Somebody PLEASE tell me that i'm not the only one that can see this danger! - Page 8

bump2be · Apr 2nd, 2012, 17:42 PM

I'd have to be there supervising to let my son play on that. I could see him falling off the ladder or over the side of the platform! I think 18 months is too young, I'd say it's more appropriate for a 2 or 3 yr old.

Kate&Lucas · Apr 2nd, 2012, 17:56 PM

Eek, Lucas would be right off the side of that, even if I was hovering right over him! He gets his wobbliness from me

I wouldn't get it.

tina_h75 · Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liesje

Quote:

Originally Posted by tina_h75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liesje

Quote:

Originally Posted by tina_h75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liesje

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyVentura

I'm really shocked at seeing a parent question a 5 year old wearing a helmet.

I think people are missing the point here... A 5 year old whose parents are still pushing him around on a bicycle with a broomstick and training wheels is clearly not going to go breakneck speeds to even require a helmet... But instead of this kid's parents teaching him to ride the bike, the parents just strapped some safety gear to him so he can look like he's leading a pseudo normal existence. (I've met the kid, there is nothing wrong with him, other than his parents are helicopter parents).
Poor kid is already getting self esteem issues because he can't do anything his friends do... not because he can't, but because his parents won't allow it... To them it's just as good to look normal as it is to be normal, as long as he's "safe".

but surely its better to get him used to wearing the gear for when he is independent enough to ride the bike by himself ?

To me it's still over-parenting to think a kid can't just strap on a helmet when it's required, but those parents probably think I'm a horrible person for not having a problem seeing kids with bruised knees and scraped elbows. (most of my best memories as a kid involved breaking my wrists, stepping in beehives and getting bit by dogs, etc. All unsupervised)

how can you over-parent

By not allowing children to be independent, teaching them that everything is dangerous and to be feared, and that they can't do anythng because they'll slip, fall, drown, etc.

But helmets are there for a reason - they save lives! I would rather teach my children about safety and have them fear dangers. If they want to be an adrenaline junkie then they can do that when they are old enough, not as a small child. My 'over-parenting' will hopefully ensure that they are around to do these things.

RedRose · Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liesje

To me it's still over-parenting to think a kid can't just strap on a helmet when it's required, but those parents probably think I'm a horrible person for not having a problem seeing kids with bruised knees and scraped elbows. (most of my best memories as a kid involved breaking my wrists, stepping in beehives and getting bit by dogs, etc. All unsupervised)

Your BEST childhood memories involve being bitten by a dog? And stepping in a beehive?

It's like Monty Python

suzib76 · Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:58 AM

i think it is reasonable to assume that at 18 months a child would be supervised using play equipment

i supervised all of mine at that age (and still do with Lana, 27 months) with everything

tu123 · Apr 3rd, 2012, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tina_h75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liesje

Quote:

Originally Posted by tina_h75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liesje

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyVentura

I'm really shocked at seeing a parent question a 5 year old wearing a helmet.

I think people are missing the point here... A 5 year old whose parents are still pushing him around on a bicycle with a broomstick and training wheels is clearly not going to go breakneck speeds to even require a helmet... But instead of this kid's parents teaching him to ride the bike, the parents just strapped some safety gear to him so he can look like he's leading a pseudo normal existence. (I've met the kid, there is nothing wrong with him, other than his parents are helicopter parents).
Poor kid is already getting self esteem issues because he can't do anything his friends do... not because he can't, but because his parents won't allow it... To them it's just as good to look normal as it is to be normal, as long as he's "safe".

but surely its better to get him used to wearing the gear for when he is independent enough to ride the bike by himself ?

To me it's still over-parenting to think a kid can't just strap on a helmet when it's required, but those parents probably think I'm a horrible person for not having a problem seeing kids with bruised knees and scraped elbows. (most of my best memories as a kid involved breaking my wrists, stepping in beehives and getting bit by dogs, etc. All unsupervised)

how can you over-parent

Even if the parent is with the child they can still fall off and still hit something with their head?

Leffy · Apr 3rd, 2012, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk_pig

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalou1972

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetcheeks78

I guess it's because it's designed for little ones the assumption is that they won't be clambering on it unattended. There are actually much higher than this in our local playground without a guard. I wouldn't have a problem with it in our garden.

There shouldnt be chic..... if it has a play feature on it ( firemans pole...steps, ramp etc' then it should at least have handrails.

It in theory wouldnt comply with regs if it was just an open gapand higher than 600mm ( i know....jobsworth ) x

That's really interesting - I'm sure the one near us has no play feature at the gap side but I'm gonna have to check now!! It tends to be used when a little one changes their mind about going down the slide and wont climb back down the ladder. The parents then "rescue" them from the gap side.

thats what i thought it was for a gap for parents to help their LO's to use the equipment

eddjanuary10 · Apr 3rd, 2012, 05:50 AM

It is a just a recommendation as only a parent knows what their child is capable of. When you take your child to a play park or soft play zone you know which areas your child will manage on their own, what they need assistance with and where you won't let them go. My son would have been fine on that at 18months, he is a climber! but I would still supervise. x

patch2006uk · Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:08 AM

Wanted to say something regarding bike helmets. They're just polystyrene and plastic.

