Slashdot Mirror


Can a Playground Be Too Safe?

Hugh Pickens writes "John Tierney writes that the old 10-foot-high jungle gyms and slides disappeared from most American playgrounds across the country in recent decades because of parental concerns, federal guidelines, new safety standards set by manufacturers and — the most frequently cited factor — fear of lawsuits. But today some researchers question the value of safety-first playgrounds. Even if children do suffer fewer physical injuries — and the evidence for that is debatable — critics say that these playgrounds may stunt emotional development, leaving children with anxieties and fears that are ultimately worse than a broken bone. 'Climbing equipment needs to be high enough, or else it will be too boring in the long run,' says professor Ellen Sandseter. 'Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few children would try to climb to the highest point for the first time they climb. The best thing is to let children encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.' After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia, Dr. Sandseter identified six categories of risky play, although fear of litigation led New York City officials to remove seesaws, merry-go-rounds and the ropes that young Tarzans used to swing from one platform to another."

493 comments

  1. This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is far broader than our playgrounds.

    1. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably, the playgrounds are one of the most insidious instances of this problem, as this is where children first interact in a controlled risk environment with their peers.

    2. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "safety net problem" is far bigger than that, indeed. Mostly, it's due to parents who would love to pack their kids in cotton boxes 'til they turn 18. Oddly, the same parents then kick their kids out as soon as they're 18, unprepared and unfit to survive in a world they have never seen.

      Parents, your job is to prepare your kids for the life when they're fully responsible for their actions. It doesn't say anything about them not having had a single cut or bruised knee in their time 'til then. Bones heal. Scars heal. And you'd be surprised what damage children can sustain, where you witness it and you're sure they have to be dead, only to notice the child is wiggling his limbs, dusts himself off and climbs back onto the tree. Kids have tremendous healing ability, unparalleled any time later in their life. In other words, childhood is the perfect time to learn what is possible with your body and what is not. Your chances to survive stupid stunts will never be higher.

      The problem is also a psychological one. If you keep your kids locked away 'til they are 18, you not only limit their development and their ability to judge their own abilities, you also prepare them for a life of missed chances. They will look back at their childhood and realize that they "lost" 18 years of their life. Also, their social development will suffer. They will not be able to interact sensibly with peers, and they will not be prepared for the dealings of social life and interactions. In short, they will be the tool in whatever company they will work in.

      That's called bad parenting. Not having a child that has a skinned knee every now and then. Bad parenting is simply not preparing your child for the life after you're no longer responsible for them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will this "risk adverse" affect our future explorers? Will we have fewer people climbing on top of rockets to go into space or testing state of the art aircraft? We need risk takers, people who push the envelope. Imagine some of the accomplishment that would have been lost if these people didn't take risks.

    4. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children are hard wired for adversity right out of the womb. You don't need to coddle them.

      --Brene Brown: paraphrased from a shitty memory of a TED talk IIRC

    5. Re:This "safety net problem" by Pope · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "safety net problem" is far bigger than that, indeed. Mostly, it's due to parents who would love to pack their kids in cotton boxes 'til they turn 18. Oddly, the same parents then kick their kids out as soon as they're 18, unprepared and unfit to survive in a world they have never seen.

      Nope, it's worse: they still don't let them go, accompanying them to job interviews and trying to make sure their university profs are assigning them homework. Do a search on "helicopter parents" to read the true horror of what these morons are doing to their poor kids.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the parents are unconsciously taking revenge on their kids in a transference of the same thing their parents did to them.

    7. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raising kids is a long process of letting go. You have to give them enough rope to ALMOST hang themselves.

      I grew up in rural Maine in the '50s/'60s and would basically disappear for most of the day with a couple of other kids. I can't tell you how happy I am that I didn't have to cope with the BS today. My kids just missed the "wrap it in cotton" phase and can't believe what today's kids put up with (not that they have a choice).

      Oh yeah - on the rapid healing part. No shit (as I approach the wrong side of 67).

    8. Re:This "safety net problem" by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2

      Will this "risk adverse" affect our future explorers? Will we have fewer people climbing on top of rockets to go into space or testing state of the art aircraft? We need risk takers, people who push the envelope. Imagine some of the accomplishment that would have been lost if these people didn't take risks.

      Of course. I see a younger generation who are terrified of failure, terrified of risk, unable to attempt anything that isn't a 100% guaranteed success. Not to mention the fragile-as-eggshells mentality that goes with it.

      The way I look at it, if you don't risk failure, you don't risk success, either.

      ...laura

    9. Re:This "safety net problem" by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's partly parenting, but I think it's the lawsuit factor that gets people scared.

      Where once parents let their kids play and get cuts and scrapes, they now look at it as a sort of lawsuit jackpot. "My kid got hurt! Sue!" in the hopes of extracting a five or six figure settlement.

      It only takes the court to issue one judgement in favor of the parent before all the stuff comes down. Then said idiot parent goes in front of all the TVs and bleats about how dangerous stuff is, etc.

    10. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you let your child get bruised up (or heavens, a broken bone), you run the very real risk of having a busybody report you to the Child Protection authorities. Depending on the state or country, all medical and educational professionals are mandated reporters. And there are many others (usually childless) who *want* to be...

      You can take your child to the hospital with an injured wrist from a playground fall, and find them being taken into 72-hour protective foster care while you try and explain yourself to the police. There are many, many people (again, frequently non-parents) who believe that *any* injury to a child is the result of abuse. Or criminal negligence, at the very least. And rest assured, "common sense" goes right out the window when the authorities are presented with a juicy child abuse case.

      So it may be that some parents are simply trying to stave off false accusations that can ruin their lives and their kids lives. Sad that this is the state of affairs in the world today.

    11. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just how many kids have you raised?

    12. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scars don't heal.

      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scar#Treatments

    13. Re:This "safety net problem" by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      It is bad parenting, but it is also almost mandated at this point. We were in the suburbs and one of my older children realised he could get to the porch roof from his window in his room. Now, I pretty much spent most of my childhood on one type of roof or another (Barn, house, tree house, etc) from the time I was 8, it was fun and exciting. A neighbour spotted the kid on the porch roof (which wasn't even all that tall) before my wife had successfully removed them from said roof and read my wife the riot act and threatened to call the police and CPS.

      Ultimately we had to lock the windows down, which is not something my parents (or probably any parents of people my age) would have ever thought to do. My father's first response was "If you break something don't come crying to me".

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    14. Re:This "safety net problem" by Renraku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd vote this up if I had mod points. Anyway, 'controlled risk' is the key word. All the playgrounds I've ever been on in my entire life have been controlled risk environments and decently safe. Compared to the other places children can find to play, playgrounds are a fucking safe haven.

      Playgrounds aren't supposed to have no risk. No place is supposed to have no risk, because that's impossible. You cannot construct a place where people can't find a way to injure themselves. Even padded rooms can cause injury if someone wants to ram their heads into the walls at full speed. Playgrounds are supposed to have LESS risk than other choices. As a kid, I often had to choose between cool places like construction sites, abandoned buildings, and playgrounds. A lot of kids played in the others, and a lot of them got seriously injured. Making playgrounds shitty and devoid of cool things to climb on will just lead to more kids getting hurt.

      It's basically shifting the blame. The city can now say, sorry folks, we can't make flat ground any safer, and we aren't responsible for your kids that went to play in an abandoned building and died when the roof collapsed. They do this by necessity, because so many people feel like they're owed something for nothing. My kid sprained his ankle, I want a hundred grand for medical bills and pain/suffering. Which won't go to the kid even if they win, it'll be used to buy things for the parents anyway.

      I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a level where you can't make playgrounds any safer without just removing them. Kids need to learn that the ground is hard and to watch where the hell they're going or they'll never learn. Running full speed into a metal post when they're a kid is less damaging than doing it as an adult.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    15. Re:This "safety net problem" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some books related to your excellent points:

      "In defense of childhood: protecting kids' inner wildness"
      http://www.chrismercogliano.com/childhood.htm
      "As codirector of the Albany Free School, Chris Mercogliano has had remarkable success in helping a diverse population of youngsters find their way in the world. He regrets, however, that most kids' lives are subject to some form of control from dawn until dusk. Lamenting risk-averse parents, overstructured school days, and a lack of playtime and solitude, Mercogliano argues that we are robbing our young people of "that precious, irreplaceable period in their lives that nature has set aside for exploration and innocent discovery," leaving them ill-equipped to face adulthood. The "domestication of childhood" squeezes the adventure out of kids' lives and threatens to smother the spark that animates each child with talents, dreams, and inclinations."

      "Last Child in the Woods"
      http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/
      "In this influential work about the staggering divide between children and the outdoors, child advocacy expert Richard Louv directly links the lack of nature in the lives of today's wired generation--he calls it nature-deficit--to some of the most disturbing childhood trends, such as the rises in obesity, attention disorders, and depression."

      "Underground History of American Education"
      http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
      "A huge price had to be paid for business and government efficiency, a price we still pay in the quality of our existence. Part of what kids gave up was the prospect of being able to read very well, a historic part of the American genius. Instead, school had to train them for their role in the new overarching social system. But spare yourself the agony of thinking of this as a conspiracy. It was and is a fully rational transaction, the very epitome of rationalization engendered by a group of honorable men, all honorable men -- but with decisive help from ordinary citizens, from almost all of us as we gradually lost touch with the fact that being followers instead of leaders, becoming consumers in place of producers, rendered us incompletely human. It was a naturally occurring conspiracy, one which required no criminal genius. The real conspirators were ourselves. When we sold our liberty for the promise of automatic security, we became like children in a conspiracy against growing up, sad children who conspire against their own children, consigning them over and over to the denaturing vats of compulsory state factory schooling."

      And a TED Talk:
      "Gever Tulley on 5 dangerous things you should let your kids do"
      http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html

      We've taught our kid early on to use a sharp knife to cut up vegetables and fruits, in part because US emergency medicine to deal with knife injuries is far better than US medicine to deal with chronic health problems that come from not eating enough vegetables and fruits. Related:
      http://www.drfuhrman.com/children/default.aspx
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffJAePZFg90

      Unfortunately, we listened to advice from doctors to "protect" our kid (and ourselves) from the sun and ended up with vitamin D deficiency and related health issues.
      http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions//kids_fall_short_on_vitamin_D.aspx

      We're slowly learning. There is a l

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    16. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are not at all arrogant.

    17. Re:This "safety net problem" by Renraku · · Score: 1

      This is actually pretty incorrect. Most medical professionals air on the side of caution when reporting people because it is just bad business. There's a list of things that are considered indicative of abuse, and only a few of them cross over into normal every day injuries. For example, it would be rare for a kid to get multiple cigarette burns on their own, but isn't uncommon in abuse. It would also be rare for a kid to get a broken bone without other supporting injuries, like brusing, abrasions, cuts, etc.

      Far more people are undergoing unreported abuse with obvious evidence than are getting falsely accused. Parents that think any injury is abuse are the kind of parent who will either be too vocal (thus labeled crazy by everyone) or not speak up at all.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    18. Re:This "safety net problem" by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      But you've got a lot of people out there trying to raise "children", and they do. I equate it to the idea of raising "seed".

      I've tried my darndest to raise a couple of "adults".

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    19. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed - the solution to all life's problems is to hit you children more. (seriously - they won't become corrupt bastards when they grow up if you beat their morals into them)

    20. Re:This "safety net problem" by gknoy · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry to nitpick, but I believe you mean "err" on the side of caution.

      Great points about there being many kinds of indicators that are much more indicative of abuse than of a normal active lifestyle. Good pediatricians (and neighbors that know what kinds of things your kids do) go a long way. However, all it takes is one crackpot saying, "How did he REALLY break his arm?", and the authorities often are obligated to interfere. One guidance counselor at school who doesn't know your kid does gymnastics or rock climbing or martial arts or parkour, one fellow church attendee that sees your kid's black eye and broken arm, and decides that it's better call CPS "to be on the safe side" or "just in case".

      There was a comment a few days ago (yesterday?) about an SCA fighter lady (who regularly gets LARGE bruises from full-contact hitting-with-sticks sports) who is constantly having to explain that no, her husband doesn't beat her, and sometimes feels it's easier to give photo/video evidence of her participating in the active sports. People tend not to listen to kids as much when they say such things.

    21. Re:This "safety net problem" by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was a nice collection of interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing! I'll have toget a copy of those books.

    22. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really - had it happen to us. One of our children (around 5yo) caught a cold, and had a couple of restless nights. He developed dark circles under his eyes from rubbing,and general lack of sleep. Still does today as an adult, if he doesn't get enough sleep. A nurse, who happened to see him in a social situation, went into full crusader mode. She never talked to us, of course, but went straight to the state authorities with her diagnosis of physical abuse. Next thing we knew, a social worker with full police backup was at our door to get the kids.

      Notice that they didn't do any checks beforehand - a medical professional's word is enough. Fortunately, he was still a bit sick, his older siblings were able to give a clear explanation for his appearance, and we were *very* lucky to get an experienced social worker *that time*. The Department was fully prepared to yank the kids based on the accusation alone. We were told that if it had been a real injury, they would have. As it was, we were given a result of "unfounded", and only kept on file as suspicious for 7 years.

      The nurse, like all reporters in this state, is fully immune from any responsibility. We've heard that she has made a crusade of reporting abuse, moving from county to county as the local offices learn to ignore her.

    23. Re:This "safety net problem" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What a bitch. I am assuming she is signed up on a few hundred mailing lists now?

      My response would of been to get on the roof myself... assuming it would hold up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:This "safety net problem" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      To counter your nurse story, mine.

      A ER RN told me that if you want to punish your child you should hit them with a wooden spoon on the soles of their feet. Just don't do it hard enough to break a bone and it leaves no visible signs. Every step that kid takes will remind him/her to be good.

      Not advising it, the RN's kid was a nightmare almost as bad as she was.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    25. Re:This "safety net problem" by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Glad you liked it. You're welcome.

      That vitamin D link got messed up btw and should really be:
                  http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    26. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Search? I'd just have to call my dad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In the US? Luckily none. And I wouldn't want to.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:This "safety net problem" by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      You're referring to the practice of bastinado, which was a form of torture in a number of cultures.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    29. Re:This "safety net problem" by DaleSwanson · · Score: 1

      Playgrounds are supposed to have LESS risk than other choices. As a kid, I often had to choose between cool places like construction sites, abandoned buildings, and playgrounds. A lot of kids played in the others, and a lot of them got seriously injured.

      Clearly the answer is the make construction sites safe enough for kids to wander around unsupervised and not get hurt. Building materials should all be foam, and no constructions should be over three feet tall.

    30. Re:This "safety net problem" by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      I would also include "cleanliness" and "antibiotics" into your rant. Your immune system develops to be strong the more dirt and filth you are exposed to, and the less antibiotics you use to help yourself out when you get sick. I was a super clean little kid, and I used to get sick all the time. My parents fed me antibiotics so I would get well. Around 15 my parents heard that antibiotics are bad to give kids too much and I stopped being made to take them. Later I stopped caring if I get dirty and clean my hands only if I get too much dirt, or I get poop or pee on them. Right now I am "lucky" if I get sick once a year. I haven't been sick for over a year at this point unless you count hangovers or something.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    31. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually know a couple (well, technically ex-couple these days) in the SCA, who *on several occasions* had to armor up and demonstrate to the police, who had been called in on them because someone she worked with saw a bruise the wife had displayed *while she was telling the story of how she got it*.

    32. Re:This "safety net problem" by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It's not just parenting and fear of lawsuit. It is also the law. We now have laws that make it a crime to let your kid ride in the back of a pickup. If you teach your 8 year old kid learn how to take care of themselves by letting them stay home while you go to store, you very well may end up in jail, and your child taken from you. We live in an age where proper parenting is actually a crime.

    33. Re:This "safety net problem" by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 1

      Seems to me "safety net problem" is the wrong term. A safety net is for risk mitigation, not prevention. A net implies you are allowing or actually encouraging people to take risks. Stopping people from taking risks is more of a "safety fence problem." Although fences are at least a visible measure that people are aware of. Hiding risks away is far more incidious. Perhaps "safety invisibility cloak" problem would be better still!

      You're right about this attitude being far too prevalent though. Most of the few things I can remember from my early childhood involve bmx-ing through the bush, skateboarding, hanging from monkey bars, and other "risky" behaviour. I wouldn't take them back to prevent a few scratches and bruises either.

    34. Re:This "safety net problem" by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why phone when you could just yell up the stairs...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    35. Re:This "safety net problem" by swillden · · Score: 1

      The "safety net problem" is far bigger than that, indeed. Mostly, it's due to parents who would love to pack their kids in cotton boxes

      The safety net problem is far bigger than just parents and how they treat their kids. A huge number of adults believe they don't have to take responsibility for their own futures because someone else will take care of them. This shows up in all sorts of ways, from people building houses in flood plains or on the sides of unstable mountains, to people expecting that the police can keep them safe from bad people, to people not bothering to understand the terms of the mortgage contracts they sign, to... I could go on all day.

      Safety nets encourage ignorance of risks and a failure to develop necessary risk-avoidance skills and risk-management strategies in all sorts of situations, just as much for adults as for children.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    36. Re:This "safety net problem" by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      When I was in 1st grade I fell off the top of a slide and was knocked out after the less-then-soft landing.
      I firmly blame myself for the accident and would never think of blaming it on the slide.
      It was an accident, I fell off, got hurt, got medical attention and came out with little damage and a LOT of experience in what not to do on a slide.

      Though to be honest, I am split between pro and contra.
      On one side really think this nanny state crap is going to far! Living life is dangerous. Deal with it.
      On the other side, I do see some constructions that are just insane and are asking for trouble.

      So in summary, such constructions should be created with safety in mind, but only to a certain degree.
      f.i. non-slip steps up to the slide, high side walls ...
      The rest is just up to you to take chances. aka living life.

    37. Re:This "safety net problem" by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      I remember once when my eldest daughter was nearly 2 we were in the park and there was another parent with a boy of roughly the same age. She was running along giggling and looking at the boy and ran straight into the side of a slide, smacking her face on it and then falling backwards to the ground. Naturally the boy's dad was full of concern. My wife and i were rolling around laughing. She got up, dusted herself off and carried on playing. I bet that boy's a wuss.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    38. Re:This "safety net problem" by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      > The way I look at it, if you don't risk failure, you don't risk success, either

      Brilliant. That's gonna be my next sig!

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    39. Re:This "safety net problem" by Eivind · · Score: 2

      Fear in general, is a awfully poor guidance.

      My 6-year old will stay at home alone while I go to the store, assuming it's just a short visit (30 minutes max) Yes there's issues that could arise, that he'd be unable to handle himself. But he does know how to call me, and he does know how to ring the doorbell at the neighbours. (I guess fire would be the big one, but even then, 'get out and alert adults' is *likely* a sufficient response to ensure his safety)

      As he grows and becomes more capable, he'll get more freedoms. It's not only a question of age, but also of maturity and behaviour. We observe him, and do our best to estimate what he can handle. So for example we are pretty confident that he behaves well in traffic -- simply because that's what we've consistently observed over the last several years, even on those occasions when he's not aware that we see him, while we're -not- confident that he respects the dangers that deep water represents to a poor swimmer.

      "No you can't go there without us accompanying you, not before you can swim better." "But I wanna !" "Then you'll better start practicing your swimming, do you want me to enlist you for a course ?" "Yeah!"

      When given a chance, I much prefer teaching him how to handle potentially dangerous things, instead of simply shielding him from them. I'd rather he swim well, instead of being protected from water. I'd rather he knows how to cross a street, rather than being protected from traffic. I'd rather he knows how to use an axe or a knife, rather than having to hide sharp object from him.

    40. Re:This "safety net problem" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hardly a new thing. One reason the Russians managed to achieve so much in the space race with far more limited resources than the US is that they were not afraid of having things go wrong, mostly because they kept the failures secret. NASA did a lot of testing on the ground and by the time they came to launch everything was supposed to be reliable and debugged (although of course things did go wrong anyway from time to time).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (I have two children.) Recently, in a neighborhood council, we discussed the renovation of a nearby playground. Two women who brought up the absence of rubber flooring did not have children themselves. The three parents present, including me, were mostly interested in a more challenging gym, and preferred sand over rubber. Some elderly residents were interested in smoking and drinking prohibition signs, a setup of the equipment that makes football impossible, a street light on the playground, fences, and more frequent police patrol. The same elderly people want a nearby 75 years old football field removed altogether, because the children make noise. Surely only the complaint is new, not the noise. Surely the field was used even more intensively in the past. This meeting certainly did not give me the impression that parents are responsible for "safe playgrounds", but I can imagine that the teenagers that hang around in the evening, who were notably absent in the meeting, will think so. We didn't get a more challenging gym, btw, and my children are disappointed about the new, safer playground.

      In my view it is the growing percentage of the adult population that does not have children (as a choice or because they start later), and generally an ageing population, that is at the root of overprotective parenting. Overprotective parenting is insecure parenting, by parents that don't get the support they need.

      This is most obvious in day care and school. Women under the age of 30 who have no children themselves are usually overprotective, because they have no clue what risk is and what is not acceptable to the average parent. The lawsuit factor is imo just a rationalization of that basic sense of insecurity towards other people's children (qualification: I am not an American; We have the same parenting trend, but not the claim culture). Standards set in those environments obviously have a large influence on parenting, because you are judged by them as a parent. Children will be most accepting of the way things go there if they are consistent with the rules at home.

      In public, it is the growing intolerance of adults towards age-appropriate misbehavior of children that leads parents to being overly strict in private, and overly accomodating in public in order to to avoid temper tantrums. If you see a two year old throwing a tantrum, do not judge the parent yet. Disapproving looks at the parent are only going to encourage the parent to appease the child, and from the perspective of the child you are correcting the parent for not doing whatever is going to appease him. Instead, look disapprovingly at the child and ignore the parent. The child is the one who is misbehaving, and it takes a village to raise a child.

    42. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I moved out a long while ago, but that didn't keep him from meddling. The main reason I started with IT was that it's the one thing where he ain't present.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    43. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There is a good reason for safety nets, and I don't say that we should take them away altogether. But it's a difference between keeping someone from tripping and keeping him from crashing into the ground.

      The best safety net is still the one that people don't know that it exists. They will not rely on it, but it will keep them from crashing. In other words, make relying on it so "expensive" (in whatever way, it needn't be money) that they do not want to rely on it, but it keeps them safe from the worst.

