
New Zealand school tossed its playground rules - cardamomo
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/21/when-one-new-zealand-school-tossed-its-playground-rules-and-let-students-risk-injury-the-results-surprised/
======
forgottenpaswrd
Am I the only one that looking at what the kids are doing in the pictures
consider it totally normal?

In Spain we used to do way more dangerous things than those.

And it was risky, one of our friends died in the river jumping over a slippery
stone and hitting his neck with a stone while falling backwards. I have to say
he was pretty nuts and was in constant danger everywhere.

Another friend is in wheelchair after jumping badly from a big 20 meters high
rock to the Mediterranean sea. We all jumped the rock. It was funny, but you
need to know what you are doing.

But those are two cases over hundreds of people I knew well over my life.

We learned to do bunny hops and do jumps and go downhill. Skiing over rocks
outside official circuit.

You leaned early on how to manage risks and how to say no when your friends
want you into doing stupid things(or you are not skilled enough for the task).
I really appreciate those memories(and continue doing risky things like BASE
jumping).

I have to say that my friends doing risky things now that we are adults never
had significant problems. They became experts managing risk and some of them
even teach it.

So in my opinion total freedom has its drawbacks and is not a pie in the Sky,
but it is worth it.

~~~
madaxe_again
Yeah, times have changed.

I went to school in the UK, Germany, Hong Kong, Chicago - mostly boarding
school in the UK.

When I was a kid (5-13), our principal form of entertainment was "go outside,
do whatever". This usually entailed building fortresses out of junk, which
usually involved deep excavations, traps that could actually kill (sash
weights suspended in a tree, with tripwires, anyone?), and construction high
up fir trees with "found" supplies. We used to go boating (on this neat lake
full of totally lethal floating islands of rotted vegetation), unattended, and
nobody thought anything of us taking a pile of unexploded mortars from the
school fireworks show and sticking them in a bonfire. 7 year olds. Smart
enough to know to run like hell and lie behind a dip in the land.

People got hurt all the time, with everything from broken bones to cuts and
grazes to the occasional airgun pellet in an unfortunate place. The school
matron was a very busy woman.

Once a year, the school had an organised "paddock war", in which everyone
would arm themselves with whatever they could lay their hands on (cricket
bats, improvised clubs, slingshots, etc.), and go beat each other senseless.
Not sure this is quite the same picture, but it was a very effective way to
get the pent-up aggression of 250 7-13 year old boys out in a single sitting,
and not something that would happen today.

The headmaster, an old submarine captain, used to take a group of the older
(10+) boys out on a ramble into the woods, always to a new spot, and would
then just either leave us there, with our task being to get all of us back
unscathed, or play hunter-killer games. Retrospectively I have a feeling he
was actually sneaking off to have a drink in the woods, but it was a great
experience.

Every single person with whom I played at that school is an entrepreneur.
Every single one takes risks, wins, loses, and while their weltanschauungs
vary hugely, from liberal to authoritarian to conservative to socialist,
there's a common thread of willingness to try anything - that anything can be
done - so long as one is willing to attempt it.

The same school is now co-ed (no bad thing, but has been used as the "reason"
for change) and has done away with the outdoor play, having replaced it with a
sterile, monitored, playground.

And we wonder why people are increasingly sheltered and closeted, with
increasingly small worlds, with increasingly small sets of symbols with which
to associate, and increasingly small ranges of thought.

We took away childhood and replaced it with a life of infantilism.

~~~
watwut
"Every single person with whom I played at that school is an entrepreneur. "

That one is more about you and your selection of friends. Your whole
generation is not composed of entrepreneurs although they all played freely.

~~~
madaxe_again
To a degree, true, although what wasn't clear from the above, admittedly, was
that I'm a child of the 80's. I was fortunate to go to a school during those
precious formative years in the late 80's/early 90's which refused to comply
with the growing culture of pandering to parents' irrational media-driven
fears. I didn't select my classmates!

Most of my generation did not play freely. I would go home from school
holidays and attempt to muster neighbours/random local kids/friends into going
for an explore/insane expedition into the local wasteland/abandoned
buildings/woods/caves/whatever. Very few takers, and my mother got no end of
"your child is a ne'er-do-well trying to lead my Johnny astray".

------
mattchamb
Before people say that this school will get sued, it is useful to know that
this school is in New Zealand.

Because of the way our healthcare system works, we cannot sue for personal
injury here [1].

>Because of the wide range of help available from ACC after an injury, you
can’t sue for personal injury in New Zealand, except for exemplary damages.
This applies to overseas tourists too.

[1] [http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-
acc/introduction-...](http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/overview-of-
acc/introduction-to-acc/)

