Kids to be banned from playing tag outside.

[General Ken8]

Wow, just wow.
Are people really this ignorant? I'm in high school, and I STILL enjoy tag. All of the thick-headed people making decisions like this really need to think about this a bit more. As stated numerous times already, every kid is inevitably going to get a few cuts and bruises, and who are we to stop them if they're going to have fun playing tag and get a little hurt here and there. I can't imagine my childhood without all of the fun games we played outside

 

[theNater]

Thank you, that was very helpful. OK now I'm really confused as to which parking lot the law is covering an also why the kids just don't go and play in the woods or the mostly open area behind the condos.

Glad I could help.

I'm fairly sure it's the area ringed by the condos, which I think you are referring to as the cul-de-sac driveway. I could toss out some guesses as to why they aren't playing in those other areas, but they'd just be guesses, so I'll only share them if you're interested.

Good point but looking at the map that area looks like a great place to raise kids, there are near by open areas which I don't understadn why the kids aren't playing in, also the cul-de-sac driveway is a very safe place for kids to travel across when walking to the store or something.

Given how close it is to a major road and how little space each individual unit has, this area is worse for a family with kids than most of the other residential areas nearby.

2)That is nowhere near as easy as it sounds, it is completely possible but it is such a hard thing to do. First you need to find a local politican or government member that has sway in such decisions and getting them to listen to you. Second, comes convicing them that spending the money on such a project is a good idea for the community or beneficial to their career, because nothing modivates a person to help more than when they get something out of it(pessimistic but true). All of which takes a lot of time and effort, more then it should in too many cases, being organised. In no way am i saying the parents should do this or it be their last option but you kind of presented it as an easy fix option, also the reason know all this is because was grandad was a politician who surppoted such things and even he had trouble getting things done.
3)Agreed, especially in regaurds to parents helping other parents
4)I agree with your main point but the ways in which this is achieved aren't always easy, but that's for the parents to deal with.
5)First, kids will always try to play somewhere, acceptable or not, after all they are kids they want to have fun. Second, an acceptable play area is a term that is interpreted by a persons own view, that which was acceptable a few years ago seem to be completely unsafe today and there are both strong points for and against this change, but it seem to be increase as the years go.

My claim is not that any of these are easy, but that it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that one of them happens. Which one will vary depending on the parent, the kids, and the situation.

If it is the parking lot above the condos I agree with you if it is the condos cul-de-sac parking lot I disagree to a point, it's not the safest place given the options but it is still safe in that is is right outside there home and it is a cul-de-sac the only people who drive in there are those that live there, no actually traffic what-so-ever so IMO it seem more like non-parents are complain that there are now kids around then the fact that they are in the way.

The area has a lot of people crammed into a relatively small space; that means there's going to be more traffic than one might expect. And worse, it's residential traffic, which means people coming and going at unpredictable times.

I'd just like to thank you, I have not had a civil intelligent debate in long time and I am quite enjoying it

As am I. Thank you for the good discussion.

 

[justnotcricket]

Fuck it. I don't even want to be a parent anymore. There are enough people in the world anyway, and now I keep reading articles like this and knowing I would have to live with the constant fear that choosing NOT to teach my son/daughter to be anti-fun will get his friend's mom knocking at my door telling me he needs to learn respect for others and learn a game like "Who can give the best compliment" instead of Tag, Red Rover, or any other harmless game a kid might want to play for fun.

If it's any consolation, there are more of us out there who want our (future) kids to climb trees and play tag and bullrush etc. So perhaps we can all form some kind of international underground playgroup where out kids can be kids ;-)

 

[Byere]

-snip-

If I was a muslim, I would probably be offended by all of these stupid bans. Because I'm pretty sure I'm offended right now.
Stupid politics...

Not saying I'm a muslim, but I'm 21 and I like playing in the playgrounds with my younger cousins. Needless to say, I'm alive and not permanently damaged and nor are my cousins.

I know, right!
Utterly pathetic and more offensive to squash and nullify the rights of those who are upstanding citizens in fear of upsetting a minority in whatever country people are from...
As for playing in a playground, who the hell doesn't like swings, slides and roundabouts?