      Our unemployment system works like this. It is VERY inconvenient to be dependent on it, so people try not to rely on it if at all possible, but it keeps them from hitting rock bottom if they really for some reason have to use it for a while.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. Most definitely.

      And while my parents were cleanliness freaks, at least they didn't shove antibiotics down my throat whenever I sneezed. I guess I have to thank our old doc who knew that 99% of whatever hits kids is best to simply let it work itself out, and for the rest there's the hospital. And my dad's faith in authorities (like said doc).

      When I see today's rise in allergies and whatnot, I can only ponder whether this behaviour is at least part of the problem. If you don't let your kids be subject to certain substances and their immune system learns that they're a nuisance but not harmful, it might not react so completely bonkers when it suddenly gets hit by them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:This "safety net problem" by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Then lets discuss what we mean by "reasonable safety".
      1. If there is a fall distance, it must be so high that the child can start twisting the body before it lands, so it can avoid breaking its neck
      2. The walls must be so low that the children are not tempting to climb them and start balancing on them
      3. Breaking bones is under no circumstances a danger unless it involves the spine or the neck.
      4. Getting injured is under no circumstances a danger either, so long the wound is not life threatening.
      I can still say that "children must under no circumstances even get a scratch" to be the worst funkiller. If you do not let them have fun, they will find dangerous ways to have fun.

    46. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, unfortunately, fit this profile. I hate risk, I hate failure, and it can be debilitating. Unfortunately posting anon because I don't want potential employers seeing this.

    47. Re:This "safety net problem" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Parents, your job is to prepare your kids for the life when they're fully responsible for their actions. It doesn't say anything about them not having had a single cut or bruised knee in their time 'til then. Bones heal. Scars heal

      And facial reconstruction surgery to repair second degree firework burns has come on in leaps and bounds this century.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:This "safety net problem" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I remember once when my eldest daughter was nearly 2 we were in the park and there was another parent with a boy of roughly the same age. She was running along giggling and looking at the boy and ran straight into the side of a slide, smacking her face on it and then falling backwards to the ground. Naturally the boy's dad was full of concern. My wife and i were rolling around laughing. She got up, dusted herself off and carried on playing. I bet that boy's a wuss.

      I don't know if you think you're being tough or clever, but that reaction was only appropriate after she got up and carried on playing. Frankly, as an immediate response it sounds fucking psycopathic.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re:This "safety net problem" by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      I think it's the lawsuit factor that gets people scared.

      My country is not so sue-happy as US (yet), so the main factor in my case is that I heard about needles scattered in a sandbox by some idiot junkie. So feel free to climb trees and jump around, but the sandbox is a "forbidden area".

    50. Re:This "safety net problem" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      My parents fed me antibiotics so I would get well. Around 15 my parents heard that antibiotics are bad to give kids too much and I stopped being made to take them.

      You know, some people say that antibiotics and other medicines should be used according to the advice of a doctor, who is actually trained to evaluate when they'll do more good than harm, rather than someone who doesn't know and thus bases his decisions on rumours, obsessions, etc. I know it sounds crazy, but... maybe there's something to it?

      Seriously, what the heck?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    51. Re:This "safety net problem" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Our unemployment system works like this. It is VERY inconvenient to be dependent on it, so people try not to rely on it if at all possible, but it keeps them from hitting rock bottom if they really for some reason have to use it for a while.

      The problem with this is that large unemployment figures seem to have become permanent features of both US economy, and the economies of developed nations in general. In this kind of situation - where you simply can't find work, since there's none to have, and are constantly punished for that despite being unable to do anything about it - you'll be teaching helplessness instead; in other words, you get the exact opposite of what you wanted.

      Our unemployment system is built on the assumption that there's a labour shortage, and you need to get everyone you possibly can to seek jobs. What we have instead is a job shortage, so the motivation-by-whip not only causes completely pointless misery, but also - according to the article I Iinked to - actually harms people and through that the economy and society. It conditions people to ignore opportunities and simply sit there, passively taking whatever comes their way.

      Of course, one might speculate if this isn't entirely intentional: after all, if you desire to establish yourself as a tyrant, the first thing you need is to ensure the population won't resist you. And we certainly have no shortage of would-be tyrants amongst the corporate and political elite.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    52. Re:This "safety net problem" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sadly, very true. But at the same time I do not have a better option available.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    53. Re:This "safety net problem" by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      insightful +2

    54. Re:This "safety net problem" by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Guess you had to be there. It's not like she fell through a glass window onto rusty nails.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    55. Re:This "safety net problem" by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I tend to be more concerned about other people's kids as I don't know them as well and assume the worst. You know your own kids better, so you know what they can take.

    56. Re:This "safety net problem" by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      There is no reason that a child should be put on antibiotics every time they get sick with a cold. Colds work themselves out in a matter of days. The reason some doctors prescribe them for every cold you get is that the antibiotics will work fast. However your immune system doesn't have to work very hard at all and doesn't develop immunities to what you caught. Its like working out a muscle. If you don't use it it atrophies. You put too much faith in doctors. They aren't any smarter than anyone else and some of them are guaranteed to be idiots. In fact, I had a doctor one time that told me she would "pray for me" rather than offer me any other advice or treatments for a medical problem. She was making 120,000 a year at a student health clinic. Go figure.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    57. Re:This "safety net problem" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your sentiments--but question whether or not you are actually a parent.

      I would be hesitant to say "Parents, your job is. . ." at all if you aren't actively raising children or haven't raised children who are largely free of a criminal record and socially inept behavior.

      Being a parent isn't like having a job. A job you spend 40-80 hours a week at, take occasional breaks, and then come home and rest for a bit. Parenting doesn't have the "come home and rest for a bit" in it, and it is usually takes 12 active hours of your time each day with no weekends or holidays.

      As an actual parent--I understand the fear associated with having a kid get hurt. Raising kids is hard enough if you're really trying to help them grow and develop, and having them in a situation where they just won't stop crying can test the nerves of any parent. Some parents are already close to their breaking point. I go to the playgrounds with my kids in hopes that other children will be there to occupy my children for an hour or so. On a stressful day, the last thing I want is for my kids to get hurt and insist on my carrying them around and trying to make them feel better because they fell and hurt themselves.

      That being said, they're gonna get hurt no matter what I do. That's life, that's the world. I don't believe that my job, as a parent, is to keep my children from what is happening in the world, my job is to teach them how to deal with life when it comes. My 3-year-old knows that when she falls off the playground, she needs to cry for a bit, take deep breaths, and then come and have her parents look at the injury afterwards.

      I know I'm just restating what you've said--but the way you stated it was accusatory and lacking any kind of sympathy. When I hear "parents, your job is. . ." I hear "I've decided to never have children and think that I'm superior to everyone else who has, so I have the right to tell them how to behave." In short, I hear, "I'm an idiot" and continue on my merry way.

    58. Re:This "safety net problem" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There is no reason that a child should be put on antibiotics every time they get sick with a cold. Colds work themselves out in a matter of days. The reason some doctors prescribe them for every cold you get is that the antibiotics will work fast.

      Antibiotics don't do anything for cold, because cold is caused by a virus (actually a lot of different viruses with similar symptoms, which is why you'll never develop an immunity to them all), and antibiotics only work against bacteria.

      Thank you for demonstrating my point.

      However your immune system doesn't have to work very hard at all and doesn't develop immunities to what you caught. Its like working out a muscle. If you don't use it it atrophies.

      Your immune system will develop an immunity to any foreign substance it encounters, it simply takes some time (and developing immunity means it will moun the immune response faster the next time, with any luck before you have a chance to develop symptoms). This is entirely unrelated to how hard it has to work, which is why vaccines work.

      Thank you for demonstrating my point again.

      You put too much faith in doctors. They aren't any smarter than anyone else and some of them are guaranteed to be idiots.

      Stupid or not, they have been educated on medicine while Joe Average hasn't been. Add the fact that hysteric over-reaction is all the rage nowadays, and it's Joe you shouldnt put any faith in.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    59. Re:This "safety net problem" by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Well, we could simply remove that "inconvenience" part and also rise the benefits. If that means people will stay at home rather than work for Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other associated hellholes, is that any great loss to the society? It seems to me that minimum-wage employers contribute nothing but heart disease and killing off of small business to the society.

      Alternatively, you could offer free education and generous benefits to any who's willing to study. This would both help the people by giving them a way to improve their station in life through meaningful work and the society by creating a better-educated population. Again, the only lusers are those "businesses" which depend on having lots of desperate people around for exploitation.

      Whether it's either of these or some other solution, one must be found, for having increasing amounts of increasingly desperate and bitter people around will eventually lead to the same end result it always has before.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    60. Re:This "safety net problem" by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics don't do anything for cold, because cold is caused by a virus (actually a lot of different viruses with similar symptoms, which is why you'll never develop an immunity to them all), and antibiotics only work against bacteria.

      Your immune system will develop an immunity to any foreign substance it encounters, it simply takes some time (and developing immunity means it will moun the immune response faster the next time, with any luck before you have a chance to develop symptoms). This is entirely unrelated to how hard it has to work, which is why vaccines work.

      Stupid or not, they have been educated on medicine while Joe Average hasn't been. Add the fact that hysteric over-reaction is all the rage nowadays, and it's Joe you shouldnt put any faith in

      Upper respiratory infections are caused by bacterial infection or by a viral infection. Furthermore, I am keenly aware of what antibiotics do so your patronizing tone suggests a superiority complex, since you assumed immediately that I am not educated on this subject. Vaccines work because your immune system is fed a weakened virus and it left to remove the foreign body and build immunity without having to endure the symptoms at the same time. I am also irritated at the anti-vaccine crowd as you seem to have suggested in your response.

      Antibiotics on the other hand, if abused, depress your immune response to bacteria and leave you more vulnerable. Im not saying that antibiotics are bad all the time, I am saying it is common for doctors to abuse them since it makes their patients happy. My wife had an abscess in her tooth, and I completely understand the application of antibiotics in this case. However, you don't need to resort to antibiotics for every single symptom they are know to treat when you have no idea what is causing the symptom, which is what many doctors do.

      Furthermore, you should educate yourself on your own health problems, treatments for them, and possible alternative treatments and make decisions for yourself. You cannot rely on doctors to be infallible, as you suggest I do, since they are also human beings and capable of making mistakes, and/or prone to opinions which may or not be rational.

      If it were true that antibiotics are not helpful for "the cold" since it is viral and thus antibiotics do nothing for them, then why did my doctor as a kid as well as the last several doctors I had prescribe them every single time I got a runny nose? After all, he never tested me for what particular virus or bacteria I had at the moment. I thought he was more educated than the average Joe?

      Thank you for demonstrating my point.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    61. Re:This "safety net problem" by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      God I wish there were more fathers like you. Mod parent up +1 Competent.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    62. Re:This "safety net problem" by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Thanks !

      I do think the crazyness is generally less pronounced here (Norway) though. I'm a leader for the cub-scouts here, and most of the parents are sane. There's a *few* who are, in my opinion, too nervous about things like letting their kids (6-7 years) do things like use an axe under adult supervision, or light a fire, but most are in the ballpark.

      The thing that mystifies me the most, is the reluctance some parents show of letting kids make mistakes that *aren't* dangerous. For example, we explicitly ask parents to let the kids pack themselves. We have extra of all the essentials for any trip anyway.

      It's not *dangerous* to be hungry for a few hours, or cold, or wet, or all of the above simultaneously - and in my experience, it's a *huge* learning-experience, kids NEVER forget to pack food more than once. What' so bad about allowing them the chance to learn this lesson ?

    63. Re:This "safety net problem" by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I guess most parents know very well they crapped up their job in the past (I'm all for licensed procreation), and are trying to compensate, though inadequately - by being protective - because they know full well they suck at everything else, but don't have the balls to educate themselves - or an irrational component of their mind has more control than it is supposed to. Putting it shortly - this whole planet is in heavy need of therapy.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    64. Re:This "safety net problem" by Eivind · · Score: 1

      That sounds very pessimistic. I guess it may be different by region, I know there's significant differences even just between Germany and Norway (my wife is German, and we lived there for half a decade)

      In Germany, most resourceful and educated couples don't have kids, or at maximum perhaps one kid. Meanwhile the uneducated welfare-recipients have substantially more kids. Kids in Germany on the average grow up in below-average-education and below-average-resources families.

      Especially pronounced in former east-germany: the resourceful young ones move to the west and get better jobs, while the losers get pregnant at 17 and end up getting nowhere.

      In contrast, here in Norway, something like 80% of university-educated couples have kids, and the count is split pretty evenly between 1, 2, and 3-or-more. So we're only slightly above average with our 3. (I'm a bachelor of computer-science, and my wife holds a german 4.5 year degree in finance and administration and is a CFO)

      It shows. Families with children are *courted* by bussiness here, quite simply because there's many families with children and money. (something that to a first aproximation don't exist in eastern germany)

      And I'm sure that this makes me sound like an elitist asshole, but thing is, more resourceful parents are on the average also better at parenting (in addition to the other things they're better at that -makes- them more resourceful)

  2. Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's common sense

    1. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Common sense goes out the window when there's a gallon of hormones flooding your system telling you that this child in particular is the single most important thing in the universe. Everything from over childproofing to being against a public healthcare options to over prescribing antibiotics to giving up freedoms for perceived safety can be traced back to the psychological changes that occur when people become parents.

      As a new parent myself I can feel the invasion of these lines of thinking, and it is only through conscious, concerned effort that I maintain my pre-parent sense of right and wrong.

    2. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      And this is exactly why parents should have no say in laws concerning children.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a worse factor then that, Children break limbs every now and then, that is a natural part of growing up usually. The bigger issue is the movement of responsibility, 50 years ago it was, child breaks his arm, parent or parent's insurance pays for it, kid goes a few weeks/months in a cast cries grows up a bit and get's their friends to sign their new cast. Now there are too many people who see every injury that happens off their property as a goldmine, adults/kids it doesn't matter. Broke his arm on a playground you say, well the city owns this playground so that means the city owes us for all of his treatments, oh and $10,000 for pain and suffering that poor kid, oh dont' forget emotional distress, someone might be making fun of his cast, possible stunted development, yes mam we should be able to pay for his college education by the time we get through with this.

    4. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Not every parent loses the ability to think clearly when confronted with the idea of "think of the children". Not all people are created the same, and as can be mathematically proven, half of the people are below the average intelligence. Maybe there should be instead an intelligence test given before being able to vote?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by 2names · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Far *greater* than half of the world's population are below average intelligence. If you do not understand the previous sentence, then I say to you - albeit very slowly - you are in the lower portion.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    6. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      being against a public healthcare options

      I'm curious: How does having the choice to ensure that your kid gets health care using a government program rather than private insurance trigger the "protect my kid at all costs" response?

      I mean, I understand all the rest of those, but the public healthcare thing just doesn't make any sense.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Common sense is not so common. In fact, its so uncommon to easily proclaim, it doesn't exist. Likewise, people who appeal to, "common sense", probably don't have any.

    8. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Could you repeat that? I read it too fast.

    9. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by mdf356 · · Score: 1

      I've noted quite the dynamic tension between my wife any myself when it comes to kids safety. I want them to have fun and I'm not worried about much of anything; she's a worrywort. I suspect this is essentially natural and that where we meet is a good place. But our laws and playgrounds are too much mommy-fear and not enough daddy-fun now.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    10. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Common sense goes out the window when there's money to be lost in a lawsuit.

      Fixed that for you. Parents aren't to blame, they're universally overprotective. In the US where we let our lawyers run wild, you have "no running" recesses.

      Think back to your own childhood. I remember my mother fretting about some things that -still- seem absolutely absurd now. She wasn't alone. Yet the playground equipment was reasonably risky. I remember being afraid of some playground equipment, not because I was forbidden from playing on it, but because I had been injured numerous times on it.

      All of those medeval torture device playground equipment seem to have been gradually replaced when people realized if a kid got a chipped tooth in a public park, they might be sued. That's also the reason many schools have done away with recesses, much to the frustration of teachers who have to deal with all that youthful energy coming out during math class instead of on the playground. Parents often want recess back too. They're more worried about childhood obesity than broken bones.

    11. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly why "emotional distress" is usually kicked out of court here before you're even done saying it. There has to be a VERY good reason why you want to get more money from the other party than your expenses. Usually, if you're lucky, it might reach the 4 digits.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by AhabTheArab · · Score: 1

      Fine.. half the population is below the *median* intelligence.

    13. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not good enough. Throw him to the lions!

    14. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all people are created the same, and as can be mathematically proven, half of the people are below the average intelligence.

      It's not "mathematically proven", it's by definition when assuming that human intelligence has a normal distribution, because in a normal distribution the mean and the median are the same.

      It seems to fit pretty well given IQ test scores, but there's a lot of debate as to whether IQ tests measure intelligence. Considering the normalized score for what is considered to be an IQ of 100 has steadily gone up and since it's hard to argue that humans have gotten significantly more intelligent over the past few decades, it's much more likely that IQ tests measure education and training, not intelligence. Despite the attempt to make such tests culture neutral, that's extremely hard to do and we fail miserably at it.

      Basically, it's likely that intelligence is indeed normally distributed, but we have no such proof. It's simply a good assumption.

    15. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by raydobbs · · Score: 1

      ....or the inevitable visit from the Child Protective Services people, who come in and you get to interview for your right to be a parent over and over again every time anything happens in public like that. Kid falls on the playground, CPS shows up wondering why you let them do whatever they did to get hurt. You don't sue, kick, and scream like a lunatic when your kid is hurt in public, CPS shows up wondering why you didn't act like a lunatic... you get the idea. Get it wrong, you lose your kid(s).

      Granted, some people NEED to lose their kids. But innocent people get caught in the dragnet to get abusive parents, and the system is geared toward 'guilty until proven overwhelmingly innocent, and then it's only a matter of time...' type of thinking.

    16. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That does not make any sense. The distribution would follow such that there are spectacularly brilliant and spectacularly stupid people, and there are more smart and more dumb people, and there are most around the mean. Any skew comes from the world not being a monoculture, and thus we can assume that any skew indicates a large portion of the population exists in a specific social setting: if 80% of the world is below average, then a LOT of the world lives in countries or localities that supply a social structure conducive to stupidity, or antagonizing to intelligence, or a mixture of both.

    17. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I agree, the playground I used to go to removed the see saws (though they left the pipe they were on behind, I assume as a very dangerous balance beam (it was when I tried it anyway). The money bars were gone too, which was a shame, as they were adult sized.

      Though a playground by where I live now has all sorts of things I can only describe as spinning at an angle. It allows a gentle rocking motion to build up massive amounts of speed, and there is very low friction. i wish we had them when i was younger (and am happy to visit when friends with children come by).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    18. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by 2names · · Score: 1

      You are assuming the intelligence of the population is a normal distribution.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    19. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      I understand your claim, but I disagree with it. Intelligence is widely assumed to be normally distributed, making the mean the same as the median. Statistically, half of the population would be below the mean, half above it. For example, IQ is defined as having an average of 100 with half the population falling above and half below it. As the human population gains/loses intelligence the IQ test will be weighted differently to maintain the statistical distribution.

      Being somewhat cynical, I suspect that outliers are not evenly distributed. I suspect there are more morons than geniuses. This would pull the distribution away from normal, but make a majority of people above average intelligence. I have no data to back up this suspicion.

      Can you elaborate? I am curious.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    20. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by stephathome · · Score: 1

      Too true. I'd love for my kids to have seen some of the playgrounds I played in as a kid. Much more challenging than most of what they see now.

      My daughter's old school very, very briefly had a zip line in their playground. Must have been in there just a couple weeks during the summer before school started, because I never saw it in one piece. Got taken down when a girl broke her arm on it shortly after the new playground opened. It's still a better playground than most, but it made me sad to find out my kids had missed out on the zip line. Unfortunately, the school had to go with what their liability insurance wanted them to do.

      Current school is far more protective, and their playground is pathetic, and sometimes closed for over a week due to rain on one day. And yes, that no running rule applies on any pavement.

    21. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I have had this conversation with more than one close relative:

      Me: I just feel that everyone in our country should have basic healthcare.
      Them: Yes but then healthcare will be worse for everyone.
      Me: Even if that is true, which is doubtful, I'd rather everyone have decent care than only the people who can afford it having excellent care.
      Them: You won't be saying that when you have kids, I'll tell you that.

    22. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      Intelligence as measured by IQ is defined as a normal distribution.

    23. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Considering the normalized score for what is considered to be an IQ of 100 has steadily gone up and since it's hard to argue that humans have gotten significantly more intelligent over the past few decades, it's much more likely that IQ tests measure education and training, not intelligence.

      I read about a study recently, and I should have bookmarked it, that showed that IQ was correlated with poverty. The hypothesis is that people have a finite amount of "cognitive throughput" and that being poor means you have to have to think a whole lot more about every financial decision you make. For example, deciding to pay the electricity bill this month and if that will leave you enough left over for food too. People who are well off don't need to think about such trade-offs as part of their daily lives so they have more brainpower left over to think about other things.

      That sort of reduction on baseline cognitive load that comes with improvements in civilisation could possibly account for the rising raw IQ scores.

      The study, by the way, compared IQ scores of farmers in south-east asia, before harvest and after harvest. Before harvest they tend to be cash-strapped and so have to make every penny count. After harvest they are relatively flush with cash and don't absolutely need to to penny-pinch. The study found a statistically significant increase in IQ scores after the harvest.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    24. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Far *greater* than half of the world's population are below average intelligence. If you do not understand the previous sentence, then I say to you - albeit very slowly - you are in the lower portion.

      That isn't necessarily true, although it may be. You say it as if it's self-evidently true, but it's possible for over half of the world's population to be *above* average. It just depends on the distribution.

      Another mistake is that you're assuming that understanding such statistical quirks happens to coincide exactly with the line dividing below average and above average intelligence. It may not. Perhaps a portion of above-average people don't really understand it (you may be an example).

      Thirdly, you're a rude ass, and that's worse than being stupid.

    25. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone is a bit miffed about being in the lower portion.

    26. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by 2names · · Score: 1

      There exists a lower bound to intelligence.

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    27. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      There exists a lower bound to intelligence.

      Some days I have my doubts about that assertion.

    28. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      But as a parent you have to remember your responsibility, which is to prepare them for the real world, and that real world will be a bit mean. They must be able to rely on you completely, but you must also allow them to learn that mistakes aren't the end of the world, which means sometimes you have to let them make mistakes.

      Also minor injuries are some of the fastest learning tools in the world.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    29. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Intelligence is widely assumed to be normally distributed, making the mean the same as the median.