~~~
patrickdavey
ACC is possibly the best thing about NZ, and most surprising. For example, you
can go hiking (tramping as they call it here), fall down, break a leg... and
ACC will fly out a helicopter to get you, bring you to the hospital, patch you
up and send you on your way. All at no cost to you. As OP said, this counts
for anyone on NZ soil, regardless of nationality. Keeps lawyers at bay. It's
great.

I know of friends in the US who don't go mountain biking etc. because they're
between jobs and can't afford the potential hospital bills. That is simply
sad.

~~~
aunty_helen
'All at no cost to you.' Really? the 400$ a year I pay for my motorbike rego
that goes straight to ACC is no cost to me?

(I do think it's a pretty good system however)

~~~
alongenemylines
Compare that to the thousands of dollars an average medical plan in the US
costs - and we still have to pay out of pocket for many medical expenses too!

I'd much rather pay $400 a year.

~~~
aunty_helen
The 400$ only covers the use of a bike. There's also 0.95% of you salary taxed
for workplace injuries and 1.26% for non-work injuries. Then there's car
registration which is about 200$/yr and a tax added to petrol which comes
included in the $/Litre cost (they put the figure at 330$/yr). 2600$ is a
rough estimate of my ACC levies paid each year. I think there's also some
portion of cigarettes and booze that goes to ACC as well.

One of the negatives is that when you're in need of an operation but it's not
immediately life threatening you're prioritised and end up on a wait list
which could be several years long.

A bit off topic, but there are definitely good and bad aspects to both
systems.

[http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/levies/current-years-levy-
rat...](http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/levies/current-years-levy-
rates/index.htm)

------
joshfraser
A great book on this topic is How to Live Dangerously by Warwick Cairns. He
tells the story of a school in Norway that conducted a similar playground
experiment. In that study, they had two playgrounds -- a "safe one" with
rubberized mats and chaperones keeping a watchful eye and a "dangerous" one
with tall structures, concrete, piles of wood, metal poles and no adult
supervision at all. Within a couple days, several kids in the dangerous
playground had broken limbs or had minor scrapes, but they continued the
experiment. Within a couple weeks, the injuries had subsided and the kids in
the dangerous playground were exhibiting all sorts of positive behavior.
Compared to the "safe" playground, these children were happier, healthier, and
more socially developed and getting along better with each other.

I did all sorts of crazy stuff growing up. I'm thankful I had parents who gave
me a large radius to roam and didn't freak out (too much) when they had to
drive me to the emergency room on occasion. The radius for which kids are
allowed to play outside has been shrinking dramatically over the past few
years. Humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment. We're more worried about
child abductions than childhood obesity. Statistically speaking, only one of
those is a real issue today.

~~~
pavanred
I read this article [1] just a few days ago about how kids are over protected
now. It also includes the Swanson Primary School story too. An excerpt
"...I’ve mostly met children who take it for granted that they are always
being watched..." struck me, it definitely was not like that while I was
growing up.

Besides, is there a time line for the Swanson Primary School story? The
article I linked to mentions this as an experiment conducted in 2011. If this
is true, I would love to know how it has progressed since.

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-
pare...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents-
leave-those-kids-alone/358631/)

~~~
joshfraser
Thanks for sharing that link. This paragraph in particular jumped out at me in
regards to all the efforts that have been made to rubber surface everything:

We might accept a few more phobias in our children in exchange for fewer
injuries. But the final irony is that our close attention to safety has not in
fact made a tremendous difference in the number of accidents children have.
According to the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which
monitors hospital visits, the frequency of emergency-room visits related to
playground equipment, including home equipment, in 1980 was 156,000, or one
visit per 1,452 Americans. In 2012, it was 271,475, or one per 1,156
Americans.

~~~
velik_m
That is 20% drop in injuries.

