Comments on: Some Thoughts on Playground Safety

By: Susan Solomon

Susan Solomon — Sun, 04 May 2008 18:46:15 +0000

Dear All,
I am Susan Solomon (author of American Playgrounds: Revitalizing Community Space) and feel you should hear from me directly.I am not advocating that kids get hurt . I am endorsing playgrounds that allow for some unpredictability and challenge in hopes that our kids will learn from experience, thereby becoming better judges of what is dangerous and what is not.
We, as a culture, need to rethink safety that prevents all risk. We have to develop settings where kids can try something new, NOT succeed, then keep plugging away until they overcome obstacles. Kids with that playground experience will gain a sense of achievement; they will learn that taking a chance has its own rewards. Kids who know how to take limited risks will be our creative business people, scientists,scholars, artists of the future.

By: Vidinho

Vidinho — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:13:11 +0000

As a Certified Playground Safey Inspector I believe I can speak to this with an informed opinion. In addition to inspections and audits some individuals at our company provide expert witness testimony. As such we are intimately familiar with a wide variety of playground injuries. Complicated monkey bars make up the highest percantage of injuries leading to litigation. Falls to equipment in general make up about 16-17% of seriuos injuries. Those complicated monkey bars you yearn for david are directly responsible for , brain damage, spinal fractures, dismemberment and growth plate fractures. Regarding bigger badder slides – studies indicate that young children get no benefits, sensory or otherwise from slides over about 8′. Yet the severity of injuries occuring from a fall to any surface increase exponentially once you go over about 8′. Current laws and guidelines are based on the collection and analysis of data from emergency room visits resulting from playground injuries. We know how kids get hurt. We should do something about it.

By: Amy Lee

Amy Lee — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:54:02 +0000

There’s some variety out there. I ran across this — I don’t know how deadly it is, but it looks cool.

http://www.kaboom.org/tabid/285/CurrentPlaySpaceID/9756/Default.aspx

By: David

David — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:21:12 +0000

I’m a parent of a 3-year old son who babysits for other kids and actively looking out for park variety. The slides Mr. T mentions are not non-existent. But most parks are trying to guess who their clientele are and tend to err on the side of younger (to minimize risk). The parks you describe with the low slides are intended for YOUNGER patrons (like 2-3 year olds).

I find complicated decking to hold the interest of folks up through about age 10. But bigger and badder slides, fire poles, complicated monkey bars–these are a must for the older kids.

By: Amy Lee

Amy Lee — Fri, 02 May 2008 17:44:59 +0000

I’m all for the safe rubber surface, but I have an issue with the legal system (by way of reactive city or school administrators and freaked out, litigious parents) defining what my kid can or can not play on. Honestly, how much “insane equipment that mangles our littles kids” is out there begging to be built?

By: Mr. T in DC

Mr. T in DC — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:20:41 +0000

Rubberized, non-asphalt surfaces are fine, but why get rid of swings, the see-saw, and slides tall enough to actually slide down? Modern playgrounds look like boring deck surfaces designed by adults, with a lower number of kinetic elements than before. I think he’s partially right. You can have both safety, and more fun, traditional elements there.