      No, it's a statistical measure of what percentile you're in and they renormalize the scale constantly to keep it that way. The only thing you can tell about two people with 90 and 110 in IQ is that there's just as many people between 90 and 100 as it is between 100 and 110, but there's absolutely no measure of how far apart they are in intelligence.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    30. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Until presented with evidence otherwise... yes. Elitist egotists notwithstanding, of course!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    31. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Not quite sure how accurately the above statement reflects reality...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    32. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I wonder why schools can't take a permission slip approach to recess. "I agree my child can participate in recess. In exchange, I agree not to sue the school if my child sustains injury or death during recess."

    33. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yes, but OP was assuming that the distribution is FAR from symmetric (and therefore FAR from normal).
      "Far *greater* than half of the world's population are below average" [Emphasis mine].
      I think that is a bad assumption.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    34. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Your reply suggests that you do not believe there is an upper bound, which I think requires further elaboration.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    35. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I would hope they made sure the farmer was well fed for a couple of days before the early test otherwise the study proves nothing except nutrition matters.

      Having known a few sociologists I doubt they did, it wouldn't have produced the 'truth' they were looking for.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happens often enough. Around here (Houston, TX), CPS is currently grabbing whatever kids they can. They took some kids from a family here a couple of weeks ago, no injuries, well fed... the only crime was that the family lived in a shack. Judge gave the kids back this week.

    37. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can be traced back to the psychological changes that occur when people become parents.

      That depends on the person. Not everyone experiences such things.

    38. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Right. If you change your opinion at any point in time, that means that you were previously wrong!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    39. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by smellotron · · Score: 1

      Intelligence is widely assumed to be normally distributed, making the mean the same as the median.

      No, it's a statistical measure of what percentile you're in and they renormalize the scale constantly to keep it that way.

      No, it's always 3d6. That's a mean of 10.5, median of 10 or 11, and the prime requisite for wizards.

    40. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      No it isn't. It just happens to be a normal distribution. All it is is a set of tests that give out points. The average of the points is calibrated to be 100, the standard deviation to be 15. These are the definitions, they do not imply a normal distribution. Because of the law of large numbers (more specifically the central limit theorem), it is likely that this test leads to a normal distribution, and in practice it invariably looks very close. This distribution is however a consequence, and is not (can not) be enforced.

      For example: the normality assumption breaks down at the extremes. There are reports of people that score > 200 on IQ tests. Under assumptions of normality, we would expect that to happen for one person in 10^21 ... quite a few more than the 10^10 people that have ever lived.

    41. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An excellent answer, but would you kindly tell us what you thought the question was?

    42. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by ZorroXXX · · Score: 1

      Looks like someone arrogantly (and incorrectly?) thinks he/she in the upper portion.

      --
      When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
    43. Re:Umm...yeah no shit. I could have told you this. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      The median is defined as the point at which half of the population falls above the value and half falls below. If we have a situation where more than half of the population can sneak in below the median our model of intelligence is incorrect. Once we recalibrate our model, precisely half of the population will be below the median.

      Average is the same as median and mean for a normal distribution. It gets more complicated for other distributions, which you seem to be arguing is the case, but I haven't seen any research proving this.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  3. I don't understand the perceived problem by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mom's basement is perfectly safe, and I grew up JUST FINE.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:I don't understand the perceived problem by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Didn't Pink Floyd make a song about this?

    2. Re:I don't understand the perceived problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mother" from "The Wall"

    3. Re:I don't understand the perceived problem by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I agree with Tierney's opinion. We're living in a highly litigious society which is most of the problem; but that aside I've seen many parents these days who stand behind their children NO MATTER WHAT- to their detriment in my opinion. We need families to instill a striving for greatness, not look for a hand out or find the absolute minimum alternative (the easy route) in all cases.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:I don't understand the perceived problem by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I agree with Tierney's opinion. We're living in a highly litigious society which is most of the problem; but that aside I've seen many parents these days who stand behind their children NO MATTER WHAT- to their detriment in my opinion. We need families to instill a striving for greatness, not look for a hand out or find the absolute minimum alternative (the easy route) in all cases.

      What are you talking about? If parents do not stand behind their children NO MATTER WHAT, no one else will. It's the only unconditional love you eever get in life, so don't knock it.

      Saying that you will always be there to pick them up after they fall doesn't mean they won't ever get hurt.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:I don't understand the perceived problem by JabberWokky · · Score: 1

      I believe you misunderstood the statement. The problem being described are those parents who support their children cheating in school or encourage them to feel that they don't actually have to accomplish anything -- that they are intrinsically special regardless of their actions -- and don't require basic chores, hygiene or manners of their kids. The ones who offer "blind support", regardless of the child's actions. Think of the Olsen family from Little House on the Prairie, or if you're younger, the Cartmans from South Park. It's not exactly new, although the word "spoiled" seems to be out of vogue, and "entitled" is the new term.

      Always being there to help your child is not the same thing as smiling as your teenager forges your checks to cash for heroin, swings a baseball bat into the side of your wife's head (which you both cover for) and otherwise slowly destroys the entire family. Which is not an invented situation, but rather one I bore witness to.

      Love does not mean always agreeing to everything and perpetually giving anything requested. It means doing your best to support someone *appropriately*, and sometimes that means saying "no", or pointing out a dumb or dangerous act. With children, sometimes it even means making them cry and scream as they stomp out that they hate you and that you're the worst father in the world.

      As my wife puts it: your children aren't your friends or pets or siblings. They are your children, and a parent confusing that important relationship with any other is either behaving grotesquely ignorant or selfish.

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  4. What's the most dangerous thing on the playground? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    It's not the equipment, the sandpit, or the tether-ball. It's the other children. Now, if we could only remove the children then we'd have safe playgrounds.

  5. Learning by zget · · Score: 2

    It's mostly fear of lawsuits, and that's what's stupid. I did some pretty incredibly stupid shit as kid, but I'm glad I did them and I, nor anyone else really, ever got that seriously injured. But it teaches you to be careful. If todays kids never get to experience that, how are they supposed to be responsible adults? It's the same with women. If the girl didn't have some fun when she was a teenager, she will regret it later and try it when shes 30-40 years old, and usually married. That's why you should be able to experience stupid things when it's allowed and ok, so that you can learn from it.

    1. Re:Learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fear of lawsuits isn't stupid. It's quite sensible.
      Lawsuits are stupid.

    2. Re:Learning by ZamesC · · Score: 2

      >> It's the same with women. If the girl didn't have some fun when she was a teenager, she will regret it later and try it when shes 30-40 years old, and usually married. Interesting that you apply that only to women.... Do you: a) find it inconceivable that a man NOT screw around as a teenager or b) feel that such a man would nevertheless NOT regret it later or c) Think it's OK for a married 40 yo man to play around ??

    3. Re:Learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it teaches you to be careful. If todays kids never get to experience that, how are they supposed to be responsible adults? It's the same with women. If the girl didn't have some fun when she was a teenager, she will regret it later and try it when shes 30-40 years old, and usually married.

      So sayeth the cuckold.

    4. Re:Learning by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Personally, as the ex husband of a woman who acted this way; I would say that it has more to do with that daughters are more likely to be sheltered due to their perceived fragility.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:Learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think her point is that men usually do screw around as teenagers, and that nobody considers it very wrong.

    6. Re:Learning by smelch · · Score: 1

      I believe it is a reference to the double standard. Guys are championed for their sexual prowess while girls are considered sluts when they get around. Combine it with the fact that guys don't screw around in their 30's and 40's because they never did before, they usually do it for other reasons. Most of which is ego-stroking. Globally, women are much more sexually restricted than men and the consequences of their sexual activity before marriage is much more severe.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    7. Re:Learning by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but this was my observation in college as well. The girls who became the biggest whores, got abortions, and/or wound up in the hospital (for OD-ing or emotional problems) were those who had grown up as good little Christian girls, getting straight-A's and never being allowed to do anything remotely dangerous.

      Their first taste of responsibility and independence was disastrous because they had no coping mechanism or internal governor. And of course they had no concept of close human relationships. Fun to screw, but God help you if you fell in love.

    8. Re:Learning by Chruisan · · Score: 2

      I would say it has less to do with the daughter's 'perceived fragility' than the fathers knowing what is ( or is not) going on in other boys heads at that age.

    9. Re:Learning by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      If your group is college though it's skewed.

      The students that fucked up as teenagers were a lot less likely to be there (I don't know many people that ODed in high-school that made it to college).

      The people able to have fun, and stay on track, continued to. The ones that could not stay on track were not there, or cut lose as soon as they could do to lack of supervision.

      The upbringing didn't cause a problem, it hid one until a few years later (studies show parents can do very little to alter their childrens' behavior short of significantly fucking them up).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:Learning by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Looking back on it now (~5 years after college), most of the good little straight-A christian girls are now married and popping out babies. A few of them had troubles with screwing around and getting abortions and whatnot, but I think we just tend to notice it more when they do it.

      Nowadays, the people (this applies pretty well to both genders) with the most emotional and physical problems tend to be exactly the ones you would expect, drug addicts, alcoholics, F-students, etc.

    11. Re:Learning by RussR42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe it is a reference to the double standard. Guys are championed for their sexual prowess while girls are considered sluts when they get around.

      Perhaps it's a reflection of the effort it takes for most guys to get laid compared to most women who can just stand up and say "Next!".

    12. Re:Learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably never had to really make a decision about any of those things themselves. An instant switch from near-blind obedience to God and parents to needing to really think critically by themselves could have left them without the necessary tools to deal with those situations.

    13. Re:Learning by tombeard · · Score: 1

      My wife has a child care business. What happens is an inspector from your insurance company inspects your playground. He makes "recommendations" about removing equipment or increasing the mulch bed and such. If those "recommendations" are not implemented within 60 days your insurance will be canceled.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    14. Re:Learning by zget · · Score: 1

      Other boys? Seriously. All that same is going on inside girls heads too.

    15. Re:Learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should sue cities who don't have playgrounds every time a kid hurts people by driving drunk or speeding or other dangerous behavior.

      See, kids who don't hurt themselves on playgrounds grow up to be teenagers who feel invincible. They don't realize how badly they could hurt themselves by speeding in a car or jumping down stairs on a skateboard (nothing wrong with skateboard stunts but people who perform them should at least be aware of the risks).
      I scraped by knees jumping down a climbing structure or a slide as a kid. Thanks to such experiences, I realize my body is fragile and how easily it can be damaged - I'm therefore not going to get in a box of metal and speed through the streets like an idiot.

      If it's lawsuits that cities fear, then we should sue them for not having playgrounds. It would be a shame that we'd have to go so far, but if it's the only solution...

    16. Re:Learning by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If that were true, no children between the ages of 14 to 18 would ever attend school. They'd be busy elsewhere.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    17. Re:Learning by smelch · · Score: 1

      Oh definitely. As a male, I'm a big supporter of the double standard.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    18. Re:Learning by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I believe it is a reference to the double standard. Guys are championed for their sexual prowess while girls are considered sluts when they get around.

      Perhaps it's a reflection of the effort it takes for most guys to get laid compared to most women who can just stand up and say "Next!".

      Stop bad mouthing your mother like that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Learning by garaged · · Score: 1

      Have you seen by any chance "jackass"?

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    20. Re:Learning by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      That's hypocritical.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    21. Re:Learning by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      And why is that? Sounds like discrimination - why should guys shoulder all the work in building a relationship, or even a one night stand? Sometimes I wish I was asexual - much less headaches.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  6. risk/reward by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole risk=reward philosophy is just a way for people who are comfortable and have never needed to take any risks to push others to do so, so they can leech off them. Tell people that something will make them a man and they'll run into the middle of a battlefield.

    A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

    1. Re:risk/reward by g0bshiTe · · Score: 5, Funny
      so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      You obviously don't work in Aperture Labs do you?

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    2. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      risk reduction is different from risk aversion. It's better to know about risk and work to mitigate it, than to avoid the problem (and progress) entirely, due to fear.

    3. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      Says who?

      By removing the risk of physical injury in these cases, you add the risk of psychological "injuries". A child locked in an empty padded cell is perfectly safe but the adult resulting from such an upbringing will be a broken mess.

      Granted, that's an extreme. However, to some degree w're already seeing this in today's society: people ruled by abstract fears, nobody taking responsiblity, everybody blaming/sueing somebody else and so on.

    4. Re:risk/reward by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      risk reduction is different from risk aversion. It's better to know about risk and work to mitigate it, than to avoid the problem (and progress) entirely, due to fear.

      Indeed. It seems like the modern american gestalt is to increase risk due to excessive risk aversion. Like preventing minor yearly brush fires causes lots of brush to build up and ultimately result in massive forest fires every half decade or so.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:risk/reward by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Let them all play video games, as that's the least risky.

    6. Re:risk/reward by deisama · · Score: 1

      It isn't just physical harm that people are afraid of.
      Whether its asking out a pretty girl, trying to start your own business, asking for a raise, or simply presenting an unorthodox idea, there are all kinds of important risks in the real world.
      If we all tried to play it safe, never took a chance, than our society would simply stagnate.

      Ultimately its the people who aren't afraid to take a chance that will lead us, and if we're doing something to reduce the risktakers in the name of being safe, than I fear for our future.

    7. Re:risk/reward by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm glad there was one pro-safety post on this thread, just to keep things interesting. But how does your argument apply to a playground?

    8. Re:risk/reward by chispito · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, we don't have all of the data, nor do we have the capacity to properly put it together and determine what risks and rewards, exactly, are at stake. Perhaps it is riskier to avoid mild risks in the short term, which help train you to deal with greater risks in the long term?

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    9. Re:risk/reward by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      >>>A society's advance is measured by risk reduction,

      Exactly. By 2100 I fully expect we'll live in a futuristic society. All children will be wearing plastic bubbles, that protect them from all harm, even burning themselves on the hot stove. (Of course once they turn 18 and get rid of the bubble, they'll go over and touch the stove, having never learned what pain feels like or how to avoid it.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:risk/reward by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 1

      The whole risk=reward philosophy is just a way for people who are comfortable and have never needed to take any risks to push others to do so, so they can leech off them. Tell people that something will make them a man and they'll run into the middle of a battlefield.

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      A society's advance is measured by many things. One thing you could measure it by is trust. I trust I won't be mugged when I walk down certian streets. I trust that the policy won't ask for a bribe when I call them. I trust the credit card company doesn't skim money off my account. Because of this trust I work in a specialized field. Because of this trust I rely on others for food and shelter. Risk Reduction at the expense of trust leads to waist and lost oppurtunity. I can reduce risk by never leaving my house, by eating only food that I personally prepared, and by buying gold instead of stock. But these behaviors don't advance society.

    11. Re:risk/reward by Fned · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so exponentially more awesome stuff can be achieved with the same proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      FTFY, you milquetoast pansy.

    12. Re:risk/reward by tchernobog · · Score: 1

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      While risk reduction is nice and desirable, there is a problem in risk avoidance. Risk avoidance (one of the traits Geert Hofstede identified as defining a culture) might bring economical stagnation and less breakthroughs in high-risk research, among other things — my country has a very high risk avoidance ratio, btw, and I can confirm this.

      We are progressing from what is safe to be concerned about (kids playing with guns are still worrying to me, sorry NRA), to a society where you teach kids they should not climb a tree, jump the rope, or run along for fear of falling and bruising their knee. This, in the long run, will produce less competitive, fearful and insecure adults.

      In my opinion, only useless risks are dangerous. TFA argues that by overprotecting children, you take away from them the ability to learn to assess whether a risk is worth it or not, and what are the outcomes of acting in a certain way. Nothing new into that. The *right* way to address *this* problem would be to watch over children while they play, so you — the experienced adult — can guide a child to avoid the worst outcomes while still giving them the capability of choosing what they want to do, and that is the core issue. Nobody has time anymore to play with their children, but that's what parents should do.

      In other words, we learn from our mistakes, but we must be able to err in order to do a mistake and learn from it.

      Overprotective parents are the worst kind; they actually prevent a child to grow and reason with his own brains. Incidentally, be wary about how you judge someone to be "fearful": for me, heavily armed societies are fearful societies. I would say people screaming "this will make a man out of me!" and jumping in the battlefield would probably be those NOT having any experience about small risks when they were children. Those experiences that would make them say "wait, if I do this I might pay these consequences" (growing up from: "if I punch my classmate in the face I get scolded by the headmaster", to: "if I punch a colleague at work, I might end up without job and in tribunal").

      --
      42.
    13. Re:risk/reward by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      It's also drinking.

      Every time I hear on the radio about efforts to curb college drinking, pushing organizations, dorms, whole campuses to go dry it makes me think that there is going to be a big issue with alcoholism in the 23 ~ 27 yr age range after that. And I don't know about other colleges, but the safety nets were better for me when I was in college than after I graduated. Had to do a lot less driving, as well.

      Every once in a while I hear about a responsible drinking program and I think 'bravo'. More common is just discouraging alcohol altogether.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    14. Re:risk/reward by David_W · · Score: 1

      Every once in a while I hear about a responsible drinking program and I think 'bravo'.

      Wait, isn't "responsible drinking" an oxymoron?

      /sarcasm

    15. Re:risk/reward by Bengie · · Score: 1

      When I was IT in college, I got to talking to a professor while working on his computer and he said the worst kids of all are the ones with over-protective parents. He said a kid is better off living with parents who doesn't care and/or pay no attention, than overly-protective ones.

    16. Re:risk/reward by the_raptor · · Score: 1

      What utter bullshit.

      If people actually followed your line of thinking the species would die out because interpersonal relationships are a huge risk. The biological fact is that something has to be high reward for large numbers of people to accept high risk.

      This isn't about pointlessly maiming factory workers because the factory owner is too cheap to install hand guards, this is about the absolute scientific fact that people grow and develop by progressing through tasks of escalating difficulty and risk.

      You can't coddle kids until they finish university and then expect them to be functional adults. Instead of making mistakes and growing when the risks are pretty low (falling out of a tree in the playground) they will make mistakes that have much more serious consequences (speeding and other dangerous driving, hard drugs, abusive relationships).

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    17. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you are joking or really believe this. Yes telling someone that doing something will make them a man is a way to manipulate them, but in my opinion it would only work on someone who has not had the experience weighing risk/reward and dealing with consequences in their life.

      I lead wilderness trips and work on ropes courses, two things that some people would consider very risky. I can tell you, however, that if a group is not challenged they will not grow. Now, I am not advocating unreasonable risk. We have ropes, harnesses, pfds, helmets and sat-phones. Further, we make sure there is a progression in how we challenge participants and what we let them take on. In all honesty the most dangerous thing we do is drive to our drop off and pick up points.

      Sure there is a point where someone can be pushed too far and end up in their trauma zone (another place positive growth will not occur). However, after seeing hundreds of kids go through our programs the ones that are the most self sufficient, aware and mature are the ones that have, at home, been given the opportunity to put themselves is a sticky situation or two.

      I mean lets be reasonable, its a jungle gym, not a pit of razor blades.

    18. Re:risk/reward by corbettw · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? Life is risk! You risk your life crossing the street, you risk your future quitting one job to start a new one, you risk heart break going up to talk to a new guy/gal. If you're so terrified of getting hurt you want to remove all risk from life, then stay put in your parents' basement, but don't to force the rest of us to be pussies, too.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    19. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      With progress, reducing the amount of risk increases the reward across the board. We become better at reducing the risks by taking the risks and analyzing the results. The LAST thing we want to do is train risk assessment out of the human population. If the only reason you know something is dangerous is because someone else said so, society has failed.

    20. Re:risk/reward by corbettw · · Score: 1

      The obvious answer there is, keep them in bubbles until they're 21. That should fix it!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    21. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole risk=reward philosophy is just a way for people who are comfortable and have never needed to take any risks to push others to do so, so they can leech off them. Tell people that something will make them a man and they'll run into the middle of a battlefield.

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      It's not that risk automatically equals reward, it's judging weather or not the risk is worth the reward. People who have never taken risks will have no idea how to gauge that.

    22. Re:risk/reward by JonySuede · · Score: 0

      posted to cancel moderation

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    23. Re:risk/reward by biek · · Score: 1

      Or keep them there for their entire lives. They may get bored while in confinement, so maybe we could find a way to plug them in to some virtual world...

    24. Re:risk/reward by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      But ... Who will make the bubbles?! That's the issue I've never resolved in that hypothesis.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    25. Re:risk/reward by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      A society's advance is measured by risk reduction, so stuff can be achieved without a large proportion of people being harmed in the process.

      But risk reduction comes at a cost in something. You can't just arbitrarily reduce risk without sacrificing something else.

      Projecting 'advance' down to a single axis necessarily means you are ignoring the trade-offs. A society in which I wouldn't be allowed to ride my motorcycle might be more 'advanced' by your narrow metric of reducing risk but it would seem very primitive by many other metrics.

    26. Re:risk/reward by Toonol · · Score: 1

      How about: Still have monkey bars, but put down wood chips under it instead of tarmac? Let kids get hurt, but design it so it won't crack skulls wide open?

      I'm not overly paranoid, but ten years ago I was at a playground when a friend's son fell from the top of a long circular slide, and broke both his forearms. Now... the kid is fine, and I'm sure the summer in a cast taught him a lesson... but if he had tumbled a bit more during the fall, he could easily have broke his neck. I'm not advocated getting rid of the high slides, monkey bars, and so on; but where you can leave the important aspects intact (climbing, exploring), and make obvious changes that may result in less serious harm, why not do so? It'll still hurt when they fall.

      (This is partly just devil's advocate.)

    27. Re:risk/reward by timeOday · · Score: 1

      One of my daughters also broke her arm from a fall off the monkey bars about 4 years ago. So, everybody rest easy, playgrounds aren't entirely safe yet.

    28. Re:risk/reward by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      We all got to where we are today through evolution by natural selection. Making things safe for people interferes with this.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    29. Re:risk/reward by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You are right about the guns. Kids should not be playing with guns. They should be hunting and target shooting with guns. Nobody should play with guns, they are not toys.

      The NRA would teach you that if you gave them a chance.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:risk/reward by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Which includes things like antibacterial soap (kills the easy to kill bacteria, so the worse ones thrive).

      (Somewhat devil's advocating myself: This also includes seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. I'm actually fine with not having those laws *IF* my tax money doesn't have to pay for your trip to the ER or scraping you off the pavement.)

    31. Re:risk/reward by trythil · · Score: 0

      Just some musings:

      I think there's more to measuring a human (and society) than risk reduction. For example, the degree to which a human is mentally prepared to confront risk, and the skill that a human has to navigate risks.