EDIT: it's actually a 25% increase as ebrenes correctly pointed out. Server me
right for trying to do math early in the morning...

~~~
ebrenes
No, it's not. That's one injury per population amount, so the lower the second
number the less people you "need" to get one injury.

Assuming a fixed population size of 1 million, given the 1980 prevalence of
injuries you'd expect about ~689 injuries. With the 2012 prevalence of
injuries you'd expect about ~865 injuries. So it's actually an increase, not a
drop.

------
contingencies
I usually live an Asia and often tell local people that the great play
equipment available to children there would be disallowed in parts of the west
(eg. my native Australia) due to health and safety concerns, generally as a
result of mandatory insurance and greedy insurance companies.

No longer are swings and see-saws available! Instead, you get _a padded piece
of artificial plas-floor with a carefully rounded_ (so when your kid falls on
it, they won't bleed - just pass out) _, mid-height_ (so you can't claim you
didn't see it, but it's not high enough to fall off) _not-thing_ (so you can
claim it was custom designed for safety) _in funkified ultra-hue_ (so it's
easy to see and you can't claim it was a dangerous obstruction when your kid
falls over it and knocks their teeth out).

As a result, we are failing to teach our children to cope with the real world.

~~~
mirsadm
I'm from Australia as well. I lived in Canada for a while and we use to joke
that when there was snow there'd be signs saying you can't play in the snow.

~~~
bigfoot13442
Canadian parent here. You are absolutely right and it's ridiculous. Kids are
extremely sheltered these days and it's ruining them. I find the problem is
that there always needs to be someone to blame. Well, sometimes kids just do
things that get them hurt. It's part of growing up.

If you don't know what it feels like to fly down a ice covered hill on a piece
of plastic, hit a jump, and run smack into another kid, you did not have a
proper Canadian childhood.

~~~
bane
American here, I've been run over by guys on skis more than once at the local
sledding hill growing up. My favorite sled was literally a rolled up piece of
stiff plastic...fastest thing on the hill and I routinely had other kids
wanting a ride.

------
bfell
This is my favorite quote from the article: “I’ve been the principal who’s
stood there and said ‘Oy, kid! Get off your bike! You’ve got to walk your
bike!’ Then I’d go away and think ‘Why the hell did I say that?’”

~~~
cardamomo
As a teacher in an after-school program myself, I find myself thinking this or
something similar nearly every day.

What upsets me is that more often than not, the answer to "Why the hell did I
say that?" is not the children's safety, it's that it's what I'm expected to
say or that I want to look responsible around other teachers or parents.

The fact is, a principal is in a far better position than a teacher to change
a school's culture, and indeed, a cultural shift is what is necessary for kids
to have greater freedom on playgrounds. As a teacher, I have to weigh not only
what I value (kids' freedom and developing understanding of social/physical
interactions) but also what the school (administration and other teachers) and
parents value.

------
lnlyplnt
This reminds me of this article in The Atlantic:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-
pare...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents-
leave-those-kids-alone/358631/) We might finally have some reversion from this
awful "safety" obsessed parenting trend.

~~~
cardamomo
Great article. A key quote that the editors highlight: “Reasonable risks are
essential for children’s healthy development." As a teacher, I want kids to
ask questions, explore, and inquire in the classroom. Why shouldn't this
extend to physical and social exploration on the playground? It strikes me
that in most Western culture, we reward risktaking behaviors in academic and
business environments, so why should we devalue it in in childhood
recreational environments?

------
bitwize
When I was in elementary school, much of the playground was built out of old
car, truck, and tractor tires. There were conventional swings and slides, but
there was also a tractor-tire tower to defend, a couple of car-tire geodesic-
sphere-like structures, and other such wonders but the jewel was TireTown, a
fortress built out of tires with tire bridges connecting to two smaller
structures. TireTown was easily two meters high, and an agile kid could easily
climb onto the roof and slide down one of the provided poles.

All of this was done with materials to hand, not safety-certified foam and
plastic, although many of the tires were glued fast together for greater
structural support. Nobody batted an eyelash. Nobody complained. This was the
1980s, which I still think of as being not that long ago, but compared to
today we had it much better off. Just to be certain, and doubtful that
something as wonderful as TireTown would be permitted by today's standards, I
checked the satellite images of my old elementary school.

