6 ms·

You hit the nail on the head. From the article: >“Many agencies fear being sued if a child gets hurt,” said Teri Hendy, the president of an Ohio-based playgro

by daenz 7y ago

You hit the nail on the head. From the article: >“Many agencies fear being sued if a child gets hurt,” said Teri Hendy, the president of an Ohio-based playground consultancy, Site Masters. Ms. Hendy blamed outdated federal rules on playground design developed decades ago by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She favors more flexible guidelines, arguing that playgrounds don’t have to be boring to be safe. We got to this point because of lawsuits and regulation. Unless we make parents sign waivers for their kids to use the playground, we can expect more of the same. It just takes one lawsuit to ruin it for everyone else, so that's what organizations like these really need to protect themselves from.

maxxxxx 7y ago
It’s a really tricky balance. On the one hand we should have rules that don’t allow building unnecessarily dangerous stuff (eg covering toys with lead coating) but on the other hand we shouldn’t expect 100% safety because the only really safe thing is something that doesn’t exist. It’s really difficult.
- ken 7y ago
  I would say there's a significant difference between the chemical/biological danger from touching a material which appears basically identical to other safe materials and causes toxic exposure over time, and the physical danger from falling or being cut. I want kids to learn that concrete is hard, and the harder you hit it, the more it will hurt. It's an easy lesson to learn, by trial-and-error, and transferable to many other situations. I don't want to make kids try to learn about lead poisoning by trial-and-error. They're not going to succeed at that. Even adults took 50 years of research to stop putting it in gasoline.
  - fjsolwmv 7y ago
    I don't want my daughter to learn about diving into the concrete floor of a pool, or smashing her head into a concrete play structure, by trial and error.
- HankB99 7y ago
  Delicate balance is the word I would have used. As a scoutmaster (BSA in the US) It seemed to me that many of our youth have no comprehension of their own mortality. I used to try to impress upon them the necessity to stay more than one mistake away from disaster. I recall two incidents that demonstrated this. At a winter camp out the scouts were explicitly warned not to sled on the side of the hill that had trees. One scout didn't heed and hit a tree. He left the campout in an ambulance. Another scout - luckily at the bottom of sandstone bluffs - decided to see how close he could get to the pot formed by a waterfall. He lost his footing and went into the pot which still held water. He was not injured but had to walk the rest of the hike in wet clothes. It was about 45°F so he was pretty uncomfortable. (At this park several people die each year because they make the same mistake at the top of the bluffs.) These are just the actions that resulted in a problem or serious injury. There were many times when the youth got too close to the edge - often literally - and were lucky enough to escape unscathed. On a visceral level I agree with not being overprotective, but being underprotective may not always have the desired effect of instilling a desire to be aware of hazards. Moreover, are we willing to accept the occasional death or maiming of a young person so their cohorts can learn about danger?
ghaff 7y ago
And IANAL but it's not clear that waivers would even help. Anyone can still file a suit and, presumably, a competent lawyer would argue that negligence on the part of the playground owner/operator contributed to whatever the accident was.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
The reality is different though. There is nothing in this world quite so soul crushingly painful as having your child die while doing something that the parent and perhaps people in general, consider to be 'safe.' For me, it took some time to fall madly and deeply in love with my spouse, and to my surprise I developed that attachment instantly to my children. That same sort of passion that you would do anything to keep them safe, to help them grow up to be the people you want them to be. When a child dies doing something that "should" have been ok, it creates a searing, wrenching, soul destroying since of loss and guilt and anger and pain. No waiver, no explanation of statistics, no explanation of preventative measures, nothing can salve that wound. And so parents, even ones of limited means, have been known to invest everything they have, time, money, energy, into making someone pay in the hopes it will make the grieving parent feel slightly less pain. It doesn't make for less pain of course, only time and distance can mute the pain, but that can't be explained either because the desire to do something is irrationally over powering.
- redff0000 7y ago
  Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. Low probability high severity events trigger a cognitive bias that makes people attempt to make things '100% safe'. There are two problems with that. 1: nothing can ever be made 100% safe so those low probability high impact events still happen from time to time. 2: making things safe hits a steep diminishing returns curve after some point, and the opportunity cost of creating said safety level starts to outweigh the benefits of not creating it.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. But thanks to our laws, we don't have to worry about playground sets. Low probability / high impact events are a fact of life and are a valid cause for regulations. Worker safety laws in the early 1900s were such that people more regularly lost fingers or even limbs in heavy machinery. It still happens today, but safety programs and safety regulations have made such events far less likely.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
why do people sue? Because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare. At any given public school, how many of those kids' parents have $15k - $50k to cover an orthopedic injury, ambulance/ER/surgery/overnight hospital bill ? It's the same for the zero-tolerance fighting policies. Kids aren't allowed to fight back because the insurance company figured out that 4 hands throwing punches are worse than 2. The hospital bill is the same price whether the person with the broken nose is the bully or the victim.
- secabeen 7y ago
  >why do people sue? Because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare. At any given public school, how many of those kids' parents have $15k - $50k to cover an orthopedic injury, ambulance/ER/surgery/overnight hospital bill ? It's not always the parents. Sometimes the insurance company will sue to recover costs.
gameswithgo 7y ago
Playgrounds are still really fun for kids and they aren’t maimed as often. I think this is fine. Even with modern safe playgrounds it is stressful keeping young kids from hurting themselves.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But that's the point - you're not supposed to keep them from hurting themselves. You're supposed to keep them from hurting themselves too much.