      I train parkour. That training has certainly influenced the way that I measure mankind (as you can see above), but I've also found in it a fantastic tool for identifying and pushing my physical and mental boundaries, which I'd definitely call advancement.

      Playgrounds, as it happens, provide some of the highest-density areas for finding body-and-mind challenges. Overly safe playgrounds, however, severely limit the number and degree of challenges, and as such make it a lot harder to push oneself in a progressive fashion. (In my case: sure, it's possible to train in a gymnasium or around the city, but the former tends to be too safe -- there aren't many gymnasiums out there designed for parkour -- and the latter tends to be too risky for those who haven't worked themselves up to that level.)

      Zero risk is an interesting concept, but I don't think we'll ever achieve that (just an axiom in my mental model of the world), so one must be prepared to confront it. Eliminating that risk from playgrounds, in my opinion, weakens one of the best tools we have to build up those skills.

      I'm not an advocate of exposing children to murderers, thieves, and rapists to "toughen them up"; that's just silly. I'm more interested in expanding human ability (specifically, my own) to deal with the universe. Risk reduction is one way to do it; having the physical and mental training to overcome that risk is another. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.

    32. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when one of the drives overtakes the mind to the exclusion of all of the other drives, dominating and excluding them from the reasoning process we call this neurosis. also, fuck society's advance. and civilization has in fact made it POSSIBLE to "harm" large proportions of the population..i.e. atom bomb. so take your cowardly philosophy and fuck off.

    33. Re:risk/reward by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but are you going to go outside your bubble in order to plug other people in? Better build some robots to do that for us.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    34. Re:risk/reward by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      That's luxury risk. You have a very small risk of being run over if you cross the street on a zebra crossing, you risk making a bit less money for a while when moving jobs, you risk a few weeks of sorrow when chatting up a person.
      The risks we are protected from are far greater and with worse consequences.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    35. Re:risk/reward by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Why would you think that our ability to reduce such risks isn't part of natural selection?
      After all; we seem to have adapted quite well to the risks in our environment.
      Or would you prefer we still died at age 30 at most?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    36. Re:risk/reward by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      > Why would you think that our ability to reduce such risks isn't part of natural selection?

      It is, but not when the ones who actually do the risk reduction are different from the ones who benefit from this reduction (stupid/unfit children, in this case).

    37. Re:risk/reward by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      A survival strategy may be "parasitic", but it is a survival strategy nonetheless.
      Remember that evolution does not require action, it merely requires to be lucky enough to have traits that make survival possible.
      Being a child, regardless of mental condition, of a parent willing to protect that child is such a trait.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    38. Re:risk/reward by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      One of my daughters also broke her arm from a fall off the monkey bars about 4 years ago. So, everybody rest easy, playgrounds aren't entirely safe yet.

      I'm sure saying "daddy will catch you" then deliberately missing her taught her a valuable lesson in the relationship between trust and pain.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:risk/reward by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      By 2100 I fully expect we'll live in a futuristic society.

      I think you wee molly-coddled as a child and can now only make sure bets.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    40. Re:risk/reward by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When I was IT in college, I got to talking to a professor while working on his computer and he said the worst kids of all are the ones with over-protective parents. He said a kid is better off living with parents who doesn't care and/or pay no attention, than overly-protective ones.

      I think it's pretty fucking obvious he wasn't a professor in social work, or had any real experience of parents who don't care about their children.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    41. Re:risk/reward by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Kids should not be playing with guns. They should be hunting and target shooting with guns

      Why? I think kids should be taught to hunt with their bare hands and a rock, anything else is just namby-pampy socialist bullshit.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:risk/reward by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You can't coddle kids until they finish university and then expect them to be functional adults. Instead of making mistakes and growing when the risks are pretty low (falling out of a tree in the playground) they will make mistakes that have much more serious consequences (speeding and other dangerous driving, hard drugs, abusive relationships).

      I think you'll find that in general, the kids who took the greatest risks when they were young are the ones who take the greatest risks when they are older, and attempts by parents or tohers to control that risk taking behaviour are pointless.

      Breaking your arm falling out of a tree does nothing to prevent you from taking drugs or forming abusive relationships when you're older if your peersonality is that way inclined to start with.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:risk/reward by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We all got to where we are today through evolution by natural selection. Making things safe for people interferes with this.

      So therefore we shouldn't allow agriculture, housing or medicine either, they just interfere with natural selection too

      Twat.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re:risk/reward by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nobodies stopping you, yet.

      For example, as kid I learned how to make a squirrel trap out of a shoelace. Old injun trick.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re:risk/reward by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Neither nibble of 0x20 can be in [a-f], obviously. Also, the first nibble in each byte can't be in [a-f] because it's ASCII. Out of the remaining 32 candidate nibbles, you'd expect about 6/16ths (12) of them to be in [a-f], but only 5 are.

      We're onto you, g0bshiTe. We know you're a Decimist, and we'll be watching.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    46. Re:risk/reward by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      How about: Still have monkey bars, but put down wood chips under it instead of tarmac? Let kids get hurt, but design it so it won't crack skulls wide open?

      Read the article. Seriously. They covered that:

      “There is no clear evidence that playground safety measures have lowered the average risk on playgrounds,” said David Ball, a professor of risk management at Middlesex University in London. He noted that the risk of some injuries, like long fractures of the arm, actually increased after the introduction of softer surfaces on playgrounds in Britain and Australia.

      “This sounds counterintuitive, but it shouldn’t, because it is a common phenomenon,” Dr. Ball said. “If children and parents believe they are in an environment which is safer than it actually is, they will take more risks. An argument against softer surfacing is that children think it is safe, but because they don’t understand its properties, they overrate its performance.”

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    47. Re:risk/reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking the risks is what helps to build up confidence in children that they would absolutly need in the future as an adult. It provides less fear and more courage to take on tasks that they would otherwise think they couldn't do it. It also helps to provide them to not only challenge the schools in learning, but encourages a higher level in wanting to learn because they have that confidence to take that challenge.

      As for 'risks of lawsuits' comment in the statement above, those lawsuits won't be risked if they just slapped a warning sign that the parents NEED to watch their children playing on the equipment, and the company is NOT responsable for any hospital injuries that the child may indure while playing on the equipment.

      Where's that 100 foot tall tree to climb when I need it?

  7. Each generation coddles the next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the kids born in the 2000s will be like when they grow up? A new counter-culture, if Gen Y is any indication.

    1. Re:Each generation coddles the next by zget · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it's just Americans. Most of Europe and Asia will still turn out just fine, though I guess we will get it here in Europe in no time too.

    2. Re:Each generation coddles the next by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's here in Europe already, at least in Sweden.

      When I was a kid and we went on field trips (age 6-10 or so) with school no one wore those horrible orange vests with reflective strips except for the "special" kids (which was why most kids I knew referred to such vests as "CP vests"), these days when you see a group of kids that age out on a field trip they're all wearing the vests...

      There are lots of little things like that, or just how parents these days apparently think it's perfectly normal to track their teenage kids with GPS (and call them if the GPS goes offline), when I was twelve me and my friends would be out until almost midnight on summer nights, racing our bicycles up and down steep hills, climbing trees and not "checking in" with our parents until we came home again, today that would be considered "irresponsible parenting" by most parents...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:Each generation coddles the next by Shark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What bothers me most is that if I want to raise my kid like that and let them have a real childhood with all the bumps and bruises and scares it entails, I'll be the evil parent and CPS will come take him/her away.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    4. Re:Each generation coddles the next by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      When I was in elementary and middle school we'd climb, jump, and eat off of this http://www.flickr.com/photos/neurology/946532720/, now it's fenced off.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Each generation coddles the next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a parent of a 6-month old living in the UK, and that is exactly what scares me shitless, and why I never originally wanted to have offspring until I'd been able to migrate to another country.

      I want my son to hurt himself, be covered in bruises and always in a cast, like I was - it means he'll probably have had a lot of fun and gained new experiences.

      Unfortunately, the way this country's gone I've got to balance the very real risk of losing my kid to social services versus his life education, and when the risk is so great I'm probably going to end up wrapping him in cotton wool... It's a lose-lose situation for everyone (except the tabloids, with whom I reckon most of the blame lies)

  8. No climbing! by hyperion2010 · · Score: 1

    Better'd cut down all the trees too, just to be safe. Wouldn't want a kid climbing one of those and falling out!

    1. Re:No climbing! by jcr · · Score: 1

      It sounds absurd, but I have heard of property owners being told to remove all the branches below a certain height so that kids couldn't get into the tree in the first place.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:No climbing! by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      As long as the tree was not too big around for some grip, we could shinny up the trunk to where the branches started. Coming down could be a little rough, but lack of branches never stopped us from getting up the tree.

      Unless the sap was sticky. I would not climb a tree with sticky sap.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:No climbing! by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And completely remove all the downed wood.

      In a fairly local news story around here, some kid playing outside got impaled on a tree branch. And a quick google on "impaled tree branch" shows it seems to happen all the time!

      I knew the big blue room was too dangerous!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:No climbing! by uniquename72 · · Score: 1

      This is the case with all neighborhood parks in my area.

    5. Re:No climbing! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      it seems to happen all the time!

      "All the time" == "about 10x less likely than being killed by lightning"?
      No matter how safe you make an environment, people will have deadly accidents.
      Put all children in plastic bubbles and some will choke themselves on the plastic.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  9. In other words by FrkyD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Generations are being deprived of the chance to learn to deal with the process of overcoming their fears?
    In a society whose political and media culture centers around obscuring debate by preying on fear?
    Whodathunk?

    1. Re:In other words by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

      Well said. At least they'll develop the healthy fear of being sued and the drive to sue which will come in handy for finantial survival.

  10. No evidence by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like most of Tierney's articles, this one is iconoclastic but has no evidence to back it up. The "study" he cites is just one psychologist's opinion, with no actual data behind it.

    Speaking for myself, I do think I'm more well-adjusted psychologically as a result of all the dangerous stuff I did as a little kid, but given the medical bills and the permanent scars, I can't honestly say it was worth it overall.

    1. Re:No evidence by MozeeToby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As a latchkey kid who got his 'do stupid things with friends' out of his system before his teenage years, I'd have to say that's preferable than the alternative. Playing, climbing, jumping, and biking with friends as a young kid made me into a socially and psychologically well rounded person, not to mention helping me to be well above average with most physical tasks. I'd say a few trips to the ER (actually only 1 in my case) was worth saving a lifetime of therapy to deal with social and psychological problems later.

    2. Re:No evidence by goodmanj · · Score: 2

      Thing is, it's not like every kid who's coddled by a hyperprotective society ends up schizophrenic as an adult, just like not every kid who plays on a steel-bar jungle gym ends up paraplegic.

      Which is a bigger problem? I dunno, but at least we have some statistics on childhood playground injuries. The folks who argue that the psychological damage is a big deal are bringing *zero* data to the table.

    3. Re:No evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of my most treasured stories either begin or end with "and we almost died." The unexamined, or untested life is not worth living.

    4. Re:No evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have bringing data to the table for decades now, but they always get ignored and the results can be seen at every level of society.

      Want to fight a "clean war"? Use air power and air power only. Never mind the fact that it doesn't really stop wars. Not only that, people are calling for more restrictions on laser-guided UAV launched missiles. How much more risk adverse can you get?

      Want to "fight crime"? Lets lock up drug addicts alongside murderers and rapists because its safer that way instead of putting them in a clean-drug program but still letting them live at home. Never mind the fact that prisons are overloaded and drug addicts leave prison hardened, bitter and hateful against society which put them in prison in the first place.

      Want to teach kids "science"? It has to be done via books only until they're in college at which point they're required to fill out a waiver exempting the school from all responsibility should an accident occur. God forbid a kid cuts himself with the scalpel during biology class and the teacher/school gets sued as a result.

    5. Re:No evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My little brother (age 24, still living at home) went to the ER way more times for asthma attacks than for anything he did that involved doing something fun/ dangerous.

    6. Re:No evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't there a fight club quote about scars?

    7. Re:No evidence by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Not to mention you learn what the limits are, what's really dangerous and what isn't.

      I know lots of full on adults who can't be trusted in an unfamiliar situation by themselves because they've got no idea how to deal with it.

    8. Re:No evidence by Yaruar · · Score: 1

      I spent most of my childhood playing in an unregulated builders tip, graveyard and in woodlands, fun games included exploding the gas canister, pushing the fridge down the slope of rubble and throwing javelins made of sharpend fence poles at one another. It didn't cause me any harm and myself, stumpy, one-eye, pincushion and hubert all survived into adulthood, well hubert is a little odd about enclused spaces after being buried alive in the tunnel we dug in the graveyard.

      Well, TBH the formet is true, the latter is for comic effect, although I'm often very surprised I made it into adulthood, I still have a scar below one eye from where a friend loosed an arrow from a homemade longbow at my head.

      --
      Working for the (other) man
    9. Re:No evidence by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      Kids get bored with the nice and safe equipment and get their kicks elsewhere. Make the playground too safe and they'll find their excitement on the train tracks. Literally. http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/children_play_chicken_with_freight_train_1_63264 is just one example. Also, keeping them in cotton boxes tends to nurture people with an entitlement complex. Zero data, I know, but you know it's true.

  11. Yes they can by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the park nearest my house they recently put in a new playground. Thankfully it still has some "unsafe" equipment. My oldest (almost 3) wanted to swing on the big swings a couple of weeks ago. So I put him on and started pushing him. Eventually he wanted me to get on the swing next to him. When we were both swinging he fell of and did a nice face plant from falling forward off the swing. He had a few little scrapes and a mouth full of sand, he cried a bit but I told him he was ok. He then went and got right back on the swing. He has also fallen off slides and rope things (a cargo net like structure) and still goes back. There is an older "safe" playground at this park but he never want to go there.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:Yes they can by clong83 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I took my one year old nephew to a playground in my neighborhood, and as soon as I set him down he crawled up to the very top of the biggest slide and flung himself down it headfirst. Nobody was there to catch him and he did a nice faceplant in the sand at the bottom. He was fine. Cried for a minute, had a bunch of sand in his nose, but then calmed down and crawled back up and did it again (with me waiting to catch him this time). From then on, he was a little bit more cautious and wouldn't go down unless I was there waiting.

    2. Re:Yes they can by Pope · · Score: 1

      I can't stand the new plastic playground equipment. Back in the day, it was all metal, wood, and tires. Those were the best, because the tire "fort" could become anything we wanted: a fort, a ship, even the damn Battlestar Galactica if we were in a TV mood. Tire swings became spaceships.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Yes they can by David_W · · Score: 1

      I can't stand the new plastic playground equipment. Back in the day, it was all metal, wood, and tires.

      Well, getting rid of the metal slides isn't so bad... I hated when the thing had been baking in the sun all day and was too hot to slide down in shorts without burning myself.

    4. Re:Yes they can by the+Dragonweaver · · Score: 1

      I am personally very fond of that paint—is it ceramic?—that stays cool in the sun even when it's on top of metal.

      --
      Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
    5. Re:Yes they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he cried a bit but I told him he was ok.

      That's key. Make a big hairy deal out of it and the kid's mentally scarred for life.

      (Of course, if there is serious damage you get it taken care of -- but the emotional impact on the kid is proportional to how freaked out his parent(s) is (are), not how much (temporary) pain he feels.)

    6. Re:Yes they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I loved the plastic slide on the elementary school playground: run in place at the top for a minute or two, then reach out and nail someone with the biggest electrostatic spark you've ever seen.

    7. Re:Yes they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the flip side I've seen some REALLY dangerous playgrounds. There was one where I was climbing down the "ladder" and the steel was so worn that it was extremely slippery... well even though I was holding onto the sides my feet slipped and had my arms been shorter (kid length), when I swung from the one side that I was able to keep a grip on I would've smacked right into a pole, but I didn't... I then lost grip on that hand too because the bar spun (wasn't supposed to), and fell, and when I landed my face came within inches of VERY sharp object that almost impaled my head and when I fell backwards I landed on the solid concrete around it and hurt my tailbone real bad. I dusted myself off and thought "how is this place even LEGAL?". I then went over and told my daughter to stay away from there. She, age 4 at the time, just looked at me wide eyed having witnessed my fumble and said "I wasn't going to... that looks really dangerbus"

    8. Re:Yes they can by Gnavpot · · Score: 1

      I dusted myself off and thought "how is this place even LEGAL?". I then went over and told my daughter to stay away from there. She, age 4 at the time, just looked at me wide eyed having witnessed my fumble and said "I wasn't going to... that looks really dangerbus"

      Good. You have given her the opportunity to learn herself to assess a risk prior to taking it. Your own parents on the other hand...

    9. Re:Yes they can by archen · · Score: 1

      Honestly tire swings (where they have chains or rope attached at three points to a tire) are the only thing I would really deem unsafe. It doesn't seem to have any obvious problems but experience taught me otherwise. Probably the most useful skill to learn is that if you fall off a tire swing LAY FLAT or that thing will beat the shit out of you repeatedly. That's only the most apparent hazard. Man all the memories of kids getting f'ed up by that thing are all coming back.

    10. Re:Yes they can by tixxit · · Score: 1

      In my last year of elementary school some kid fell of the school's playground and broke his arm. So, to prevent this from happening again, the solution was to literally pull the playground up, cut off a couple of feet and stick it back down. Kids stopped playing on it because it sucked. What's funny is that the worst accidents at our school were usually from kids just running around. I remember one kid taking a face plant at a full run into a bench and getting a huge chunk of wood in his cheek. Still has a huge scar to this day. Of course, it's not the playgrounds that hurt kids, its the kids themselves. Take away the playground, and they'll climb up onto the school roof and fall off (that happened too, after the playground was cut).

      That said, I've been fairly pleased with some of the new playgrounds I've been seeing around my new area. They're tall, have lots of open areas, poles, ropes, slides, etc. There was another playground I found in Quebec City that had this giant rope geometric structure thing. Unfortunately for my embarrassed wife, I ended up playing on it for a while, before some kids showed up.

  12. Think of the children! by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of these stupid arguments that our kiddies need to be overly protected.

    If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn. Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something, but playing in a proper environment is how they learn skills (+social skills), and most importantly how they can become healthy instead of spending the day on the sofa in safety playing CoD or whatever.

    1. Re:Think of the children! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something

      Why not?

    2. Re:Think of the children! by Mabbo · · Score: 1

      I spent most of my youth playing in the forest with friends, often miles from the nearest adult. I pity the kids who are afraid of going into dark places alone.

    3. Re:Think of the children! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I take it you were never were in Boy Scouts. When I was young there was nothing better then chasing each other through the forest, often with big sticks, climbing pine trees and dropping stuff on others. Truth is kids are probably less likely to get hurt in a forest than in an urban landscape since forests tend to be squish compared to concrete and asphalt.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:Think of the children! by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      but playing in a proper environment is how they learn skills

      The definition of "proper environment" is what is at issue. The majority believe it was fine the way it was. If you are a morally bankrupt parent of a child injured on a playground, you soon break company with the majority when you realize you can make a buck.

    5. Re:Think of the children! by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn.

      Indeed. A good playground should contain elements where the kids can evaluate the risk of doing something, but protect them from serious injuries if they misjudge. A kid should be able to get banged up a bit, but not die or lose a limb.

      A good playground should also protect the kids from dangers they cannot readily evaluate. For example the cords from their hoodies have a tendency to get stuck in wedges and can end up strangling them.

      These issues involve not only a good design of the playground elements and the playground itself, but also routine inspections and maintenance.

    6. Re:Think of the children! by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1

      You're talking about finding a balance, with which I totally agree. For example, there's "falling" - which usually involves bumps and bruises - and then there's negligence.

      Years ago, my son suffered a nasty fall from the monkey bars at the local apartment complex and broke his arm / wrist in four places, requiring 2 pins in the wrist, and 2 near the elbow. It was one of the most god-awful things I've ever seen, and I've broken nearly a dozen bones, myself, so I'm no stranger to that stuff. Turns out that, when I went to check out the monkey bars, afterwards, one of the rungs was loose. He grabbed it, it rolled, he lost his grip and fell awkwardly. I didn't sue the land-lord - shit happens - but they were told about it. Some years later, visiting the old neighborhood after moving away, I checked that rung again and it was still loose. I probably couldn't have sued, by that point, but someone should have. It's one thing to offer potentially risky equipment; it's another to offer flat-out dangerous equipment, or not fix it when informed about it.

      Funny thing about that later visit: my son was much bigger - it was about 8 or 9 years after the original fall - and when we were checking out the monkey bars, after all those years, a resident came by and said we shouldn't play on them. A little boy had fallen some years earlier and had gotten seriously hurt.

    7. Re:Think of the children! by smelch · · Score: 1

      If his kid is getting pushed on a swing, falling off, and crying, he is probably a little young for wandering off alone in the forest if for no other reason than he might get lost. I myself spent a lot of time in the woods when I was 7 - 10 though.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    8. Re:Think of the children! by idontgno · · Score: 2

      If you ask my older children (the ones who are adults now), they'd probably tell you the most fun they had growing up is the three of them plus the neighborhood kids romping around the forested sides of South Mountain, looking for unexploded ordinance*, catching crayfish in the creek, and lots of stuff they still won't tell me (because the statute of limitations isn't completely gone, I think.)

      They have all their limbs, all their faculties, both their eyes (each), all their fingers and toes, and some good memories.

      *This particular part of South Mountain was part of an Army post, and this particular part of the forest used to be an artillery practice range, allegedly. Yeah, it could have gone spectacularly badly, but I did the same stuff in Okinawa 30 years before that, and the elementary schools had recurring training from the local EOD guys who always told you the gruesome story of this year's "ooh, I found an old artillery shell" victim. And I still have all the bits I was born with.

      This is the kind of thing that makes me believe in God, so that I can also believe in guardian angels. YMMV.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Think of the children! by dranga · · Score: 1

      > For example the cords from their hoodies have a tendency to get stuck in wedges and can end up strangling them. That's not a bad thing either, after a few issues like that, they might learn wearing clothes with dangly bits like that carries it's own dangers they need to be prepared for. The smart ones will learn. Apparently the dumb ones will sue, from the sounds of it.

      --
      Oh no, not again.
    10. Re:Think of the children! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      What I'm more sick of, is the idea that people want to sue someone because their kid fell down and got a boo-boo. I broke my wrist on "unsafe playground equipment" when I was in the 4th grade. You know what my parents did? Took me to the damn doctor to get a splint.