All the tire structures -- completely gone. And the playground area seems a
lot smaller than I remembered it...

~~~
krrrh
This sounds exactly like my elementary school playground in Alberta (so much
so I had to wonder if we went to the same school, but then I imagine there
were photostated plans for getting a playground up quick with old tires and
chains that made the rounds in those days). Everything in Canada has gotten
way too safe. In Germany however, they've still got a lot of downright
expressionist playgrounds. This ladder I witnessed the other day for instance.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkBRTfXIIAAXWH3.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkBRTfXIIAAXWH3.jpg)

~~~
fnbr
Not Belgravia, by any chance? We had the same thing at my elementary school in
Edmonton!

~~~
krrrh
It was in Leduc actually. I'd like to think that enterprising Albertan tire
recycling firm figured out how to make a side business in playgrounds and that
these were everywhere.

------
girvo
Man... I'm only 23, and I grew up in New Zealand. This is really cool, but I
think the parents are the main factor that needs to be dealt with regarding
this general idea.

When I was 8, my dad and I built a wood + iron motorised go-kart, and then I
drove it all around ours (and the next-door neighbours) property. I crashed
hard, broke my arm... and it was _awesome_. I'm still into high-octane risk-
taking fun (I'm currently working getting my solo jump license yay), but I do
it as safely as possible.

I think learning risk-management is a key thing that kids are missing. I was
lucky to have parents that pushed me out of my comfort zone into doing cool
stuff (I trained in Taekwondo for 12 years, including 6 months in Busan, South
Korea, and got my 16 year old ass kicked for the entire 6 months) -- my
brothers also have grown up well adjusted to dealing with risk and excitement
and danger. But others I know in my generation and below are afraid of risk,
afraid of danger, and I think that's a shame...

~~~
NamTaf
> I think learning risk-management is a key thing that kids are missing.

I agree completely. Call it 'common sense', 'street smarts,' whatever. It's
having the nous to think through what you're about to do and judge whether
you're at risk of ending up in trouble, and it starts with learning the hard
way that the branch you're about to stand on to climb up the tree is woefully
rotted and is about to give way under you. You can't teach this stuff in
classrooms, either. It's really something that has to be learned through
running across a slippery piece of ground and falling over.

I still remember back when I was 6, I was playing soccer in the school grounds
with other kids at lunchtime and went to slide tackle some kid. Turns out he
jumped, and I didn't realise until it was too late that there were big wooden
plank hurdles right behind him. I slid into them and split my eyebrow open
pretty decently (I still have a patch of no eyebrow from the scar, 2 decades
later).

When the school first aid room called my mum to have her come and get me, she
told them that she was busy at work and I'd have to wait a bit. She knew I was
alive and not going to get any worse and so knew it wasn't an emergency. Kids
get hurt, it's what happens.

The other cool thing was that we had quite a bit of bushland on the school
grounds and the children were allowed to play in it. We ended up forming
fiefdoms and building forts and having little mock wars. It is fascinating to
look back at because on top of the flagrant OH&S issues it'd raise (kids
stabbing and beating each other with sticks), there was a huge political
aspect to it all. Every year, you'd work out which teacher had a classroom
clock that was slightly ahead of the rest, and therefore would get out to
lunch slightly sooner. Those kids would be super valuable as they'd be able to
run to the forts and protect their own / sabotage others freely, before the
reinforcements arrived. There was serious negotiation and political power play
going on amongst kids and it would've no doubt made a bunch of child
development PhDs happy had they known about it.

It's hard to quantify, but I am sure that the exposure to this sort of
playground environment had undoubtably a huge role in my upbringing and
subsequent approach to risk and risk management in life. As such, I've been
fascinated by the OP's study for a bit now and I am really glad it's being
done. A lot of people talk about the problems with bubble-wrapping children
these days and it's going to be good to see if it is an actual phenomenon
instead of just rose-coloured reminiscence.

~~~
girvo
Mock wars: Yes! We did the same, to the point where we had diplomats and
assasins, and it spread across through class-time as well. It even started my
entrepreneruial spirit: I packaged up and sold "ammo" (rubber bands set up for
maximum power and a small "gun" to shoot them from, tagged with a colour for
your team) haha. Of course, that was very much a no-no (you'll get hit in the
eye and go blind!) but it was amazingly fun and I'm pretty sure helped us
understand tactics far better by applying them in the real world ;)

------
siliconc0w
I can't see how the the same thing won't happen though - one kid suffers some
form of awful permanent damage (or death) and then the rules and safer
equipment come back.

It seems like the wager the west has generally accepted is that we aren't
willing to accept the the gains from 'risky' play compared with the small
chance of tragedy.

