My company is in the process of launching a screen-free, non-phone LTE device (think unlimited range walkie-talkie with extra features) intended to let kids stay safe while having more freedom. I'm genuinely curious - how would you feel about something like that?

The site: https://relaygo.com/

I thought about the walkie-talkie, but I think that all those devices are more of a pacifier for parents than something that keeps the child safe.

If I'd give her the walkie-talkie then my wife would call her every 10 minutes and ask her where is she. Tracking her with a GPS would keep me calm but I don't think it will help my daughter.

The only time I freaked out was when she removed the watch and she didn't come home on time: I went out to look for her and in the meantime, she went home. Realizing that she may go home on another path I went back home and found her watching TV. Honestly I think that those devices are meant to keep the parents calm, not for the sake of the children.

Thanks for the feedback. I think that's fair. One of the things I remember most from my sociology classes in college is that America has, in general, been getting safer for decades now, even though everybody thinks it's been getting less and less safe.

I think you're absolutely right that our product may do more to help parents feel secure letting their kids roam, rather than actually making them safer. Still, if it gets kids out more and helps parents feel more comfortable, I think that's a win.

Devil's advocate opinion: we can't objectively say society is 'safer', only that crime rates are down. Maybe crime rates are going down because people are more likely to stay hiding in their living rooms.

> Maybe crime rates are going down because people are more likely to stay hiding in their living rooms.

i fail to see the practical difference. if would-be predators are staying home, it is still safer for kids to go play outside.

I think blowski is suggesting the kids are safer because the kids are staying at home, safe from the prowling predators outside.

Exactly. I’m not sure I believe this, and definitely don’t have any evidence to back it up.

If kids are safer because they are staying at home, then we can’t criticise parents for not letting them out to play by themselves. That would be like saying Donald Trump doesn’t need bodyguards since very few presidents have been attacked.

More accidents happen at home for the same reason more car accidents happen close to home...that's where the people are often spending time.

And mine broke his outside jumping from the compost bin. (We were all doing it...)

I don't have children yet so I'm probably way out of turn when I say I like the "be home for dinner" method after a certain age.

Sometimes we'd come home scraped up and dirty, but we'd be okay. My mother was about 10 feet away when my brother broke his arm.

It's just such a game of chance. It's probably best not to train for fear, though. (as a general philosophy, not addressing any anecdotes here)

Is that adjusted for time spent?

Yes, I agree.

Anyway, the device looks nice and is a step in the right direction to overcome the fear of the parents.

Good luck with your business.

As a parent, when my kid was 8 years old I let her play in the local woods with a walky talky. Pacifier for me? Probably. But she wouldn't have been out all morning without a means of contact.

Snark: It's nice for the helicopter parent who also doesn't want their kids exposed to a phone, so it'll probably sell just fine.

I suppose because I'm not a parent, I don't have that built in level of worry / paranoia, though I "fondly" remember how fearful my own mother was, but I don't get it. Isn't the point of letting your kid venture out to help them establish and explore freedom and boundaries?

You tell your child not to stay out past the street lights, not venture past certain landmarks, and then let them roam. If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences.

If I were a kid, I'd make sure to conveniently forget / power off / not charge / lose that thing as much as possible.

I was born in 1995, so I was a young child in the early 2000's, in a low income neighborhood with a single mother. One of the mothers in that neighborhood was an addict to some hard drug I can't remember. Probably crack. The surrounding neighborhood was decent-- the age and size of the houses puts them at around 200-300K at the time. We had a huge open field area in back of the house. (Descriptions are to give an idea of the safety level inherent to the neighborhood). As I got older (7, on) my mother loosened the reigns a bit, and eventually my friends and I would go on day-long adventures exploring the open field and wooded areas. We sometimes came across bedding and other supplies, and one time almost stumbled on a homeless guy waking up.

My mom was often worried, but she set just a few hard rules: Come back inside when the streetlights go on, don't talk to anyone you see while out, don't go anywhere further than the parking lot alone. And that was fine, and we got smart because of it. We were vigilant and carefree at the same time. We crossed roads looking both ways to get to parks we'd never been to. And we pushed the boundaries a little to see what would happen.

Me and my female friend were once approached by a guy "looking for a dog". He wanted us to come with him to the dog park to help him look for it. Understanding what it could mean, we said no and ran inside-- as we'd been taught. Since we were given the freedom to make such decisions, and since we'd seen danger before, we knew the "right thing" to do and we chose to do it.

I didn't have a cell phone back then. I'm sure if I was given one I'd promptly "lose it" just as you say. In suburbia it's just not necessary to be in constant contact with your kid. They're not gonna call you unless you've raised them to be as docile and paranoid as yourself. They won't need to.

Before I had kids of my own, I shared your view. After having kids, I can easily see how people become irrational about child safety. I fight it myself, constantly. I think a lot of it is due the sensational, salacious media coverage the bad stuff, makes it seem more prominent now than in the past.

I think it's also due to the fact that the authorities are charging parents with neglect for simply letting their kids do the exact same things I was allowed to do as a kid without consequence. Even parents that want to let their kids roam safely cannot do so any longer due to some overreacting busybodies.

"It's nice for the helicopter parent who also doesn't want their kids exposed to a phone..."

First of all, the dangers of modern phones to emotional health, for adults as well as children, I think is very well established by now.

