Why Safe Kids Are Becoming Fat Kids | Hacker News Reader

Why Safe Kids Are Becoming Fat Kids

online.wsj.com

40 pointspg51 comments

I grew up in Bulgaria. We now live in USA, and have a baby.

Well, I'm just wondering where the hell, he's going to play.

When I was a kid, we were playing soccer on the street, or in between the blocks, throwing stones at other kids, fighting with plastic/wood swords, driving self-mad woodcars, and everyday I was with a scratch, or I dunno what else.

Even earlier when I was 4, me and my cousing, just an year older than me, somehow decided that we need one of our toys that was left in the other part of the city, so we just took off (I'm not sure what's the distance - but it was in the 5km-10km range) and started walking... Everybody got scared, family, etc. But it was fun story anyway...

This all was up till 8th grade, when I started programming, once that started, I kind of lost interrest in playing outside, it was just the Apple ][, my friend's Oric, and my other's friend PC.

Well I certainly want my kid to play for free, hopefully there are some parks around, but the whole society is a bit too much afraid. Yes, I know - sexual predators, kidnappers, yada, yada - it's a little 1984 that we us parents create though, for our own safety (so our mind is always safe).

Get a house with a decent-sized yard. Make your own playground. Get your kid and the neighbors' kids involved in helping build it. A seesaw is a one-by-eight, a triangular block, and a pair of hinges. A swing is a tire and a rope or a plank and two ropes.

So he can get sued by the other parents when something happens?

This is the most depressing comment I've ever read on this site. Where do I even begin?

1. Anybody can sue anybody over damn near anything. This has always been so. It is not a recent development.

2. Getting sued does not mean the apocalypse. Judges have three-figure IQs. They know a frivilous lawsuit when they see one and will award attorney's fees to the defendant.

3. The risk of serious injury is minimal. Little Johnny's parents aren't going to sue because he scraped his knee. The worst injury with any probability high enough to be worth expending any gray matter on considering it is a broken bone. Bones heal.

Looks like an 'attractive nuisance' situation to me, if you're not careful about it (such as limiting access), but I'm not a lawyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance

Fence your yard. Get liability insurance as part of your homeowner's insurance. It's relatively cheap and you should have it anyway.

Live in a more rural area. Buy a place with a big yard.

Cities don't seem very conducive to families. I think once you reach a certain mass of people, the worry-warts take over and take all the fun out of everything. In my experience, for what it's worth, more rural areas usually foster more fun play for the kids. Plus more rural settings encourage kids to use their imaginations to create fun play, which is sadly lacking today.

Live in a more rural area. Buy a place with a big yard.

That buys you isolation, not freedom.

There are many days when what I really want is freedom from other peoples' presence.

"40 acres and a high-speed internet connection"

I grew up in rural area and it was boring. There wasn't much to do beyond climbing trees and catching lizards. Not recommended.

I said the same thing to my folks when growing up, and I heard it from my kids.

These were the same kids who not only climbed trees, but built model rockets, swam in the pond, got their ham radio license, learned to ride in the bed of a pickup truck without falling out, went hiking every week, learned to write their own programs because they were "so bored", built dams in the creek, cleared brush and built huge bonfires on the weekends, went on field trips all over the eastern seaboard with various community groups, etc.

Yep. Nothing to do.

> worry-warts take over and take all the fun out of everything.

What an intriguing thing to say. Many people I've spoken to claim that all the fun is in the city. I guess it's a kind of caged, packaged fun.

How old are the people claiming all the fun is in the city?

If you are in your 20s, living in a city is where all the other people your age are. Cities are where they work, and therefore where they play. That's where you can find other people your age to play softball or soccer or even dodgeball or 4-square. It's where you have a selection of quality, live entertainment any weekend you want and go out dancing afterwards. It's where you can make friends and stay active.

But the resulting traffic of adults doing things makes it difficult for children to find room to play and explore. They can still do it, but it's more dangerous and less rewarding. That's where the 'worry-warts' come in.

Ah, that's right. People I spoke to were early 20s. Nevertheless, it still seems like the "pre-packaged fun" idea holds, as in, when they talked about "fun" it meant "something pleasurable that involves minimal effort"... unless you are actually playing softball in the city. My feeling is that location makes little difference, as long as it's passive consumption.

If it's about kids, then, I would assume that the parents are actively thinking about what activities are beneficial, and to a great extent, encouraging the kids to participate actively themselves.

Let's say that a township little league wants to put its foot down and take the stance that there's no way they'll ban sliding into bases, as that's not baseball, and as a result it just isn't American.

