quote:Originally posted by pH: It takes me at least twenty minutes to DRIVE to the mall or the movies. At least half an hour for Best Buy. At least half an hour for the hardware store.
Oy. You have my sympathies. I used to have a car like that.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It doesn't occur to any of you people that there might exist apartments a wee bit closer to any of these places? Even in America, there's no actual law saying you have to live an hour's drive from the nearest grocery store. (...)
So? What exactly is your point? That people shouldn't complain? Or are you going to use aspectre's stick to try and beat people to?
The fact that places to live might exist closer to the store is by no means a requirement that you live closer. And there are certainly other factors (likely more important) in choosing somewhere to live.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, if I were to get an apartment closer to, say, the mall, I would have to drive half an hour every day to school. I am currently located about a mile away from school and generally walk there unless I'm pressed for time or it's a night class.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And really, if your mother is so ill she cannot be left alone, then it's not a one-woman job to tend her anyway.
She isn't ill - she has memory loss. And you don't have any idea of our circumstances, so you have no right to judge.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dare you to find me an apartment in upstate SC that will rent to an adult and five children.
But that aside, as someone else said, there are other more important factors in choosing a home, like availability and affordability.
You guys really have no clue how much like a couple of spoiled college students you sound, do you? And then you have the arrogance to condescend to us about our choices... and wonder why people don't follow your lead or even listen to you.
And again, the point is not even about being environmentally friendly... it's people who are environmentally conscious that you are raking over the coals. How persuasive.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I work with a woman, a widow who lives alone, who drives a humongous SUV, that apparently gets horrible gas mileage. I say apparently because she is forever griping about how much it costs to fill her tank (last report -- $70) and how often she needs to fill it (2 x week). Almost all of her driving is to and from work. Here's the thing. It is a newish SUV. She got it to replace her old humongous SUV that was a perpetual source of complaints about how expensive gas is. The new SUV costs her more in gas than the old one. She got the new one because "it was time for a new car". This makes no sense to me.
I drive a '93 Corolla, and when the tank is bone-dry, it costs me $25 to fill it up. I fill up about 3 x month. Almost all of my driving is work-related, too, and, in fact, I'd lay a bet that I drive far more miles in a week than she does. Our choices of what to drive affect our political outlook. I think it would be a very good idea to levy a 50-cent/gallon federal gas tax with the proceeds earmarked towards developing alternative fuels and transportation. She thinks we should go to war with Venezuela if it would bring us cheaper prices at the pump.
When I have to get a new car, I will choose the most economical and reliable used car that I can afford. I care little for how impressive it looks. I would definitely pick "basic transportation" that got 45 miles/gallon over some souped-up hybrid that only gets 20 mpg. My coworker is talking about how it will be "time for a new car" next year. She is considering a bigger SUV because she likes the "commanding road view", and the "feeling of safety" she gets from having the biggest car on the road. She regrets that she can't afford "the BIG Hummer", because she really admires them. She wants to get the next best thing.
She'd probably be pleased as punch to get herself one of these.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
V1 is a 1998 Plymouth Voyager minivan that we've practically given to my brother & sister in law. It gets around 20 miles to the gallon.
V2 is a 2000 Ford Windstar that my wife uses for her main mode of transportation. It gets around 22 mpg.
V3 is a 2002 Toyota Echo that I drive back and forth to work. Because I have a long commute (60 miles, one way) it was imperative that the car we purchased be fuel-smart. The Echo gets between 36 to 40 miles per gallon, and so fits the bill.
SUVs make me laugh. The 'utility' seems largely a joke. They're expensive to buy, expensive to fuel... buying a car AT ALL is something of a minor tragedy, IMO. Why do you want to compound it by purchasing a vehicle that will cost more and deliver less?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Echo gets between 36 to 40 miles per gallon, and so fits the bill.