For children, they're essential because accidents are likely to be very low speed and probably involve them bumping their head.

For adults on the road, they're a bit of a nonsense. If you're hit by a car, they won't save you. If you go over, there's evidence that they make trauma more likely as they make you feel safer, and therefore you don't use your natural self preservation reflexes as much as you would un-helmetted. They also encourage drivers to drive closer to you, as they think you're more 'protected'. If you only ever ride on a canal towpath at 5mph, then go for one. They'll probably protect you against scratches.

But would a helmet save your life in a high speed collision, probably with a vehicle? No.

In Australia (I believe) where helmets are a legal requirement - the number of cyclists has decreased, but the number of deaths has risen. Arguably, helmets have made cycling more deadly.

I'm a cyclist in the city centre. My LO wears a helmet on his bike seat.

Cycle helmets aren't the same as motorbike helmets (which definitely do save lives). It makes as much sense to helmet a cyclist as a pedestrian.

suzib76 · Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patch2006uk

Wanted to say something regarding bike helmets. They're just polystyrene and plastic.

For children, they're essential because accidents are likely to be very low speed and probably involve them bumping their head.

For adults on the road, they're a bit of a nonsense. If you're hit by a car, they won't save you. If you go over, there's evidence that they make trauma more likely as they make you feel safer, and therefore you don't use your natural self preservation reflexes as much as you would un-helmetted. They also encourage drivers to drive closer to you, as they think you're more 'protected'. If you only ever ride on a canal towpath at 5mph, then go for one. They'll probably protect you against scratches.

But would a helmet save your life in a high speed collision, probably with a vehicle? No.

In Australia (I believe) where helmets are a legal requirement - the number of cyclists has decreased, but the number of deaths has risen. Arguably, helmets have made cycling more deadly.

I'm a cyclist in the city centre. My LO wears a helmet on his bike seat.

Cycle helmets aren't the same as motorbike helmets (which definitely do save lives). It makes as much sense to helmet a cyclist as a pedestrian.

i understand that completely, however, all accidents/incidents involving adults are not high speed collisions with cars. surely some protection is better than none

Apr 2nd, 2012, 17:42 PM	#71
bump2be Mum (Mom) Active BnB Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: T.O., ON Posts: 439	I'd have to be there supervising to let my son play on that. I could see him falling off the ladder or over the side of the platform! I think 18 months is too young, I'd say it's more appropriate for a 2 or 3 yr old.

Status: Offline

Apr 2nd, 2012, 17:56 PM	#72
Kate&Lucas Mum (Mom) BnB Addict Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mersey Shore Posts: 5,221	Eek, Lucas would be right off the side of that, even if I was hovering right over him! He gets his wobbliness from me I wouldn't get it.

Status: Offline

Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:58 AM	#75
suzib76 Mum (Mom) BnB Addict Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: x scotland x Posts: 6,676	i think it is reasonable to assume that at 18 months a child would be supervised using play equipment i supervised all of mine at that age (and still do with Lana, 27 months) with everything

Status: Online

Apr 3rd, 2012, 05:50 AM	#78
eddjanuary10 Mum (Mom) BnB Addict Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Glasgow Posts: 3,346	It is a just a recommendation as only a parent knows what their child is capable of. When you take your child to a play park or soft play zone you know which areas your child will manage on their own, what they need assistance with and where you won't let them go. My son would have been fine on that at 18months, he is a climber! but I would still supervise. x

Status: Offline

Apr 3rd, 2012, 06:08 AM	#79
patch2006uk Mum (Mom) BnB Addict Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: West Mids, UK Posts: 5,220	Wanted to say something regarding bike helmets. They're just polystyrene and plastic. For children, they're essential because accidents are likely to be very low speed and probably involve them bumping their head. For adults on the road, they're a bit of a nonsense. If you're hit by a car, they won't save you. If you go over, there's evidence that they make trauma more likely as they make you feel safer, and therefore you don't use your natural self preservation reflexes as much as you would un-helmetted. They also encourage drivers to drive closer to you, as they think you're more 'protected'. If you only ever ride on a canal towpath at 5mph, then go for one. They'll probably protect you against scratches. But would a helmet save your life in a high speed collision, probably with a vehicle? No. In Australia (I believe) where helmets are a legal requirement - the number of cyclists has decreased, but the number of deaths has risen. Arguably, helmets have made cycling more deadly. I'm a cyclist in the city centre. My LO wears a helmet on his bike seat. Cycle helmets aren't the same as motorbike helmets (which definitely do save lives). It makes as much sense to helmet a cyclist as a pedestrian.

Status: Online

User Name		Remember Me?
Password