~~~
smtddr
The problem in the west is law suits. If New Zeland judges throw out any
attempts from parents suing the schools, the fun times can continue.

All these rules didn't exist when I was a kid in the '80s...
[http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/165499/21_things_80s_kids...](http://thestir.cafemom.com/big_kid/165499/21_things_80s_kids_did)

~~~
bashinator
The problem in the US isn't lawsuits, it's lack of decent health care. The
lawsuits are a forseeable outcome of parents who could be financially
devastated if their child has a bad injury.

~~~
smtddr
Ok, what was different in the '80s?

~~~
mahyarm
I think the cost of medical care was probably cheaper, the liabilities less. I
was a kid then so I don't actually know.

~~~
klh
As well as considering just health care costs also consider health care versus
income. E.g. if a parent had to pay for a broken arm in the '80s US did they
risk bankruptcy more or less then now?

------
jevinskie
> “Of course a child is not allowed to kill another child,” Mr. McLachlan
> said. “One of the rules I said facetiously is kids aren’t allowed to hurt
> other people. But in fact they are. … If you hurt somebody in a game where
> you are playing hard, or a boxing match or a stone-throwing competition, for
> me it’s absolutely fine — as long as the other person was willing to get
> hurt.”

This is a very interesting article but is the administrator being serious when
he talked about boxing matches? My American English parses that to mean
throwing punches actual physical contact between fists and the body. Surely
that is a bad idea?

~~~
sigzero
We had boxing matches in High School.

~~~
mrottenkolber
Any permanent injuries? This stuff is quite dangerous unless performed with
disciplined caution.

I would not want to observe kids _boxing_ (ouside a boxing sports club). Hit
the throat. Bad day.

~~~
seestheday
Got anything to back up your statement?

Everything fight I've seen between two _willing_ participants (not bullying)
is that it isn't really very dangerous. I'm 36 and I still love to spar. I do
it with boxing headgear, a mouthpiece and gloves now, but when I was young my
friends and I always used to fight for fun with no gear. Sometimes it was
fists only. Sometimes grappling, kicks, punches. Sometimes it was with hockey
sticks. The worst that ever happened was a few bloody knuckles, busted lips or
black eyes. When friends or brothers are fighting you know that you should
stop if you punch someone in the throat or drop them in any other manner.

~~~
mrottenkolber
Dropping is rather dangerous, and if you hit a throat hard enough its pretty
much an instant death.

------
pyromine
Interestingly enough I've been on a bit of a kick today researching Sudbury
schools that are entirely kid run, and from what I can tell every initiative
that gives students more freedom seems to be beneficial.

The problem is giving students freedom is often thought of as synonymous to
allowing more violent behavior to take place. When rules are put in place to
protect victims that is understandable, but most rules instead decide that
students should not be allowed to voluntarily choose to do things adults think
are unsafe. Honestly, I hope we can break that belief.

------
tim333
I think the school thing is symptomatic of an irrational attitude to risk in
general. We're all going to die one day and life should be about having the
best experience along the way.

------
will_hughes
I moved around a lot as a child, but one of the schools I went to for a couple
of years when in primary school was a Steiner school.

The school had a large pond, with geese (that would chase and bite you if you
got too near), and a school cow that would wander around keeping the grass
trimmed.

Next to the school was an huge piece of land we used to call the quarry. It
was an developed piece of land that had hills with trees and bushes growing
all over. I'm sure there were snakes around, there were definitely plenty of
large ant hills, and other small critters. Usually once a week our class would
tramp over there, and play tag.

People would get scratched up running through a bush or fall over and skin a
knee. But that was part and parcel of the experience. I think I recall someone
breaking an arm or getting a knock to the head when they tripped over
something - that was treated appropriately by the teacher.

I remember going on a week (or two?) school camping trip up to Queensland; at
one spot we found a natural spring pool for swimming and a small waterfall
(maybe 5-10 meters high? scarily high for me anyway) - everyone took turns
jumping off the waterfall into the pool.

Nowdays I look at what schoolkids get to do, and it's none of that stuff.
Climb a tree? no way, you might fall and hurt yourself. So what, it's part of
living and learning.

