Councils told playground should 'bring back danger' after years of being softened by 'compensation culture'
There is nothing wrong with a 'bump, a bruise or a graze.' I agree completely.
The problem with this article is that it feeds into the stereotype that parents are just too lazy to watch their own kids and when they get hurt, they would rather sue for damages. And while some are lazy, the bigger problem that should be addressed is the compensation which they only spoke about briefly.
I'm also not sure you can expect the same level of care from a teenage babysitter as you can a parent in the chaos that is a public playground.
The fact is that the boy that got killed by a falling branch wasn't killed because he was 'soft.'
Kids are already inherent risk takers. They don't know that this swing is safer than the last one. They behave the same way and emotionally get the benefit of the risk without becoming hurt badly.
Net swings are not age appropriate for very young kids and adding them to a public park is literally an accident waiting to happen since the playground, by the fact of having it there is stating that it's all right for all who use the park.
The same for paddling pools.
Even putting an age on something is a misdirection. My oldest son was born very small. He was small until he hit grade school. His car seat which was appropriate for ages 6months through 5 years was suitable and safe for him until he was 9. When he was five, he could still use equipment aged for toddlers. He was often tangled in net bridges at McDonald's, and thought he could swim when he, in fact, could not.
Do you know how quickly a toddler can drown in a paddling pool with multitudes of adults watching him/her?
Will parents have to take a child development class to know what their child's actual limitations are before they're allowed to use the playground equipment?
What I'm saying is that the kids still take the risks. In fact, they take more because on safer and appropriate equipment, parents will let them alone to explore instead of hovering all the time.
I'm sorry for the long-windedness. I'm a little tired of non-parents and lay people bashing parents who parent and basing parental/child development decisions based simply on money or because 'it worked for me and I didn't die; it's good enough for my kid.'
And for people who do not know me here, I am the parent of three and hold a Master's degree in Educational Issues, so I'm on both sides of this fence.
The problem with this article is that it feeds into the stereotype that parents are just too lazy to watch their own kids and when they get hurt, they would rather sue for damages. And while some are lazy, the bigger problem that should be addressed is the compensation which they only spoke about briefly.
I'm also not sure you can expect the same level of care from a teenage babysitter as you can a parent in the chaos that is a public playground.
The fact is that the boy that got killed by a falling branch wasn't killed because he was 'soft.'
Kids are already inherent risk takers. They don't know that this swing is safer than the last one. They behave the same way and emotionally get the benefit of the risk without becoming hurt badly.
Net swings are not age appropriate for very young kids and adding them to a public park is literally an accident waiting to happen since the playground, by the fact of having it there is stating that it's all right for all who use the park.
The same for paddling pools.
Even putting an age on something is a misdirection. My oldest son was born very small. He was small until he hit grade school. His car seat which was appropriate for ages 6months through 5 years was suitable and safe for him until he was 9. When he was five, he could still use equipment aged for toddlers. He was often tangled in net bridges at McDonald's, and thought he could swim when he, in fact, could not.
Do you know how quickly a toddler can drown in a paddling pool with multitudes of adults watching him/her?
Will parents have to take a child development class to know what their child's actual limitations are before they're allowed to use the playground equipment?
What I'm saying is that the kids still take the risks. In fact, they take more because on safer and appropriate equipment, parents will let them alone to explore instead of hovering all the time.
I'm sorry for the long-windedness. I'm a little tired of non-parents and lay people bashing parents who parent and basing parental/child development decisions based simply on money or because 'it worked for me and I didn't die; it's good enough for my kid.'
And for people who do not know me here, I am the parent of three and hold a Master's degree in Educational Issues, so I'm on both sides of this fence.
