[mensetmanusman]

I have let all my children play in ways that have minor consequences if they fall.

Some parents definitely think I am too lax, from the reactions I see at a playground when our one year old has climbed to a height of 6 feet…

I am strict about them putting themselves in a position where they would have major head injuries though.

[stevekemp]

Climbing is an interesting one for me too. When our child was two+ I'd let him climb as high as he was capable of. I'd stand under him when he got "too high", but basically if he could climb high, and wanted to, I'd let him.

My only restriction was that I'd always help him down, but I'd never help him up. If he wasn't capable of reaching higher ropes, or branches, then I'd not assist him at all. I'd just say "If you can't reach it's too much for you". But I'd always be on-hand if he said "Daddy I'm stuck" or "Daddy down! down!"

I didn't realize for several months that when his mother was taking him to the park she said "Not so high", and limited him quite significantly.

I know head-injuries can be very (very) serious, but I was kinda surprised at the number of parents who'd say no. (For that matter broken arms and legs are serious too, but I guess I figured they probably wouldn't happen.)

To his credit I've never seen him fall, although these days I wince at times when he jumps from higher distances than I think are prudent.