Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous • Hacker News Board

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#131

Post by Zanni » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #98

I am frankly appalled how some people in this thread appear so nonchalant about willing to accept the deaths of children in the name of letting a majority of kids "have the right kind of fun".

Are you similarly appalled at the number of people willing to accept the deaths of children, adults, even entire families in automobile accidents every year in the name of letting a majority have access to personal transportation? In both cases, there's a tradeoff to make. We want playgrounds/cars to be as safe as possible while still providing the benefits we take advantage of them for. We could slash automobile deaths by 99% by limiting the top speed to 5 mph, but how useful would that be?

Tradeoffs have to be negotiated by society. Accusing some of being "willing to accept the deaths of children" in that context is an abusive argument.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#132

Post by headcanon » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

magicalhippo wrote: post #95

devchix wrote: post #9

A recent episode of 99% Invisible: Play Mountain looked at how the playground got to be safe and boring. "A two-year-old boy named Frank Nelson was climbing a 12-foot-tall slide in a Chicago park when he slipped through a railing and hit his head so hard that it caused permanent brain damage. The park system of Chicago was sued and had to pay out millions of dollars to Nelson’s family. At that time, in the late 70s,…

A friend of mine designs playgrounds for kids, and is very good at it (his designs win 90+% of the competitive bids he enters). He's also worked hard to put in place a playground safety inspector certification system over here. One of his core ideas is that there are two types of safety: subjective safety and objective safety. For example, kids quickly learn that falling from a height is painful, and experiences such…

+1 on seeing examples of this. I'd love to see what a "good" design looks like so I know what to look for should I become a parent.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#133

Post by shereadsthenews » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

lemoncucumber wrote: post #20

I grew up going to the city of Berkeley's Adventure Playground ( https://www.cityofberkeley.info/adventureplayground/ ), which has been around since 1979. It was one of most memorable and fun places I remember going as a kid. I did once end up with a nail in my arm (which I still have a scar from), but even after that happened my parents let me keep going back.

That place is hilarious. One time when I was there some kids were trying to cut through a piano with a back saw, which makes an unbelievable noise.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#134

Post by shereadsthenews » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

emptybits wrote: post #12

Something from a similar set of values: "Why I’m Sending My Child to Forest School and not Kindergarten" https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/why-im-sending-my-c...

Unfortunately in California "forest school" and other play schools attract mainly anti-vaxxers and other weirdos. It might be a good idea, but the self-selecting clientele are a problem.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#135

Post by XaoDaoCaoCao » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:08 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #109

TimTheTinker wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but it's a bit late for that, at least in the US.

Our gun industry produces more than 11 million guns a year. Sure, many of those wind up in Mexico and Central America via the drug trade, but that's still a lot of supply being sustained through the system. Guns wear out, simply cutting production would do a lot to reduce the number of guns in the system (outlaw or not).

Even with our vast gun supply, the US one of the safest nations on Earth. Half of our homicides are committed by a particular minority of the population which, when removed from the picture, makes it really stark how "well behaved" a majority of Americans are in comparison to the number of guns.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#136

Post by coding123 » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

free652 wrote: post #102

TimTheTinker wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hypocrisy of Christians who don't support gun control I don't see how the two equate to hypocrisy. A friend of mine (a Christian) is strongly opposed to gun control. He has a concealed carry license and carries everywhere, because he wants to have the means to protect himself and his loved ones from an active shooter, if necessary. He cites "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," and feels personally a…

If there are no guns then outlaws wouldn't have them.

That's not what he said. If guns were OUTLAWED, not if there were no guns.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#137

Post by maxerickson » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #86

loup-vaillant wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The value of life is not infinite. The whole western civilization is standing on the assumption that it is.

This is observably not the case, in all sorts of situations.

Violence, vehicles, medicine, pollution, etc, etc, etc.

Of course we've gotten to a place where we spend lots of dollars preventing 1 statistical death, but not even tens of millions most of the time.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#138

Post by unknownkadath » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:11 AM UTC

hyperdunc wrote: post #125

unknownkadath wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, here's the thing: a neural tube with the same number of neurons as C. elegans isn't the same thing as a human being. I can see how some folks can get confused, though.

Comparing snapshots of organisms isn't that useful. C. Elegans is never going to turn into a conscious human being.

Why not? So what?

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#139

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:14 AM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #120

mherdeg wrote: post #97

I was watching some kids in our local playground climb pretty high in some of our local trees and wondering whether this a good idea, and came across this writeup on risky play: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201404... Modern parents who keep up to date on the parenting zeitgeist will have been exposed to the complementary idea to risky play that instead of saying "Be careful!" to a kid, you ca…

Kids feel safe when they don't know what the dangers are. My kid would feel safe sticking his hand in a pan of boiling oil

Once, but they won't do it again.

I wouldn't recommend starting with a pan of boiling oil, but my five-year-old loves helping to make pancakes, and it took exactly one glancing touch for him to learn that the edge of the frying pan is hot.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#140

Post by oska » Thu, May 16, 2019, 1:16 AM UTC

lb1lf wrote: post #2

This, this, a thousand times this. Life is about evaluating risk. You need to learn it at some point. A playground is as good a place as any. By all means, make them safe enough that kids won't get maimed or killed - but keeping kids from ever falling far enough to feel any real pain is probably counter- productive in the long term. Sigh. My eldest kid's kindergarten advertised themselves as an outdoor experience thi…

I sympathise with your comment about the trees being cut down. Trees are natural, 'undesigned' features that are good for thrilling and risky climbing activities. And yes, good for learning to evaluate risk, something I did a lot of when climbing trees as a child (I used to go very high).

But I don't agree with accepting risk in a designed playground. Safety for the children using it should be a very high priority, because it is being expressly made for children to play on and therefore the designers have a responsibility to design for safety. And life is more than just evaluating risk and so is play. Play is also physical activity and building co-ordination and strength while having fun. Playgrounds can provide this without including risk. Risk is available elsewhere and the adventurous kids will easily find it if they seek it out (e.g. by climbing trees, if they haven't all been cut down).