The insurance company says that for the little league to get insurance it's going to cost twice as much if they allow sliding. Hence the little league has no choice but the pass on the cost of participation to the parents of the kids in the league. Or...the kids won't ever know what it's like to slide into a base. What an unfortunate situation.

The rising costs of insurance are preventing children from getting enough exercise, and hence leading to health problems in the future costing the insurance companies more money in health related payouts. If this is the case, then they should be able to offset any short term liability payouts by the long term gains of a healthier society.

One of my friends was in a full body cast for about four months because when he was in sixth grade someone slid into him while playing baseball and broke one of his legs and his pelvis. My little brother also broke his leg when someone slid into him. Neither has any persisting problems, but a lot of kids do. I have a friend whose legs are different lengths because she stepped in a hole while playing soccer and fractured her growth plates.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the article, but also realize that their argument is a straw man. Of course playground equipment that has the potential to give one a scrape or a bruise is good, assuming your kid is one of the ones who gets a scrape or a bruise. If your kid is one of the ones who dies or develops some lifelong problem then it's a different story.

Perhaps a lifelong problem like heart disease, diabetes, or stroke?

Seriously. How far do we take it? I knew a kid once who broke his little finger playing "Speed Uno". Is that too dangerous? Maybe the kids should all walk while playing soccer. There is a point somewhere, before the absurdity of tort law forces us all into padded rooms, where it doesn't matter anyway. Our bodies are safe but we've all ceased to live.

How far do "we" take it? Who are "we" to parent other people's kids?

Ultimately it's up to the parents of the individual kids to decide how far _they_ take it with their individual kids. Parents have different parenting philosophies. And that's good--experimentation and variety is what leads to learning and understanding what works.

Ultimately it's up to the parents of the individual kids to decide how far _they_ take it with their individual kids.

Unfortunately a lot of busybodies disagree with you.

"it's up to the parents of the individual kids to decide how far _they_ take it with their individual kids."

How would you handle situations like sliding in baseball, where the kid who bears the greatest risk of injury isn't the one who slides into the base but rather the one whose getting slid into?

"The rising costs of insurance are preventing children from getting enough exercise, and hence leading to health problems in the future costing the insurance companies more money in health related payouts. If this is the case, then they should be able to offset any short term liability payouts by the long term gains of a healthier society."

I think the insurance companies will simply adjust their prices upward to compensate.

If you want an insurance company to charge less to insure an activity, make that activity cheaper.

If you think that insurance companies are overstating risk, put your money up and price that risk "correctly". If you're correct, you'll get rich and they'll either adopt your methods or go out of biz.

We're talking about liability insurance, not health insurance. The root problem here is tort law, not accident statistics.

> We're talking about liability insurance, not health insurance. The root problem here is tort law, not accident statistics.

Which is why I wrote

>> If you want an insurance company to charge less to insure an activity, make that activity cheaper.

Tort law is part of the cost of an activity.

This isn't true at all - little leagues don't buy insurance, they have the parents sign a piece of paper that says that the league isn't liable for any injuries. The banning of base sliding is the result of aggressive safety obsessed parents, like the one in the article who complained about hot rubber playground mats.

In fact, the rule is in the older leagues (11 yo and up) that you must slide in order to avoid a collision. If a kid doesn't slide into a base and a play is attempted there, he or she is out by rule.

The no-slide issue is really a developmental issue. At very young ages, (levels, really), there is no sliding. But as the kids advance, they are able to slide (by 11 or 12 years old). The point is, they have to be taught (1) how to slide safely, and (2) how to cover a bag safely in a slide.

"... Why Safe Kids Are Becoming Fat Kids ..."

There was another thread on a similar theme that is important ...

"... 'Risk-taking increases the resilience of children,' said one. 'It helps them make judgments,' said another. Some of those interviewed blamed the 'cotton wool' culture for the fact that today's children were playing it too safe ..." ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=267048

I'd agree with that. One of the problems with not letting people try things is they have no real gauge on what is dangerous and what is not. So they tend to over react to things that are not dangerous and underestimate the danger when it really exists. I added more here ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=268065

My conclusions still hold ... "There is a downside though. If you do make a mistake there is a pretty good chance you will get injured. If you don't, you will fail to build up the store of experiences that you can call on in the future" ~ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/2730793708/

Having overprotective parents growing up in the burbs sucks. You grow up not feeling real. You grow up with this instinctive sense that you're missing something vital. I didn't know I was allowed by the universe to do anything that was messy, organic, or risky. I grew up with the idea that it wasn't for me: That I'd never dance so that someone would want to dance with me, or play music so someone would listen to me for a reason other than politeness, or kiss a girl, or do anything that couldn't be explained entirely in rational terms. I had to claim all that for myself, somehow in spite of my best judgment that it wasn't meant for me. It's a good thing that hormones make teenagers crazy. If I had been sane, I would've just quietly gone through all the motions, and accepted the overwhelming evidence that fate hadn't meant for me to really live.