So this device seems like a decent compromise for overly concerned parents (this is a redundant phrase).

I think there are also benefits for the child. In earlier generations, children would need to run home to ask permission to stay out longer or engage in a new activity. Now they can make those requests with less interruption to their current activities.

"If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences."

The key is to figure out what level of consequences they are ready to handle at different points in their development.

> If they comply, great! If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Or they die, which kinda sucks.

Look, I'm generally in favour of kids wandering about the place like I did when I was a kid, but even back then we had a tragically high number of kids getting themselves crushed under farm equipment, falling from heights and landing hard, getting exposed to hazardous materials, or drowning in pits full of animal shit.

It's simply disingenuous to act as if the worst that can happen is a wee scrape and a lesson learned.

That "tragically high" number was still a rounding error, though, in the United States.

I do wonder if it is a particularly American thing to take the wild exception as the norm like this.

Ireland, actually. I'd be curious to see the stats, but suffice to say enough families were losing children that there were major changes to farm safety regulation.

Ireland here as well, and that had a lot to do with poverty and families needing their kids to work at a young age. The same was true in the US before child labor laws. I think a general “ambient” risk and a culture of,having your 9 year old work on the farm or in a mill are fundamentally separate issues.

> It's simply disingenuous to act as if the worst that can happen is a wee scrape and a lesson learned.

> but even back then we had a tragically high number of kids getting themselves crushed under farm equipment, falling from heights and landing hard, getting exposed to hazardous materials, or drowning in pits full of animal shit.

I think it's a bit odd to act as if kids are routinely parading around industrial zones. It sounds as if you and I grew up in vastly different parts of the world.

> If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Those consequences may mean that everyone is looking for them whole night. Or severe injury. Or you having to deal with cops due to trespassing.

Or that they will bully other kids and you won't be there to learn it happened and deal with it.

There are consequences as in "teacher is angry for 5 minutes" and then there are consequences.

Also, if my kid would intentionally loose devices like that, that kid would have less freedom and later then the kid I could trust.

What are you gonna do as a parent with a little handheld device to ensure your child isn't bullying anyone? What an odd worry.

Why is that odd worry and what it has to do with the device?

The only truly problematic thing from those you listed is severe injury, and I would add it is the less common.

Uhm, how is "everyone is looking for a child whole night" not problem? You have inconvenienced multiple people a lot. Not just the kid. This happen twice and the kid is not going out alone next year.

Similar with bullying and worry about potential bad influence group.

> If not, they learn actions have consequences.

Some of which are potentially fatal.

We can't just stop letting folks live life because something bad might happen. Otherwise we'll just say "Think of the children" and ban everything.

  Why don't we put pads on the kids, helmets, head gear and mouth pieces
  Then we could pad the floor and walls, put cameras inside bathroom stalls

  NOFX - Separation of Church and Skate[0]

[0] - https://genius.com/Nofx-the-separation-of-church-and-skate-l...

If only there was some way of navigating between "I let my kids do anything" and "I let my kids do nothing".

Odd, we don't let adults do "anything" but somehow we don't place all of them under virtual house arrest

Well, I certainly never suggested letting ones kids "do anything," only noting that the point of letting kids roam is to afford them some freedom as individuals.

On the other hand ... as a kid I roamed around, but I always had a quarter for the payphone just in case of emergency. Cell phone is the modern equivalent.

What a great device. It could also be interesting if it would provide an optional "only kid can initiate a call" mode.

For example, in the online account management section, where one can set up the channel (I'm just guessing how it works, I don't know how it gets set up), an option can be toggled to enable/disable the parents getting the capability to initiate a call or not, and this option is protected by a second password which only the kid knows, so that parent and kid set up this property together, in an agreement, and the parents can't override the agreement unless the kid also agrees and enters the password.

This would help chronic helicopter parents to not be able to constantly call their kids and possibly tell them to send them the gps coordinates or bug them otherwise.

The same should go for GPS access, that only kids can send position updates to the parents, and optionally, if both agree (again, protected with the kids password), let the parents poll the GPS data.

That would be a hard sell to parents, I think.

As a parent of a high functioning ASD child -- consider adding a way to attach that to clothing (or a way to attach a generic tether, which could then be used to attached to a belt or a necklace, etc) and you have a whole new market.

[edited] I know you market yourself as tetherless, but I'm referring to something as simple (and optional) as the mechanism Roku does for their wrist straps on remotes (and Nintendo Wii, etc):

https://twitter.com/rokuplayer/status/524376205345435648

Would be more useful if PTT calling was still a thing. As it is the kid will have to wait for their parent to answer their phone.

This is very fucked up. What you're doing is unethical and rather nightmarish. Hope you get shut down by COPPA.

How does it keep kids safe? By being able to communicate with them?

I can see the appeal of this, my kids are too young to roam yet, though. I'd like a smaller form factor though, like a wrist band.

Yeah, on the website, it shows a child carrying this widget in her pants' pocket, and I can immediately picture it falling out of the pocket unnoticed. A wrist band would probably be ideal.

I can't help but picture a house arrest ankle bracelet. Sadly, given the current state of parent-paranoia, I agree with the others here that this device would probably sell very well.

I concur. All I'd really want actually is a rugged watch with a a) reliable beacon, b) timer and c) possibly limited texting function (which could function as an alert) - in order of priority.