by daenz 7y ago

maxxxxx 7y ago

It’s a really tricky balance. On the one hand we should have rules that don’t allow building unnecessarily dangerous stuff (eg covering toys with lead coating) but on the other hand we shouldn’t expect 100% safety because the only really safe thing is something that doesn’t exist. It’s really difficult.

ken 7y ago
I would say there's a significant difference between the chemical/biological danger from touching a material which appears basically identical to other safe materials and causes toxic exposure over time, and the physical danger from falling or being cut. I want kids to learn that concrete is hard, and the harder you hit it, the more it will hurt. It's an easy lesson to learn, by trial-and-error, and transferable to many other situations. I don't want to make kids try to learn about lead poisoning by trial-and-error. They're not going to succeed at that. Even adults took 50 years of research to stop putting it in gasoline.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  I don't want my daughter to learn about diving into the concrete floor of a pool, or smashing her head into a concrete play structure, by trial and error.
HankB99 7y ago
Delicate balance is the word I would have used. As a scoutmaster (BSA in the US) It seemed to me that many of our youth have no comprehension of their own mortality. I used to try to impress upon them the necessity to stay more than one mistake away from disaster. I recall two incidents that demonstrated this. At a winter camp out the scouts were explicitly warned not to sled on the side of the hill that had trees. One scout didn't heed and hit a tree. He left the campout in an ambulance. Another scout - luckily at the bottom of sandstone bluffs - decided to see how close he could get to the pot formed by a waterfall. He lost his footing and went into the pot which still held water. He was not injured but had to walk the rest of the hike in wet clothes. It was about 45°F so he was pretty uncomfortable. (At this park several people die each year because they make the same mistake at the top of the bluffs.) These are just the actions that resulted in a problem or serious injury. There were many times when the youth got too close to the edge - often literally - and were lucky enough to escape unscathed. On a visceral level I agree with not being overprotective, but being underprotective may not always have the desired effect of instilling a desire to be aware of hazards. Moreover, are we willing to accept the occasional death or maiming of a young person so their cohorts can learn about danger?

ghaff 7y ago

And IANAL but it's not clear that waivers would even help. Anyone can still file a suit and, presumably, a competent lawyer would argue that negligence on the part of the playground owner/operator contributed to whatever the accident was.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

The reality is different though. There is nothing in this world quite so soul crushingly painful as having your child die while doing something that the parent and perhaps people in general, consider to be 'safe.' For me, it took some time to fall madly and deeply in love with my spouse, and to my surprise I developed that attachment instantly to my children. That same sort of passion that you would do anything to keep them safe, to help them grow up to be the people you want them to be. When a child dies doing something that "should" have been ok, it creates a searing, wrenching, soul destroying since of loss and guilt and anger and pain. No waiver, no explanation of statistics, no explanation of preventative measures, nothing can salve that wound. And so parents, even ones of limited means, have been known to invest everything they have, time, money, energy, into making someone pay in the hopes it will make the grieving parent feel slightly less pain. It doesn't make for less pain of course, only time and distance can mute the pain, but that can't be explained either because the desire to do something is irrationally over powering.

redff0000 7y ago
Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. Low probability high severity events trigger a cognitive bias that makes people attempt to make things '100% safe'. There are two problems with that. 1: nothing can ever be made 100% safe so those low probability high impact events still happen from time to time. 2: making things safe hits a steep diminishing returns curve after some point, and the opportunity cost of creating said safety level starts to outweigh the benefits of not creating it.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > Your child could have slipped when getting off a train and permanently injured themselves, or in any other number of ways. But thanks to our laws, we don't have to worry about playground sets. Low probability / high impact events are a fact of life and are a valid cause for regulations. Worker safety laws in the early 1900s were such that people more regularly lost fingers or even limbs in heavy machinery. It still happens today, but safety programs and safety regulations have made such events far less likely.

JudgeWapner 7y ago

why do people sue? Because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare. At any given public school, how many of those kids' parents have $15k - $50k to cover an orthopedic injury, ambulance/ER/surgery/overnight hospital bill ? It's the same for the zero-tolerance fighting policies. Kids aren't allowed to fight back because the insurance company figured out that 4 hands throwing punches are worse than 2. The hospital bill is the same price whether the person with the broken nose is the bully or the victim.

secabeen 7y ago
>why do people sue? Because of the ridiculous cost of healthcare. At any given public school, how many of those kids' parents have $15k - $50k to cover an orthopedic injury, ambulance/ER/surgery/overnight hospital bill ? It's not always the parents. Sometimes the insurance company will sue to recover costs.

gameswithgo 7y ago

Playgrounds are still really fun for kids and they aren’t maimed as often. I think this is fine. Even with modern safe playgrounds it is stressful keeping young kids from hurting themselves.

Mirioron 7y ago
But that's the point - you're not supposed to keep them from hurting themselves. You're supposed to keep them from hurting themselves too much.