[lukan]

Hm, I see this as part of the same trend/problem. Why have unrealistic goals at all, in the name of safety?

Why is the goal not realistic, to minimize the risk?

Even if the whole playground would be made of soft foam - then still 2 kids could bump into each other and one loose its eye.

[Fricken]

I've noticed that with group decision making it's always best to argue for more safety, its a winning argument. The argument doesn't need to be valid. The fact that you're defending safety is enough.

[spacebanana7]

I've noticed this rhetorical dynamic in software too.

In group discussions around testing, security & scalability the maximalist approaches are really hard to argue against in meetings.

The person who objects to the max safety approach can easily come off as an uncaring gambler whilst the advocate comes off as idealistic at worst.

[serf]

> Why have unrealistic goals at all, in the name of safety?

because "Only 2 out of 200,000 kids will be permanently maimed" is a harder sell to the public than the impossible "Our goal is zero injuries.".

[lukan]

"Our goal is zero injuries."

This I would sign, too.

"Goal and intention ... there is no risk of permanent injury."

This not. If you design proper and guide the small children enough, you can achieve no permanent injuries with some luck (for a specific playground over some time), but you cannot rule it out, that eventually something very bad might happen and this would just give parents false security.

I have seen this actually quite often. Young parents who assume, that the playground is totally safe, so they let then children do really risky things without realizing the danger - and this is dangerous. I mean children should do risky things and other people(mainly the grandparents) freak out when they see, what my small kids are allowed to do. But as a climber and parkour enthusiast - I guide and assist them first, till I know, they can handle this particular new situation and I try to raise their awareness of what they are capable and when they should rather stop or shout for help. And of course, I am near, so I can assist in critical situations. But I know that accidents will happen. And they did, but luckily nothing serious so far (because I was there). But I know, that I am not in 100% control of the situation all the time, just not possible. But if I would be scared because of the remaining <0.1% - my nervousness would affect them and make them insecure. Fear makes knees shaky ... and then they fall.

[magicalhippo]

Here's what the standard[1] that holds in EU says:

The aim of this standard is first and foremost to prevent accidents with a disabling or fatal consequence, and secondly to lessen serious consequences caused by the occasional mishap that inevitably will occur in children's pursuit of expanding their level of competence, be it socially, intellectually or physically.

This part of EN 1176 specifies general safety requirements for permanently installed public playground equipment and surfacing. Additional safety requirements for specific pieces of playground equipment are specified in subsequent parts of this standard.

This part of EN 1176 covers playground equipment for all children. It has been prepared with full recognition of the need for supervision of young children and of less able or less competent children.

"This part" in the above refers to EN 1176-1.

[1]: https://nobelcert.com/DataFiles/FreeUpload/EN%201176-1%20(20...

[lukan]

"The aim of this standard is first and foremost to prevent accidents with a disabling or fatal consequence, and secondly to lessen serious consequences caused by the occasional mishap that inevitably will occur in children's pursuit of expanding their level of competence, be it socially, intellectually or physically."

Sounds very reasonable to me, with no unrealistic goals. I think we should be careful to not argue about semantics ... my point above was just about the absolut statement of "no risk of permanent injury should a kid fall from the top". The way you written it (I did not follow the link) - it said 100% safe. If you meant "very close to 100%", what is what people usually do with natural language, then there is no disagreement.

[magicalhippo]

> what is what people usually do with natural language

Well I did write it using using natural language and not a programming language, so that can be taken as a given.

[lukan]

Ah, but we are also on a pedantic nerd site here, with many people wishing for more accuracy in common language..

And formal language for regulations are also not natural language and accuracy matters there, so I assumed the quote above from your friend was more in this style. Let's leave it at that :)

[woliveirajr]

> Young parents who assume, that the playground is totally safe, so they let then children do really risky things without realizing the danger

Some parents just want to let the kids loose on the playground and then {do something} completely absorbed from reality, without raising the eyes and taking a look.

[lukan]

Yes, me too sometimes. But only after I verified, that my children are comfortable with the scenario (on a new playground, we have not been before).

But what I meant was for example parents encouraging their toddlers to do unsave stuff. Like riding down a steep slide, where they could fall off left or right from it. (And some toddlers apparently did fall out - because now there is no more slide, it really wasn't a safe toy for all kids, but slightly older kids 3+, could ride it without problems).

I spoke to some of those parents and they really were not aware of the dangers, they just assumed a slide is made save for all kids. And they were thankful for the warning.