this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
221 points (92.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9671 readers
16 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely@lemmy.world
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
toaster@slrpnk.net
221
What terminal car-brain does to a society (reason.com)
submitted 1 week ago by grue@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21954268

Mom Jailed for Letting 10-Year-Old Walk Alone to Town

"I was not panicking as I know the roads and know he is mature enough to walk there without incident," says Brittany Patterson.

top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 81 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

MoViNg tO tHe sUbUrB/cOuNtRySiDe fOr tHe kIdS

A woman who saw him walking alongside the road—speed limit: 25 in some places, 35 in others—asked him if he was OK. He said yes.

Nevertheless, she called the police.

Traitor.

The plan (from child protective services) would also require Patterson to download an app onto her son's phone allowing for his location to be monitored.

If I were the child, I'd forget my phone at home very often. A town like that probably has a no-phone school anyways.

People don't care about children apparently. Spatial appropriation is an important aspect of childrens' development. Children cannot lobby for themselves in the same way most adult social groups can do.

[–] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The town has 375 people.

That's not a suburb...

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You aren't allowed to have a phone in school and my son is 10. The teachers will take it away.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can have it you just can't take it out and use it

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it depends on the school

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

No I mean even if you're not supposed to bring a phone, how is the school going to know if it stays in a closed backpack, turned off.

The spirit of the rule is that kids shouldn't use the phone at school or let it distract others, but that is nebulous to interpret and enforce whereas "don't bring it" is easier to enforce.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My kid used to bring his Pokemon cards to school until someone stole a kids collection and then they were returned but they put out a notice saying no Pokemon cards.

Now can they check every backpack? No. Do kids talk? Very much yes. So if some kid brought it to school everyone would know.

I heard his teacher say "phones are not allowed at school and it's very serious." I am guessing it's theft related and they cannot be held liable if some kid loses their phone worth hundreds of dollars if it's stolen.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, exactly. They don't want you to bring a phone for those reasons, but if the parent/kid understand the reason behind the rule, as well as the risks and responsibilities entailed in going against it, it's not going to hurt anyone to bring one and not use it or talk about it. But the school could never say this is allowed because they don't want to undermine the rule for all those reasons.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think they can make rules like that. Where else would a child learn that they have to adhere to authority? Do I want my kid losing his phone because some other kid has a problem understanding that it's not theirs? No I don't. I hear what you are saying but I do agree with the rules.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sounds reasonable. You'd have to weigh the pros of having a phone at school (not many) against the cons (many)

But at some age it's good to learn that authority isn't absolute

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

if its off you can't track it.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why are you trying to track it?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that's what the app does

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

You lost me. I'm talking about how schools can't/shouldn't tell you you can't bring a phone to school when what they really care about is that you aren't seen with one and don't use it. (And if someone steals it that's obviously on you).

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seems less to do with cars and more to do with citizen/government stupidity:

"It's not quite a mile from his house."

Looks like Georgia DOES have a "Reasonable Childhood Independence" law...

https://letgrow.org/states/

[–] grue@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The sheriff disagreed.

"She kept mentioning how he could have been run over, or kidnapped or 'anything' could have happened," recalls Patterson.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

'anything' could have happened if he'd stayed home too. 'Anything' is a low bar. ;)

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 11 points 1 week ago

Anything can happen at the church at a higher ate than on the road lol

but this clowns never worry about that one...

[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In a town of 370 people? How many cars were on the road? 3?

[–] VerPoilu@sopuli.xyz 20 points 1 week ago

Probably around 370 in total, but at any given moment, 3.

[–] Subdivide6857@midwest.social 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I live in a rural community. What scares me the most is the dumbass hicks flying around in their giant vehicles, both old and young. They’re always driving like their houses are on fire.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

When I go running on country roads in spandex and sandals, the hicks in the trucks go by real friggin' slowly. Like, aggressively slowly.

[–] ALiteralCabbage 4 points 1 week ago

Maybe they just want to objectify you for a bit, if you're in Spandex?

I assume that's the case when I cycle in rural areas in Spandex.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago

Here's where the problem is. The sheriff is viewing the potential for the kid to get hit by a person driving a car as the kid's fault, when of course the fault should lie completely with her person operating heavy machinery.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

She needs a fucking hobby besides acting like some pedo. 100 percent if this was a man watching a kid it would be taken much differently.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Obligatory reminder: you have the right to silence in the US. Under no circumstances do you have to say anything to them, except for specific things like, "I want a lawyer," and, "Am I under arrest?"

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You also have to say you are involving the 5th amendment if you are going to remain silent. There are cases where the supreme court ruled that the 5th amendment only applies if you verbally invoke it by name.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago

Supremely idiotic that that's the case, but it never hurts to be thorough, I guess.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

It helps prevent cops from having you sectioned for laughs.

[–] akilou@sh.itjust.works 51 points 1 week ago

not quite a mile from his house

It wasn't even far. They live on 16 acres, he could be just as far into the woods and still be on their property.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

very funny to see this coming from Reason, a libertarian rag that hates public transit

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I've seen Reason speak highly of Japan's privatized public transport

[–] regul@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which public transport? Tokyo Metro is publicly-owned. Some of the JR branches are still publicly-owned. JR was only privatized in the late 80s as an anti-labor move and to deflect from the unpopularity of closing unprofitable rural lines. But of course the government built most of the network, including the first shinkansen lines.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] regul@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It sounds like they're praising it in Japan and saying "of course it could never work here, Americans are just genetically predisposed to cars".

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Right. I will say there is a lot of the US where cars make sense because they use the same roads that farm equipment uses (which does not make much sense to build rail for), but in the cities (and thus the suburbs) it seemed largely cultural from any historical analysis I've seen (with segregation, excessive monopolization of passenger rail, and the advent of modern advertising).

[–] NicolaHaskell@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Angry, vindictive Internet dwellers love to identify with the left while arguing on behalf of libertarians. So long as Somebody On The Other Side is getting punished the specifics of self responsibility and internal consistency don't matter too much.

[–] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Angry and vindictive? You're the one hate-reading a community you clearly don't like

[–] NicolaHaskell@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

It's not hate reading, it's loving honesty. The article frames the story as an anti-government civil liberty issue, and the community is letting blind rage at the mention of a car create a blind spot over self-defeating libertarianism.

[–] kyle@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wild that they said he was found "downtown" in a town of 370.

Busy downtown huh?

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 7 points 1 week ago

  1. The State requires Adults to be responsible for Children until they are at the end of the age of Legal custody, these ages vary, but it's usually 18 years old

  2. It it very difficult for The State to determine which activities done without Adult supervision are safe for children, I mean, just look at the Catholic Church

  3. The State is a hammer, everything it sees is a nail