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

New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

news.nationalpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 86 posts

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#61

Post by fineline »

contingencies wrote: post #4

I usually live an Asia and often tell local people that the great play equipment available to children there would be disallowed in parts of the west (eg. my native Australia) due to health and safety concerns, generally as a result of mandatory insurance and greedy insurance companies. No longer are swings and see-saws available! Instead, you get a padded piece of artificial plas-floor with a carefully rounded (so w…

I am an Australian parent, and whilst I agree there's some liability-averse nonsense[1], the parks we go to do still have swing and see-saws. Maybe a different state or council?

[1] E.g. a local spot where kids would jump from a rock ledge into water. Council concerned about liability put up a 6' fence. So now kids jump from an unstable footing at a greater height - but hey, the council can avoid liability.

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#62

Post by fnbr »

krrrh wrote: post #41
bitwize wrote: post #14

When I was in elementary school, much of the playground was built out of old car, truck, and tractor tires. There were conventional swings and slides, but there was also a tractor-tire tower to defend, a couple of car-tire geodesic-sphere-like structures, and other such wonders but the jewel was TireTown, a fortress built out of tires with tire bridges connecting to two smaller structures. TireTown was easily two met…

This sounds exactly like my elementary school playground in Alberta (so much so I had to wonder if we went to the same school, but then I imagine there were photostated plans for getting a playground up quick with old tires and chains that made the rounds in those days). Everything in Canada has gotten way too safe. In Germany however, they've still got a lot of downright expressionist playgrounds. This ladder I witn…

Not Belgravia, by any chance? We had the same thing at my elementary school in Edmonton!

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#63

Post by mathattack »

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #19

Am I the only one that looking at what the kids are doing in the pictures consider it totally normal? In Spain we used to do way more dangerous things than those. And it was risky, one of our friends died in the river jumping over a slippery stone and hitting his neck with a stone while falling backwards. I have to say he was pretty nuts and was in constant danger everywhere. Another friend is in wheelchair after jum…

I recall climbing up our 2 story middle school's roof to look for tennis balls that we accidentally hit up there. I can't imagine that happening today. Same with climbing up our house's drain pipe to let ourselves in the 2nd floor window. And the list keeps growing.

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#64

Post by brc »

ronnier wrote: post #50
fineline wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, look I agree with the general sentiment of letting kids take risk and learn responsibility, but my two small kids (who do skateboarding, BMX racing, surfing, rugby and a lot of general "rumbling") are NOT allowed to ride without helmets and I wear one too. I survived not having one as a kid (nobody did then), but I wear one too now, and seriously the upside/downside equation here is a no-brainer. Other than tha…

Keep in mind, my kids are riding with me walking right next to them. They are still using training wheels.

I get where you are coming from, but you want to associate bike riding = helmet wearing.

From training wheels to full-speed downhill riding should only take 6 months. You want to encourage helmet wearing as a habit before that progression occurs.

My child had a very large crash that occured because he went down a hill and got confused as to which side of the bike the brake was on, because he was riding an unfamiliar bike. He had ridden down that hill many times. He crashed heavily at a high speed, enough to knock a tooth out and lost a lot of skin on his face, elbows, hands and knees. The helmet had serious damage and had to be thrown away. I don't want to think what would have happened had there been no helmet. He was 4 at the time.

I let them ride down hills to get used to the speed as part of learning, so that when they do get older they don't make bad mistakes. I also ride on the road with them to develop their traffic awareness. But helmets are a vital part of that.

I had several high speed crashes on my bike during school years. It was only luck that meant I didn't hit my head hard.

Please start making them wear helmets.

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#65

Post by velik_m »

joshfraser wrote: post #60
pavanred wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this article [1] just a few days ago about how kids are over protected now. It also includes the Swanson Primary School story too. An excerpt "...I’ve mostly met children who take it for granted that they are always being watched..." struck me, it definitely was not like that while I was growing up. Besides, is there a time line for the Swanson Primary School story? The article I linked to mentions this as an…

Thanks for sharing that link. This paragraph in particular jumped out at me in regards to all the efforts that have been made to rubber surface everything: We might accept a few more phobias in our children in exchange for fewer injuries. But the final irony is that our close attention to safety has not in fact made a tremendous difference in the number of accidents children have. According to the National Electronic…

That is 20% drop in injuries.

EDIT: it's actually a 25% increase as ebrenes correctly pointed out. Server me right for trying to do math early in the morning...

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#66

Post by techdragon »

joshfraser wrote: post #58
jasonwocky wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment. We're more worried about child abductions than childhood obesity. Statistically speaking, only one of those is a real issue today. Quit talking nonsense. A young boy got abducted mere blocks from where I live not more than 3 years ago. Those parents would give anything to have an obese kid right now. Asking parents to make decisions based on the aggregate damage child…

According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, about 115 children / year are the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. These “stereotypical” kidnappings involved someone the child did not know or was an acquaintance. The child was held overnight, transported 50 miles or more, killed, ransomed or held with the intent to keep the child permanently. 115 children out of ~74 million in the US. I under…

Being scared of the wrong things, is pretty much impossible to avoid. The best we can hope for is people 'think more', and thats a pretty long shot.

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#67

Post by ebrenes »

velik_m wrote: post #65
joshfraser wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing that link. This paragraph in particular jumped out at me in regards to all the efforts that have been made to rubber surface everything: We might accept a few more phobias in our children in exchange for fewer injuries. But the final irony is that our close attention to safety has not in fact made a tremendous difference in the number of accidents children have. According to the National Electronic…

That is 20% drop in injuries. EDIT: it's actually a 25% increase as ebrenes correctly pointed out. Server me right for trying to do math early in the morning...

No, it's not. That's one injury per population amount, so the lower the second number the less people you "need" to get one injury.

Assuming a fixed population size of 1 million, given the 1980 prevalence of injuries you'd expect about ~689 injuries. With the 2012 prevalence of injuries you'd expect about ~865 injuries. So it's actually an increase, not a drop.

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#69

Post by Aoyagi »

It's sad that in some cultures/places/families this is considered as something "unconventional or even quirky. The modern "children should live in a bubble" overprotective approach is not only making the kids useless for some things in the future, but also causes some mental issues or even disorders of varying severity (but of course, on the other hand, diagnosing every kid with ADHD and every teenager with depression is equally unfathomable for me). There was a TED talk (can't find it, possibly [1]) with some guy describing how he's doing 'dangerous' summer camps for kids. It included fire, sharp tools, etc. That's when I realized the summer camps I went to and I still visit as a supervisor/counsellor/leader would probably be banned and I executed in some places... [1] - http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_...

Re: New Zealand school tossed its playground rules

#70

Post by patrickdavey »

mattchamb wrote: post #15

Before people say that this school will get sued, it is useful to know that this school is in New Zealand. Because of the way our healthcare system works, we cannot sue for personal injury here [1]. >Because of the wide range of help available from ACC after an injury, you can’t sue for personal injury in New Zealand, except for exemplary damages. This applies to overseas tourists too. [1] http://www.acc.co.nz/about-…

ACC is possibly the best thing about NZ, and most surprising. For example, you can go hiking (tramping as they call it here), fall down, break a leg... and ACC will fly out a helicopter to get you, bring you to the hospital, patch you up and send you on your way. All at no cost to you. As OP said, this counts for anyone on NZ soil, regardless of nationality. Keeps lawyers at bay. It's great.

I know of friends in the US who don't go mountain biking etc. because they're between jobs and can't afford the potential hospital bills. That is simply sad.

Post reply on HN