Oh, wait, is this Hacker News or MySpace?

Incidentally, there's not a lot of evidence that the "hormones make teenagers crazy" theory is anything but nonsense. What we do know is that modern teenagers appear to "go crazy" -- for reasons that you seem to understand perfectly well -- and that the polite way to talk about that is to claim that it's "hormones", because the alternative explanation ("many young adults would rather risk death than be isolated and imprisoned in a handful of 'safe' suburban buildings") is way, way too candid.

It's hard to explain teenage craziness on hormones when other culture's teens don't go crazy with hormones.

I always thought the craziness was just better channeled by other cultures.

That's possible, but part of the "craziness" is intentionally choosing things that are destructive and anti-social.

The premise of the article is a bit far fetched. Kids aren't fat because our culture is safety obsessed. They are fat because Grand Theft Auto is more fun than little league or hanging from monkey bars. The riskier playground equipment of yesteryear does not stand a chance against thousands of computer games designed specifically to hold kids' attentions for long periods of time.

They are fat because Grand Theft Auto is more fun than little league

especially when the coaches are so obsessed with winning that the best kids always play the most fun and interesting positions, and the not-so-great kids sit on the bench an unfair amount of time

Grand Theft Auto is more fun than little league or hanging from monkey bars.

Is it really though? When I was a kid at least, video games were great fun. But my bicycle was too. And swimming. And exploring the woods behind my friends' house. I think there's a confounding factor in the case of "kids are playing more video games" other than "video games are more fun."

I miss monkey bars and swing sets. :(

Some schools have banned tag. Broward County, Fla., banned running at recess. Little Leagues forbid sliding into base. Some towns ban sledding. High diving boards are history, and it's only a matter of time before all diving boards disappear.

Is this sarcasm or is it real?

That's the scariest part, what surely would have once been a joke is now all too real.

It looks like the inmates have won. They are now running the asylum.

The Peter Principle at work, my friend.

Whew! There is good news after all. Sure looks like my childhood pool still has its high dives:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&i...

Little League is structured play to begin with. There's a lot that is fun, valuable, and risky about baseball without worrying about a rule meant to protect kids from trying things they aren't ready for yet-- breaking wrists and ankles in the process. It's not stopping kids from learning to slide on their own if they want.

That other stuff seems pretty dumb, though.

Just a follow-up, the author should check his source. Little League actually requires sliding.

No, it's not because of a "safety craze," and the WSJ article never really goes out of its way to prove its point. Kids are fat, unhealthy, etc. because their parents feed them pure shit and are too lazy to move them away from the TV or whatever other sedentary activity they're involved in. In moderation, these things aren't very harmful, but if it's all you know, you're in trouble.

I always thought "proper-safety" was uttered with bullshitty intentions.

It always pleases me when I read articles like this one. The mere fact that the problem is being talked about with any regularity means that the pendulum is likely to start swinging back toward sanity. (By the way, I grew up in Broward County and attended the elementary school that pioneered banning running during recess.)

Scarier than the playground bans was this line from the article;

>There's only one solution. Someone on behalf of society >must be authorized to make these choices. Courts must >honor those decisions. Otherwise, the pious accusations >of safety fanatics, empowered by the nearly universal >fear of being sued, will guarantee a cultural spiral >downwards toward the lowest common denominator.

Someone "authorized to make these choices" that the courts can't overrule (i.e. must "honor) is a pretty good definition of a dictator.

I suppose this guy is right that if individual rights and property rights are off the table then dictatorship is the only answer. Let's start with a playground dictator to get people used to the idea.

There is no such thing as being 100% safe. Gotta let them go out and do their thing.

Fun police......one time I was at an amusement park and the laser tag employees would kick you out if you ran.....imagine teenagers walking after each other with laser guns. It was pretty much the most ridiculous thing ever.

Hey this is an interesting article and the premise kinda sort maybe makes sense to me, but the article itself makes the assertion that increased safety is creating fatter kids without making even the lamest attempt at proving a causal relationship. Correlation != causation, and in such an audacious claim in particular, especially for an article published in WSJ, that is utterly irresponsible.

Penn & Teller just did an episode of Bullshit! on a related subject, parents who are paranoid that their kids might get abducted. See

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/previous_episodes.do?episodeid=...

The episode is widely available over bittorrent as well.

Excellent message - the safe path is the truly dangerous one. Challenge leads to growth and growth staves off the true dangers of passivity and stagnation that bog us in the deepest of physical and intellectual mires.

And thus, we have java?

(Well, and Haskell.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com