Hacker News Reader

Comment by GlibMonkeyDeath | Hacker News Reader

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/pennsylvania-girls-10...

"The borough also says visitors encounter its "Play Smart Rules" when entering the park, including a specific instruction: "Do not twist chains.""

So the town buys crappy swings, knowing full well that kids are going to spin them (who hasn't done this a million times as a kid?) Then they slap up a sign telling the kids not to do that. Basically entrapment.

Here's an idea for them: maybe the town shouldn't cheap out on unsafe equipment for children...

View on HN

My company makes dangerous equipment like lawn mowers. Because of this, I have to go through training on how to design equipment to be safe.

And the rule is very clear. If there is any possibility of an issue, you need to redesign it so the problem can't happen, you need to put gaurds in place so the problem can't happen, or only if those two fail, are you allowed to put up a warning sign. That is an ordered list so if anything is possible in the previous step you cannot go to the next.

In this case a chain that can take twisting is obvious and so the sign won't protect them from liability should someone get hurt from twisting the chains.

You're both right. What you're describing is liability. A warning does not guarantee safety from liability suits, that's why the other options are preferable (only being a Chinese or outside-of-the-west manufacturer guarantees safety from liability suit).

But the problem with twisting chains is that it needs a warning.

And so both putting in the law, and arresting the kid, are a way to protect the borough, a government organization, from liability when something goes wrong.

Decent swing chains $250. Mass surveillance recurring cost of $5000/mo. Someone please help me budget this, I'm dying.

If the town feels that arresting children is a good use of public money they that's their right. At some point the citizens have to actually care about how their town operates if they want it to get better. Most townspeople care about UX as much as f2p mobile shovelware developers.

> If the town feels that arresting children is a good use of public money they that's their right.

TF? Doesn't your country have a Constitution?

Does your country have a constitution that explicitly handles this scenario?

Of a government body deciding to go around arresting people for no reason? Yes.

As a reminder - if you put an unsafe swing on your property and just had a sign as the only thing stopping it from injuring a child and a child got injured, you'd be automatically liable under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com