7 ms·

> Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best. Fran

by merrvk 9y ago

> Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best. Frankly every time a child gets in a car they are much more likely to get injured than in a game of rugby. I guess it's time to start wrapping our children in bubblewrap every time they go out, just in case...

smt88 9y ago
1) I find that hard to believe. Where did you read this? Injuries-per-minute playing rugby are surely higher than when riding a car. 2) Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.
- logicchains 9y ago
  >Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. That's a very America-centric point of view, and completely not true if you live in a city designed to accommodate high-density living (or at the very least one without terrible public transport).
  - Anon1096 9y ago
    This comment is pedantic and unnecessary. For people that have to ride in a car to go places, it absolutely is necessary.
    - logicchains 9y ago
      It shows that it's possible to structure your life to not need a car, so you can significantly reduce the risk of a traffic accident.
  - smt88 9y ago
    It's not America-centric, it's anyplace-that-requires-a-car-centric. If you're putting a child in a car, it's safe to assume it's not usually for recreational purposes. It's usually because it's the easiest (or only) way to move them a certain distance.
    - logicchains 9y ago
      Yes, but people can choose to structure their life in ways that don't require putting children in cars, hence greatly reducing the risk of their children being in traffic accidents. So cars are not unavoidable, they're just a trade-off.
- outsideoflife 9y ago
  > Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily. Exercise is a necessary part of a healthy life. If Rugby motivates you to stay fit, then maybe it improves your chances of a healthy life
  - smt88 9y ago
    Your comment isn't really pertinent to my point. It's like saying that steak is necessary because eating is necessary. Yes, exercise is necessary, but rugby isn't the only way to exercise, nor is it nearly the safest. Cars aren't the only way to travel in general, but, for many people in many situations, the other options aren't viable.
- brians 9y ago
  Indeed, it’s not per minute. But measure the injuries from a year of car riding vs a year of rugby, and our collective decision to make autos part of daily life looks more interesting
  - smt88 9y ago
    It still just seems like apples-to-oranges to me. It's perfectly rational to accept the risk of transportation, as transportation is often vital. The same isn't true of things done for pleasure, like sports.

by merrvk 9y ago

smt88 9y ago

1) I find that hard to believe. Where did you read this? Injuries-per-minute playing rugby are surely higher than when riding a car. 2) Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.

logicchains 9y ago
>Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. That's a very America-centric point of view, and completely not true if you live in a city designed to accommodate high-density living (or at the very least one without terrible public transport).
- Anon1096 9y ago
  This comment is pedantic and unnecessary. For people that have to ride in a car to go places, it absolutely is necessary.
  - logicchains 9y ago
    It shows that it's possible to structure your life to not need a car, so you can significantly reduce the risk of a traffic accident.
- smt88 9y ago
  It's not America-centric, it's anyplace-that-requires-a-car-centric. If you're putting a child in a car, it's safe to assume it's not usually for recreational purposes. It's usually because it's the easiest (or only) way to move them a certain distance.
  - logicchains 9y ago
    Yes, but people can choose to structure their life in ways that don't require putting children in cars, hence greatly reducing the risk of their children being in traffic accidents. So cars are not unavoidable, they're just a trade-off.
outsideoflife 9y ago
> Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily. Exercise is a necessary part of a healthy life. If Rugby motivates you to stay fit, then maybe it improves your chances of a healthy life
- smt88 9y ago
  Your comment isn't really pertinent to my point. It's like saying that steak is necessary because eating is necessary. Yes, exercise is necessary, but rugby isn't the only way to exercise, nor is it nearly the safest. Cars aren't the only way to travel in general, but, for many people in many situations, the other options aren't viable.
brians 9y ago
Indeed, it’s not per minute. But measure the injuries from a year of car riding vs a year of rugby, and our collective decision to make autos part of daily life looks more interesting
- smt88 9y ago
  It still just seems like apples-to-oranges to me. It's perfectly rational to accept the risk of transportation, as transportation is often vital. The same isn't true of things done for pleasure, like sports.