See... this is what puzzles me. I have rented priuses (pri-i?) for long solo drives and typically got 43-44 mpg. Percentage-wise, the Prius is a fairly minor improvement over the Echo and similar vehicles (about 10%), whereas the Highlander Hybrid represents a similar numerical improvement and therefore a much greater percentage improvement (about 27%) in mileage over even the next most economical Highlander, and an enormous improvement (about 50%) over the V6 model it compares to. If everyone who drove Corollas and Camrys converted to hybrids it would result in significant fuel savings. If everyone who drove seven passenger vehicles converted to hybrids it would drastically affect fuel consumption in this country.
But people hail the Prius as the second coming and the Highlander as not truly green.
Color me, or rather, them, confused.
Edit: I found, in researching the Toyota website, that the new Camry hybrid does have a significant city mileage boost over the comparable model (nearly doubling it, in fact), but a relatively small highway mileage boost. So, comparing apples to apples, I am wrong on that particular count. Still a 50% increase in mileage and a significant decrease in emissions pollution should be hailed as a breakthrough and not a problem.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally dislike SUVs and I do suspect that a lot of people (unlike JimMe and his family) driving them don't really need that much room.
I think the hybrid SUVs are a good thing, though, and that it's silly that some people deride them for being not good enough. At the very least it's a huge step in the right direction. There are some people who really do need a lot of room in their car, and there are those who probably don't but will insist on driving one anyway. I'd much rather have them in a hybrid SUV than a regular one.
Something that often gets overlooked is that since miles/gallon is a rate of consumption, improving the lower-MPG cars has a much larger effect on the total amount of gas used than improving the cars that already have good fuel efficiency. (Not that we shouldn't be trying to do both if possible, of course.)
posted
Jim, it's snobbery within snobbery; There are lots of people who look down on the Civic Hybrid, because the electric motor isn't the "main" motor, like the Prius.
I agree, if you are going to buy an SUV (and one reason I know a coworker did was because she felt like she needed a big SUV to feel safe driving around all the other SUVs...), it is commendable if one would buy the Highlander Hybrid (or Escape Hybrid, or even the RX400h, for those with money).
posted
pH- Good for you for not being put on the defensive and feel like you have to justify the vehicle you drive and the miles you go. I wonder if people like KoM have ever lived in the real world-the one with zoning laws and rural areas.
Rather than make me feel like I should be more environmentally conscious, the constant tirades of, "What you're doing is not good enough" really make me not care as much.
So rather than getting a hybrid to 'do my part,' honestly I'll just wait until it's economically beneficial for me to do so.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until it becomes economicly beneficial for you to purchase a hybrid, BaoQingTan, you are doing your part by sticking with your current choices. Along with due consideration of the car problems that I mentioned earlier to Kwea, the long-term expenditure of money is as close as a consumer can get to a true measure of the total energy and pollution costs that is needed to evaluate whether a change in cars is beneficial to the environment / reduces total energy demand.
quote:See... this is what puzzles me. I have rented priuses (pri-i?) for long solo drives and typically got 43-44 mpg.
My 1st generation prius gets about 47mpg most of the time, but during the summer it can get as high as 56 mpg. When it gets near zero in the winter it gets as low as 33 if I only make short trips that don't give it a chance to warm up.
The 2nd generation prius is supposed to get better mileage than mine. In any case the prius is larger and more stable than the echo.
BTW, I also own a full sized pickup truck, because there are some things you just can't move in a prius. But on average I use the truck less than 300 miles a year (which is really annoying when I pay to insure it).
I see all these Subdivisions and Exhibitions driving around, usually with just the driver by themselves, and I can't believe that they actually need that much vehicle. At least, not for more than a few hundred miles a year.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Onlookers have been known to gawk at its style and gasp at its size. At 21-feet long with tires hip-high and a 9-foot tall cab, it's the largest production pickup truck currently on the market. It's an International® CXT - born out of the proven International® 7000 severe service commercial work trucks used by professionals for the most rugged applications.
