, with outstanding schools and walkable downtowns with sidewalks and easy commuter rail access. We could have perfectly combined the benefits of urb and suburb--a house somewhat removed from the neighbors, with a yard, but sidewalks leading to schools, stores, parks, libraries, and even the train to the city. One look at single-family home prices, and those towns dropped off our list.

Posted by Deborah | April 14, 2008 4:07 PM

And the 3 and 6 year old thing is a completely ridiculous strawman.

I don't see why. Clearly we're drawing a line somewhere.

We're talking about an issue, and you're droning on and on about how it makes you "feel."

Seriously? I post two short comments and suddenly I'm "droning"? I also never used the word "feel" so I don't know why it's in quotes.

Posted by right | April 14, 2008 4:18 PM

Deborah,

I agree that overall there is a scarcity of such neighborhoods relative to demand right now, particularly in coastal cities such as Boston.

Interestingly, though, there is a decent supply of affordable homes in such neighborhoods in many post-industrial cities in "flyover" country, and plenty of room for "infill" of more such housing. Accordingly, I am very curious to see if more people will starting moving to such places in response to the relative runup of prices in coastal cities over the last few years (assuming that runup is not reversed).

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 4:45 PM

"And what might have happened in the intervening years to New York to bring that safety about?"

Answer: Rising equity! Due to rising population because of immigration and a shift in cultural values of the under 40 group. There is really no evidence to suggest that Rudy had anything to do with it. Which is why the same period of time saw a similar decline in crime in Chicago (run by a democrat, thank you). This is why conservatism is a bankrupt ideology. You want to thank Guliani for immigration and people liking the show "Friends"?

Posted by freddiemac | April 14, 2008 5:18 PM

I don't see why. Clearly we're drawing a line somewhere.

Umm, no. YOU are drawing a line somewhere. '11 or 12 is the right age'. '9 is too young'. I, on the other hand, am not judging based on one descriptive, yet nowhere near dispositive bit of information.

Posted by Seitz | April 14, 2008 5:25 PM

Re: Accordingly, I am very curious to see if more people will starting moving to such places in response to the relative runup of prices in coastal cities over the last few years (assuming that runup is not reversed).

This will only happen happen if the flyover cities start to have well-paying jobs again. One reason housing is cheap and plentiful there is that people have left in droves because they can't find work.

Posted by JonF | April 14, 2008 6:24 PM

> Incidentally, my reason for bringing this up is
> that all too often, urbanites (and I am one) push
> the benefits of urban living a little too hard,
> making it sound like those benefits can only be
> achieved in a city. But lots of the benefits of
> urban living can be achieved in small towns and
> suburbs, provided they are planned accordingly.

Much of what 2nd-generation exurbanites call "the city" today is actually the {railroad + some car features} suburbs of the 1920s. Some of the inner ring suburbs of the 1950s were built along these same lines, and they are bikeable. A few of the exurbs of the 1960s. I have never seen a post-1970 exurb that is realistically bikable by anyone under 18 - and it is those 4th generation exurbs that 2nd-generation exurbanites exhort others to move to "for the kids".

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 14, 2008 8:25 PM

"Nine just seems a little young. Eleven or twelve seems a lot more reasonable."

Maybe when YOU were nine it wasn't reasonable. Every generation gets a little more street wise than the last, or at least depending on where they're growing up.

This is why kids as young as ten or younger are having sex now. Nature re-asserting itself plus the influence of culture even accelerating nature.

Reminds me of the story about Jodie Foster being cast for the prostitute role in "Taxi Driver". Some state board in California wouldn't permit it unless she had a psychiatric examination to prove it wouldn't harm her. Her mother hit the roof, hired former Governor Pat Brown to represent her. Brown convinced her to go ahead and get the psych exam. The psych said Jodie was quite intelligent and wouldn't be harmed, so the board relented and she got cast.

Later, Jodie said she had grown up in the Valley and at age 13 she and her friends knew perfectly well what prostitutes were and what they did.

And that was thirty years ago. By now, nine year old girls probably know and don't care.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 10:46 PM

Just to weigh in on the age thing also, back in the days when I was a kid (somewhere around the early 1500's, it feels like now), I walked to school which was a good couple miles. Some of the roads nearer school had sidewalks; all of the roads in my neighborhood in Bristol, Connecticut, did not. Yes, it was dangerous. There were times when other kids fooling around on the street made cars hit their brakes. But even at seven or eight I had enough smarts to know getting in front of a car was not a smart thing to do. So I was always cautious. Some kids probably aren't so much.

Of course, the crime rate was next to nothing in this town of 50,000, as far as kidnapping kids goes, anyway.

Clearly there will always be a risk of a child being kidnapped or assaulted if the child is out of sight for even five minutes. Clearly that risk exists whether the child is eight or sixteen (for females, probably any age - how old were Ted Bundy's victims?). The issue is whether you run your life based on that risk or not. Train the kid right and there's much less risk he or she will allow anyone to get close enough to be a threat, preferably without turning the kid into a paranoid.

No, this sounds like the usual "I'm more moral than you" concern trolls. The proper response is Tony Montana's: "Do you wanna go on with me, you say it. You don't, then you make a move."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 11:08 PM

The proper response is Tony Montana's: "Do you wanna go on with me, you say it. You don't, then you make a move."

I believe the line as Al Pacino actually delivered it was "Do joo wanna go on wi' me, joo say i'. Joo don', den joo make a moof."

Posted by Stefan | April 15, 2008 1:16 AM

When I saw the name of this post, I thought it was going to be about the Quad City DJs.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 15, 2008 1:30 AM

Stefan, that's correct, but I used the Google translation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 3:47 AM

I was riding the subway by the time I was 10. As long as it's not late at night and he knows where he's going, why not?

Posted by TH | April 15, 2008 11:41 AM

I hear people saying they've moved to the suburbs "for the kids," but as near as I can tell, the city is a lot better for the kids than the suburbs.

Outside of schools, urban life isn't just better for kids, but also much safer. The biggest killer of kids by far is automobile accidents, which are much more likely to occur in suburban (or rural) areas than urban cores, particularly given the amount of time suburbanites have to spend driving.

Moving to the suburbs "for the kids" mostly makes sense in terms of "for schools in affordable neighborhoods that aren't festering abominations", but that's an issue for another thread.

Clearly there will always be a risk of a child being kidnapped or assaulted if the child is out of sight for even five minutes.

Well, no. There's a "risk" of (stranger) kidnapping of children much like there's a risk of being hit by lightning. It exists, but it's so small that you should most likely take minimal precautions (don't stand under trees in rain, don't get into cars with strangers) and then ignore it. There are dozens of more likely and more dangerous risks that you are already ignoring, because they don't hit the same emotional triggers.

Posted by Dave | April 15, 2008 3:26 PM

After an unrelated confrontation with a neighbor, I was reported to ACS for allowing my 5 year old child to take the stairs up to my floor in my building while I took the baby in the stroller up in the elevator. This report was found "indicated" and I am now considered a child abuser.

I asked when I would legally be allowed to allow a child to take the stairs while I take the elevator, and was told "by law you are required to supervise your child until the age of 18."

Posted by Too embarrassing | April 16, 2008 8:11 AM