[caconym_]

If your point is that biking locally is safe anywhere (excepting absurd scenarios) for children as long as they can be trusted to accurately internalize and unerringly obey a complex set of directives concerning which roads they are allowed to ride on, where and how to cross those they are not, and warnings of hazards they aren't experientially equipped to intuitively understand, then sure, I agree with you.

However, in practice, I think you will find that there are very good reasons you see a lot of younger kids out walking by themselves in neighborhoods like mine, but very few on bikes (unattended). If it just came down to "helicopter parenting", you would not see the former either.

[b112]

From where I sit, you're making my point. An exaggerated emphasis on the complexity of a few "don't do that" rules, and the concern that blind obedience won't be forthcoming, is the malformed cause of helicopter parenting.

Additionally, "kids are actually allowed outside" isn't really proof that taking away bikes isn't helicopter parenting.

Look, I can't imagine we're going to agree here:

* I believe a child is given great disservice, if they don't have the option of doing risky things and

* I believe a child a abused, their development twisted, if they don't break the rules occasionally, and do a risky thing... while considering how to do it in a least risky way!

Put another way, if you seek to cut off all possibility that a child can get in over their head, or do a risky thing, one is helicopter parenting.

[caconym_]

> An exaggerated emphasis

What exactly do you think it is that I'm exaggerating? I've been polite here, but frankly—given your earlier assertion that "most places [you've] seen [...] have bike paths, and houses are typically in a separate area from main thoroughfares", I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about re: any neighborhood even vaguely resembling mine. Furthermore, your implicit assertion here that making any dangerous activity off limits for children of a certain age is helicopter parenting—abuse, in your words—is totally ridiculous.

Am I a helicopter parent because I refuse to allow my nine month old to crawl around in the street out front eating dog shit to learn how bad it tastes? Because I won't let my four year old help out in the kitchen by chopping zucchini with the extremely sharp chef's knife I barely trust myself with? Get a grip, man.

[b112]

This sort of hyperbole is what is wrong with US political discourse.

When I say:

"But the reality is, it is safe... just with conditionals, which I mentioned, and with instructions to child, and of course taking into account the specific child too"

and you ignore this context, you're missing vital context, and your reply loses value.

And when I say:

"Put another way, if you seek to cut off all possibility that a child can get in over their head, or do a risky thing, one is helicopter parenting."

and transition "a risky thing" to mean "every possible risky thing conceivable", you are again ignoring context, for that is already mitigated by my statements about the individual child.

Part of the growth of a child, is to allow risk, so that as an adult, that human will be able to gauge risk. Helicopter parenting over-reduces risk, and results in weaker adults as a result.

Let's look at the bike example, with rules. And as I discussed, a child being told that it's OK to bike in their neighborhood, but "don't go on that busy street, although you may cross at a light!"

Now you have to trust that child, while I should not have to say it, for I already did, and therefore you should keep the context in mind, "and of course taking into account the specific child too".

For example, I have seen 8 year olds with more sense than 12 year olds.

But back to the example. Now what happens if child decides to ride that busy road? Well, on very rare occasions, a child might break the rules. But naturally, that same child would not want to get caught and punished.

So what would a child do? Well, it rarely, if ever would break that rule. And that child would be damned careful, because they didn't want to get caught doing something wrong!

One of the reasons for punishment, is not to instill blind obedience to rules, but instead to instill risk management as a concept to children.

But I'm sure you'll take this response to indicate I believe toddlers should by flying fighter jets, instead of 10 year olds biking to a friend's house, with rules. So why even discuss any more?

[caconym_]

I recently had a few discussions with a person who strongly believes that large language models are already generally intelligent, and that a so-called ASI (Artificial SuperIntelligence, IIUC) is overwhelmingly likely to emerge within the next few years. These beliefs are founded in (imo) breathless, grandiose, generally unfounded readings of essentially every AI paper posted on the arXiv, but when others point out that said conclusions are not [yet] supported in practice (i.e. LLMs cannot yet replace the average software engineer), this person retorts that LLMs' performance on synthetic benchmarks is the only thing that matters, and that (e.g.) a practicing software engineer with decades of experience is utterly incapable of evaluating the merits of a particular LLM as a programming tool.

Long story short, I maneuvered this person into a rhetorical corner where they had no choice but to abdicate or say to my (virtual) face that a master carpenter is literally incapable of evaluating the practical merits, or lack thereof, of a particular hammer that they have held in their hands and used. That is when I decided to stop having substantive conversations with this person, because there is no arguing with such an absurd depth of self-serving epistemic nihilism. I was satisfied with simply proving that it was there, to myself and others in the conversation.

---

> "But the reality is, it is safe... just with conditionals, which I mentioned, and with instructions to child, and of course taking into account the specific child too"

You are offering broad, utterly worthless generalities with a side of BS hand-wringing about politics (which this is not). I am offering concrete scenarios and questions, because each child is real and they live in real physical environments and any injury or death they sustain in the course of a dangerous activity is real.

So I ask you again: is it appropriate for me to let my nine month old crawl around in the street? Why or why not? Is it appropriate for me to let my four year old use the sharpest chef's knife in the drawer? Why or why not? I would like you to commit to answers here, to establish a baseline, so that I know you are not so steeped in self-serving epistemic nihilism that you would tell me to my face that a carpenter cannot say if a hammer is a good hammer or a bad hammer just to salve your own wounded ego.

Once you've provided those answers, let's try a less obvious (I hope!) scenario. First, at (approximately) what age would you say that a child living in a sleepy subdivision with wide streets, long sightlines, and minimal traffic should be allowed to tool around on a bike in the street and visit her neighborhood friends living within a handful of blocks? Now, having answered that, how would you answer it for an identical child living in a high-rise condo in downtown LA?

Are they the same age? Is your answer simply "as soon as they are able to ride a bike", taking judgment entirely out of the equation? Or will you admit that all things are not equal?

And finally, assuming you do admit that parental judgment has a role in keeping children safe, what exactly is it that makes you believe you are more fit to judge the cycling safety landscape of my neighborhood, in my city where I have been cycling for almost two decades, than me? Without even knowing what neighborhood in what city we're talking about, no less!

I look forward to reading your answers to these questions. If you cannot answer them I will have to assume you are participating in bad faith, and this will be my last reply in this thread.