      Suing the school district never entered into ANYONE's mind. Six weeks later the doctor took a dremel to the cast, and that was that.

      Sometimes I really do miss the old days.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re:Think of the children! by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      That's not a bad thing either, after a few issues like that, they might learn wearing clothes with dangly bits like that carries it's own dangers they need to be prepared for.

      The issue I mentioned is primarily a problem for young children, less than 6 years of age, which even if their parents allowed them to couldn't make informed decisions about such things.

    12. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad part is, no matter how safe you make something, there's always some infinitesimally small chance that a kid will fall in JUST the wrong way to snap their neck from like... a foot high ledge onto soft padding.

      And all you need is that one lawsuit over "unsafe equipment", and eventually all we'll be left with is a flat spongy surface, with children wearing mandatory helmets tethered to guide-wires above to keep them from falling over.

    13. Re:Think of the children! by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn.

      Indeed. A good playground should contain elements where the kids can evaluate the risk of doing something, but protect them from serious injuries if they misjudge. A kid should be able to get banged up a bit, but not die or lose a limb.

      WTF is that shiate? How can they evaluate the risk if they are protected from the consequence? Do you suggest they read a white paper?

    14. Re:Think of the children! by stephathome · · Score: 1

      Why not is a great question. My sisters and I played in the canyon behind our house often. Lots of fun and since this was well before cell phones, we carried a whistle in case help was needed. We only gave up on the canyon when poison oak took over all the good paths.

    15. Re:Think of the children! by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      WTF is that shiate? How can they evaluate the risk if they are protected from the consequence?

      But they aren't. That's exactly why I emphasized that they should be protected from serious injury. If they misjudge they could get hurt, and learn from that experience. By trying again, they can map out their limits.

    16. Re:Think of the children! by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it could have gone spectacularly badly

      And if it happened today, you would have had to cope not only with the loss of a child but with being hounded by the media and other parents for being so negligent. You might even face criminal charges. Look at Arlington's standards for when children can be unsupervised. And they think that is the minimum acceptable oversight.

    17. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something,

      My dad's 75. He's very fond of the memory of him and his brother, 8 or 10 years old, crawling through a culvert strewn with broken glass, under a railroad track, so they could go swim in the local river (just downstream from the steel mill effluent). They learned (probably by blood) to be careful of broken glass. They learned they had to be careful of the barges carrying scrap, ore, and coal to the mill. They figured out they couldn't swim all the way across (at least until they were teenagers).

      Most of my fun memories involve doing stuff that was slightly dangerous, outside of parental supervision, and often in a place I wasn't supposed to be. We learn by pushing boundaries, and if the boundaries are set by some authority figure saying "no," then we don't get to push very far.

    18. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember doing the same thing when I was a kid (also on an army base - Ft. Leonard Wood). I had a blast doing it, and turned out fine. This was also some 20 years ago, before they started child proofing playgrounds too.

    19. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once, when I was a young kid, I went to play alone in the forest. There, I met a bear. I was not nice...

    20. Re:Think of the children! by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something,

      That's what everyone did growing up if you are from the country. You left in the morning and if you missed lunch, that's your problem. But you had to be home for dinner.

      The risk of kidnapping, molestation, etc. is no higher today (and in many cases lower) than it was then, but today there are 24hour news channels that cover every single incident and completely changed the perception of a world.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    21. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He fears it might show how retarded his children actually are. ;)
      (I'm kidding. But reality is uncomfortably close to it.)

      Just so you know: Where I come from, the ones who were feared to be seen in the forest, were US CHILDREN! ^^

      In that forest, we had self-made bows and arrows (plain, razor tip and fire starter), a moat with spikes, an electric fence, 3-story tree houses with embrasures, a transparent roof, a "toilet" (a hole to the outside on the 3rd floor ;) and even electricity and a radio.*

      We played hunting/fighting, scavenger hunts and downhill racing. But mostly we liked building our treehouse, and other stuff.
      We were in the forest all the time. Even when it got pretty cold. Like Chuck Norris, the forest feared US. ;)

      No, we only rarely got hurt. Mostly when falling from the bike, into child-fist-sized rocks, raspberry bushes and nettles. Sometimes from missing a nail with the hammer. Sometimes from falling too hard. But that's about all I can remember.

      And when we were younger. we climbed on the rotten roofs of the barns (secured with ropes) and jumped from the hay bales right under the roof of the highest barn onto a 1.5m hay bale floor.

      It was epic. Most fun of our lives. And we were the best team there ever was.

      I can't recommend it highly enough, to allow your children to grow in character and experience that way. They will come out being able to manage and survive the toughest situations. :)

      * (Oh, and we even had a jail / torture chamber once, which was a drainage pit / gully thing where the water from the hill came down to in spring. You could open it, put somebody in, and close it. But we only tried it out once, because we felt very bad even thinking about leaving somebody in there. Even somebody we hated.)

    22. Re:Think of the children! by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      For example the cords from their hoodies have a tendency to get stuck in wedges and can end up strangling them.

      Wasn't there some kind of drawstring *ban* from kids' clothes recently? I can't find it, but I thought there was. (I think that's going way too far, and even the dropside crib thing seems like it's going too far.)

    23. Re:Think of the children! by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      Unexploded ordinance: sounds like the debt-ceiling negotiations. ;-)

    24. Re:Think of the children! by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Wow, as a junior in high school I was left alone for a week. It was nice, no brothers or sister or parents for a whole week and I cooked and cleaned for myself.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    25. Re:Think of the children! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something

      Why not?

      And the forest should be dark and full of grues. That'll tune up the kid's survival instincts.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:Think of the children! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I think there's a slight difference between messing around in the woods and fucking around with unexploded bombs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the "Keep 'em home!" ad on the bottom of the page. Yeah, keep your sick kids at home, but if you don't take the day off from work to sit around with them, you're a terrible parent. Sorry kids, no vacation this year because mom and dad used up all of their vacation days to babysit you when you were sick, during snowdays, and on holidays that closed school but aren't recognized by most employers. Instead, you get to have a babysitter during the summer, which will burn through all of the money set aside for birthday and holiday presents. But at least you'll never be alone! Especially because one of the requirements to be left alone for any period of time is "The child must be comfortable being alone," which will never happen if the kid is never allowed to be left alone. Oh well, just boot them out the door when they turn 18 and hope for the best I guess.

  13. Moving the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing that will happen is that children will get bored at the playground and move risky play to other locations which are even more unsafe. In the long run injuries may increase, but because the children get injured someplace else there's less risk of a lawsuit.

  14. How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On a similar note, the Atlantic recently ran this article about how
    coddling children robs them of an important part of childhood.

    When a parent says something like that they want their child to "just be a kid for one more year," that's just selfishness on their part. It isn't about letting the kid enjoy childhood, its about the parent holding their child's development back in order for the parent to take pleasure in the kid's innocence.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Could someone hand that guy a "dammit, couldn't you have told my parents 30 years ago" insightful mod?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by stephathome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too true. This is why I liked my college professor who describes parenthood as raising future adults, not children. I want my kids to keep growing up. They get better as they get more mature. Sure, babies, toddlers and on down the line are fun, but seeing kids grow up is much more fun than treating them as younger than they are. They're people, not my personal toys.

    3. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by need4mospd · · Score: 3, Funny
      You know if you visited home more often you wouldn't think like that.

      -Dad

      P.S. Don't forget to call your mother this weekend. You know how she gets when you forget her birthday.

    4. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You fear revenge from beyond the grave?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical of psychology, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence and "this guy wrote this book and says so", but not that much in the way of hard scientific evidence in that article.

    6. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Typical of psychology, there's a lot of anecdotal evidence and "this guy wrote this book and says so", but not that much in the way of hard scientific evidence in that article.

      Dude, its a pop-culture magazine. If you want peer-reviewed research, you gotta follow up yourself.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait just a minute. Your number is higher than your kid's. Do you own a time machine? Are you your own grandpa?

    8. Re:How to Land Your Kid in Therapy by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Too true. This is why I liked my college professor who describes parenthood as raising future adults, not children. I want my kids to keep growing up. They get better as they get more mature. Sure, babies, toddlers and on down the line are fun, but seeing kids grow up is much more fun than treating them as younger than they are. They're people, not my personal toys.

      The problem with a lot of parents is that they haven't properly grown up themselves, and genuinely see their children as a way of reliving (imagined) easier, happier times.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. When parents complain about bruises ... by MacTO · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work with children, and sometimes they get sent home with bruises and scraped knees just because they were playing so vigorously. Most of the children I've seen will cry for a little bit, accept a bandage, then will be eager to do the same thing again.

    Parents though, well, some of them will assume that the supervisors were negligent or abusive. Not all of them, not even many of them, since they tend to know how their kids play. But it is the ones that wrap their child in a protective coccoon that you have to be petrified of. Even those parents aren't so bad once they get to know you, to trust you, but a lot of them don't even bother.

    The unfortunate truth is that those overly protective parents count for a lot because the consequences are many. Lawsuits is the often cited one, but losing your job or your license is an even bigger and more real concern. So all of the children suffer.

    1. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

      The unfortunate truth is that those overly protective parents count for a lot because the consequences are many.

      This. And the fact that more and more we are entrusting our children to be constantly supervised by others instead of taking care of them ourselves. If it's not your kid, you're generally twice as worried about them getting hurt in your care because not only is the kid hurt, but you're also worried about the parent going off the deep-end.

    2. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You should see the bruises my oldest gets all on his own. If social services saw them I would probably be hauled off since they would probably think I beat the child. Last year he was running through a park and something caught his eye so he wasn't looking where he was going. He plowed right into a metal pole at a full speed run. It looked exactly like the old cartoons with arms and legs out and his body against the pole. He falls on things, falls off of things, trips, jumps, and tosses thing, he is your average 3 year old.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My day care has an incident report they fill out every time my little one gets a bad bonk. If it's going to bruise or bleed, they fill out the form, and I have to sign it as well.

      I like it. 1) it acknowledges the harm has occurred, so I have documentation if my doctor needs to know I'm not beating my child.
      2) I know about it, and I have a chance to react to it, if I am going to (which I'm not), so it's not something I discover (much to my dismay)

    4. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Children are much tougher than they look. They're much more bouncy than adults. Something that causes scrapes and bruises on a child would cause me to want to take the day off from work to rest up, but the child will be bouncing around as soon as the crying stops.

      When I was a child I went to the school on a weekend and played on the bars swinging around. I swung down on one and hit the bar below knocking out two or three baby teeth (one was already loose). So I headed home and washed my mouth in the bathroom to get some blood off. I was worried what would happen if my mom found out, and figured that if I cleaned myself up enough she'd never know. Then I walked out and into the kitchen where she turned around, looked and me, and gave a scream since I looked a complete mess.

    5. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by the+Dragonweaver · · Score: 2

      Social services folks are taught to look for specific types of bruises, not just a highly bruised kid. If a kid has bruises up and down their shins and scraped knees, that's an obvious active kid. Even a black eye by itself doesn't call for suspicion. The types of bruises they look for are the more subtle injuries—bruises on the insides of the arms, or fingerprint bruises (looks like—and is—the result of a digging grab.)

      It's also the attitude of the kid. I gave myself a rather spectacular black eye by running into the corner of a wall at home—my second day at a new school. The teacher asked me to do show & tell about it when I got back and it took me years to realize that this was her subtle form of investigation, because no abused kid in the world would give the performance and details of the event that I did. "I fell" or "I ran into a door" is typical for abuse, not "I did this, and this, and this, and then I turned the corner too quickly and BAM, and then my brother started laughing, and so on..."

      --
      Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
    6. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well obviously these kids are coming to and through with bruises and marks. That means someone is abusing the kids. Better get children's aid involved...oh and parent...I sure hope you have a very good lawyer.

      That was pretty much sarcasm, but there's also a culture of 'if the kid is hurt in any form, it's automatic abuse, therefore it *must* be reported' no matter the circumstances.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The giant grin probably gave it away too.

      I got in a fight with a stove when I was a kid - I was in a school play and I was racing around the home ec room before I went on. In sock feet. Took a corner to fast and wham... a truly impressive amount of blood and stitches in my left eyebrow.

      I made a fantastic return for the next show.

    8. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our kid came home one day with a great big bump on the top of her head, she'd only been walking a couple of months and fell over in the playground.

      We thought nothing of it, she's in a great nursery and kids that age are bound to fall over. Three of our friends asked if we'd complained to the nursery or education authority... WTF? The kids learning to walk. Do you want her to stand on her own two feet (literally), or do you expect a full grown adult to prop her up every time she wobbles?

      Some people have no concept of what growing up is all about. Every bump and scrape is a learning experience, take those away and it's going to be a lot more painful learning that later in life.

    9. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The unfortunate truth is that those overly protective parents count for a lot because the consequences are many.

      This. And the fact that more and more we are entrusting our children to be constantly supervised by others instead of taking care of them ourselves. If it's not your kid, you're generally twice as worried about them getting hurt in your care because not only is the kid hurt, but you're also worried about the parent going off the deep-end.

      That's a very good point. And it's always the most uninterested and neglectful parents who shriek the loudest when something happens, presumably because they feel guilty.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:When parents complain about bruises ... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      I have a friend, who most certainly does not beat her children in any way, who a social services worker took away for 'environmental factors'. Aka she thought their home was dirty and so made a bad environment. Well she lives on a farm, with a a corral of horses not 10 feet away from the door closest to the kitchen. This is not little home on the prairie, things keep you from mopping up dirt and mud as soon as it happens. That doesn't mean the environment is dirty. Yet one opinionated women in social services still took her children.

      My Ex is another example, her five year old (from before I meet her) was playing outside by himself and someone from his fathers side of the family decided to report her for 'negligence'. Yet she lives on the edge of the city in a low traffic area and he was in a backyard. Certainly at his age no one ever gave a rats ass about me playing outside. Instead now though she was warned by social services that if it was reported again she would lose custody of him.

      That is only one example of abuses by social services I've seen. I worked in a school for several years and often they ruined parents at little more than a word from a child who was actually the abusive one. That sort of thing usually happened when the child couldn't live with their parent of choice in custody issues (not all of which are divorce). Typically those kids wanted the worse parent because the worse parent didn't give a shit about them and let them do whatever they wanted. Instead poor parents who actually cared about their kids would lose them and often causing even more legal trouble on top of it.

      Social services tends to be bogged down with both bigoted service workers and incompetent policy and effectively useless for anything important.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  17. Climbing Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 5 year old son climbed a tree the other day. I stood at the bottom and watched as he inched his way up a cedar. It takes great control to be able to watch and not say anything. To let them assess the relative risk and take care getting up and down. They can do it. It will definitely exercise your heart.

    I let my children climb up on the counters. There is one rule though. If you climb up, you get to climb down. Both of my children have fallen. Both are still willing to climb. Both show respect for where they are when they are climbing. Both have demonstrate the ability to assess when they shouldn't climb.

  18. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    That or the other crazy parents. I have been taken to task for letting my oldest (almost 3) play on all the equipment. He has fallen, spun around till he puked, and even gotten a little banged up, but he is no worse for wear. Hell it's not like he is jumping off the garage roof like I did when I was little, that was fun though.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  19. In Canada by Rev.+DeFiLEZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My 3.5 year old broke her arm at the playground, and I was very proud of her. We made the whole thing, including the hospital trip all part of the fun.

    It does seem that the playgrounds are becoming less fun, but I let my kid do all sorts of stupid things, so the way I see it, as an adult she'll be at an advantage over her peers.

    1. Re:In Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My son broke his arm on the play ground when he was about 7. He was on the swings when recess was over so he did his superman imitation getting off the swing. Unfortunately his landing was more like the Wide World of Sports Tragedy of Defeat landing. It wasn't $5k to fix though - more like about $100. As they say, kids are resilient and heal fast.

    2. Re:In Canada by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Really is it that expensive? Never paid anything for that. But, I live in Europe.

    3. Re:In Canada by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Those look cool! (Well, the Amsterdam and France ones look cool, especially the one in France. The US one looks... meh).

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:In Canada by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I know that the comment was made in a sense of fun but I would like to point out that the majority of people in the US have sufficient insurance to pay for most of a broken arm.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:In Canada by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      No, the GP was exaggerating to make a point. If you pay for an x-ray it might be hundreds of dollars, but not a thousand.

    6. Re:In Canada by Toonol · · Score: 0

      You know, I'm sure that there is a 12 ft rope jungle gym in France, and a 30 ft in the USA. I could show you a picture of a French dwarf and a six foot tall American... what does that prove?

    7. Re:In Canada by qzjul · · Score: 1

      Heck I'd go on that if it went to 300+ feet...

    8. Re:In Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12ft looks tall compared to the Aussie ones.

    9. Re:In Canada by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I've seen two big ones that are probably identical to the one in the first photo in Brisbane, Australia. I had climb on one and it looks like a child falling from the very top would hit a few ropes on the way down even if they tried to jump outwards.

    10. Re:In Canada by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      Wow...the first thought that ran through my mind was...How much is a plane ticket? I wanna go play on that bada** rope tower of doom like Mad Max in Thunderdome! Though I would have to say that if any of the other kids were playing Tina Turner, I might be a little scared!

    11. Re:In Canada by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. There was 25 million underinsured in 2007 and 51 million uninsured now. Sure, technically "most" people have insurance, but a hell of a lot of people don't. Im one of them since I am a student and even though I work full time right now, no-one is willing to offer health insurance because they simply don't have to to get people who are willing to work. This being the case I have to get the crap insurance through my university that pays only for basic checkups, some medication for things you could probably get over on your own, and has a ridiculous co-pay then covers nothing else short of emergencies that are life threatening. Thankfully I am pretty healthy. However, my wife is also as student who works, and has had the misfortune in the past of getting an abscess in her tooth. Since this isn't even considered an emergency by insurance companies, the total costs for emergency room visits (because it reached critical status during a time when the student health center was closed) was about 3000 dollars then we still had to pay for the dentist to root canal and crown two of her teeth at about 4000 dollars. We didn't have the money so we had to ask for help from the hospital, who refused and forced us to simply pay it at 50 bucks a month. Then we had to charge the teeth on a credit card we couldn't even pay off before she had her teeth fixed. Needless to say, the younger generation is getting totally screwed disproportionately by this recession. We have the hardest time getting decent jobs since the more experienced older and laid-off people nab them, we don't get any benefits for the jobs we can get, we have no assets to fall back on, and we get insufficient income.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    12. Re:In Canada by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      I bet it would cost a lot more than $2500 if she needed a plate and screws in that arm.

      I wonder what it would cost if she'd fallen backwards, hit her head, and needed a CT scan?

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    13. Re:In Canada by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      What does your insurance company do to your premiums after the first broken arm? The second? Does it count as a preexisting condition when you move out and have to get your own insurance?

      If it's anything like car insurance you're probably better off eating the few thousand rather than telling the company about it.

    14. Re:In Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I would like to point out that the majority of people in the US have sufficient insurance to pay for most of a broken arm.

      Do people in the us buy many broken arms?

    15. Re:In Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's little rope jungles in other places as well. Unless you have any evidence that's the highest rope jungle in the US. Your post doesn't prove anything.

    16. Re:In Canada by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It proves nothing. It's a bad way to make a point. And because of that it gives you an excuse to completely ignore the point, which is that in a litigitative society, and the US is one, you only get to have 30ft rope jungles in places where you have to sign a paper first.

    17. Re:In Canada by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I think I live near that one in the US! and have climbed on it! That said, there's one about the size of the one in France where I grew up. And yes, it's still there. They replaced it about a year ago because the rope was getting really frayed.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    18. Re:In Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So .... ? You pay the $5,000 too - in taxes. No country has "free" healthcare.

    19. Re:In Canada by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      My 3.5 year old broke her arm at the playground, and I was very proud of her. We made the whole thing, including the hospital trip all part of the fun.

      And so ther lesson she learned was that there's nothing wrong with doing something dangerous, because you just get to spend some fun time with your parents. This contradicts the general thrust of posts here that it's good for kids to get hurt so they don't do the same stupid thing again.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:In Canada by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know that the comment was made in a sense of fun but I would like to point out that the majority of people in the US have sufficient insurance to pay for most of a broken arm.

      Well whoopy-do fior them. It's the (large) minority who don't that's the problem.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:In Canada by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What does your insurance company do to your premiums after the first broken arm? The second? Does it count as a preexisting condition when you move out and have to get your own insurance?

      If it's anything like car insurance you're probably better off eating the few thousand rather than telling the company about it.

      Surely even in the US your medicalinsurance wouldn't actually increase by several extra thousand dollars a year just because you broke your arm?

      How much do you have to pay for medical insurance anyway? (Poor downtrodden victim of the evil socialist UK here).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:In Canada by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      But presumably you could equally have found pics of a crappy Dutch and French jungle gym and an awesome US one? Surely?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:In Canada by tixxit · · Score: 1

      Did her provincial healthcare cover any of her expenses? I've always assumed the OHIP would cover some (eg. equivalent cost in Canada) and travel insurance covers the rest.

    24. Re:In Canada by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      It's... a ROPE gym.

      Don't they have rope where you live? Just build one already.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    25. Re:In Canada by j33px0r · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! I'd hang myself in the process. No...I will choose to give the rope masters the credit the deserve and wait until a revolution overtakes the US for us to have such gyms as you call them. Or I'll buy a plane ticket. Looks much more fun than the Colosseum! Maybe they can design a new one with tigers.

    26. Re:In Canada by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't it? A private insurance company is going to want to attract customers by offering a low rate, then charge the ones who are accident prone or get sick a lot more.

      I can't say how much decent health insurance in the US costs (from Canada), but I have heard Americans pay more for health care than anywhere else in the world. We've recruited a few senior ivy-league university professors from the US who were worried they wouldn't be able to afford adequate insurance when they got older.

    27. Re:In Canada by prionic6 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, the small ones are not that uncommon in Europe either, probably because they need less space and are less expensive.

  20. Safety is relative. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Walking on the sidewalk is risky - you could get hit by an errant car. If you try to make anything perfectly safe, you will FAIL. The trick is to identify a reasonable amount of risk and allow that. I agree that playgrounds should have rubber padding, but I see no reason to eliminate the ability to hang from a metal bar.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  21. What a load of crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, children with conditions that prevent them from climbing are just plain screwed? I always hate this kind of logic. Kids will make a challenge out of anything, and I'd rather have playgrounds that let kids *PLAY* rather than tackle challenges that I don't yet approve of as a parent. By this strange logic, we should build gauntlets of near certain death to make super kids.

