The Surprisingly Scientific Roots of Monkey Bars | Hacker News Reader

The Surprisingly Scientific Roots of Monkey Bars

smithsonianmag.com

51 pointsAmorymeltzer36 comments

While the monkey bars/climbing frame provided exercise and adventure in my elementary school playground, there was also this rotating hoop called a witch's hat which taught early lessons in conservation of momentum and unbalanced mass rotation.

I still remember the ringing sound of steel as someone on the opposite side lost their grip and was flung outwards, causing the person on the opposite side to crash into the pole.

See slide 15 for an illustration: https://honey.nine.com.au/parenting/retro-dangerous-playgrou...

Example: https://everwas.com/2009/11/old-school-playground/

> there was also this rotating hoop called a witch's hat which taught early lessons in conservation of momentum and unbalanced mass rotation.

I loved that thing. Back in kindergarten we'd get the young student teachers to spin us as fast as they could and then the brazen of us would let go for our first experiences with flight. I'm incredibly grateful to have been part of the last class at Edwards Elementary that had access to that deathtrap, it was removed at the end of that year.

Hell, thinking about it now makes me want to weld up an adult version for my friends and I. Though, I think our increased mass might limit our fun; it'd probably "good" idea to power the rotation.

Every playground in the largely "health and safety"-free UK had those, until about the late 1980s when they all seemed to get cut away and scrapped almost simultaneously. While technically it's not actually illegal to crush small children with 300kg of scaff poles and keyclamps, it turns out that it *is* in fact frowned upon, and some sort of rule was introduced.

Well, there was also (at least here in Italy) what I call the great pavement revolution.

In the old times these structures were installed everywhere, if you were lucky it was grass or dirt, but gravel, concrete or asphalt were all common (roughly in ascending order of seriousness of bruises[1]).

Then, around the late '90's came out some new norms that imposed soft pavements and playgrounds were updated with these new floors (and new structures), UNI/BS EN 1176 and 1177.

[1] personally I have very few photos as a kid without one or both knees bruised, though riding the bycicle was another common cause

In the UK, what the article keeps calling "monkey bars" we call a "climbing frame" (a "jungle gym" in the USA). What we call "monkey bars" are specifically the horizontal ladder you traverse by swinging and hanging from arm to arm.

Wikipedia suggests that it is an australian thing to call the whole frame monkey bars, yet I understood the smithsonian is a US institution?

Definitely an Australian thing. They used to be everywhere. RIP.

Grew up in the USA. I agree with your definition of monkey bars as the horizontal ladder you traverse using your hands to grip and swing to the next.

Same (New England, if US regions matter).

Also, I haven't seen a new piece of classical metal jungle gym installed in a while. New climbing structures here are either geodesic rope contraptions or elaborate monkey bars. I think it's following the trend of aggressive risk reduction in playgrounds as the ropes probably absorb falls better.

On new-ish playgrounds, the “ropes” are a sheathed in fiber/nylon, but there is typically steel cable in the center to reduce stretching (stretching being a common safety issue for various reasons). I learned this after making a poorly considered leap playing with my son and scraping the ever living hell out of my shins/causing a bone bruise. The sheath also increases grip relative to (painted) steel bars.

I was in elementary school in Detroit (a city in the US) during the 1950's and the only name I ever heard used for that ubiquitous playground device was "monkey bars". I really enjoyed them as a kid.

North east US. We called the horizontal ladder monkey bars, and the bigger metal climbing apparatus jungle gyms.

Same in Canada

> in part because monkey bars result in more injuries than any other playground structure.

I argue it is the opposite, like immunity, mild injuries prepare the young to recognize and deal with danger. As a parent myself, I never want to shield my children from all danger, only those severe one.

When I get nervous from what my kid is doing and feel an urge to tell him to stop, I try to ask myself "what's the worst that could happen". If the answer is "break a bone", I try to stop myself from saying anything. Though I'll still subtly maneuver myself into catching position.

At the zoo near us there's a really great climbing structure. It's three stories tall. I overheard a dad there tell another dad "I used to get really nervous when I watch my kids play on this. So I decided to stop watching them."

