[AndrewDavis]

This is an aside. Yesterday I was in a shopping centre (ie a mall) and a bunch of kids ran through the food court, maybe 10 of them all around the 9-12

A grumpy lady shouted at them "kids you shouldnt be running!"

I turned to whom I was eating with and our discussion could be summarised as "kids should be running. The problem isn't they're running, the problem isn't even directly where they're running. Where they're running is a symptom of them having no where else to run"

[b112]

No? I grew up in a rural area, with fields and places to run... and run I did.

A nearby huge city had a mall. City being 30k people. Yet left in that mall, with 10 friends, I'd run there too.. until chastised. No real difference 50 years ago, in a rural area with a mall than now.

Groups of kids running tend to bump into things, fall into people, excited kids aren't known for taking care. It's been typical for at least going back to the 50s to stop that.

It's also why kids are typically told to stop running around a house.. and to go outside.

So strongly disagree that it is a symptom of no where else to run. Of course, I find it sad if kids have no place to go run.

Local parks can help with this in urban areas.

[danielbln]

I don't disagree with you, but the fact that something has been done since the 50s when it comes to child care is not necessarily an indicator that it's good. We imposed many things on children during that time that would be widely considered damaging and counter productive today.

[johnisgood]

It does not even have to be urban areas. We have parks all around the city. Our schools have playgrounds. Everything is still there from when I was a kid, i.e. ~20 years ago.

[Cthulhu_]

Kids should be running but not if they cause a nuisance - this is the part not highlighted in the article, societal oversight. When kids are out in the forests they aren't bothering or harming anyone, but when in public they will have to conform to some standards / rules.

"It takes a village" is a well known saying, I've always interpreted that that it's not just the parents that raise kids.

[watwut]

Kids should be running, but not in food court. 9-12 old are big enought to recognize space full of plates and food.

[Arainach]

Sorry, but no. You shouldn't be running in crowded areas like food courts (or indoor areas not specifically created for athletics), and playing smug semantic arguments like that doesn't help.

The kids aren't running because they're unable to go outside. They're running because no one's been enforcing that they act within the standards of basic decency.

Kids should be screaming and singing sometimes, but you wouldn't tell someone in the library not to hush them.

[bean469]

> You shouldn't be running in crowded areas like food courts (or indoor areas not specifically created for athletics)

I guess this is a cultural thing, i.e. what is expected of kids. Among my age-group in Eastern Europe (25-30 y/o), we joke around that our parents didn't let us stay in home, which has a lot of truth to it. Once we were out in the city, they didn't even have a idea where we went, and we didn't have mobile phones either. We used to run around everywhere without exception - malls, forests - you name it. That is still expected of kids nowadays, but the kids themselves are far more drawn to the digital world nowadays

[johnnyanmac]

>and playing smug semantic arguments like that doesn't help.

How is it semantic? They go outside and now they are running in a giant parking lot. They go a bit further and now you're a bad parent for not keeping an eye on your kid. Tell them to sit down and play on a tablet and you're also a bad parent.

There's no winning here.

>you wouldn't tell someone in the library not to hush them.

I don't consider a mall the equivalent of a libary in this situation.