We don't actually have any information about whether that was folly or not. Let's say 2 children avoid a trip to the hospital over the next 5 years, but four thieves escape. That would be a perfectly acceptable compromise to me.

Meanwhile maybe two children die in drowning incidents because fire engines and ambulances aren't able to effectively navigate your makeshift 'traffic abatement' program. How's your compromise now?

Suppose the two children were the thieves and the traffic abatement program let them get away from the police.

Suppose a spherical child in a vacuum

Poor kid...

Moreover, the city planners get to pick one of three doors only one of which has a traffic abatement program. After choosing a door, one of the other doors is revealed to have a goat behind it. Should they switch doors?

http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4132

I disagree. At this point the neighbors have effectively privatized a public facility. They should have to pay 100%.

(I'm a U.S. suburban Dad with 2 young kids who do stupid things on their bikes.)

Suppose the ambulance has the same problem the police had.

Suppose that the thieves escaped, and then later that night they killed your Uncle Ben. At that point you realize that with great power comes great responsibility. You go home, design a suit with a spider emblem on it, and then use your newly created powers, brought on by a radioactive spider bite for societal good, not personal gain.

(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street.

Meanwhile, access for emergency vehicles can be pretty important for the rest of us.

Are cul-de-sacs not a thing in the states?

They are, but they aren't universal. Most people live on a through street.

Yes, all children should be taught not to play in the street. But we should not have a death penalty for children whose parents don't do that correctly...

You're conflating two notions. One of a "penalty" which is something that is inflicted, and one of "consequences" which just happen.

Children who aren't taught money management and nutrition will end up having shorter and worse lives on the average. Is that a consequence or a penalty?

Clearly the children aren't being intentionally murdered in order to punish their parents. That's so far from reality that there's no sense pointing out that I'm wrong.

I would have written "death consequence", but that doesn't roll as trippingly off of the tongue. Try not to read the subtext instead of focusing on a legal interpretation.

The whole point of my comment was that it's the children who suffer when a parent fails to teach them basic safety, therefore saying "Well when I was a kid, they just taught us not to do this" is kind of disingenuous. That kind of statement seems to be pushing personal responsibility as a superior solution, even though very young children are not responsible for this kind of mistake.

Just by saying "trippingly off the tongue" you are admitting the use of a cheap rhetorical device.

The fact that you phrased things a certain way means that you want things to be perceived in a certain way.

And yes, children do suffer when parents fail. In all aspects of life. We can't legislate that away. It'd be like trying to legislate away stupidity and negligence.

Then, there are those of us who don't want to live (or drive) in a world that's been childproofed to the extent you probably have in mind.

I was responding to a guy who said "(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street". I was talking about his attitude of placing responsibility on children, which you would know if you had actually read my comment. Seriously, read it again and show me where I said anything about childproofing the world.

Your emotional kneejerk comment that has nothing to do with what I wrote would surely be very popular on reddit, but this isn't that place, so I'll thank you to kindly stop speculating about what is in my mind and focus on what I actually typed.

There you go again. "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". (Focusing on what you actually typed which are attacks devoid of facts.)

We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents. If your parents are not good at being parents, then you'll have a higher probability of bad events happening to you. Nothing we can do will change that, unless we want to put everybody in a state orphanage so that each child can have equal opportunities.

> We're not placing responsibility on the children, we're placing responsibility on the parents

Here's the quote that I replied to, the ONLY quote that I replied to, the ONLY thing that I was discussing:

"(Shrug) When I was a child, I was taught not to play in the street"

And that quote kinda sounds like placing responsibility on the children. "Here's the solution: Simply have parents who teach you responsiblity. That's what worked for me."

Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks re: "Emotional kneejerk comment". "Popular on reddit". Both of which smack of smugness.

You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks.

> Sure, don't reply to the comments about your personal attacks

Thanks. I prefer to avoid meta-discussions based on emotional content that has nothing to do with the topic of conversation.

> You're putting words in the other person's mouth, which is what you're accusing us of. "kinda sounds". Then you put in quotes a sentence you made up hoping to add legitmacy to your remarks.

I accused someone of putting words in my mouth when they said "childproofed to the extent you probably have in mind". I do not want to childproof the world, and he has no idea what I have in mind.

But what I was doing by rewording the quote I've been attempting to discuss, is a standard tool for achieving understanding. You reword someone else's argument, and then they can either point out how you were inaccurate, or agree with your characterization, either one of which allows the conversation to proceed.

If you don't care to do either of those things, then I guess you're done discussing the actual topic that this whole thread is about. In which case I think I'm done here.

How's this? The world is full of dangerous things, and no amount of legislation or regulations can make it safe.

If you were not taught correctly OR did not absorb information, nothing will prevent you from dying a messy, easily preventible death.

That's the main point which you're dancing around.

Except in this case it's the parents arguing for these traffic abatements, how about instead of faffing around with taxpayer money they be better parents.

Perhaps the parents are arguing for traffic abatements in order to protect children other than their own? I would be brokenhearted if the child down the street was killed by a fast car right in front of his porch, even if it was his own parents' fault for not teaching him properly.

Or perhaps these parents understand that even the best parent can make mistakes. Kids are crazy. My 3.5 year old was out of sight for about a minute while her mom went to the bathroom, and she managed to move a potty chair over to the front door, undo the deadbolt (which she had never even attempted to do before), opened the front door, and went walking down the street. Shit happens. Kids are dumb. It's nice to have more than one layer of protection.