You definitely have higher tolerance. I was trying to not have my children's bone broken. But as sister comment pointed out, maybe I should stop watching them climb too

I prefer for him to not break bones. If an activity is 50% likely to involve bone-breaking, I'll step in. But if that really is the worst that could happen, and is unlikely to do so, then I'll try not to.

Thanks for sharing. I'm stealing your mentality from now on :)

Thank you! At the end of the day, you have to raise your children in a way that's comfortable to you. Even if there were a scientifically "correct" template for raising every child, your own discomfort will shine through if it just doesn't work for you personally, and they'll pick up on that.

I take comfort in knowing that humans have been raising humans for a million years, and it usually works out alright. That must mean our own instincts are mostly good enough.

Also want to point out what another commenter mentioned; technically anything that can break a bone can do more damage than that.

Not that I disagree with your overall philosophy, but I just want to point out that anything that provides enough force to break a bone provides enough force to kill you if you don't land well. Perhaps some training in how to fall would be valuable too.

You're right, and every situation has nuance we can only intuit. Ultimately, I believe active play is important for his well-being, just like it's important that I take him places even if that involves a potentially lethal bicycle ride next to car traffic.

Of course, if anything terrible were ever to happen, I'll probably beat myself up over it and be certain I took too many unnecessary risks. Those are the odds we play for ourselves and our loved ones every day.

I keep repeating to myself that developing brains learn physics one ouchy at a time.

Last month the lesson was momentum, this month it is gravity.

I'm genuinely curious, how common were lifelong injuries from unsafe playgrounds? I'm 32, and even the structures I had as a kid are now gone. And those were tame compared to what my parents had. Yet I can't think of anyone that had serious injuries from them. In comparison, I know multiple people that have lifelong injuries they will never fully recover from drunk driving.

Weird comparison. Nobody is supporting drunk driving.

No, but it nicely illustrates the contrast between serious dangers we all end up facing and the relatively minor (and likely useful/educational) dangers posed by play structures.

People do have some degree of lifelong injuries from high school football though at around the same age.

I wonder if monkey bars worsen that kind of thing be creating a culture of risk acceptance, making it socially awkward to say "No i won't climb that, no I won't lift that with no hand truck, and I'm certainly not joining the football team".

Rather than teaching people how to manage risk, could it be teaching people TO manage risk as opposed to just rejecting it entirely if it's not necessary?

There is a movement to put back "dangerous" playgrounds. The idea is to let kids hurt themselves, but without permanent injuries or death.

So, for example bruises are ok, broken bones are tolerated if it is a rare occurrence, getting impaled is definitely not ok, so you can build a platform you can fall from, but if it is high enough, put something to break the fall, and make absolutely sure there can't be a sharp stick in the way. Minor cuts and splinters are ok, so you can use rough materials, but chopped off fingers are not, so be very careful with mechanisms.

The science checks out. Children of overprotective parents tend to live less:

https://neurosciencenews.com/overprotective-parents-child-lo...

If you can bring your kids(s) to a climbing/boulder gym, these things are magic for the body, it's cardio/strength/flexibility training at the same time, teaches you balance, grip strength, how to fall without injuries.

We're still apes, hanging has a very long list of benefits on the body, especially for most of use spending all day sitting.

And not to forget: It is a lot of fun.

I learned from a sign at a local park that “brachiating” is the verb to describe using arms to swing from branch to branch.

Spotted the same sign perhaps. Someone was having fun when they designed that sign, I can’t imagine how many quick google searches it has spawned.

Also tangentially reminds me of this poorly implemented keyword search/foot gun in Microsoft Publisher 98 from 24 years ago that ended up with Microsoft being sued for racism: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-sued-for-racist-appl...

That's great, because when searching Google for "monkey bars" the first image that comes up has a black child:

https://www.google.com/search?q=monkey+bars&tbm=isch

I must not be getting the same result. None of the top results show the same for me.

Neither am I, now.

I wonder if this is a fluke, or if someone intervened manually. I was definitely getting the result consistently as I was testing which parameters I could remove from the URL and still get the Google Images page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com