American children spend significant portions of their early developmental years staring at the interior ceilings of cars and tablet screens. It’s one of car dependency’s many negative outcomes.
I agree with the all of the argumentation regarding urban transportation methods, but the headline story seems to imply that a child stuck in a car for a road trip has nothing to do except stare at the car ceiling or be on an electronic device.
As a child, our family went on many road trips. It was our primary form of vacation – we would drive from Minnesota to Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Michigan, all around the West and Midwest, often taking days longer than might be necessary because we opted for the more scenic route.
I remember squirming in the back seat with boredom sometimes, yes, but I also remember reading book after book after book, staring out the window at a dizzying variety of great landscapes, playing I Spy or 20 Questions or the Alphabet Game (a road trip classic) with my siblings. We would peruse literature, YA, sci fi, nonfiction, picture books, comics, manga, even the road atlas, and everything in between. There is nothing like the experience of reading Laura Ingalls Wilder while driving down the backroads of rural Wisconsin, or Ed Abbey while winding our way through southern Utah. The connection between story and place becomes sacrosanct.
On a particularly smooth road, we would pull out the miniature travel chess set, or the checkers set, or magnetic Mancala, and while away the hours in the back seat.
I remember getting out for scenic pullouts, for walks, stopping in tiny towns in the middle of nowhere to grab gas or a bite to eat. I remember hiking all over each and every state we passed through, having the luxury of immersing ourselves in the landscapes we traveled through, and therefore acquiring that intimate sense of the geometry and relationship of the terrain, the climate, the ecosystems, the idiosyncrasies of different parts of the country. It is an embodied experience. I have no doubt that I wouldn’t be the person I am today, someone who loves geography, loves travel, loves the journey, someone who deeply loves the outdoors, without these experiences.
Very strange article. Maybe I was just gifted but I usually opted to look out of the window rather than stare at the interior ceiling of my parents' cars. If you are talking about infants, don't they end up staring at ceilings quite a bit regardless of location?
You use a lot of misleading information and logical fallacies to arrive at the conclusion that cars are bad for reasons of child development. Without any real evidence, this article serves only to align travel by car with a litany of bad child-rearing practices (isolation, tablets, lack of socialization, etc). Other modes of long-distance transport encourage these harmful behaviors much more than car-- who is having "engaging interactions" on a train or plane? Are people more incentivized to pacify their children with technology on a plane/train or in a car? Is it better for children to take a mode of transport with no accommodation potential, or for you to drive them and make frequent rest stops and meal breaks? Were your kids so sedentary that walking to/from the bus stop was their physical exercise for the day? Are you more likely to hold a meaningful conversation with a child in a busy and loud tram than your quiet and private car?
You make a mistake commonly made when talking about the development of young children. You bring up your memories of your own behavior and experiences in childhood, which if you remember them well will be from age five or six or even older. A child under the age of three or four is not comparable in experience or ability. Such a child cannot look out a window because they are sitting backwards in a car seat at a lower level. They are not looking at their parent because they have to be in the back seat. A car’s speed makes interpreting what could be seen from a car window when riding backwards in a car seat hard for a toddler to interpret. While a child in a stroller moving at walking pace may see other people also moving at walking pace, some of whom may speak to the toddler. They see dogs, trees, clouds etc. If the child is walking they can pick up sticks, leaves, pinecones etc. They can interact with a world at their pace, one that changes. Their caregiver can talk with them about what they see. The set up in a car - required for safety - the noise and speed does not allow for this kind of interaction.
Backward car seats only apply to children younger than 2. Are you recommending to seriously transport an infant by bike? Do they even make helmets and safety seats for this? What if you got hit by a car?
I'm not saying that car rides are good for development; only that the author has done little to prove that they are actively bad. A few car rides isn't going to make your kid dumber.
2 year olds are encouraged to ride in backwards car seats as long as they can. Development in under two year olds is very important. I’m talking about walking with a child in a stroller or on the sidewalk holding their hand. This is the best for development. Children can interact with the world around them at their own pace. They can communicate with a parent or other people and animals even if it is with only a fleeting glance. They can get exercise if they are walking. From infancy American children spend too much time in upholstered cushy chairs like car seats. It slows their development for everything from rolling over to sitting up to later milestones. The hours spent riding in a car is just one data point in this problem.
You’re imagining I said cars are bad. Cars are a wonderful invention.
Consider a young person’s interaction with the built & natural environment — the experience on bicycle, for example, is better for their development than the interior of a car.
No, I said that you arrive at the conclusion that cars are bad for reasons of child development. I was probably incorrect to say as much; you seem to have started from that conclusion and worked backwards from it.
>>>The experience on bicycle, for example, is better for their development than the interior of a car.<<<
The entire point of my comment is to draw attention to the fact that this is an entirely unsupported claim. Most of the article is unrelated information and unsupported reasoning that might seem supportive of this claim to someone who is not scientifically literate. And that's not even addressing the fact that bike rides and car rides are not substitutive options for the vast majority of Americans.
I agree with the all of the argumentation regarding urban transportation methods, but the headline story seems to imply that a child stuck in a car for a road trip has nothing to do except stare at the car ceiling or be on an electronic device.