 

[Saxm13]

Reminds me of something Penn and Teller would rip on in their "BS" show.

Love that show!

 

[badgersprite]

Why the hell do idiots feel the need to legislate everything? Law isn't the best way to solve every little fucking problem. And I say this as a law student. Instead of just taking responsibility for your own children, you have to go and ruin EVERYONE'S fun by instituting a ban because schools are now so afraid of being sued that they can't do anything.

I would say more on this but I'm afraid all my thoughts now consist of variations on the words "dumb" and "fucking" repeating over and over again on a loop.

 

[JoJo]

From the article this sounds like the work of child-haters, children should always been allowed to play outside it's a natural part of growing up and especially with modern obesity problems it's more important than ever.

Fuck it. I don't even want to be a parent anymore. There are enough people in the world anyway, and now I keep reading articles like this and knowing I would have to live with the constant fear that choosing NOT to teach my son/daughter to be anti-fun will get his friend's mom knocking at my door telling me he needs to learn respect for others and learn a game like "Who can give the best compliment" instead of Tag, Red Rover, or any other harmless game a kid might want to play for fun.

If it's any consolation, there are more of us out there who want our (future) kids to climb trees and play tag and bullrush etc. So perhaps we can all form some kind of international underground playgroup where out kids can be kids ;-)

Child Liberation Movement! Letting our kids... be kids =D

 

[Asehujiko]

Man, I remember when I was in elementary school we played dodgeball with the hard rubber balls that would murder you if you get hit in the head. We also played full on tackle football during recess. Then when we got home we would take branches off of trees and sword fight with them.

I ask you, what has happened with the world?

A combination of 2 things:
-Copyright abusers setting a precedent that the suing party is always right.
-Morality trolls setting a precedent that the solution to everything is to sue.

 

[Korak the Mad]

Kids need to play, and once in a while learn that they can't do everything and they learn from their mistakes.

There is a phrase my dad told that fits this discussion. It is "There are three types of people in the world who learn from actions. The first person is someone who reads about someone's mistake and learns not to do the same thing. The second person observes someone doing something damaging and learns from the other's mistake. The final person who learns from mistakes is the one who just pissed on the electric fence."

Kids need to get hurt, otherwise they'll never learn the limits of themselves and others.

 

[Titan Buttons]

Glad I could help.

I'm fairly sure it's the area ringed by the condos, which I think you are referring to as the cul-de-sac driveway. I could toss out some guesses as to why they aren't playing in those other areas, but they'd just be guesses, so I'll only share them if you're interested.

Cul-de-sac was just the best way to describe it for me as it fits the general discription. Sure why not, it's been a great discussion so far, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Given how close it is to a major road and how little space each individual unit has, this area is worse for a family with kids than most of the other residential areas nearby.

That may be so but that type of set up is pretty good, in that even though it is near a main road only people that live there or are visiter of residents, as aposed to houses that aren't in such an obviously residents only area or suburbs that make a good short cut around traffiv. So the drives would have the foreknowlegde that there are kids in the area and keep an extra eye when in the cul-de-sac.

My claim is not that any of these are easy, but that it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that one of them happens. Which one will vary depending on the parent, the kids, and the situation.

Right I understand, sorry if I rambled. Since it's just writting I find it hard to get a full impression of what a person is saying, such as, such as, sarcasm. It's so much easier to pick up on if you can hear the person
But yes I agree with your overall point I just the impression that you were blaming parents more then they should be. But that's more my own opinion then anything else.

The area has a lot of people crammed into a relatively small space; that means there's going to be more traffic than one might expect. And worse, it's residential traffic, which means people coming and going at unpredictable times.]

Fair point, but better unpredictable traffic with people that know there are kids around then unpredictable traffic from people who are taking a short cut to get home and don't know there are kids arounds. Not the safest thing by fair, it's just safer to live in a dead end street in general.

