Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 275 posts

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#191

Post by Fwirt »

djsumdog wrote: post #172

In high school I remember walked through the primary school and noticing both jungle gyms were gone. Another friend said the big metal jungle gym at his elementary school were gone too. Only the overhead monkey bars remained. I suspect kids probably go hurt on these (they are solid metal bars that go up pretty high after all). I've seen them return to playgrounds, but today they're all made of rope and above softer m…

I think some of this falls into the category of obvious risk versus hidden risk. When I was a kid, I was playing in the park with some other kids who were dropping through the bars of a dome-shaped jungle gym. I tried to follow, dropped through, and found myself hanging by my head, which had gotten wedged in the bars. I dangled there writhing around until my dad lifted me out about 10 seconds later. I had giant welts on the front and back of my head, and tore all the connective tissue in my forehead, I could wrinkle it up like a Klingon for years afterward. I think that particular jungle gym was removed after that.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#192

Post by ip26 »

quakenul wrote: post #34
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…

> 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. There is no room between "overprotection" and "freedom", that guarantees safety from harm. Serious accidents have to be accepted before they even happen. A scary prospect for many parents, I am sure.

I'm not giving my seven year old the freedom to operate a chainsaw. I don't think that counts as "overprotection", and I think it confers considerable margin of safety from harm by chainsaw.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#193

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Ok I'm in Denmark, so also in the EU - can it really be that in our socialist paradise playgrounds are more dangerous and less boring than in the US?

I can't remember the playgrounds from the US very well anymore but thinking about it yeah most places I went to were pretty cookie cutter, but I'm also old so I think the boring part is maybe not directly correlated with safety.

Here is a company that makes playgrounds in Denmark http://monstrum.dk/en/ I have several of them in my area. I just wonder if there is really less of a focus on safety in Denmark of all places. And if so, why?

on edit: fixed typo

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#194

Post by taneq »

fatnoah wrote: post #3

The only anecdote I can share about this comes from the time my family was touring a local day camp. On the tour, they showed us everything: archery, fishing, swimming, ropes, and everything else you could think of. At one point, we came to a massive, 10 foot high pile of dirt. The kids immediately ran for the dirt pile and the parents' reactions were a 50/50 mix of "Awesome" or "What are you building here?" I knew t…

That sounds like a good camp.

From the kids' perspective, that big pile of rocks would be equally good whether it was stable and safe to climb on, or some 1-ton rock was teetering ready to crush the first child to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's up to the playground designer to make sure it's the former and not the latter.

The playground should feel a little dangerous and let kids climb things, fall off, get bumps and scrapes. It shouldn't contain genuine life-threatening hazards.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#195

Post by TimTheTinker »

justasitsounds wrote: post #175
hyperdunc wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, if we're talking about potential, most pro-lifers make exceptions for cases of rape or incest. However, if it's one's "sincerely held belief" that a ball of cells is a human because it has the potential to become a conscious human being then such exceptions are the equivalent to killing an adult who's only crime is to have been conceived as a result of rape or incest. Personally I am pro-choice, but if you are…

I’m pro-life, and I think killing an unborn baby for any reason is abhorrent — as you said, it’s the same as murdering an adult. (Although there are cases where the mother’s life is in danger - but that’s always about “who to save” in the middle of a surgery or something - that’s different.)

I don’t know who you’ve heard that viewpoint from (abortion is wrong except in cases of rape/invest) but I don’t believe that and I don’t know anyone who does. I think it appears as a political concession and rarely (if ever) as a sincerely held belief.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#196

Post by drewda »

amluto wrote: post #162
headcanon wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+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.

Here are some I like in SV: Magical Bridge in Palo Alto. Caters to kids with developmental disabilities and kids who like to scramble over fun obstacles. Magic Mountain in Coyote Point. San Mateo Central Park. I think this one might be older than a lot of current standards. For a playground that gets it all wrong, there’s a pirate ship structure in Vail, CO near the main base. It claims 5-12, but it ends up being ver…

Magic Mountain in Coyote Point used to be so different. A giant mound of concrete that we'd ride down on cardboard sheets. This century's version with its metal slides is fine, but not the same.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#197

Post by unknownkadath »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #195
justasitsounds wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if we're talking about potential, most pro-lifers make exceptions for cases of rape or incest. However, if it's one's "sincerely held belief" that a ball of cells is a human because it has the potential to become a conscious human being then such exceptions are the equivalent to killing an adult who's only crime is to have been conceived as a result of rape or incest. Personally I am pro-choice, but if you are…

I’m pro-life, and I think killing an unborn baby for any reason is abhorrent — as you said, it’s the same as murdering an adult. (Although there are cases where the mother’s life is in danger - but that’s always about “who to save” in the middle of a surgery or something - that’s different.) I don’t know who you’ve heard that viewpoint from (abortion is wrong except in cases of rape/invest) but I don’t believe that a…

A neural tube isn't a baby.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#198

Post by justinator »

souprock wrote: post #72
loup-vaillant wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 even…

Well, I have a dozen kids, and I agree. Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. My wife's uncle had the postcard family, one boy and one girl in a cute little city house with a picket fence. The daughter died, and the father completely fell apart. He lost 100% of his daughters. It is too late for him to create a replacement. Most fam…

Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die.

I think I just read the most insane sentence I'll read all year.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#199

Post by Swizec »

solipsism wrote: post #112
magicalhippo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I like the dichotomy, but for me the names "subjective safety" and "objective safety" make no sense. "Obvious dangers" vs "non-obvious dangers" seems like much clearer language, even if it's the case that there's a way to squint to make the terminology you used make sense. Kids will naturally explore the boundaries around obvious dangers.

I think subjective/objective makes more sense than obvious and not. Subjective danger is things that feel dangerous but aren’t. Objective danger is things that don’t feel dangerous but are.

For example: a rollercoaster is subjectively dangerous but objectively safe. That’s its whole design objective, feeling dangerous while being totally safe.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#200

Post by solipsism »

Swizec wrote: post #199
solipsism wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the dichotomy, but for me the names "subjective safety" and "objective safety" make no sense. "Obvious dangers" vs "non-obvious dangers" seems like much clearer language, even if it's the case that there's a way to squint to make the terminology you used make sense. Kids will naturally explore the boundaries around obvious dangers.

I think subjective/objective makes more sense than obvious and not. Subjective danger is things that feel dangerous but aren’t. Objective danger is things that don’t feel dangerous but are. For example: a rollercoaster is subjectively dangerous but objectively safe. That’s its whole design objective, feeling dangerous while being totally safe.

Subjective danger is things that feel dangerous but aren’t.

That's not what the word "subjective" means. Language is malleable and all that, but "subjective" doesn't mean "feels like but isn't". Not even close.

Objective danger is things that don’t feel dangerous but are.

And wow, that's really not what "objective" means.

Post reply on HN