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

211–220 of 275 posts

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#211

Post by ezconnect »

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…

In South Korea, playgrounds are everywhere. They look very very dangerous on my point of view because I've never seen those kind of design and activity when I was a kid. I've been here 4 years and I have never seen one get injured on them.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#212

Post by AriaMinaei »

ethagknight wrote: post #176
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…

Does your friend have a website? If not, can you see me contact info? Email in bio.

Yes it would be helpful if you could point us to some resources about playground design.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#213

Post by gumby »

ip26 wrote: post #188
gumby wrote: post #31

An example from the '00s: We sent our kid to a German school in Menlo Park. He immediately loved it on the first visit because the under-5s' playground was full of old wood with splinters and dangerous tools (hammers, saws etc) and the little kids could cause all sorts of ruckus, like building dams and flooding them. But the reality of a foreign-language school is that you need more than just "nationals" (people who…

Not having seen said playground, I can only wonder as to the specifics of the dangerous tools. I presume they were kid-versions, e.g. no 2lb claw hammers or razor sharp 16" rip saws.

They weren’t 20 lb hammers, no, but nails (safer than brads actually), small hacksaws and the like — a regular rip saw is too heavy for a little kid!. Things like hot glue guns were plugged in indoors - kids went in and used them on their own as needed.

But also more was expected: I remember nobody thought it remarkable when the after school teacher just decided one day to take 8 or 10 kids aged 5-11 on foot to downtown Palo Alto (3-4 miles round trip) by herself.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#214

Post by iovrthoughtthis »

solipsism wrote: post #200
Swizec wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely your qualm is with the “but isn’t” right? “It feels dangerous” is certainly subjective.

I think you’re not breaking things down sufficiently.

Subjective is how things feel, regardless of how they are.

Objective is how things are, regardless of how they feel.

Should probably replace feel with “are perceived” but feel is more contextual here.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#215

Post by [deleted] »

unknownkadath wrote: post #105
TimTheTinker wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of children dying in the womb = crickets. (or hot debate, depending on your country) I know that's a controversial issue. No offense intended toward any individuals - but this is my viewpoint.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#216

Post by bad_good_guy »

justinator wrote: post #198
souprock wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it insane when this is the historic reason behind large families?

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#217

Post by burfog »

unknownkadath wrote: post #197
TimTheTinker wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Say what??? A neural tube doesn't instantly transform into a baby at the moment of birth.

The unborn that are getting killed can typically move about, feel pain, and respond to injury. They react in agony when being torn apart or injected with brine.

They have brainwaves, which is the usual standard (varies by state law) we use to draw the line at the end of life, with the loss of brainwaves meaning death. Obviously we don't need to check dusty old bones or a person chatting with the doctor, but we do check in the difficult cases.

Consistency demands that our standard for one end of a lifetime be as similar as possible to our standard for the other end of a lifetime. That standard for death, subject to minor variations in state law, is brainwaves.

Conveniently, such a standard eliminates the rape excuse. There is plenty of time prior to brainwaves.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#218

Post by Doxin »

Tsagadai wrote: post #178
speeder wrote: post #8

My second worst accident as a kid, was on a "safe" playground, when my finger got stuck on a hinge of a swing. My most daring stunts, were on "safe" playgrounds too, for example trying to make swings do a 360 (yes, I tried that, never succeeded). Both times what was going on my mind is that I wanted to do something fun, and the equipment looked like it would work for what I wanted... Ended once even accidentally disa…

A 360 on a children's swing can definitely be done. I've done it as a child and as an adult. It usually needs to have a much longer rope/chain on it to get the momentum up.

Wouldn't you be limited to going 180 degrees? any more than that and you'll start falling straight down on the backswing instead of swinging.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#219

Post by cheschire »

gumby wrote: post #213
ip26 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having seen said playground, I can only wonder as to the specifics of the dangerous tools. I presume they were kid-versions, e.g. no 2lb claw hammers or razor sharp 16" rip saws.

They weren’t 20 lb hammers, no, but nails (safer than brads actually), small hacksaws and the like — a regular rip saw is too heavy for a little kid!. Things like hot glue guns were plugged in indoors - kids went in and used them on their own as needed. But also more was expected: I remember nobody thought it remarkable when the after school teacher just decided one day to take 8 or 10 kids aged 5-11 on foot to downt…

In Germany the field trips like this are typical even for kids under 5, though the control types vary. Sometimes it's one teacher, sometimes one in front and one in back. Sometimes they just make the kids pair up and hold hands, and sometimes they give them a rope that they have to hold onto.

This facilitates school age kids in all grades who are capable of riding city buses and trains on their own to and from school. Obviously the lack of child abduction in the news plays a role in parents allowing this.

Re: Making Playgrounds a Little More Dangerous

#220

Post by TomMarius »

maxerickson wrote: post #137
TomMarius wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't see how it's observably not the case when my mother is working in a hospital where people are kept alive for decades just for the slight chance that medicine might evolve enough to cure them or they just wake up one day; when they are spending extraordinary amounts of money and time of dozens of researchers and doctors on experimental treatments, etc.

I don't understand how vehicles or pollution change anything. I never said there are no bad actors, there are in every civilization, and there are compromises you need to make but that doesn't mean you would not do anything to save someone. Awareness about pollution and its effects is just starting to exist. We didn't think it's bad a few decades ago.

Post reply on HN