Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous • Hacker News Board

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#61

Post by secabeen » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

JudgeWapner wrote: post #45

daenz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hit the nail on the head. From the article: >“Many agencies fear being sued if a child gets hurt,” said Teri Hendy, the president of an Ohio-based playground consultancy, Site Masters. Ms. Hendy blamed outdated federal rules on playground design developed decades ago by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She favors more flexible guidelines, arguing that playgrounds don’t have to be boring to be safe. We got…

why do people sue? Because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare. At any given public school, how many of those kids' parents have $15k - $50k to cover an orthopedic injury, ambulance/ER/surgery/overnight hospital bill ? It's the same for the zero-tolerance fighting policies. Kids aren't allowed to fight back because the insurance company figured out that 4 hands throwing punches are worse than 2. The hospital bill is…

>why do people sue? Because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare. At any given public school, how many of those kids' parents have $15k - $50k to cover an orthopedic injury, ambulance/ER/surgery/overnight hospital bill ?

It's not always the parents. Sometimes the insurance company will sue to recover costs.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#62

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #40

daenz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hit the nail on the head. From the article: >“Many agencies fear being sued if a child gets hurt,” said Teri Hendy, the president of an Ohio-based playground consultancy, Site Masters. Ms. Hendy blamed outdated federal rules on playground design developed decades ago by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She favors more flexible guidelines, arguing that playgrounds don’t have to be boring to be safe. We got…

The reality is different though. There is nothing in this world quite so soul crushingly painful as having your child die while doing something that the parent and perhaps people in general, consider to be 'safe.' For me, it took some time to fall madly and deeply in love with my spouse, and to my surprise I developed that attachment instantly to my children. That same sort of passion that you would do anything to ke…

[deleted]

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#63

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

redff0000 wrote: post #43

ChuckMcM wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is different though. There is nothing in this world quite so soul crushingly painful as having your child die while doing something that the parent and perhaps people in general, consider to be 'safe.' For me, it took some time to fall madly and deeply in love with my spouse, and to my surprise I developed that attachment instantly to my children. That same sort of passion that you would do anything to ke…

Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. Low probability high severity events trigger a cognitive bias that makes people attempt to make things '100% safe'. There are two problems with that. 1: nothing can ever be made 100% safe so those low probability high impact events still happen from time to time. 2: making things safe hits a stee…

To put it bluntly, the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives.

That's a tough sell, but that sounds reasonable (well, I can talk, I don't have children). This is basically the same reasoning Yudkowsky presented with his dust speck vs torture argument argument: a sufficiently widespread benefit, however small, will outweigh a sufficiently improbable horrible event.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#64

Post by Joof » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #54

redff0000 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. Low probability high severity events trigger a cognitive bias that makes people attempt to make things '100% safe'. There are two problems with that. 1: nothing can ever be made 100% safe so those low probability high impact events still happen from time to time. 2: making things safe hits a stee…

> Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. But thanks to our laws, we don't have to worry about playground sets. Low probability / high impact events are a fact of life and are a valid cause for regulations. Worker safety laws in the early 1900s were such that people more regularly lost fingers or even limbs in heavy machinery. It still…

But it also means that we're neutering some really important mechanisms of human development. It seems very costly to squeeze out those teensy little bits of extra safety.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#65

Post by matwood » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

radiorental wrote: post #33

I have a zipline in my back yard, when I first put it up it was roughly 80' long, my kids were 4 & 6 and I would manage them because (a) be a parent and (b) they were careless/clueless AF. I extended the zipline to 200' this spring, it goes over about 50' of water. They're 6 & 8 now, they hook themselves up and do all the safety checks I showed them once. Literally once. They also have full access to my workshop, the…

I hated it at the time, but while growing up my dad made me help him with a lot of his side jobs. These jobs often involved power tools like various kinds of saws, chain saws, log splitters, etc... There was also minor electrical, plumbing, and engine work often involved. My dad would point out what to do and how not to get hurt. Obviously he would do anything beyond my ability or strength, but I learned a lot just being part of the overall process.

