I don't know if that works in the EU but in the US most places are not a city and most places whilst technically walkable the kids will have to start walking at 4am and maybe they will get to school on time after walking along rural highways and on dirt roads. That would be incredibly dangerous, reckless and irresponsible.

As for tracking, I want more of it by individuals just not centralized corporations. The porch pirate bosses often park in front of my place to watch their minions of whom snatch packages around the time that kids are getting home. Some of the porch pirate minions drive vans and could easily snatch kids. I have been encouraging many of the people in my area to install cameras that log license plates and catch faces and vehicles in multiple directions of their roads and highways. We've removed some of the organized crime and pushed some of it out of this area and we will continue to push harder.

▲

vel0city 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> in the US most places are not a city

Most people in the US live in urban areas. Most US citizens live in cities. The urban population of the US is about 80% of the population.

I do agree most students in the US arrive by bus or car, but that's not because most US citizens live on farms off country highways.

▲

Bender 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That does not make what I said not relevant. People are spread out across the country and kids in rural areas are just as valuable as kids in cities. I would never trust anyone that says otherwise. Also most of the land is not walkable in any realistic sense. Busses and cars are not likely going away for the duration of this short civilization. We will hit the great filter long before better options may have arrived.

▲

vel0city 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It makes the phrase "most places are not a city" extremely misleading in terms of talking about school busses. The extreme majority of school busses and kids going to school do so in urban areas, i.e. in cities. Like, sure, over 40% of the US has zero inhabitants, so yeah "most of the US isn't cities". But its not like there are a lot of school busses and elementary schools in places where zero people live.

> kids in rural areas are just as valuable as kids in cities

I never said otherwise. I'm just pointing out its misleading to act like most of the US population live in rural areas.

> Busses and cars are not likely going away for the duration of this short civilization

The majority of this short civilization existed without busses and cars being a requirement. Seems strange it can't possibly exist without them now, or at least a significantly reduced societal need on them to have a basic functional existence for a decent chunk of the society.

▲

Bender 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I stand by my words. Most of the US is not a city and in those places are children. Cities have more children by area density is not relevant in my opinion. It's not misleading, it's a fact that people live in all areas not just in cities. But enough of this dance for today.

	▲	vel0city 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Most of the US is not a city Nearly half is entirely unpopulated. Once again I don't get why that matters about the discussion of school busses in general. Rural areas cover 80% of Europe by area. Its not like rural areas are a uniquely American thing.

▲

cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"City" and "urban" are not the same thing and you are all up and down these comments playing the overlap in colonial usage of those terms to essentially mislead people.

The census designation of rural is very stringent and you basically need more cows than people to meet it. That's where this "80% of the population is urban" stat you love to vomit up comes through.

Buuut, of that 80%, most do not live in any sort of "city" in the colonial sense though it may be called one on paper (because city vs town vs other is a state level administrative distinction)

The average and median american lives in some kind of suburb. It might be outer and not very dense. It might be inner and very dense. But at the end of the day it is somewhere that's not walkable/bike-able without being at a severe time disadvantage to car/bus transport in the typical (i.e. we're not talking about 1am leaving the bar) case.

	▲	vel0city an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> The census designation of rural is very stringent and you basically need more cows than people to meet it. Not true. The census actually doesn't really bother to define rural other than "not urban". So then it comes down to what the urban definition is. The urban definition is: > To qualify as an urban area, the territory identified according to criteria must encompass at least 2,000 housing units or have a population of at least 5,000. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g... > most do not live in any sort of "city" in the colonial sense What do you mean about "the colonial sense"? > it may be called one on paper Its called a city on paper because it is a city. > The average and median american lives in some kind of suburb Suburbs, which usually exist in cities, yes. That's how we've built our cities here in the US, as sprawling suburbs. > But at the end of the day it is somewhere that's not walkable/bike-able without being at a severe time disadvantage to car/bus transport in the typical I mean I agree with that, hence my first comment being "I do agree most students in the US arrive by bus or car". Is being walkable a requirement for a city to be a city?