Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (462)	6/14/2008 11:15:42 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3816

Sad that a kid can't wander around and take the bus or subway alone. My limit was about 5 miles to.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (462)	6/15/2008 12:37:31 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 3816

The perception is that the world is more dangerous than it was a couple of generations back, but statistically, by many measures kids are in less danger now. OTOH they may be in less danger BECAUSE of all the steps taken by worried parents to protect and even restrict them that where not taken in the past, so "less danger" doesn't necessarily mean "equal or less danger if we let them do the same thing".

To: goldworldnet who wrote (462)	6/15/2008 12:48:28 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3816

used to ride my bicycle all over when I was a kid. 4 or 5 miles was about my limit, but I didn't let my kids do that. The world is just too dangerous now. If I were to guess, I would guess that you would let your kids ride past an equivalent number of people as you used to ride by. The difference would be that you were in a low density area as a kid, but your kids ride through higher density and so you drop the distance to match the population. Am I wrong? TP