Equipped with the legendary International® DT 466 diesel engine, the CXT provides up to six tons of hauling power* while its air-ride cab and individual bucket seats offer an exceptionally smooth ride. A spacious and well-appointed interior, including luxury options such as leather, DVD and satellite radio, ensures automotive-like comfort and convenience.
You could say it's an extreme production pickup truck. Whatever you call it, the CXT leaves bystanders speechless. For drivers who want to make a statement, this is how to broadcast it. Size, power and flash brought together to create the ultimate truck for extreme work or play.
The result of more than a century of leadership in the truck market, the CXT is simply a vehicle unrivaled in capability, size and appearance and delivers performance in a big way.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Well, KoM, I *could* put my older three kids on a school bus, but that would require getting five kids and myself up, dressed, fed and ready to go by 7am (when the bus stops nearest our house). While this in itself is not insurmountable, just a ROYAL pain, there is the small issue of having to actually be home when they get off that same bus at 3:30 (...)
Why? If you have three children in school, then presumably the eldest is ten or so. That's certainly old enough to manage on their own for a few hours. You could even compromise : Drive them to school, let them take the bus back.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're all wasting plenty of electricity by reading and posting on the Internet, a particularly non-essential activity in almost all cases.
I just had my tires rotated, so I'm a damn good person now, because my fuel efficiency just went way up. I'm going to sniff my farts for a while now ;P
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: We're all wasting plenty of electricity by reading and posting on the Internet, a particularly non-essential activity in almost all cases.
I'm so ashamed of myself. Goodbye, Hatrack! I'm going to go and compost something, now.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do those folks driving low-powered sub-compacts happen to have 5 kids they need to cart around?
I think that's what station wagons are for. You can buy 'em used, though a couple of companies might still manufactore them. Also, how old are the kids? When I was five, our family car (for two parents, one child and maybe one or two of her friends) was a Toyota Tercel. When I got too big for that backseat, the car was replaced with a Geo Prizm. A few years later, when I reached adult-size, it was replaced with an Oldesmobile Alero. Now that I've moved out of the house, I wouldn't be suprised if the next car was a two-seater. (by the way, this is a two-car family. The smaller car would remain in use for one parent's commute, but the larger one would be used for commutes plus any trips with the entire family. All cars would be well-maintained and driven for apx 10 years)
quote:While this in itself is not insurmountable, just a ROYAL pain, there is the small issue of having to actually be home when they get off that same bus at 3:30, which would require me to leave work about 3:15, which would leave me fired,
Have you considered letting the kids use the bus in the morning and then you pick them up after school? I'll admit that sometimes it's difficult to get by without a car in America, but it's not all-or-nothing. Or maybe you could have them take the bus in the afternoon too and hire a babysitter for those couple of hours, or have the bus drop them off at a friend's house where you know a parent will be there? You have options.
quote:My point is that even in an obsessively bikey town like Davis, where you can't kick a rock without it knocking over a row of parked bicycles, where every building has more bike parking than car parking (more by far), the drivers are ridiculous.
I live in Palo Alto. It's the same here. Bike heaven compared to my old home in Ohio, but I'm often using the bike lane to whiz past traffic jams. Whee!
quote:People, like my roomie, drive the half mile to the giant student parking lot and then walk the quarter mile to class. The affair takes 20 minutes, but on my bike I can make the whole trip in six, and park at the door, and its FREE! Still people drive everywhere, and I will NEVER understand what is so aweful about getting a little excercise, maybe even alot of exercise. I even do my grocery shopping on my bike sometimes; it limits the hauls I can make, but I can go any time I want, I never have to hastle with parking.
Right on! I'm slow for a bicyclist so my trips often take longer than by car, but the endorphins and lack of parking hassle make it totally worth it.