    1. Re:What a load of crap by snspdaarf · · Score: 2

      I'd rather have playgrounds that let kids *PLAY* rather than tackle challenges that I don't yet approve of as a parent.

      So, do some of that parent shit and don't let them. Don't fuck up the playground for the kids that need greater challenges.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  22. Interesting presentation on TED re: Child Safety by dr_canak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Came across this TED presentation last year:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids.html

    Definitely an interesting take on this whole issue of child safety regulations. The book (written by the presenter in the video above, Gever Tully) entitled "50 Dangerous Things (You should let your kids do)" is a really nice read.

    jeff

  23. Stop pussyfying our youth by pak9rabid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Treating kids like pussies turns them into pussies.

    1. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the gay and trans ones?

    2. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 0

      Stop being a misogynist.

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    3. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 0, Troll

      I should have said, "Stop speaking like a misogynist"

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    4. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Informative

      The word "pussy" describes someone that acts like a scared cat and can be used as a word for female genitals. The "scared-y cat" connotation, however, does not derive from the reference to female genitals. The two connotations share the same origin but for different reasons.

    5. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      yea, it _can_ mean a scared cat - but I don't know if that's what most people think of when they hear it.

      When I was a kid, if someone was called a 'pussy' it meant that they were a boy acting like a girl, and that acting like a girl was bad. (girls were rarely called pussies)

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    6. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a kid, if someone was called a 'pussy' it meant that they were a boy acting like a girl, and that acting like a girl was bad.

      That is still the meaning it has today. Why do you believe that it is wrong?

    7. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid, if someone was called a 'pussy' it meant that they were a boy acting like a girl, and that acting like a girl was bad

      Sounds like you may be the misogynist.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    8. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      so i guess explaining why the 'n' word is bad makes someone a racist too...

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    9. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here troll, have a cookie

    10. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      uh... there is nothing wrong with acting like a girl :)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    11. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      You're using the same logic that teabaggers use when they're called out on their racism.

    12. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so i guess explaining why the 'n' word is bad makes someone a racist too...

      Actually, thinking that the word nigger is bad makes you a racist.

      The black community did an incredibly smart thing. They took the word back. Words only have power when you give them power, and by actually using it in a non-derogatory manner, they took the power of 'nigger' to offend away.

      Then they fucked it all up by being offended when a non-black person uses it. They gave power to all the racists who want to offend them by using the word.

      Here's a hint...to get rid of racism, you must stop ALL considerations relating to race. We need to start considering color of skin no more important than color of hair or eyes. It's ok to notice it, it's not ok to identify personality based on it (cue all the dumb blonde jokes).

    13. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, there's three kinds of people: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can get along, and dicks just want to fuck all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want us to shit all over everything! So, pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck. And if they didn't fuck the assholes, you know what you'd get? You'd get your dick and your pussy all covered in shit!

      Team America

    14. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it might just turn you into a pedophile.

    15. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I see sexual orientation as a somewhat different issue from these nonsexual behavior traits.
      We don't want our daughters ending up as maladjusted weaklings either.

      (pak9rabid did not use the most diplomatic phrasing, but I see a point in the concept. :P)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    16. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The word "pussy" describes someone that acts like a scared cat and can be used as a word for female genitals. The "scared-y cat" connotation, however, does not derive from the reference to female genitals.

      Argument from etymology is a fallacy (though you gave no citation for this etymology and I'm unconvinced of it). The meaning of a word is determined by a synchronic agreement among speakers, and if speakers believe that the word in the sense "coward" contains some allusion to female genitalia, it does. Read some Saussure, it does a man good.

    17. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Treating kids like pussies turns them into pussies.

      Yeah and treating them like dicks makes them dicks. And treating them like assholes makes them assholes. . Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:Stop pussyfying our youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.

      I've been treating my left hand like a pussy for years and it is still just a fucking hand.

  24. Oblig George Carlin by rogueippacket · · Score: 1

    "The kid who swallows too many marbles doesn't live to have kids of his own."

    Just as applicable now as it was then.

  25. now sure what they are talking about by vonshavingcream · · Score: 2

    they just built a brand new playground buy us. they did add a really nice rubbery type of padding on the ground, but they have a 15ft high slide and a really cool rock wall and crazy jungle gym type things. plenty of places for kids to fall to their "death", just like when I was a kid. you know what ... that playground is always packed. Not like "geeze there are so many people I can't move" packed, but there are always people there with the kids. It's a really cool place.

    1. Re:now sure what they are talking about by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well the old playground at the park by my house was one of the safe ones, the new one has all the unsafe things. Guess which ones the neighborhood kids play at? HINT: It is the one with the tire swing, ropes, cargo net like thing, and self powered spinning things.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  26. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by donnyspi · · Score: 1

    Peanut allergies are a very real thing. That said, I don't agree with schools banning PB&J from the cafeteria because 1 kid has an allergy. There are other ways to handle that kind of thing, like teach the kid to stay away from peanuts.

  27. Re:Think of the children! TOSS them over board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol your idea you have to have limits on it of course cause kids sometimes dont know when what they do is too much risk.YA i done some crazy stuff as a kid but i look back going maybe i was more lucky then i thought

  28. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Because it's easier for parents to drop their kids in front of the idiot box babysitter and berate them if they "eat too much". Else they'd have to be parenting. Imagine that!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we must protect our children from being overprotected!

  30. Wussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another reason NYC kids are growing up to be wussies.

  31. I believe that we are getting soft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With too much padding in safety equipment, and the lack of old-school jungle gyms, etc, I believe that kids (and adults) aren't developing the bone strength that us old timers have (OK, I'm in my late 30's). That, or they're not getting enough calcium.

  32. Talk about risky behavior.... by pyneiii · · Score: 3, Funny

    "After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia..." Did anyone else picture a weird guy in a lab coat with a clipboard standing around a jungle gym?

    1. Re:Talk about risky behavior.... by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      ...who was regularly arrested for suspicious behaviour...

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    2. Re:Talk about risky behavior.... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      It's not as risky in countries other than the US. People can enjoy watching the kids play as part of winding down from work without people thinking they're pedophiles (as much at least) as here in the States.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    3. Re:Talk about risky behavior.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia..." Did anyone else picture a weird guy in a lab coat with a clipboard standing around a jungle gym?

      I think it would be the video camera that really got parents worried...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Mabbo · · Score: 1

    It's *easy* to yell and scream and do things to "protect" a child from scraped knees, cell phones, peanuts, etc and it has the added benefit of making parents feel like they've actively done something to protect their kids. It's also easy to give children junk food rather than proper meals, and to let them sit in front of a TV instead of taking them to sports teams, or better yet, go out for a run with them. Laziness is the problem. And friend, have we got a lot of it.

  34. Jungle Gyms by Synn · · Score: 1

    Playgrounds shouldn't be risk free, but to be honest, jungle gyms were death machines. Those things probably broke more bones in the 70's and 80's than the Japanese and Italian mafia combined did.

    1. Re:Jungle Gyms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hurt myself more frequently in trees than in jungle gyms--if I had some reasonably good jungle gyms, I might have spent less time climbing in trees.

    2. Re:Jungle Gyms by treeves · · Score: 1

      Thing is, people, especially children, rarely die from broken bones, so "death machines" is hyperbole, at the least.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  35. Yes. Yes it can. We're sadly a nation of wimps by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    I know someone is gonna mod me down for this but frankly I think we've turned into a nation of pussies. We don't allow kids to fall off bikes, break their arms, or generally be kids. Parents neurotically try to be friends to their kids instead of parents. When I was growing up my mother made us go cut the switch that she would then use on us. We never talked back to her after that. Kids today seem ..... entitled.

    1. Re:Yes. Yes it can. We're sadly a nation of wimps by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I know someone is gonna mod me down for this but frankly I think we've turned into a nation of pussies

      As you are agreeing with all but about 2 posts, I seriously doubt you'll be modded down, except as redundant.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. IMHO by drolli · · Score: 1

    Try to prevent reduce any permanent damage (e.g. remove sharp edges or constructions in which you easily get caught), but give the children the possibility to fall down onto a safe ground (sand) so that they feel and learn to estimate whats going on. Its better that they learn gradually how painful something is than they learn this spontaneously at some point when they are too old.

    In that sense, i would put up many things which have a more or less save falling height. Put some higher things but make the access in a way that only better trained climbers can get up. (e.g. make a 5+ climbing wall in the ground, which gets down to a 2 above 2m)

  38. This is why I often roll my eyes at by Burz · · Score: 1

    the supposed effects of Nanny-statism. It's the American culture of personal fear and litigiousness that produces some of the most severe anti-social effects on society. Keep the kids indoors hopped-up on gory, fear-mongering crap coming out of the TV.

    1. Re:This is why I often roll my eyes at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "nanny-statism" is itself one of those effects, being a direct result of politicians pandering to that culture of fear and litigiousness. So rather than rolling your eyes at it, you should view it as one more negative effect of the problem you correctly identified.

    2. Re:This is why I often roll my eyes at by Burz · · Score: 1

      I think you have it backwards. The cultures most steeped in fear of their fellow citizens are the ones least likely to share resources through entitlement programs (what nany-statism refers to) or through any other means. They have less confidence in collective solutions to problems just as they have less confidence that strangers will treat their loved ones with due respect.

  39. Is slashdot too old? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When did Slashdot become so behind?
    Everything is regurgitated LifeHacker and Gizmodo.

    Miss my 2005 Slashdot.

  40. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

    It's not the equipment, the sandpit, or the tether-ball. It's the other children. Now, if we could only remove the children then we'd have safe playgrounds.

    I guess that depends on the playground. Some kids fear the bully but other kids fear the drug pusher. Location Location Location

    --
    "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  41. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by SethJohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How can we encourage children to be active if anything "active" thay they would think about doing (running, playing tag, climbing trees, skateboarding, etc...) is seen in a negative light?

    I just Google+ friended you for that statement. There are so many activities, such as the great examples you gave, that the author could rewrite this study substituting for the word 'playground.' One of the bees in my bonnet these days is how diving boards are being phased out at public swimming pools.

    It started with phasing out high-dives. Now low-dives are also an endangered animal. New public pools are built shallow with water slides instead of diving boards. From the first to the 10,000th time a kid slides down a waterslide, they've developed exactly zero skills at doing anything. It's passive entertainment. There's no sense of performance or challenge. With a diving board, there are a whole host of dynamics a child can attempt to master. Our society is taking that structure away from children in so many areas.

    If you watched the 2008 Beijing Olympics, you might have seen the Chinese divers dominate in all categories. American children might have seen that and said, "Mommy, I want to become a diver and win a gold medal at the Olympics." To which an honest parent would have to say, "Unfortunately, you live in America and aren't permitted to engage in that activity. Perhaps if we move to a dangerous country like China you'll have that option in life."

    Seth

  42. Definitely can be "too safe" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been two playgrounds that I remember fondly, each of which had it's own risks. The first was a collection of slides and other things around a 15ft tall truncated scalable pyramid. How no one went rolling down that thing astounds me, but we loved it, then one day we got to watch them tearing the whole thing up.

    The second one was at my elementary school. They had this whole setup that I didn't realize until a decade later was in the shape of a sailing ship. Dragon figurehead, triangular tire swings representing sails, a three level tire pyramid for a mast, and an aft was in the shape of the standard high rear, with a slide in place of the captain's cabin. There were also rope swings, wire bridges, and enough random stuff you could make up hundreds of games.

    For the risks: well, i admit to having jumped off the second level of the aft portion a few times, and you could easily fall through the inner second level of the tire pyramid to the level below, and just the general mayhem that kids can cause.

    That one has been replaced by a prefabricated collection of metal and plastic, i'm sure it's durable, but everything's locked in place, can't hide anywhere, and it doesn't have as much character/versatility as the old set. I miss the old one.

  43. It's all about the Lawyers by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid if some kid fell off the monkey bars and hurt him or her self no one even though of suing the city. It was accepted that the parents knew the risks and dangers of the playground equipment and as long as an accident didn't happen because of failure to maintain the playground legal action was the last thing anyone thought of. Today, you see so many legal sharks advertising on TV. We've been brainwashed that if we have an accident it's ALWAYS someone else's fault and we HAVE to sue them.

    When my twin daughters were about 8 years old we built them a tree house with a pulley slide between trees. This was a bit higher than the usual monkey bars, but any fall would be on grass not concrete. They loved climbing the ladder to the tree house and hanging from the pulley sled as it rolled down the wire to the lower tree, then jumping off at the end of the ride. No one ever got hurt either. The tree house didn't last long, the tree was torn down by Hurricane Wilma.

  44. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You child isn't safe locked in his room! When my daughter was born last year I learned that is a miracle the human race has survived as long as it has. Apparently blankets, stuffed animals, mobiles, cats, sleeping on your stomach, sleeping on your parents chest, sucking your thumb, crib bumpers (apparently you are supposed to let your baby crawl at top speed head first into the crib rails?), and even the bloody finish in your crib will kill you as an infant. If you dress them in the wrong PJs they will die! If you use the wrong laundry detergent they will die! If you nurse your child in a non-approved position she will die! If feed your baby formula she will die! If you don't feed her formula, she will die! I kid you not, these are the things that either myself or my sister-in-laws were told as pregnant woman, many of them coming directly from the doctor or hospital.

    And just think, our parents played with lawn darts as kids and we didn't have car seats.

    When a first time parents is repeatedly being told by credible sources that their children are going to die if they do or do not something, it is easy to get sucked into the FUD.

  45. Adventure Playground by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Informative

    "C. Th. SÃrensen, a Danish landscape architect, noticed that children preferred to play everywhere but in the playgrounds that he built. In 1931, he imagined "A junk playground in which children could create and shape, dream and imagine a reality." Why not give children in the city the same chances for play as those in the country? His initial ideas started the adventure playground movement.

    The first adventure playground opened in Emdrup, Denmark in 1943, during World War II. In 1946, Lady Allen of Hurtwood visited Emdrup from England and was impressed with "junk playgrounds." She brought the idea to London. These "junk playgrounds" became known as "adventure playgrounds." "
    http://adventureplaygrounds.hampshire.edu/history.html

    "The Adventure Playground at the Berkeley Marina was opened 31 years ago in 1979. It is a wonderfully unique outdoor facility where staff encourage children to play and build creatively. Come climb on the many unusual kid designed and built forts, boats, and towers. Ride the zip line or hammer, saw, and paint. By providing these low risk activities Adventure Playground creates opportunities for children to learn cooperation, meet physical challenges and gain self confidence. Pictures of a fort building project. The concept for Adventure Playgrounds originated in Europe after World War II, where a playground designer studied children playing in the "normal" asphalt and cement playgrounds. He found that they preferred playing in dirt and lumber from the post war rubble. He realized that children had the most fun designing and building their own equipment and manipulating their environment. The formula for Adventure Playgrounds includes Earth, fire, water, and lots of creative materials."
    http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=8656

    And here's a song:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtwb3lQ_c0

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Adventure Playground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I grew up with my parents divorced. We had an awesome house with a huge yard that backed into a ravine. Mom had to look after 4 kids, which is a hard task, so we had a lot of time to make our own fun.

      We used to make forts out of whatever sticks and branches we could find, sometimes making chairs and toilets (every good fort has a toilet). Usually onve the fort got good enough, some older kids would destroy it, and we would start all over again.

      The ravine had lots of poplar trees, which are great for climbing. We used to climb up the trees seeing how high we were brave enough to get. None of my siblings or I fell out of any tree, but several of our friends did, with minor injuries (bruised tailbone was the worst). One tree behind the house was particularily good for climbing, but the lowest branches had been trimmed off. We cut some plywood with a saw, and grabbed a hammer and nails, and pounded the strips of plywood into the tree to make a ladder.

      One day, we decided to make a fort in that tree. We had this grand vision of a tree house that would be just like Bart Simpson's tree house. My brother and I found some scrap wood and cut a few pieces (I was allowed to use the circular saw when I was in grade 6 or so, as long as I was careful) and climbed up the tree with wood in one hand, a pocket of nails, and a hammer in the other hand.

      We climbed soo high in the tree (a trip back when I was an adult showed that we were only about 20 feet in the air, maybe a little lower) and nailed down a few boards. We got 3 boards in the tree before we realized that the tree house wasn't going to happen.

      About that time, I was given rock climbing lessons for my birthday, and so I had a caribeaner. We climbed up our favourite tree with a rope and tied the rope to the bottom of another tree to make a rope slide. Another ring of rope attached to the beaner, made the seat.

      Being so young, a 15-20 foot drop seemed a lot higher, so we were a little scared to try out the rope, so we convinced our sister to try it first. She climbed up the tree, hooked onto the rope, and down she went. Everything wen't well; a little rough landing, but nothing too bad. Now that the rope had been tested, we had a blast for several months.

      While we were in the trees, my sister used to make chairs out of plywood and 1"x1"s. The first chairs woudn't stand on their own, but eventually they would, and one would even support her weight! My brother, who was into skateboarding thought he could make a funbox, so the tried that out. For about a year we had this ugly, deathbox on the driveway. It was super unstable and was about to fall apart, but it just begged to be climbed on. It caused a few minor injuries. One day I tried to make Napalm. Another just pounding nails into wood. One time we made a jump and landing ramp, and would go down our steep driveway at top speed, and hit the jump. If it was successful, we would pull back the landing ramp and try again. Eventually, my brother fell short, made a huge dent in the rear wheel of the bike, and took a little spill.

      The best memories I have of playing when I was younger, were the moments where there was danger. Even when I was young, I had a sense of danger, and would be careful. Even today, danger is fun. My top speed on a snowboard is 95kmph. That is very, very dangerous, but it sure does make you feel alive! I don't think that kids today know what danger feels like.

    2. Re:Adventure Playground by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Really a lovely recollection. Thanks.

      Among the places I played as a child, were the abandoned and partially collapsed canning factories in my town.

      These were on pilings, over the bay. They were full of multi-chambered boilers, 2 storeys tall, and service shafts that led down metal pipes into subterranean concrete holding-tanks. There had been fires and neglect...

      By '74, these were just memories. Torn down for holiday beachfront hotels and restaurants. Before that? In such places, a boy could be Captain Nemo, on the Nautilus.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Adventure Playground by Javaman59 · · Score: 1

      Great writing! Thanks. I think that's the only post that long that I have read to the end.

      --
      I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
    4. Re:Adventure Playground by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid one of our favorite places was the bottom of 'Brush creek' (kind of like the LA river back then) where the water covered the 'crete most of the year.

      It was about 4-6 inches deep in green scum.

      Whenever someone new joined our group we took them scum skidding.

      There is a trick to riding your bike in 4 inch algae beds. Get up lots of speed first, then don't touch anything (pedals, handle bar or brakes) while going threw the algae.

      The new guy didn't know the trick, even though he always went last and could watch us, he was scum skidding. The moms were always pissed.

      Try selling an Algae bed as a playground to parents. If they'd have let us, we would have built slides down the banks to launch us into the algae.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  46. One thing I learned from kids ... by MacTO · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was on the swings one day with a bunch of children, then noticed that they were all swinging higher a few of them were flipping their heads back for the thrill of it. So I decided to try it, and it was scary. Especially the vertigo from flipping my head back.

    It made me realise how safe I, as an adult tend to act and how it takes all of the thrills out of life.

  47. Re:Interesting presentation on TED re: Child Safet by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    I've received that book for Christmas last year, most people saw it and were like, "why would you want that?" Then started flipping through the pages intrigued and almost immediately found something they did when they were a kid, be it chemistry or whatever.

    I also have the book Free Range Kids which is also anti-coddling. Good stuff.

  48. psycho bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't listen to this pitch from the health care profiteers.
    They get 2k for every stitch, 5k for a tooth, and 10k for a cast.

  49. Kids love danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when I was 9 years old and hanging off the roof of the "second story" of a play structure house. Me and my friends would be terrified of letting go and falling down to the sand, but eventually we all made attempts. No one was ever injured, and it was a good 8 foot drop. The thrill and accomplishment of dropping off the roof of the house and surviving without injury was a great feeling. There was this other kid who always ate sand too... I don't know what happened to him.

  50. I need to find that book by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

    I read a book about a year ago where they stated one of the original purposes of playground equipment was to help children learn risk-assessment. In other words, it wasn't meant to be 100% safe for all the kids - it was so kids could learn what risks they found acceptable and that sometimes when you fail there are moderately painful consequences. Now I have read stories about merry-go-round type playground equipment that didn't have the proper safety covering on them that caught a girls long hair and caused her injury - incidents like those are good reasons for lawsuits. However, when a child risks going down a slide face first and knocks out a tooth, then the parents and child should take personal responsibility for unsafe and risky use of the equipment. (Personally, I'm glad I had "dangerous" playground equipment when growing up - its so boring to be a kid now... no wonder so many stay inside playing video games.)

  51. Case in point - City Museum by turtle+graphics · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The City Museum in St. Louis is a crazy, dangerous, and incredibly fun "playground" in an old industrial building. Most people who go there think it's incredibly fun. Some people who go there get seriously injured (often by exhibiting stupidity they should have learned to avoid on the playground).

    The musem's founder, Bob Cassilly, says that $1 of every $12 admission ticket goes to pay insurance, and he has posted a 'wall of shame' listing all the lawyers who have sued the museum.

    There's an excellent and relevant article in the WSJ about it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304159304575183463721620890.html?KEYWORDS=city+museum

    1. Re:Case in point - City Museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you and Bob Cassilly are missing the point. There is a balance here. Part of being a parent is about allowing your children to experience life (including dangerous things), but part of it is protecting your children from risks they cannot appreciate. I don't let my kids play with chainsaws because they are not old enough to do so safely (and appreciate the dangers) just "for the experience". I do however allow them to play on and with things to which they can appreciate the dangers and make safe decisions.

      Sounds like this museum can be a fun place, but it also sounds like Mr. Cassilly has neglected to take some simple (non-intrusive) steps to make it a bit safer. I'm not saying he should close the place down or make it less fun, but come on - some of the injuries at this place include finger amputations, many broken legs, ankles, and other bones, and the like. These are not just skinned knees and bruises. That is some serious damage that even adults are experiencing. And Mr. Cassilly's little "wall of shame" is pretty childish. Sounds like a kid complaining.

    2. Re:Case in point - City Museum by Xacid · · Score: 1

      IMUSTGOHERE. I mean... I should take my kids there sometime....

