4 ms·

I don't think I get the point. Creative, unstructured play and safety aren't mutually exclusive. A kid doesn't need to get a third degree burn or break an arm

I don't think I get the point. Creative, unstructured play and safety aren't mutually exclusive. A kid doesn't need to get a third degree burn or break an arm to "play better", and those are mostly avoidable risks. The article also missed on developing this piece of information: > In urbanised environments, where land is at an all-time premium, finding a place to run around can be a challenge. One in eight children don’t have a garden and nearly 800 playgrounds have closed in the past decade. The reason why modern playgrounds are sort of "guided" and "safe", is that the very few places they are allowed to be built, are those where "guided" and "safe" are requirements. Kids in an urban environment cannot really play football in the playground because first, there's no enough room for it, and second, the rules of these playgrounds themselves forbid it, as they are written to protect property and lower ownership risks.

PeterisP 3y ago
Your last paragraph is kind of the whole point - the (predictable) outcome of requiring a playground to be safe results in a lack of places for creative unstructured play, as playgrounds either prohibit it or get shut down.
jahewson 3y ago
Agree the article does not make a clear point. I think it conflates several issues. However, risk is now recognised as a necessary component of play: https://theeducationhub.org.nz/promoting-childrens-risky-play-in-outdoor-learning-environments/ https://theeducationhub.org.nz/promoting-childrens-risky-pla...
rightbyte 3y ago
> Kids in an urban environment cannot really play football in the playground because [...] I think the problem here is that bigger kids scare the target audience for a playground away. Unless you are thinking 3 year olds roaming a bit kicking a ball? But I agree on your point. Safety is not a problem, really. Anything that can be climbed is plenty unsafe enough already. There is no need to add stones underneath also. It probably comes down to parents not having time, or willing to take the time, to take their children to the playground. "Safetyism" is just a scapegoat. Todays playgrounds are way cooler and funnier than those I had ...
mathgladiator 3y ago
Yeah, but then there are the stories to tell and recount. My friends and I started to play with Dry Ice that we would buy from a local butcher. We basically made bombs, and I almost blew my hand off. NOW, survivor bias for sure, but that story cracks us up every other year.
danaris 3y ago
> Creative, unstructured play and safety aren't mutually exclusive. I think what you're missing is the difference between "safety" and "safetyism". The latter is largely an unscientific and unhealthy focus on eliminating any possible risk (at least, of the types that the person in question can easily envision), regardless of the cost to the activities. As an elder millennial, I have seen the explosion of this mindset during my lifetime. It's why I, when I was 5 years old, was able to regularly play with friends from down the street with no adult supervision (with the consequence being occasional skinned knees and scraped elbows, and the one memorable evening when my little brother had to be given ipecac because he ate—more or less at the urging of the rest of us—a plant that turned out to be perfectly harmless, but couldn't be positively identified by any of us in time to be sure of that)...but today, in many parts of the US, if someone sees an unattended child under the age of 16, they might call the police, and the parents might actually get arrested for child endangerment. Not because there was any clear and present danger. Just because the child was not being monitored 24/7.

PeterisP 3y ago

Your last paragraph is kind of the whole point - the (predictable) outcome of requiring a playground to be safe results in a lack of places for creative unstructured play, as playgrounds either prohibit it or get shut down.

jahewson 3y ago

Agree the article does not make a clear point. I think it conflates several issues. However, risk is now recognised as a necessary component of play: https://theeducationhub.org.nz/promoting-childrens-risky-play-in-outdoor-learning-environments/ https://theeducationhub.org.nz/promoting-childrens-risky-pla...

rightbyte 3y ago

> Kids in an urban environment cannot really play football in the playground because [...] I think the problem here is that bigger kids scare the target audience for a playground away. Unless you are thinking 3 year olds roaming a bit kicking a ball? But I agree on your point. Safety is not a problem, really. Anything that can be climbed is plenty unsafe enough already. There is no need to add stones underneath also. It probably comes down to parents not having time, or willing to take the time, to take their children to the playground. "Safetyism" is just a scapegoat. Todays playgrounds are way cooler and funnier than those I had ...

mathgladiator 3y ago

Yeah, but then there are the stories to tell and recount. My friends and I started to play with Dry Ice that we would buy from a local butcher. We basically made bombs, and I almost blew my hand off. NOW, survivor bias for sure, but that story cracks us up every other year.

danaris 3y ago

> Creative, unstructured play and safety aren't mutually exclusive. I think what you're missing is the difference between "safety" and "safetyism". The latter is largely an unscientific and unhealthy focus on eliminating any possible risk (at least, of the types that the person in question can easily envision), regardless of the cost to the activities. As an elder millennial, I have seen the explosion of this mindset during my lifetime. It's why I, when I was 5 years old, was able to regularly play with friends from down the street with no adult supervision (with the consequence being occasional skinned knees and scraped elbows, and the one memorable evening when my little brother had to be given ipecac because he ate—more or less at the urging of the rest of us—a plant that turned out to be perfectly harmless, but couldn't be positively identified by any of us in time to be sure of that)...but today, in many parts of the US, if someone sees an unattended child under the age of 16, they might call the police, and the parents might actually get arrested for child endangerment. Not because there was any clear and present danger. Just because the child was not being monitored 24/7.