I used to go to a small college in Florida and it took me about five minutes to bike across campus, less if I was in a hurry. It couldn't have been more than half a mile. Most students biked or walked it. But I had one friend who used her car to go that distance. When I saw her get into her car outside of class for the express purpose of going back to her dorm, I was shocked.
quote:Fortunately, we moved into town a little over a year ago, and I've got everything I need within three to five miles, so I don't actually use that much gasoline and I can make the amount of gasoline $20 will buy stretch for two weeks.
Have you considered getting a used bicycle and putting a basket on it? Three miles by bike doesn't take much longer than three miles by car, and if you're cooped up in your mother's house most of the time, your muscles would probably appreciate the stretching out.
Not that I'm discounting your situation. I'm just sensing a bit of cabin fever there.
quote:There are also plenty of people who live in rural areas or suburbs who have to drive to get to most places.
I used to be one of those people. It really sucked. I made an effort to bicycle where I could, but a lot of the roads were suicidal (since the fast drivers weren't used to seeing bikes) and a lot of the important places I had to go were just too far away. Our public transporation was limited to a 2-mile area of downtown (whereas I lived in the suburbs), and it was called the Southern Ohio Regional Transport Authority -- i.e., SORTA! The car was my only option. I couldn't opt out if I wanted to.
quote:She is considering a bigger SUV because she likes the "commanding road view",
Sitting in an SUV is like sitting on the top of a skyscraper. Technically you can see for miles, but looking down and seeing what's two feet from the skyscraper's base is rather difficult. I say this because, while riding my bicycle, I was once hit by an SUV. And it was obvious that if the driver had been sitting in a smaller car with a lower field of vision, she would have seen me. But she didn't, so my front wheel was bent and I limped a little for two days.
My daddy says that a good cure for a traffic would be that when a jam occurs, all SUV's have to go off-road. That's what they were made for anyway, right?
quote:You guys really have no clue how much like a couple of spoiled college students you sound, do you? And then you have the arrogance to condescend to us about our choices... and wonder why people don't follow your lead or even listen to you.
I understand that the way things are set up, everything is spaced so far apart that a car is often neccessary if you want to live in an affordable house in the suburbs and work at the highest-paying job you can find. I've met a woman who bikes to work and once moved to a new apartment just to keep the commute short enough, but I know that she's a rare breed.
I've committed myself to bicycling and public transportation, and though both work very well in the Bay Area, it has prevented me from taking some higher-paying jobs because the commute would take ridiculously long. It's a difficult choice and I know there are good reasons for choosing differently. I just hate driving.
Though I encourage everyone to bike or walk instead of driving, I know that this isn't always possible. What I find troubling is when people get into the habit of driving so deeply that suddenly they can't conceive of using their two feet to get anywhere. Just because your commute has you in the car for two hours a day doesn't mean you can't walk a mile to the local 7-11. Heck, after all that driving, your legs are probably cramped and would appreciate it anyway!
Posts: 44 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why? If you have three children in school, then presumably the eldest is ten or so. That's certainly old enough to manage on their own for a few hours.
*jawdrop*
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting he have a ten year old supervise four younger siblings? Alone? For several hours? (The youngest of whom is under age three, IIRC.)
Leaving aside for the moment that this would be an excellent way to get DCS very, very involved in his life, are you INSANE?!?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well? Children have watched their younger siblings for centuries. Honestly, you Americans are insanely paranoid. You could have a neighbour look in on them every once in a while, maybe.
Actually, come to think of it, with the kind of dependency patterns you must be developing, maybe this particular ten-year-old isn't capable of it. But frankly it's high time he learned.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
10 or 11 was about the age I started walking home after school by myself. Don't know if I woulda wanted to be responsible for four younger sibs though. I don't think I'd want to be responsible for them now, for that matter.
Really does depend on the kid though.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As usual, King of Men is posting out of blatant ignorance of America, compounded by patronizing arrogance. Ignore him.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We're all wasting plenty of electricity by reading and posting on the Internet, a particularly non-essential activity in almost all cases. I just had my tires rotated, so I'm a damn good person now, because my fuel efficiency just went way up. I'm going to sniff my farts for a while now ;P "
quote:As usual, King of Men is posting out of blatant ignorance of America, compounded by patronizing arrogance.