  52. It isn't just playgrounds by gubers33 · · Score: 2

    I mean when I was younger on a nice day you would be playing sports, at the pool or exploring in the woods out back. Today it's too hot and kids stay in and play video games or watch TV. If I did that when I was little my parents would have yelled at me and said go out side, it is a nice day. I mean I am not against video games, by any means. I think they are quite fun, but play them at night or when it is raining. I mean the babying of kids has happened at more than just playgrounds, look at community pools. When I was younger the community pool by my parents house had two diving boards and a slide, now it has none of the three. I fell off that slide and got a concussion, but I was back on it the next week. Many pools that once had diving boards no longer have them for insurance reasons and fear of being sued. I think that is the real issue behind this, anytime someone get a little hurt it is the people's fault who own the property, so they make so that you can't get hurt.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
    1. Re:It isn't just playgrounds by stephathome · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean about "too hot." One of my daughter's friends has rarely been able to come over to play this summer because it's too hot pretty much every day. Seems to be anything over 85 or so counts.

      My kids get kicked out of the house almost no matter the weather. Not that I have to kick them out often, since most days they're headed out to catch lizards, dig in the yard or do I don't know quite what. I've had to wash serious mud off them with a hose before letting them inside a few times. Pretty sure that stuff should just be part of being a kid, and mostly it's not that risky, just messy.

    2. Re:It isn't just playgrounds by gubers33 · · Score: 1

      Agree, when I have kids I will kick them out on nice days and say don't come back until you are covered in sweat and mudd of if you just want a drink.

      --
      Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  53. It's a fact by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    I have a 3yr old. Every out door toy we get is covered in safety crap. It all comes off. These aren't power tools, the kids not going to lose an arm. At worst he'll get a nasty bruise or cut. Those are important. Kids need to learn about sharp things, hot things, and that jumping off every object they can climb might not be a good idea. If you shelter a child into adulthood, you will send them into the world as a very ill-equipped adult. Which safety net is going to catch them when you're in the nursing home?

    1. Re:It's a fact by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      You are so right.

  54. At our park.. by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our homeowner's association has a park across the street from my house. Some time back they pulled out the swing set and monkey bars and put in an attractive looking rubberized steel play structure with several platforms but kind of low to the ground and really nothing to climb on or hang from. The kids ignore it and climb the trees instead.

    Life finds a way.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:At our park.. by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Same thing at our schools and parks in suburban SoCal. Also gone is the high dive from all the local public pools. No one ever got hurt on the high dives mind you, but someone might think the diving board goes the other way and they would jump off the ladder, so the insidious device needed to be removed. Well, there were those kids that hurt their stomachs with bellyflops off the highdive. Red stomachs are a menace apparently.

      Shitty thing is that this affected my son tremendously. I asked him why he didn't play tag, freeze tag, or butts up at school and he said that the teachers didn't allow any physical touching or violent games. Also, the teachers frown on competition and you get sent to the principals office for telling a kid you don't want to play with him(because it's mean).

    2. Re:At our park.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't remember the last time I hoped something I read on slashdot was a lie this badly.
      If that last bit is true, there are not enough desks in the world for me to smash my face into.

    3. Re:At our park.. by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I'm not lying. It happened to my son. I wish I was lying

    4. Re:At our park.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to move somewhere with a better school. Or homeschool. Or find a private school. Or...

      Yea... When I was that age, if that last bit had happened to me, my dad would have probably yanked me out of school so fast, and found a better alternative.

    5. Re:At our park.. by tixxit · · Score: 1

      I mentioned this earlier, but when I was in elementary school some kid broke his arm falling off the playground, so they cut about 2 ft off it to make it shorter. Since you couldn't really climb or hang or anything on it anymore, a new pass-time was formed: climb on to the school's roof. Some kid fell off that. I bet they were pissed they couldn't shorten the roof of the school to a "safe" height.

    6. Re:At our park.. by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Wait. Since when is touching violent?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  55. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by corbettw · · Score: 1

    There are other ways to handle that kind of thing, like teach the kid to stay away from peanuts.

    Or maybe keep an emergency epi pen in the cafeteria. It's not hard to notice when someone's throat starts swelling up, then jab them with the pen.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  56. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't aware of the problem with exploding children, however fat they might get.

  57. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's tricky grounds though. Kids have the natural tendency to explore and you know as well as I do that as soon as little Timmy goes "I can't touch peanuts" tiny Todd over there will go "Hmmm let's see what happens when I smack him in the face with my sandwich." Kids are just like that, "don't do it" means "do it, but don't let them see you" to many of them.

    I am all for childhood development but that scenario plays closely on a grey area where I can't decide which step to take. Survival of the fittest is one thing but we're in a modern age where everyone should be given a fair opportunity.

  58. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by smelch · · Score: 1

    Well don't you know you should accept your little fatty for who s/he is instead of judging her/him and hurting her/his little feelings when you suggest s/he go on a diet or get more exercise? You aren't supposed to care about such things as weight, it's harmful for their emotions!

    --
    If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
  59. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by bitflusher · · Score: 1

    The negative effects are also observed in adult behaviour. people with cars with all safety features (airbags, crumple zones, abs, esp, a computer that detects weird behaviour and adjusts seats/seatbelts just before impact) drive less carefull than others with old "unsafe" cars. When sane grownup behaviour becomes worse with the safe features, i would not be surprised children becoming challenged to try to find a little danger no matter what. 'Hey running acros the street gets mu hartrate up with all the horns!'

  60. Duh? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    If they can't get over falling that ten feet of the monkey bars, they're in for a huge shocker when the real world comes knocking.
    I grew up on that "unsafe" equipment, and sure I got cuts, bruises, and I cried, but I can't imagine NOT experiencing that.
    It's part of growing up, and we have enough immature adults running around as it is, lets not go out of our way to grow more.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  61. Broken bone. That's all... by cormandy · · Score: 1

    As a 12 year old in the early 80s I broke my right arm while playing "tag" on a large climbing frame made of logs. Our variation of tag saw that the ground was "out of bounds"; I fell off when attempting to tag a friend and smashed my arm on a log on the way down. I had a cool cast -- which wasn't my first -- and I healed. Accidents like this by high risk lads shouldn't ruin it for all of the other children. Bring back the 10 ft climbing frames!

  62. In 30 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA will be a nation of passive aggressive blobs.

  63. Here's a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those of you that have children that have been injured already know this, but many don't. If you have a playground on your own property and your child gets injured bad enough to require an ambulance, you will have your life torn apart. You will be investigated by multiple family services divisions and will be investigated by the police.

    Last week, one of my children injured themselves accidentally. We are not bad parents, and this is the first time in 12 years and 3 children that any of them has required emergency medical attention. Well, because he had to be taken by ambulance to the local hospital and then across state lines to a pediatric hospital, we have had 2 different states' family services divisions investigating us, both hospitals have had their own social arms investigating us, and my wife has been interrogated for 3 hours in an interrogation room at the local PD. The police have also came out to our house and served a search warrant to take photographs and perform more interrogation.

    Now this was not some casual interview. They used interrogation tactics, full room monitoring, purposefully minced my wife's words, and every other technique used on criminals. All of this while struggling with the obvious grief of the accident.

    If we had not been so cooperative, we'd certainly have had criminal charges filed against us. No matter if they were baseless or not. A kid breaking their arm in your backyard should not warrant this. Apparently, if you are unlucky enough that your kid gets injured -- no matter what the circumstances, you are punished for not somehow preventing it.

    1. Re:Here's a true story by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      What outhouse of a state do you live in? I've taken mu kids to the hospital for injuries and never had anything like that happen.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  64. If kids can't find thrills on playgrounds... by tommy2tone · · Score: 1

    then they will simply look for them elsewhere like dodging cars, chasing dragons, and running from cops

    1. Re:If kids can't find thrills on playgrounds... by stephathome · · Score: 1

      Great. Last thing I need is my kids bringing home another dragon.

  65. Same with dirt by cm017510 · · Score: 1

    Its the same with dirt. Childs wich play outside everywhere and wich come in contact with all kind of dirt, soil, germs get a normal immune system. If you try to protect your child from germs and whatnot it gets ill, because the immune-system gets not trained. Concerns over lawsuits and not the needs of childrens shape the playgrounds. Society is no longer aware of basic knowledge.

  66. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    It's the same old responsilbity redirect that humans do.

    My kids a horror, must be society. Don't look at my parenting, look at those unsafe playgrounds! It's not my responsiblity to teach my kids what to eat, it's YOURS that my kids ate a peanut. I don't like that they're using cell phones and ignoring me, it causes CANCER pay attention to me instead! I yell at my kids and have poor relationships that result in lots of fights, but it's the VIOLENT video games fault, I'm not a bad parent.

    No one believes they're poor at taking care of their own child and that somehow their method of raising them could be at fault. We'll continue to see this everywhere we look as it becomes more acceptable by mainstream cultures.

  67. Darwin's playground? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like he's promoting survival of the fittest.

    As if that has any role in modern society... How are we supposed to introduce our kids to dependancy on social services if they learn to overcome thier fears and succeed? Granted, this is at the expense of those "outliers" that pust to far and end up offing themselves....

  68. Not being overprotective by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a horse owner, I see how various parents approach risk. Some parents hover, constantly watching their kids ride. (One barn in Silicon Valley caters to those parents. They have bleachers where the parents watch the kids take lessons.) The kids whose parents just drop them off do better with the horses. Kids do fall off, but it's better if they have their falls when they're 10 or 12 and on a pony.

    An old friend of mine is the complete opposite of the overprotective mom. Her kids (one son, one daughter) grew up riding, and by their early teens, were competent to go off alone on horseback into the mountains. By their late teens, the kids were taking road trips of hundreds of miles on bicycles. Both kids are in their 20s now. The son is still in school, taking a year off for a startup right now. The daughter has graduated, and took a trip around the world alone, bicycling across whole countries, riding in a cattle roundup, surfing, kayaking, and coming home cheerful, uninjured, with hundreds of pictures. She works as a lifeguard (ocean rescue/climbing/EMT).

    Interestingly, these kids are cautious. When encountering something new, they tend to hang back, carefully watch others, see how it's done and what goes wrong, then do it. They don't charge in blindly. It's not about being bold. It's about being competent.

    1. Re:Not being overprotective by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      It's not about being bold. It's about being competent.

      Really, it's about having the skills to build competence, and the boldness to use them.

    2. Re:Not being overprotective by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I fell off a full sized horse when I was about 7 or 8. I don't remember the fall hurting much at all, only the horseshoe on my hand.

    3. Re:Not being overprotective by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I teach sailing and hang gliding. You can tell right away who's going to get hurt. It's the guy (usually a guy, but not always) that walks in, doesn't listen to instructions, and is probably the first one in line to go down the hill or helm the boat. When he does get hurt, he's mad. At you. You can get hurt doing this??

      The ones who are going to succeed are the ones who listen carefully, watch a few of the aggressive ones go first, then give it a try themselves. Those people aren't the ones who grew up coddled, they're the ones who have gotten mildly hurt as children and realize that some things can hurt you.

      There are so many people around today who just take for granted that everything is completely safe, no matter what you do. Are they ever surprised when they find out it isn't so.

  69. see saws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok the ONLY thing I can agree with.. See Saws... they are the devil, especially in the hands of older brothers.

  70. playground is never safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have assurance from armies of personal injury and product liability lawyers that no playground is ever safe.

  71. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by rnturn · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that there seem to be more bad drivers out on the roads since there were airbags, antilock brakes, and all the other so-called safety devices in the cars. I still get a little bit of a kick out seeing all the cars stuck off the side of the road in the winter after their drivers thought that antilock brakes would let them drive 10 MPH over the speed limit on slippery roads. (And I get more than a little nervous when these same bozos tailgate me on those slippery roads.)

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  72. Jungle Gym by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 1

    I remember the jungle gym of my elementary playground. Looking at it from today's perspective, it was a frickin' deathtrap. Basically a 4x4 cube of metal bars, probably about 12-15 feet high. It's hard to imagine anyone surviving climbing in it; one slip and you're done for. Then again, in the seven years I went there (K-6), I don't think anyone got so much as a bruise. You had to respect that thing or die.

  73. All the playgrounds around here are "safe" by Quila · · Score: 1

    That's why my kids climb on top and on the outside of them where they're not supposed to in order to try to get some sense of adventure.

    1. Re:All the playgrounds around here are "safe" by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I did that with the more "dangerous" stuff when I was a kid, when I got bored of the regular, sort of dangerous stuff.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  74. yes, duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, children can be protected too much. They grow up with the expectation that life doesn't hurt.
    Nerf the planet.
    Welcome to "Idiocracy".

  75. Cooking by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Parents often feed junk food to their children because they eat junk food themselves. And they eat junk food because they can't cook. They can't cook because they have been brainwashed to think that cooking is hard and that you either are a master chef or you can't cook. The profit margins are much higher on junk food, tv dinners, and other "ready-to-eat" packages, so they are the ones most advertised. Cooking is something the country does not want you to do; it's hard, it requires expensive equipment, it must be done in a $50000 kitchen with granite countertops, and oh yes, it's very DANGEROUS! Hence the junk food consumption and obesity.

    1. Re:Cooking by Duradin · · Score: 1

      It probably doesn't help that cooking is "woman's work" and thus anathema to the "modern liberated woman", or at least the ones who didn't teach their daughters how to cook, and "everyone knows" that if dad even enters the kitchen it will be a disaster, possibly involving fire & rescue, and it will end up with pizza being ordered.

    2. Re:Cooking by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It probably doesn't help that cooking is "woman's work" and thus anathema to the "modern liberated woman", or at least the ones who didn't teach their daughters how to cook, and "everyone knows" that if dad even enters the kitchen it will be a disaster, possibly involving fire & rescue, and it will end up with pizza being ordered.

      Your point is confused, "modern liberated women" simply don't see why they should do all the housework if both parents are working, and it is men who perpetuate the "dads can't cook" myth out of laziness.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  76. Risk / Loss by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    Risk Aversion is a personality trait. How does one react to loss/reward situations.
    Would you enter into a fair coin toss that costs $1 and winners get $2 – or average payout of $1? In theory people should be indifferent – but they are not. They will tend to decline because the loss of the $1 tends to be greater than the gain of an extra $1.
    Would you enter into a fair coin toss that costs $1 and winners get $2=3 – or average payout of $1.50? Logic dictates yes – but still many people decline.

    Risk Reduction is a technical process. How can I make X safer? How much will to cost? Etc.

    1. Re:Risk / Loss by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Can I only enter the coin toss once, or multiple times? If multiple times, then *definitely*, since my EV is way on my side. If only once, then probably not.

  77. The local playground... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... hardly seems to have anyone playing in it. When my daughters were still small enough to want to play in playgrounds, they never wanted to go there very often. I thought the equipment there was a little on the boring side and there wasn't much of it. It was very padded so that, I suppose, you would be a little less likely to get a bad bump.

    The playgrounds at the schools in the neighborhoods where I grew up were not much more than some swings and a set of metal pipes bolted together to form monkey bars , etc., and some other structures that I don't recall the name of any more. The sort of things that, nowadays, would probably make a school administrator run away screaming due the insurance liability exposure. But in those days, if a kid banged his head on the monkey bars he went home, got patched up, and learned a lesson ("Well, that's something I shouldn't do again".) I never once heard about anyone getting seriously hurt -- not anything worse than a bang on the head or a bloody nose -- from playing on that equipment.

    Now we don't send our kid out on their bike unless they are wearing enough safety gear to pass the safety inspection at a motorcycle race even though the biggest risk to a kid on a bike is likely the housewife roaring down the street on her way to the supermarket with a cellphone glued to her ear and not anything that the kid would come in contact with should they fall.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  78. Two Words: by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

    Tort Reform

    --
    RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
  79. Ironic Duality by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 2

    In an ironic duality: We as a nation no longer have a manned space program because it's too high and we may fall and hurt ourselves. This kinda thinking is pervasive on all levels and taking over our society. Play it safe - play it safe. We have forgotten how to take risks in this country. Taking risks is vital for our future, and is what made this a great country. Instead we have become a fearful bunch of whiners and pussies.

    1. Re:Ironic Duality by kryliss · · Score: 1

      From the era that had metal jungle gyms, drank water from the hose, didn't wear a helmet to ride a bike, had very few fat kids..... etc.....

      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

      - JFK

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
  80. What the heck? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    Why can anyone be charged for installing 3 meter high structures on a playground. Safety at a playground works normally as follows:
    a) One parent or another person in charge observes what the "own" child does. Is it doing unsafe stuff (for its age) then that person in charge has to act.
    b) If the kid is old enough to go to the playground by itself than it has to handle its own safety. Kids are capable of doing so. Parents who deny that, end up with children which cannot handle responsibilities.

    What me personal concerns is the fact that the same illness is coming to Germany as well. The world gets redesigned to be save for the stupid and lazy. Instead of insisting on "think before act". Think of it in the US people got money for being too stupid to handle their coffee. Also I heard that they got money for putting a cat in an microwave. In a country not designed for the stupid, any judge would rule in both cases against the idiot.

    And ah don't get me wrong this is not an US bashing statement. Even though in Germany spilling coffee is your problem, the design for the stupid principal also applies here.

  81. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by tombeard · · Score: 2

    Our local Montessori school actually wrapped their tree trunks in foam so the kids wouldn't get hurt if they ran into them. The kids adjusted by intentionally running into the trees to enjoy the bounce.

    --
    The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
  82. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't agree with schools banning PB&J from the cafeteria because 1 kid has an allergy. There are other ways to handle that kind of thing, like teach the kid to stay away from peanuts.

    Why does this same ignorant argument always pop up whenever allergies are mentioned? Children with peanut allergies can suffer severe reactions from smelling peanuts. "Teach[ing] the kid to stay away from peanuts" doesn't really work unless that involves them eating lunch alone in the janitor's closet.

  83. Who's going to pay for broken bones? by LordNimon · · Score: 1

    One of my children recently fell off the monkey bars at his school and broke his arm. The cost for the surgery and cast: over $15K. I have an excellent health insurance plan, but it only covers about 90%, so I still have to pay almost $2,000. I bet most people in this country would have to pay a lot more than that.

    What should I do about it? I don't blame the school, so I can't sue them. I can't blame my child either. Should I tell him that he can't play on the monkey bars any more, because if he falls off again, then the family can't afford to go on vacation that year? That's crazy.

    Maybe this is why we have a safety paranoia in this country. We literally can't afford to get hurt.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    1. Re:Who's going to pay for broken bones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can blame you child, this nonsense of saying "I Can't blame my child" has led to more children growing up thinking that it is all "Someone else's fault". Teach you kids to take some responsibility for their own actions otherwise they will grow thinking everyone owes them something and that they need not worry about doing bad thing and that actions have no consequences.

      Maybe the kid was screwing around, maybe he was hanging out with the wrong kids, he made a choice to climb on the monkey bars and now his arm is broken the little shit should have to feel at least SOME guilt about his broken arm.

      No, just go ahead and raise him to blame others, that will work out so well. Maybe when he gets obese he will blame the fast food resuraunt instead of his own hand holding the fork.

    2. Re:Who's going to pay for broken bones? by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      Um, I think having a broken arm and wearing a cast for six weeks is enough of a lesson on consequences for a kid in kindergarten.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    3. Re:Who's going to pay for broken bones? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Goddammit, I'm undoing my mod points for this. First off, why the hell would they need surgery for a broken arm? It's a simple "set the bone and apply a cast" routine. If they needed surgery because they somehow ridiculously mangled themselves, well no shit it's going to cost more.

      As for what what you should do? If your kid broke their arm on the monkey bars, they obviously weren't swinging on them and were not using them as they are intended - so make sure your kid knows that they will only use them as intended or will be in serious trouble. You teach them to be more careful and if they can't handle using the monkey bars, then they shouldn't use them.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:Who's going to pay for broken bones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Write it off as part of the cost of raising a child.

    5. Re:Who's going to pay for broken bones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "What should I do about it?"

      Lobby for health care reform?

    6. Re:Who's going to pay for broken bones? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      You are going to pay for broken bones. Bad things happen some times. This is why a lot of people keep a stockpile of emergency cash - just for these problems. This sort of thinking is exactly what gets us in the litigious shape we're in. You didn't sue, and I certainly applaud you for that - but you're still trying to find a place to put the blame - and asking who is going to pay for *your* expenses.

      That said, surgery and $15k seems like an awful lot of work for a broken arm. It's definitely toward the pointy end of the bell curve as far as medical costs go.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  84. Astro City Rocket Slide by markw365 · · Score: 1
  85. skateboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy them a skateboard and unleash them at the nearest skatepark. They'll learn quickly.

  86. Children of acrobats by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Last weekend I went to a local art festival and they had a giant picnic table that you could climb on. Perhaps 20 feet high? You needed a ladder to get up on it. It was installed on a grass median and had no fence. As I was on top with my 2 year old, an 8-year old kid ran by me, jumped off, and vanished over the side as he went down. For a moment I thought the kid was crazy! But shortly thereafter, 2 more boys joined in, only they flipped off of the top. It was quite impressive.

    It turns out that they were 3 brothers with their dad. The father was a martial arts instructor and he was coaching his middle boy to use his ankles to cushion his landing, and telling his youngest how to roll if he falls too hard. They weren't crazy - they just saw this stuff growing up and learned to do it safely. The dad told the youngest one that he was only allowed to flip off if he could do one from a standing position. It isn't that they had no rules, they just weren't overly afraid. They had a coach, and they knew their own limitations and followed instructions.

    Amazing what a trusting, confident parent can teach an 8-year old kid. I want to know what they are like in 15 years.

  87. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by compro01 · · Score: 2

    Even if a single dose is sufficient to halt the reaction, they're still going to be spending at least the rest of the day at the hospital, even if just for observation (biphasic anaphylaxis).

    Also, anaphylaxis can result in less obvious symptoms than the classic bronchoconstriction everyone knows about, which happens about 70% of the time. Possible symptoms include fainting and cardiac arrhythmia, which most people wouldn't associate with an allergic reaction.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  88. Yet.. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    The left the park benches for the pedophiles to sit on.

  89. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by Tenareth · · Score: 1

    There was a study done (which I can't find right now) that indicated that all the safety features had 0 impact on the overall safety of the roads. Ultimately a human is hard-wired with a specific risk tolerance, all you do by adding safety features is make them behave in a manner that will bring the risk tolerance back to where they are the most comfortable.

    I can't find the exact study, but a related conversation:

    http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/05/focus-on-safety-how-driving-rates-on-the-risk-thermostat.html

    --
    This sig is the express property of someone.
  90. What now?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great so what do we do with this non-information? Make playgrounds more dangerous? Most parents want their kids to be safe.