------
jamii
In London, Parkour Generations runs kids parkour classes
([http://parkourgenerations.com/class?classtype=youth](http://parkourgenerations.com/class?classtype=youth)).
While they do have dedicated gyms most of the classes are still run outside,
in keeping with the general philosophy of parkour. A lot of what is taught in
these classes is not specific physical techniques but instead how to be aware
of your own limits, how to push your limits safely and how to deal with fear.
The effect on the confidence and maturity of the kids is incredible.

The general feeling of a lot of traceurs is that not only do padded floors and
crash mats not keep you safe, but that training only in 'safe' environments
makes you dangerously complacent. Soft landings disguise lots of dangerous
habits and it only takes an awkward angle or a turned ankle to turn that into
a broken bone. Anecdotally, my only parkour injury occurred in NYC where
(thanks to the wonderfully friendly NY police) I spent a few months only
training indoors in a padded gym.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
I've been trying to get into parkour for the last couple of years. Just to
understand the moves.

But it's different from just letting kids run amok. A parkour class actively
teaches you the progressions, how to safely bail etc. Not sure I want to
remove all the rules. But I definitely agree that kids should be exposed to
dangerous situations.

------
Aoyagi
It's sad that in some cultures/places/families this is considered as something
"unconventional or even quirky. The modern "children should live in a bubble"
overprotective approach is not only making the kids useless for some things in
the future, but also causes some mental issues or even disorders of varying
severity (but of course, on the other hand, diagnosing every kid with ADHD and
every teenager with depression is equally unfathomable for me). There was a
TED talk (can't find it, possibly [1]) with some guy describing how he's doing
'dangerous' summer camps for kids. It included fire, sharp tools, etc. That's
when I realized the summer camps I went to and I still visit as a
supervisor/counsellor/leader would probably be banned and I executed in some
places... [1] -
[http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_for_kids)

------
ronnier
This reminds me of something related. I don't force my children to wear
helmets when they ride their bikes. When we are out, people yell at me
"Where's their helmet dad?". These are the same type of people who force the
removal of swing sets at the parks in my area.

~~~
baconhigh
I would, because I've seen what happens when kids fall off their bikes and hit
their heads on the pavement. :(

~~~
NamTaf
Agreed. IMO helmets are one of those treatments against a low-likelihood,
high-consequence risk. The treatment also comes at very little inconvenience,
so it's a no-brianer (pun not intended) to choose to do so.

Banning kids from riding bikes around cars? I can understand why that's
considered a bit too overprotective, but helmets to me seem like a common-
sense method of resolving a significant risk with insignificant inconvenience.

~~~
collyw
You can learn to fall / jump off a bike properly as well. Watch some videos of
dirt jumpers, despite doing backflips, a lot of them go without helmets.

------
inluck
This is great and can/should be applied to other schools within New Zealand.
Extreme restrictions do effect the kids and I believe that having the freedom
to learn some valuable life lessons (while they are already absorbing so much)
is a massive positive that outweighs the risk of injury.

My younger brother came home from primary school (elementary school) last year
with a playground "Rule Sheet" \-- You should have seen the response to
ridiculous rules such as "Children can climb trees as long as they have one
foot on the ground at all times." \-- Even though the trees mentioned are less
than 3-4 metres high.

It is a hard thing to manage just due to so many parents and their different
styles of parenting but I do think a medium can be reached.

------
hippoman
The probability of one kid being killed or seriously injured in this one
school in, say a year is nearly zero so it won't happen and everyone will
think it's wonderful. But if all schools do it all the time, you'll start to
see some fatalities and brain damages where rules would have prevented them
and people will start saying "let's forbid high forts with concrete to fall
on" etc.

Anecdotal story. As a kid playing in the street I ended up under a moving car.
The only reason I'm alive is somebody alerted the driver in time. We don't
notice rare accident deaths, but we do notice pervasive safety measures (don't
play on the road even in a culdesac anyone?)

------
tnuc
Amazing how people behave better when they have to think of each other instead
of some rule that makes little sense.

Reminds me of the town in the Netherlands that took out all its street signs
and traffic lights.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachten#Traffic_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachten#Traffic_experiment)

------
tomohawk
Self regulation is so much more powerful than externally applied regulation.
The law of natural consequences is a very effective teacher.

I have to wonder, as regulations and laws and state surveillance increase,
does our ability to control ourselves atrophy?

------
kimonos
I give my son his freedom to play but I also make sure that he is away from
serious injuries..

------
_asciiker_
I broke my arm in kinder garden.... what of it?