Except he is correct - America IS paranoid. (Parents especially. ) I suspect a 10-year-old would have a good deal of trouble looking after 4 younger siblings even for a few hours, but trying it isn't child abuse, and certainly isn't comparable to child labor or slavery, especially if neighbors are there to help, etc.
As to the gas prices, I think it will probably be a good thing in the long term that prices are rising. The fact that people live so far from the places they need to go, and the fact that they rely so much on gas is a long-term problem - and it isn't going to be fixed until driving is more costly. People will rely on the convenience of driving until economics makes it less easy to do so. It will be painful in the short-term, but I suspect better in the long-term.
In the meanwhile, almost everyone should have at least some options. As has been mentioned, you can bike or walk more. If things are far away then take fewer trips to the store, or carpool with a neighbor when they go. Go to the movies less if it costs too much gas to get there. Send you kids on the school bus, if necessary. Take a bus yourself, if one is available. If you truly live in the middle of nowhere with no neighbors or stores around you, then you are probably stuck - but everyone else should have alternatives, even if they are a bit more painful.
If those alternatives are too painful in your particular case, take the hit and buy more gas - spend less on something else. That's usually an option too.
On that note, however, I don't think it makes sense to patronize people who are using more gas, such as SUV drivers. They are probably doing so because they have a good reason to, and because it makes sense for them to do so. That doesn't make them bad people.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Rivka. If you keep letting him get your goat, he's going to land up with all the goats, and we will have to go to HIM for all our goat-related needs.
When I was 10, I took the school bus home alone and looked after myself until my parents got home from work. My younger sibs took the school bus to a neighbor's house, where my folks arranged for the mom there to watch over them until they could be picked up. I'm pretty sure that my folks paid the neighbor lady something for this.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's 11. He also very likely has Asperger's Syndrome and is having social difficulty enough that they have seriously considered holding him back in the 5th grade despite his acdemic performance being off the charts. All that to say that he has difficulty taking care of himself and no way in hell am I leaving him in charge of two younger kids while I am 20-25 minutes away (not counting the fact that I half to walk roughly 1/2 mile to my car because of my parking situation).
For, among other reasons, the very good one that Rivka pointed out-- I do not wish to have them taken away (and I have seen people investigated for leaving their kids in the car while they went to pay for their gas).
I'm just waiting for someone to say "you should have thought of all that before you had five kids and got divorced." Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A person who drives a larger vehicle because their regular-commute includes transport of multiple passengers is being both more energy-efficient and environmentally-friendly than most people who drive smaller vehicles whose regular-commute is solo.
Most people are driving overweight&overpowered vehicles because they have been brainwashed by years-and-years-and-years of advertising into thinking that it enhances social status and/or that it is safer. It isn't safer. Whatever gains made from being in a larger vehicle during a collision are lost in the increased probability of being in an accident due to a decrease in the maneuverability useful for accident avoidence and in the increased likelyhood of rollover during an accident. As a trend, the larger and more powerful the vehicle, the more likely it is that its driver will normally drive faster than the speed limit by an amount greater than the speed set by traffic flow. The larger and more powerful the car is, the larger that excess speed is likely to be. Because of these factors, it may be (at least) slightly more dangerous to ride in a large vehicle than a small vehicle. It's hard to tell for certain because the Department of Transportation seems to be far more interested in burying information within its statistics than in providing information to the public. It is fairly clear though that heavier, more powerful vehicles greatly increase the risk faced by those in smaller vehicles while doing nothing to increase the safety of those in the larger vehicles.