  91. what some judge needs to do by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    figure out exactly how much "damage" would be reasonable for a kid at say 4-6 7-9 10-12 and then when a lawsuit comes down the pike that is within those guidelines stamp the papers

    DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

    and then go on to the next case

    to expect that a kid of 5 should never get so much as a skinned knee is beyond stupid

    now if the kid has her own mug in the local ER that is a problem

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    1. Re:what some judge needs to do by geekoid · · Score: 2

      That sort of happens with most cases. The lawsuit issue isn't nearly as big as the belief of the lawsuit problem. Many decisions out of fear from lawsuits don't come from lawyers. They come from upper mismanagement afraid they will get sued for whichever ridiculous thing they happen to think of. As well as meeting where someone is trying to show they did something.

      The media also has a tendency to boiled down case o the most stupid blurb.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:what some judge needs to do by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They don't fear the lawsuits, they fear the hype media. "How could you let that happen, Mr. Mayor? A child got hurt (or two, or three...)!"

      Hope for a reelection? Don't even think about it. You're the guy that endangers our precious little darlings! How could we vote for you?

      Stupid sheeple...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:what some judge needs to do by mpe · · Score: 1

      figure out exactly how much "damage" would be reasonable for a kid at say 4-6 7-9 10-12 and then when a lawsuit comes down the pike that is within those guidelines stamp the papers
      DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
      and then go on to the next case


      This can only happen if the case actually gets before a judge. If an "our of court settlement" is involved judges can do nothing,

  92. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    Ultimately a human is hard-wired with a specific risk tolerance, all you do by adding safety features is make them behave in a manner that will bring the risk tolerance back to where they are the most comfortable.

    Which leads to the behaviours that the parent talked about. Those who "tolerate risk" more than others will revert to risky behaviours when the perceived risk is reduced. If you have anti-lock brakes, you will tend to assume that the dangers are less and the risks are similarly reduced. This leads to more risky behaviour because it takes more risk to return to your "most comfortable" levels.

    In other words, nuts who would go 80 MPH except they don't feel safe about it on wet pavement will start going 80 MPH on wet pavement again because the ABS has reduced the risks to where they are once again comfortable taking them.

    This totally ignores those who are totally ignorant about the levels of risk associated with any activity, who see "safety equipment" as an excuse to exceed truly safe operating limits.

    I can tell you, it was a remarkable experience driving my new full-time all-wheel Subaru when I first got it. I assumed it would handle better in the snow than my old front-wheel drive car. Nope. I realized partway into a slide towards the outside of a curve that my new 4wd car had two wheels in back that weren't just following along for the ride, they were actively pushing me towards disaster, while in my front drive car the front wheels would pull me around the curve and the back would go where the front lead. Anyone who didn't find that out on a relatively uncrowded low-snow road would be in a world of hurt, and maybe take others with him, because he trusts the AWD to keep him safe instead of good driving.

  93. Another thing where US Healthcare is a factor by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I know parents who wouldn't allow their children to ride bicycles or do pretty much anything fun because HEALTHCARE IS BROKEN. One child cost you your month's paycheck or a mortgage payment and the less savings you have the more of a problem this becomes. Then there are major injuries that could cost you your house and all your savings. It also becomes a BIG reason to involve lawyers to help find funds for such costs-- and if you think insurance is a bunch of leeches the lawyers are vampires.

    Sure, free healthcare means more people take risks; however, this is hardly a problem in nations who have it. I only mention it for those who jump to extremes instead of focusing on the point that we are at the other extreme -- where a normal childhood is being impacted by the way things have become. Fear of harm and lawsuits terrorize realistic people far more.

    Pedophiles - your friends and family are the major risk not a guy on the park bench (unless he's your uncle.) Label them the mental cases they are; no time limits for locking up nutcases.

    1. Re:Another thing where US Healthcare is a factor by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Troll, troll, troll. Normal injuries (broken bones and such) do NOT cost much at all. Hell, major surgeries only cost a few thousand typically after your insurance covers it's part. If you made choices that cause you to not have insurance or to live paycheck to paycheck, that's YOUR damn fault - no one else's. Just because you want someone else to pay your medical bills for you doesn't mean you have to lie about how much normal stuff costs.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  94. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by HappyPsycho · · Score: 1

    Go kids!!! Next the padded room...

  95. Wrap them in bubble wrap by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 1

    What the hell. Wrap them in bubble wrap, duct tape and leave them in the living room until time to transfer them to the nursing room. I personally should have died, not unlike Hank and Dean of Venture Brothers every other month for the first 21 years of my life. Some may think the world would have been a better place. Never got my Darwin award despite septic blood poisoning, polio epidemics, car accidents, no bike helmets, playing with snakes, and unprotected sex. There,... I feel better. (mod me -1 tonight)

    --
    Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
  96. This Storey is getting OLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too Many LAWYERS. Too Many Politicians (most of whom are LAWYERS)
    Remember: 99% of LAWYERS give the other 1% a bad name!!!

  97. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also: Subluxations.

  98. SUDO by vlm · · Score: 1

    stunt emotional development, leaving ... anxieties and fears that are ultimately worse than a broken bone......, or else it will be too boring in the long run,' says professor Ellen Sandseter. ..... approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, ..... The best thing is to let ... encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.'

    That's why I don't use or allow sudo.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  99. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  100. sadly, your # is modest, not hyperbole... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my wife recently got a 2nd degree burn on her arm & a 1st degree on her leg from a gel fire pot (story unto itself) - she was in the ER for ~3 hours, no diagnostics at all (don't need an x-ray for a burn), wasn't even seen by an MD (just a PA) & all they did to treat her was clean it w/some iced sterile saline, smear some silver sulfadide (sp?) cream & bandage.

    the bill? $3,500!

    I shudder to think what a broken bone runs these days (x-rays, cast, being seen by an actual DOCTOR)...

  101. I could've told them that years ago by reboot246 · · Score: 2

    In fact many of us in the older generation were opposed to "safe" playgrounds when they were first introduced. It's about time common sense is coming around again.

    Why reinvent the wheel? Humans are human and have been that way for thousands of years. We grow and mature by being challenged, even if that challenge means sometimes getting hurt (or killed).

    Now, anybody want to listen to wisdom next time?

    1. Re:I could've told them that years ago by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Damn those baby boomers - special snowflakes every one. ;)

  102. OH&S & Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A member of parliament here in Australia was told he wan't allowed to change a light bulb in his office due to "OH&S issues". If he's allowed to change a bulb in his own home, surely these OH&S issues are just a method of limiting liability and reducing insurance premiums?

  103. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with peanuts is you don't necessarily have to actually touch them, just be in a room that peanuts were in at some time in the past. There was a girl a few years back who died because her boyfriend ate a peanut sandwich in the morning, brushed his teeth, mouthwash, the whole bit, and kissed her that evening.

    Forget how the poor girl's parents felt, how would you feel if you were that boy? If you killed your girlfriend because of a stupid sandwich?

  104. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Children by any reasonable definition of the term are insane.

    They spend hours living in 'pretend world' and believe in irrational things like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Jesus.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  105. Nothing like the jungle gyms from my youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember jumping across a 5 foot gap to a metal bar 20 foot above the ground and spinning around and around the bar all the way to the ground. Doing that repeatedly for the entire lunch recess. The ground was hard packed gravel that was worse then concrete to land on if you slipped. Solution: Don't slip. I don't remember anyone getting maimed from that equipment.

  106. Remembering old times by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I grew up in a traditional village in Malaysia during the early 80's. I know this is going to sound like one of those get off my lawn stories but my experiences while growing up there was very beneficial. At that time, my playground was the snake-infested semi-jungle around the village, the monitor lizard infested nearby river and the limestone quarry lake where they were blasting rocks with explosives. We kids will form roaming bands of 10 or more and play soldiers and communists (it was only 1 year after the communist insurgents surrendered), make our own "hand grenades" (got scars to prove it) out of firecracker fillings and spark plugs as detonators, even our own bamboo cannon filled with carbide. We will climb trees, slingshot monkeys, take a swim in the river and fish for tilapia and catfish in the quarry lake all the while explosives were going off nearby. On Eid days and the Chinese New Year, we will go to war with the kids from the neighbouring village, launching firecracker raids and ambushing the counterattack which will sometimes end up as fist fights. Looking back, I couldn't believe I lived that life now that I am living in a modern suburb where everything is gated and sanitised. Firecrackers are now banned in Malaysia. I look at my own two kids and see them playing video games, and the only time they can play outside is when I am supervising them out of fear of speeding cars or kidnappers (this is a real problem).

    Now, everything revolves around the nuclear family. I could do all those risky things in the village because all the adults in the village will keep an eye on you, regardless if you are their kid or not. All adults may scold or cane any child in the village if they cross the line. Complaining about this to your parents will result in another round of caning. You could drop in on your friends house and their parents will serve you food and treat you like you are their own. Now get off my lawn.

    1. Re:Remembering old times by shermo · · Score: 1

      WRT your last paragraph you should have a look at the book "Dawn of Sex". It's not really about sex, it's about how the situation you described is the 'natural' state of human societies. It's not amazingly well written, but it discusses some interesting subjects.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    2. Re:Remembering old times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, everything revolves around the nuclear family.

      Actually, nuclear is being banned in many countries as well after that whole Japan fiasco. :-p

      (It was a joke...)

    3. Re:Remembering old times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slingshot monkeys

      would be a great name for a band.

  107. Re:Interesting presentation on TED re: Child Safet by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    There's also "The Dangerous Book for Boys" by Conn Iggulden & Hal Iggulden.
    http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Book-Boys-Conn-Iggulden/dp/0061243582

    This book was in the news a couple of years ago.

  108. It's not just the lawyers... by thejuiceisloose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My son (23 months) loves the "big kid" playgrounds. He is a cautious child, and he definitely follows the progressive learning model in how high he climbs. However, he is adopted, and we have to worry about social workers disapproving of how we raise him, and we could get in big trouble if he got hurt, so I am one of those mothers who tends to hover around her child on the playground. It's not because I am overprotective, but because society has gotten to the point that the state will take away your child if he cuts his finger, practically. In a civilization's progress, I think sometimes we start to go overboard, and that's when society becomes corrupt and a new, younger society takes over. Look at the cycle of civilization. Ancient powerhouses are no longer around. We don't just get more civilized, we go back and forth.

  109. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 0

    Well, we all live in a world with other people. The little ones need to learn to deal with the bullies, loudmouths and the weirdos.

  110. More fun in the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a kid in the 80's, we had really awesome playground equipment. All wood and metal and concrete. You'd get splinters and scrapes. The metal was rusty and corroded. But these were typically grand structures, several levels in height or sprawled out across a large area. As an adult I can really appreciate the creative design that went into them as they were made with kids in mind.

    The equipment kids have now just sucks. It's all this plastic safe crap that offers no challenges and no thrills. Some shapeless plastic blue slide that is only a few feet off the ground is boring. When I think of what I played on as a kid, it was fantastically thrilling and incredibly fun.

    I never in my life knew any kids that got any kind of terrible injury back then from playing around. Maybe one guy broke a finger or something, but everyone lived. The safety craze neutered playgrounds.

  111. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    At some point the kid is going to come out of school and into the world where somebody is going to have a PB&J for lunch. It's better for them to learn how to deal with it when they're in a semi-controlled environment like school.

    And no, by deal with it I don't mean daily anaphylaxis. Anyone who's that seriously allergic to something should carry their own epi pen, always and be very, very good at recognizing things that might contain their allergen, as well as their own personal signs of an impending reaction and what to do. Kids learn fast. Let them.

  112. Video: Merry-go-round of Death by lewko · · Score: 1

    Perfectly safe.

    As the description says... Nobody died.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  113. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not trying to go down the big brother road here but it just crossed my mind.

    Would it not make great sense for the gov't to want the kids to grow up helpless with no skills, and then only the gov't trained people will have the skills for winning, survival and fighting....etc

  114. let them play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even the "safe" playgrounds can be dangerous. My daughter (youngest) fell off this over-head-hang-by-your-hands-and-slide-across thing, she landed funny and broke her elbow. Now the one broken arm does not close as much as the other one, but it does extend farther.... My daughter got a cool pink cast (she thought it was the best thing since sliced cheese) that her older brother (by 18 months) was jealous of. Up-shot.... nothing. She still goes on the over-head-hang-by-your-hands-and-slide-across thing and plays like a normal child. Did we sue? No. The other day, my kids wanted to go to the local amusment acrade joint (they have go-karts there). They asked if they could go on the go-karts. I told them only if they're big enough (they have a 52 inch height minimun). My daughter made it by an inch. She was thrilled. So, we got tickets and they waitied and they went. My wife thought I was crazy. After a tenetive start, she got the hang of it and began circulating. After 5 laps, she passed her brother who couldn't catch up. No one died. And we had happy kids.

    Of course now they want their own racing go-karts. I told them if their grades are good enough, I'll figure it out...... 80cc shifter cart anyone?

  115. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    They spend hours living in 'pretend world' and believe in irrational things like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Jesus.

    They only believe in them because they are constantly lied to about it by the authority figures in their lives.
    See; perfectly good preparation for adult life.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  116. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    Well, we all live in a world with other people. The little ones need to learn to deal with the bullies, loudmouths and the weirdos.

    Who do the bullies, loudmouths and weirdos need to learn to deal with?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  117. Those six kinds of risky play ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    ... sound more like a list of fun things to do (which most kids will find irresistible).

  118. Host Liability Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of host Liability was introduced to encourage Work Safety. We can eliminate all these stupid law suits by scrapping one act. Then everybody will be responsible for himself again.

  119. yoga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    children should practice yoga instead of doing risky jackass stunts,

  120. Reminds me of recent article: by toby · · Score: 1
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/8555/

    ... parents will do anything to avoid having their kids experience even mild discomfort, anxiety, or disappointment—“anything less than pleasant,” as he puts it—with the result that when, as adults, they experience the normal frustrations of life, they think something must be terribly wrong. ... Consider a toddler who’s running in the park and trips on a rock, Bohn says. Some parents swoop in immediately, pick up the toddler, and comfort her in that moment of shock, before she even starts crying. But, Bohn explains, this actually prevents her from feeling secure—not just on the playground, but in life.

    --
    you had me at #!
  121. summer camp rifle range counterexample by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    The Boy Scout summer camp I went to has a rifle range (.22's at paper targets).
    I forget if the powers that be removed the safeties or just taught us not to use them, but the point was to rely on proper behavior for safety, not lean too much on mechanical safety devices.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  122. seconded by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    seconded; I feel the "boys will be boys" aspect was a key part of my Scout career, which in turn was a key part of my general personal development.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:seconded by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      seconded; I feel the "boys will be boys" aspect was a key part of my Scout career, which in turn was a key part of my general personal development.

      I think you will find that one of the key elements in Scouting is the supervision and mentoring of the Scout leaders. It's a totally different thing from running around with your friends in the woods blowing up squirrels.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:seconded by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Good point of clarification; proper leadership (both older scouts and adults) allows that development in a controlled and directed manner. (LOL at the not blowing up squirrels example.)

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  123. No it wasn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't because of concerned parents. Playgrounds were built to last back in the day, made of steel, wood, and rubber(e.g. old tires). They were cheap and easy to maintain.

    Along came playground manufacturers who asked schools if they would like to upgrade. They said maybe, then saw the price tag. Tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per school district. They said, no way, our current equipment has lasted 30 years and still looks new.

    So the playground manufacturers had their feelings hurt, and as retaliation lobbied Congress to ban the "dangerous" playground equipment of old. They got a few groups of stupid parents together to falsely claim said dangers. And voila, instant, MANDATED playground equipment courtesy of the government. F them all.

  124. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're that allergic to a common food source, you're on borrowed time anyway. No need to punish the rest along with you.

  125. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the UK, the removal of the High Diving platforms has seen an increase in Tombstoning http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mcga07-home/leisurenandtheseaside/mcga-coastbeach/tombstoning.htm. It seems that if you coddle kids and take away planned quasi-dangerouse activities, they'll find far more dangerous ways of stretching themselves and conquering fears

  126. MOMS HELPING MOMS WORK FROM HOME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HEY ALL MOMS! If you want to work from HOME for a company that WON"T LAY YOU OFF and you won't have to sell a single thing or pay a lot of money to start, I highly suggest you go to www.mommyathome.awugreen.com We help people set up wholesale shopping accounts via internet and phone. It is amazing. Check it out at www.mommyathome.awugreen.com today!

  127. Risky behavior... by Syberz · · Score: 1

    Risky behavior is something that kids need to get out of their system at a young age. They learn risk vs. consequence that way.

    Now kids either seem to be scared of everything or scared of nothing due to never having any consequences for their actions either from their parents (which is another debate) or from hurting themselves while playing.

    This might explain the rise in car accidents involving teens that we have here (Quebec), the kids think that they're invincible because the never hurt themselves before, so they take hard curves at 120km/h and fly off.

    --
    ~Syberz
  128. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Children by any reasonable definition of the term are insane.

    They spend hours living in 'pretend world' and believe in irrational things like the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Jesus.

    By your definition most adults are insane too.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  129. kids need to be kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is what happens when you let fear takeover you come up with stupid reguilations. i am sorry but little boys have a urge to climb stuff so let them and let kids be kids. if a kid happens to fall down and break something then they have learned not to climb something that high. or a better idea how about parents actually watch their kids at plqygrounds. we are just making a generaton of wimpy kids. sorry people kids need to learn at a early age that everything has natural consurance if you don't like then lets keep making a bunch of wimpy kids. but i keep forgeting that we as a society want kids to go from birth right to adult hood. we dont believe in letting kids be kids anymore.

  130. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Methuseus · · Score: 1

    Hmm, how can you seriously believe this when there are numerous studies that show anyone going into shock from *smelling* peanuts is having a 99.9% psychological reaction? The effects of smelling an allergen like peanuts (that is not truly airborne, ever) would be mild, and not really ever require an epi-pen.

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  131. South asian countries by dj245 · · Score: 1

    When I visited the Philippines about 2 years ago, I was struck by how strong the communities were (I was working for a week near Legazpi City, in the jungle). It did appear that the children would just run amok and people from the community just gathered in the street at night with all their neighbors to talk. On our commute, the work van had to slow way down in some neighborhoods because the whole neighborhood was in the street talking it up, smoking and drinking. This wasn't any special occasion, it happened every morning and every night. When I look at the US with our sterile suburbs, 2 TV's and 2 cars in every house, yes we are more wealthy. Most of the people I saw in the Philippines didn't have 2 dollars in their pocket. Their floors were made of dirt and their houses were maybe 2 rooms 500 sq ft. I go back and forth to work with my BMW, a luxury most of these people will never know (some of them might have a family 125cc motorcycle). But these people were genuinely happy, friendly with their neighbors, and their extended family lived in the neighborhood or next door. I saw very few people that looked sad. Tired maybe, but not depressed or sad. The US is first world country, but as far as community strength goes, Philippines has us beat by a mile.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  132. Re:What's the most dangerous thing on the playgrou by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Common guys, that was a paraphrase from WKRP.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  133. To be fair . . . by Idou · · Score: 1

    As evidenced in the pictures, the U.S. children are much too overweight to be able to utilize any portion above 12ft . . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  134. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Diving is a pointless, stupid and dangerous sport, whether for adults or children. All you need to know about diving is how to do a shallow dive into a known depth of water, anything else you should be jumping feet first. In a swimming pool, you have multiple useful skills to learn, including swimming, floating, life-saving, swimming underwater and the rest. High board diving is an exercise in futility and a waste of pool space. Go and tombstone off a cliff if you're that excited by it.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  135. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by Pope · · Score: 1

    I doubt it. People in general today are just far more ego-centric and driven to do dumb and/or unsafe things simply for their own convenience and/or lack of forethought. It just happens to correspond to advances in safety features. There are simply more people on the road, and proportionally more morons on the road.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  136. I wonder... by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    How many of those posting actually have kids of their own...who play outside as well? FYI I have three children ages 4, 2, and 1.

  137. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Car safety features are to lessen the damage one takes from an accident, not really much to prevent them. Also, the fact that your car is now gone is a huge monetary penalty for not being safe, rather than being damaged for life.

  138. Re:This "safety net problem" - grownups by Bengie · · Score: 1

    I've driven 85mph on the interstate after freezing rain but no wind . The back end was fish-tailing and the car sliding left and right, but the general rule of physics is, you keep moving int he same direction. I actually was able to turn the wheel 1/4 turn at 85, and the car kept going strait. That slippery.

    Front wheel drive and constantly keeping the wheels strait keeps your car moving in the correct direction. Any time I had to change direction, like a turn, I slowed down well before hand, as even a mild bend on the interstate, even at 45, caused my car to slide a bit. It was crazy slippery

    Similar thing in the city. Was going 50 in a 45 after freezing rain. I passed up someone who was going 20. The lights were green, but I knew they have been green for a while, so I started to slow down early. Lights changed and I was able to come to a full stop several feet before the cross walk. The other guy who was going 20... well, they slid right through the intersection and went into the ditch.. it was REALLY slippery.

    I live in a heavy winter area. I can't count how many times I was speeding in icy conditions, was able to stop for stop signs and light, while other people who were going well under the limit, slid right through because they didn't slow down ahead of time.

    The general public are idiots.

    Ice is easy.. pretend you're in space. Changing your velocity is hard, so make sure you add time, and account for unknowns, like an intersection with a 2 way stop sign. Just because you have the right away, if you're driving fast and the person at the stop doesn't know that, they'll probably pull out in front of you, so slow down. Assume the other drivers are dangerous.

    If I can't tell if a car is coming up to a stop sign because of Line-of-Site issues, I assume someone is, so I slow down.

    P.S. I hate anti-lock breaks in the winter. Their pulses are so hard, they just cause your wheels to lock. I actually find letting off the gas pedal and letting the car coast is faster at slowing down the car on glare ice, than hitting the breaks. The engine drag is more analog and finds a better sweet spot than your ABS pulse-locking your wheels. Similar with manual car, put in high gear and let the engine drag slow you down. Well, for me this works on really really slippery ice.

  139. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  140. Re:It's not just playgrounds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than the fear of scraped knees, there's the fear of razor blades in apples, rapists among school teachers, traces of peanuts, bacteria in public places, cancer from cellphones, etc... so many irrational fairs, it seems children can only be safe if they're locked in their room....

    FUCK YOU, MONGORIANS!!!!