Fast forward many years and I'm thankful for the learning that came out of those times.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#66

Post by tr33house » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

I loved this from one of the article's comments by Deb:

"The coup de grace, though, came the day I went to pick a student up from the playground and as the child was running to greet me, the preschool teacher sang out ‘Remember the new rule, Kai! No running on the playground!’

No. Running. On. The. Playground."

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#67

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #54

redff0000 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. Low probability high severity events trigger a cognitive bias that makes people attempt to make things '100% safe'. There are two problems with that. 1: nothing can ever be made 100% safe so those low probability high impact events still happen from time to time. 2: making things safe hits a stee…

> Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. But thanks to our laws, we don't have to worry about playground sets. Low probability / high impact events are a fact of life and are a valid cause for regulations. Worker safety laws in the early 1900s were such that people more regularly lost fingers or even limbs in heavy machinery. It still…

There's a difference between playgrounds and work environments: as far as I am aware, workers aren't any more miserable in safer work environment. Children in "safer" playgrounds, are.

The value of life is not infinite. It is perfectly reasonable to sacrifice a few to improve the conditions of the many. Funnier, riskier playgrounds do exactly that.

That said, the article stated the "safer" playground engendered more injuries, mostly because bored kids were taking inconsiderate risks. The more dangerous playgrounds actually looked more dangerous, and the kids in them ended up taking less serious risks.

There's a good chance that more "dangerous" playgrounds are a one sided win. They could be better than the "safe" ones even if you disagree with my first two paragraphs.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#68

Post by bargl » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:42 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #59

umvi wrote: post #21

You're right - anything that provokes fear or outrage gets instant attention. Everything else doesn't. North Korea imprisoning a single idiot American who crossed the border = national dialogue because it's outrageous School shooting where 3 people die = national dialogue on gun control because it's outrageous. DUI accident that kills a family of 5 = small blurb in local news because it's not outrageous (even if it s…

> School shooting where 3 people die = national dialogue on gun control because it's outrageous. I'm sorry, what country is this? The one I live in its just "thoughts and prayers" when that happens.

I do not understand the attack on "thoughts and prayers." There are plenty of people sending "thoughts and prayers" who also support gun control. I get that it calls out the hypocrisy of Christians who don't support gun control, but it also seems like an overly broad attack.

What does someone who both believes gun control is necessary and wants to send "thoughts and prayers" do? I think the idea of gun control is a target at a solution while thoughts and prayers are meant to console the individual.

Anyway, it's just something I found super annoying. I had someone who I know lost a loved one (not due to guns) and I struggled with what to say. It's a simple thing, but I realized I didn't know how to attempt to console someone anymore.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#69

Post by InitialLastName » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:43 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #54

redff0000 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. Low probability high severity events trigger a cognitive bias that makes people attempt to make things '100% safe'. There are two problems with that. 1: nothing can ever be made 100% safe so those low probability high impact events still happen from time to time. 2: making things safe hits a stee…

> Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. But thanks to our laws, we don't have to worry about playground sets. Low probability / high impact events are a fact of life and are a valid cause for regulations. Worker safety laws in the early 1900s were such that people more regularly lost fingers or even limbs in heavy machinery. It still…

> Worker safety laws in the early 1900s were such that people more regularly lost fingers or even limbs in heavy machinery.

If it's regularly happening, it isn't a "low probability" event.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#70

Post by matwood » Wed, May 15, 2019, 10:45 PM UTC

dawnerd wrote: post #18

This is essentially how I grew up. Was free to use just about any tool I wanted. We dug holes, built tree houses ourselves, you name it. At one point we even built two different sheds, just us kids without any adult really helping. I don't recall if any of us even got hurt doing this. I also think cities moving towards higher density with little to no yards for full homes isn't helping.

I got hurt plenty as a kid with quite a few scars to show for it. None of the injuries were life changing though. Some of the dumbest things we did would probably trigger a SWAT team today. Bottle rocket fights (do they even sell bottle rockets anymore?). BB gun fights. They always lasted until that one kid would pump his up more than once. We also lived on a river and started taking the John boat out around 12 or 13.