3 ms·

I agree with the argument, but I'm skeptical of the claim that "injury rates from de-risked playgrounds are not materially lower". If these playgrounds are more

I agree with the argument, but I'm skeptical of the claim that "injury rates from de-risked playgrounds are not materially lower". If these playgrounds are more expensive to build and deliver no benefit at all, surely they would have been abandoned long ago.

mike_hock 7y ago
lol as if that's how the world works
greedo 7y ago
They make parents and administrators "feel good." That's a significant benefit, one that drives a lot of purchasing decisions.
- wirrbel 7y ago
  Not only that. They give them a paper trail that they made safety-focused decisions. That especially applies to administrators.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cortesoft 7y ago
Your faith in the rationality of the world is a bit too strong.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
PeterStuer 7y ago
The derisking for the playground owner/exploiter still works regardless.
atoav 7y ago
Of course this is anecdotal evidence, but me and my 3 brothers grew up with a lot of silly or dangerous stuff: climbing on trees, skateboarding, snowboarding, trampolines, jumping down stairs, jumping over ramps with the bike, jumping from cliffs and bridges etc. Our parents would just let us do our stuff. And although we were bruised all the time only one of us broke a bone once. In the same time my friend with over-careful doctors as parents broke arms/legs roughly four times. And other kids with paranoid parents had similar problems. Our parents thought us early on that we need to judge these risks ourselves, while these other kids would be extremely scared of harmless stuff at one point and overconfident in other more dangerous situations.
- nollbit 7y ago
  Perhaps your friends parents were over-careful because their kids kept breaking bones? Kids are different. Mine is very risk-averse and has essentially never hurt himself bad. I was the same way as a kid. His friends are daredevils who hurt themselves constantly. Also, when it comes to "our parents in the past would let us do anything and I came out ok" sounds a bit like survival bias to me. In Sweden, far fewer kids die today than in the 70s, so perhaps there's some merit to bicycle helmets, safer playgrounds and not letting your kids eats whole grapes unattended before the age of five or so etc.
- watwut 7y ago
  Or maybe the parents became over paranoid, because their kids where prone to injure themselves and even broke logs multiple times. Maybe the parents were not so much paranoid as reacting to their kids either doing dumber stuff or being more clumsy or having weaker bones.
voldacar 7y ago
> If these playgrounds are more expensive to build and deliver no benefit at all, surely they would have been abandoned long ago. human beings are often not rational
afarrell 7y ago
> If these playgrounds are more expensive to build and deliver no benefit at all, surely they would have been abandoned long ago How does that follow? For something to be abandoned, there needs to be social agreement that it is a bad idea. This is meaningfully different than something being a bad idea.
Spooky23 7y ago
They do have a benefit — ada compliance. Fun is less important than not getting sued.

mike_hock 7y ago

lol as if that's how the world works

greedo 7y ago

They make parents and administrators "feel good." That's a significant benefit, one that drives a lot of purchasing decisions.

wirrbel 7y ago
Not only that. They give them a paper trail that they made safety-focused decisions. That especially applies to administrators.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cortesoft 7y ago

Your faith in the rationality of the world is a bit too strong.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

PeterStuer 7y ago

The derisking for the playground owner/exploiter still works regardless.

atoav 7y ago

Of course this is anecdotal evidence, but me and my 3 brothers grew up with a lot of silly or dangerous stuff: climbing on trees, skateboarding, snowboarding, trampolines, jumping down stairs, jumping over ramps with the bike, jumping from cliffs and bridges etc. Our parents would just let us do our stuff. And although we were bruised all the time only one of us broke a bone once. In the same time my friend with over-careful doctors as parents broke arms/legs roughly four times. And other kids with paranoid parents had similar problems. Our parents thought us early on that we need to judge these risks ourselves, while these other kids would be extremely scared of harmless stuff at one point and overconfident in other more dangerous situations.

nollbit 7y ago
Perhaps your friends parents were over-careful because their kids kept breaking bones? Kids are different. Mine is very risk-averse and has essentially never hurt himself bad. I was the same way as a kid. His friends are daredevils who hurt themselves constantly. Also, when it comes to "our parents in the past would let us do anything and I came out ok" sounds a bit like survival bias to me. In Sweden, far fewer kids die today than in the 70s, so perhaps there's some merit to bicycle helmets, safer playgrounds and not letting your kids eats whole grapes unattended before the age of five or so etc.
watwut 7y ago
Or maybe the parents became over paranoid, because their kids where prone to injure themselves and even broke logs multiple times. Maybe the parents were not so much paranoid as reacting to their kids either doing dumber stuff or being more clumsy or having weaker bones.

voldacar 7y ago

> If these playgrounds are more expensive to build and deliver no benefit at all, surely they would have been abandoned long ago. human beings are often not rational

afarrell 7y ago

> If these playgrounds are more expensive to build and deliver no benefit at all, surely they would have been abandoned long ago How does that follow? For something to be abandoned, there needs to be social agreement that it is a bad idea. This is meaningfully different than something being a bad idea.

Spooky23 7y ago

They do have a benefit — ada compliance. Fun is less important than not getting sued.