posted
Well, Asperger's is a bit of a special case, admittedly. Neighbour watch, perchance? I note, I walked to school, about two kilometers, from age seven; and entertained myself on getting home, too. And it was uphill both ways.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Vikings don't even notice the snow and ice and avalanches. Wolves do make great cloaks though.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect a 10-year-old would have a good deal of trouble looking after 4 younger siblings even for a few hours, but trying it isn't child abuse,
It may not be child abuse but it is illegal. In this state, no child under the age of 14 is supposed to be in charge of another child, of any age.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, when I was my oldest son's age, I was regularly riding my bike 3-4 miles to the local mall. When I was my middle son's age (4) I used to sometimes ride in my father's lap and "drive" the car. Other times I'd ride in the hatchback. This was a Pinto, too. Doing that today *will* get you charged with child abuse. Standards have changed... whether or not this is a good thing is debatable I s'pose. I was shocked at the billboards around here which proclaim that 4'9" is the cutoff for child seats.
My mom is shorter than that...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It may not be child abuse but it is illegal. In this state, no child under the age of 14 is supposed to be in charge of another child, of any age.
That's not a very good law, in my opinion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I wasn't exaggerating my last post - it really was uphill both ways. There was a hill between me and the school, which you had to go up, then down, either way you were going.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm not getting something here. Why do people think it's a bad thing that children should be adequately supervised? I get that eventually they need to learn to be on their own and have responsiblity, but surely 15 and 16 is young enough to start learning that.
I think it boils down to parental convenience. People want to be able to work long hours and not be home when their kids get home from school, so they think it should be fine for pre-teens to be responsible for younger siblings.
Funny, but most of the kids I talk to don't seem to think it's all that grand. I've had many come to my house after school and talk about how they wished their mom or dad would be home with them in the afternoon.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was ten, although my mother was home, I was making 75 cents an hour babysitting for other kids. My being responsible for younger kids had nothing to do with her convenience.
Of course, this was back in the dark ages. LIfe expectancy was only about 15. People were married at 7. We lived in caves...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved having my mother at home even when I was at school. It made feel very safe - I could do anything, because she was there to come and get me if I fell (metaphorically or literally).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaving a 10 year old alone now and then for a few hours may or may not be a problem. Some kids will do fine, others won't. But leaving a 10 year olf (or even a 12 or 14 year old) in charge of younger siblings, not just now and then but for several hours every day, as KoM is suggesting is absolutely child abuse. Not just for the older child, but for the younger ones as well.
Children are children, not miniature adults. Even the most responsible, well behaved, level headed 10 year old, is still a 10 year old. It's unfair to force a child of that age into a caretaking role, and unfair to the younger children to be left without an adult.
My parents divorced when I was 6, and for several years, my older sister (3 1/2 years older) became my "babysitter" while my mother worked nights. It was miserable for both of us. I think of 9 year olds I know now (all of my children are older) and can't even imagine what my mother was thinking to think it was acceptable to leave my sister in charge, not just now and then, but every night for several years. Of course, she didn't have a lot of other options open to her, but still.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, then, you are in the rather uncomfortable position of suggesting that most of humanity for most of history has practiced child abuse.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think, then, you are in the rather uncomfortable position of suggesting that most of humanity for most of history has practiced child abuse.
By our standards, certainly. When we have the means and the prosperity to live as we do today, it stands to reason that our children should live better than their forebears did. I have no problem with that. I certainly want my children (and grandchildren...) to have a better life than I did.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I'm not getting something here. Why do people think it's a bad thing that children should be adequately supervised?
I don't think that is a bad thing.
I do think it is a bad thing to make it a crime to leave children under less-than-ideal supervision, when parents may be forced to leave children in such situations because of work requirements, school hours, and the lack of money to pay for child care. Are you prepared to jail someone, or fine someone, or take their children away because they think their 10-year-old can watch over their 8-year-old for a few hours? I think that would be extremely unfair to the parents, and undermining their rights as parents to judge what is and is not safe for their own children - especially so if their financial situation leaves them with few other options.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