 

[theNater]

Why the hell do idiots feel the need to legislate everything? Law isn't the best way to solve every little fucking problem. And I say this as a law student. Instead of just taking responsibility for your own children, you have to go and ruin EVERYONE'S fun by instituting a ban because schools are now so afraid of being sued that they can't do anything.

You may want to double check the article. I reads it as "the parents are not taking responsibility for their kids, so the non-parents in the area are trying to institute this to get them to start".

 

[theNater]

Cul-de-sac was just the best way to describe it for me as it fits the general discription. Sure why not, it's been a great discussion so far, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

My guesses are as follows:

1)The photos are a few years old, and the trees have been cut down and replaced by buildings.
2)The area is the private property of someone else, and the owner is touchy about property rights.
3)The parents don't want their kids to be out of line-of-sight from the front door, so they can call them in easily for things like dinner and bedtime.
4)There are alligators in there.

Like I say, just guesses.

That may be so but that type of set up is pretty good, in that even though it is near a main road only people that live there or are visiter of residents, as aposed to houses that aren't in such an obviously residents only area or suburbs that make a good short cut around traffiv. So the drives would have the foreknowlegde that there are kids in the area and keep an extra eye when in the cul-de-sac.

Just to the northwest is the Oak Ridge, Highland, and Wildwood subdivision. It's roughly three times as large, just as out of the way, and contains about the same number of homes. That's roughly normal for the area. Persimmon Place will have about triple the traffic and no offsetting advantages.

Right I understand, sorry if I rambled. Since it's just writting I find it hard to get a full impression of what a person is saying, such as, such as, sarcasm. It's so much easier to pick up on if you can hear the person
But yes I agree with your overall point I just the impression that you were blaming parents more then they should be. But that's more my own opinion then anything else.

I blame the parents entirely. When someone says "if my kids can't play in the street, they won't have anywhere to play at all", my reaction is "why did you bring your kids somewhere where the street was the only place to play?" They don't even seem to be trying to find other solutions.

I have a lot more sympathy for the people who intentionally came to a place that was bad for kids and are now forced to deal with kids in their street.

Fair point, but better unpredictable traffic with people that know there are kids around then unpredictable traffic from people who are taking a short cut to get home and don't know there are kids arounds. Not the safest thing by fair, it's just safer to live in a dead end street in general.

Right. Unpredictable and aware beats unpredictable and unaware, and predictable beats unpredictable and aware.

With predictable, you can arrange for there never to be kids and cars on the road at the same time. That's a risky situation, no matter how much attention the drivers are paying.

 

[Titan Buttons]

My guesses are as follows:

1)The photos are a few years old, and the trees have been cut down and replaced by buildings.
2)The area is the private property of someone else, and the owner is touchy about property rights.
3)The parents don't want their kids to be out of line-of-sight from the front door, so they can call them in easily for things like dinner and bedtime.
4)There are alligators in there.

Like I say, just guesses.

lol at 4) but then I realised it's Florida and could actually be true
yeah pretty good guesses I'd say if I could have thought of any they would be these

Just to the northwest is the Oak Ridge, Highland, and Wildwood subdivision. It's roughly three times as large, just as out of the way, and contains about the same number of homes. That's roughly normal for the area. Persimmon Place will have about triple the traffic and no offsetting advantages.

Fair enough, but the main reason a family buys a condo in a cramped neighbourhood is because it is far cheaper then buying a house in an open neighbourhood, which leads me to believe that their current economic static isn't all that stable or high enough to movie into a neighbourhood that has enough space for children to play wiht no complants.

I blame the parents entirely. When someone says "if my kids can't play in the street, they won't have anywhere to play at all", my reaction is "why did you bring your kids somewhere where the street was the only place to play?" They don't even seem to be trying to find other solutions.

I have a lot more sympathy for the people who intentionally came to a place that was bad for kids and are now forced to deal with kids in their street.

I like your blunt honesty it's quiet refreashing. Well I guess it does mean I can get the impressinon of people off just their writing lol.
Yeah I agree with you they should try and find solutions as they are the parents, but the majority of these try of complaints, weather they have logical grounds or not, mainly just come from people who don't like children and don't want children to be near them. And that's the reason I don't think this is right and is in fact going to far, all the opinions that I read that are for the law seem to be just generalising kids as a nosence and not that a few kids are being put in danger because of bad parenting or kids ignoring parents.