As a child, our family went on many road trips. It was our primary form of vacation – we would drive from Minnesota to Idaho, Utah, Oregon, Michigan, all around the West and Midwest, often taking days longer than might be necessary because we opted for the more scenic route.
I remember squirming in the back seat with boredom sometimes, yes, but I also remember reading book after book after book, staring out the window at a dizzying variety of great landscapes, playing I Spy or 20 Questions or the Alphabet Game (a road trip classic) with my siblings. We would peruse literature, YA, sci fi, nonfiction, picture books, comics, manga, even the road atlas, and everything in between. There is nothing like the experience of reading Laura Ingalls Wilder while driving down the backroads of rural Wisconsin, or Ed Abbey while winding our way through southern Utah. The connection between story and place becomes sacrosanct.
On a particularly smooth road, we would pull out the miniature travel chess set, or the checkers set, or magnetic Mancala, and while away the hours in the back seat.
I remember getting out for scenic pullouts, for walks, stopping in tiny towns in the middle of nowhere to grab gas or a bite to eat. I remember hiking all over each and every state we passed through, having the luxury of immersing ourselves in the landscapes we traveled through, and therefore acquiring that intimate sense of the geometry and relationship of the terrain, the climate, the ecosystems, the idiosyncrasies of different parts of the country. It is an embodied experience. I have no doubt that I wouldn’t be the person I am today, someone who loves geography, loves travel, loves the journey, someone who deeply loves the outdoors, without these experiences.
Excellent article. You make points I’ve observed when caring for children .
Very strange article. Maybe I was just gifted but I usually opted to look out of the window rather than stare at the interior ceiling of my parents' cars. If you are talking about infants, don't they end up staring at ceilings quite a bit regardless of location?
You use a lot of misleading information and logical fallacies to arrive at the conclusion that cars are bad for reasons of child development. Without any real evidence, this article serves only to align travel by car with a litany of bad child-rearing practices (isolation, tablets, lack of socialization, etc). Other modes of long-distance transport encourage these harmful behaviors much more than car-- who is having "engaging interactions" on a train or plane? Are people more incentivized to pacify their children with technology on a plane/train or in a car? Is it better for children to take a mode of transport with no accommodation potential, or for you to drive them and make frequent rest stops and meal breaks? Were your kids so sedentary that walking to/from the bus stop was their physical exercise for the day? Are you more likely to hold a meaningful conversation with a child in a busy and loud tram than your quiet and private car?
You make a mistake commonly made when talking about the development of young children. You bring up your memories of your own behavior and experiences in childhood, which if you remember them well will be from age five or six or even older. A child under the age of three or four is not comparable in experience or ability. Such a child cannot look out a window because they are sitting backwards in a car seat at a lower level. They are not looking at their parent because they have to be in the back seat. A car’s speed makes interpreting what could be seen from a car window when riding backwards in a car seat hard for a toddler to interpret. While a child in a stroller moving at walking pace may see other people also moving at walking pace, some of whom may speak to the toddler. They see dogs, trees, clouds etc. If the child is walking they can pick up sticks, leaves, pinecones etc. They can interact with a world at their pace, one that changes. Their caregiver can talk with them about what they see. The set up in a car - required for safety - the noise and speed does not allow for this kind of interaction.
Backward car seats only apply to children younger than 2. Are you recommending to seriously transport an infant by bike? Do they even make helmets and safety seats for this? What if you got hit by a car?
I'm not saying that car rides are good for development; only that the author has done little to prove that they are actively bad. A few car rides isn't going to make your kid dumber.
We Americans have such limiting beliefs.
We Americans have such limiting beliefs.
2 year olds are encouraged to ride in backwards car seats as long as they can. Development in under two year olds is very important. I’m talking about walking with a child in a stroller or on the sidewalk holding their hand. This is the best for development. Children can interact with the world around them at their own pace. They can communicate with a parent or other people and animals even if it is with only a fleeting glance. They can get exercise if they are walking. From infancy American children spend too much time in upholstered cushy chairs like car seats. It slows their development for everything from rolling over to sitting up to later milestones. The hours spent riding in a car is just one data point in this problem.
No one says one car ride is bad for a child.It’s a life style of spending hours everyday in a car that is a problem.
You’re imagining I said cars are bad. Cars are a wonderful invention.
Consider a young person’s interaction with the built & natural environment — the experience on bicycle, for example, is better for their development than the interior of a car.
No, I said that you arrive at the conclusion that cars are bad for reasons of child development. I was probably incorrect to say as much; you seem to have started from that conclusion and worked backwards from it.
>>>The experience on bicycle, for example, is better for their development than the interior of a car.<<<
The entire point of my comment is to draw attention to the fact that this is an entirely unsupported claim. Most of the article is unrelated information and unsupported reasoning that might seem supportive of this claim to someone who is not scientifically literate. And that's not even addressing the fact that bike rides and car rides are not substitutive options for the vast majority of Americans.
As mother of two toddlers I will also say that I would 100% rather hop on a bus with children than wrestle them into their seatbelts.
Whoa— so true!
Thank you!!! It’s good to be reminded that there are costs to modernity that we may not easily recognize.