You raise a good point but the condo area just doesn't appear to be that bad for kids, there are terrible places for kids to play but a Cul-de-sac road where the max speed limit is maybe 20km/hr isn't. Anything faster then that the main concern is just hitting anyone.

Right. Unpredictable and aware beats unpredictable and unaware, and predictable beats unpredictable and aware.

With predictable, you can arrange for there never to be kids and cars on the road at the same time. That's a risky situation, no matter how much attention the drivers are paying.

How does one predict traffic? Even in the residential areas your refering to there is always going to be unpredictable traffic, that trip to shops because we ran out of milk, each childs personal sport or hobbie, doctors appointments to see if that cough is the flu or going to Birthday party. There really isn't a place of total safety for any street that a child lives in each person has there own plans that aren't know to other people in the streets, the best one can do is know what times are the busiest and keeps kids safe during those times, such as, rush hour when everyone is coming off work.
We both agree that parents have a lot of resposiblity that they must carry and deal with, as well as not placing these resposiblities on another at any time, but there are just some things that parents can't foresee or plan for regaurdless of how good of a parent they are and the daylily plans of others is one of them

 

[theNater]

Fair enough, but the main reason a family buys a condo in a cramped neighbourhood is because it is far cheaper then buying a house in an open neighbourhood, which leads me to believe that their current economic static isn't all that stable or high enough to movie into a neighbourhood that has enough space for children to play wiht no complants.

If the parents have decided to move to the place without proper play space to save money, they have no standing to complain about how there's no proper play space. That is the choice they made, and now that their neighbors are insisting that they deal with it, they are trying to avoid it by painting their neighbors as people who hate fun.

Yeah I agree with you they should try and find solutions as they are the parents, but the majority of these try of complaints, weather they have logical grounds or not, mainly just come from people who don't like children and don't want children to be near them. And that's the reason I don't think this is right and is in fact going to far, all the opinions that I read that are for the law seem to be just generalising kids as a nosence and not that a few kids are being put in danger because of bad parenting or kids ignoring parents.

Not everyone is required to like kids or to want children to be near them. Also, one of the reasons some people don't like dealing with kids is that kids are often more reckless and more fragile than adults, and they don't like having to worry about accidentally hurting them.

You raise a good point but the condo area just doesn't appear to be that bad for kids, there are terrible places for kids to play but a Cul-de-sac road where the max speed limit is maybe 20km/hr isn't. Anything faster then that the main concern is just hitting anyone.

It may not be terrible on a global scale, but it is very bad relative to the other residences nearby. It is not unreasonable for people to assume that there won't be a lot of kids in such a place.

How does one predict traffic? Even in the residential areas your refering to there is always going to be unpredictable traffic, that trip to shops because we ran out of milk, each childs personal sport or hobbie, doctors appointments to see if that cough is the flu or going to Birthday party. There really isn't a place of total safety for any street that a child lives in each person has there own plans that aren't know to other people in the streets, the best one can do is know what times are the busiest and keeps kids safe during those times, such as, rush hour when everyone is coming off work.

The best one can do is to not have residential streets as primary play areas. The street is for cars, not kids. Lawns, parks, and playgrounds make great primary play areas, because cars are never supposed to be there at all(making traffic on them very predictable). Something like a church parking lot makes an acceptable play area, because cars are only supposed to be there at specific times(another place with predictable traffic).

We both agree that parents have a lot of resposiblity that they must carry and deal with, as well as not placing these resposiblities on another at any time, but there are just some things that parents can't foresee or plan for regaurdless of how good of a parent they are and the daylily plans of others is one of them

The parents cannot foresee specific daily plans of others, but they can foresee that others will have daily plans. Dealing with that by finding a place for the kids to play that keeps them clear of traffic is good parenting. Dealing with it by assuming the other people will drive carefully is not, because that is putting the safety of one's children(which is the parent's responsibility) into the hands of random strangers.