Big props to A.Mott, K.Rolfe, R.James, R.Evans, A.Kemp, F.Dunstan, K.Kemp, J.Sibert - coauthors of a 1997 article published in The Lancet - who dig into the epidemiology of playground injuries. For the academically inclined, here is the abstract:
"Children sustained significantly more injuries in playgrounds with concrete surfaces than in those with bark or rubberised surfaces (p<0·001). Playgrounds with rubber surfaces had the lowest rate of injury, with a risk half that of bark and a fifth of that of concrete. Bark surfaces were not significantly more protective against arm fractures than concrete. Most injuries were equipment related. Injury risk due to falls from monkey bars (suspended parallel bars or rings between which children swing) was twice that for climbing-frames and seven times that for swings or slides. The height of the equipment correlated significantly with the number of fractures (p=0·005) from falls."
For those who forget their statistics, the authors found that:
(1) Concrete playground surfaces result in lots more injuries than woodchips ("bark") or rubber woodchips
(2) Most injuries were equipment-related
(3) Of all kinds of equipment, monkey bars most dangerous, then "climbing-frames", then swings.
(4) The higher the equipment, the more fractures there are from falls.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
I'm back from Hawaii!
... no, I didn't go to Hawaii. Sorry. I just got a bit busy with work, and academics, and academics, and work.
I'd like to rejoin the fun with a quick news story from up friends up north - the good people of New York City! Back in October, a group of men were arrested in a playground in NYC for playing chess in a park. Their crime? They were unaccompanied by a minor.
Two of the men have since had the charges dropped, three have received a slap on the wrist in exchange for an admission of guilt, and the remaining two are fighting it all the way to city hall.
I suppose I understand the logic of the no-solo-adults rule - playgrounds are supposed to be for kids, after all - but I'm surprised that it was enforced in this way. Will it be enforced again, I wonder?
I'd like to rejoin the fun with a quick news story from up friends up north - the good people of New York City! Back in October, a group of men were arrested in a playground in NYC for playing chess in a park. Their crime? They were unaccompanied by a minor.
Two of the men have since had the charges dropped, three have received a slap on the wrist in exchange for an admission of guilt, and the remaining two are fighting it all the way to city hall.
I suppose I understand the logic of the no-solo-adults rule - playgrounds are supposed to be for kids, after all - but I'm surprised that it was enforced in this way. Will it be enforced again, I wonder?
Monday, November 15, 2010
Admirable, but not advisable
According to this news article, an Oklahoman Boy Scout undertook for his Eagle Scout project a partial renovation of the playground at the Garfield County Child Advocacy Center. I've come across a few such Eagle Scout projects in my time, and I'm always impressed at the good nature, integrity, and work ethic of the scouts.
The problem is, I would never, ever allow an Eagle Scout to build a playground on my property (at least, without having a certified playground safety inspector (CPSI) peek over his shoulder every once in a while!). There are a number things to consider while building a playground - from overlapping zones of play, to distance-from-edge, to potential trapping hazards, to material wear and tear - and inspection and certification by a CPSI can go a long way to limiting a playground's legal liability. Moreover, this playground is on government land! It could ultimately cost the Oklahoma taxpayer a good deal in lawsuit settlements.
I understand why these Eagle Scout projects are allowed to happen. The kid gets his Eagle Scout project done. The school gets a virtually free playground. The problem is, a potentially unsafe playground is being built. How's this for a proposal: as part of the project, the Eagle Scout needs to raise the money to hire a CPSI for the afternoon. It would only cost a few hundred bucks, and would go a long way to reducing the possibility of improper/unsafe construction.
The problem is, I would never, ever allow an Eagle Scout to build a playground on my property (at least, without having a certified playground safety inspector (CPSI) peek over his shoulder every once in a while!). There are a number things to consider while building a playground - from overlapping zones of play, to distance-from-edge, to potential trapping hazards, to material wear and tear - and inspection and certification by a CPSI can go a long way to limiting a playground's legal liability. Moreover, this playground is on government land! It could ultimately cost the Oklahoma taxpayer a good deal in lawsuit settlements.
I understand why these Eagle Scout projects are allowed to happen. The kid gets his Eagle Scout project done. The school gets a virtually free playground. The problem is, a potentially unsafe playground is being built. How's this for a proposal: as part of the project, the Eagle Scout needs to raise the money to hire a CPSI for the afternoon. It would only cost a few hundred bucks, and would go a long way to reducing the possibility of improper/unsafe construction.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
... I don't know the answer to that, but there seem to be about 40 people working on this playground construction site.
Based on the slideshow, there seems to be a multitude of tasks for the volunteers - painting murals, making a new sidewalk, and so forth - so it's likely that the crew didn't reach the point of diminishing returns (i.e., the too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth syndrome). But back in my playground construction days the magic number for a crew was 4 or 5: any more, and there would be at least one person loafing at all times; any fewer, and the job would take ages.
Based on the slideshow, there seems to be a multitude of tasks for the volunteers - painting murals, making a new sidewalk, and so forth - so it's likely that the crew didn't reach the point of diminishing returns (i.e., the too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth syndrome). But back in my playground construction days the magic number for a crew was 4 or 5: any more, and there would be at least one person loafing at all times; any fewer, and the job would take ages.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The price of fun
When I was just beginning as a safety analyst, I remember being very surprised at the cost of play equipment. It seemed so high! A medium-sized piece of modular equipment will cost several thousand dollars - and, with installation, a couple thousand more - and playgrounds can be much, much more expensive than that. A new playground in Sydney is slated to cost more than 8 million dollars!
Yet, is this a high price to pay? Let's do a few numbers. Suppose you, the superintendent of a playground, are in charge of what piece of equipment to buy. You have two options: High and Low. High costs $15,000 fully installed, and Low costs $5,000 fully installed. Assume that High and Low are both equal in terms of the amount of joy they bring to the children. They are NOT equal, however, in either their durability or their safety: High will last for 10 years before it needs to be replaced, and implies a 10% yearly injury risk (so, there is a ten percent chance in any given year that a child will incur a hospital-worthy accident on it). Assume that Low will last for 6 years, and implies a 15% injury risk. Assume, finally, that any hospital-worthy injury incurred on the play equipment will necessitate a $20,000 financial settlement.
So! We must balance these probabilities. First, the aging: correcting for the difference in durability, we have that High costs the owner $1,500 per year (which is just $15,000/10), and Low costs $833 per year (which is just $5,000/6). Now, each year they are operational, High has an expected loss of .10*$20,000 (the probability of an injury happening times what it would cost the playground owner if the injury DID happen), or, $2,000. Low has an expected loss of .15*$20,000, or $3,000 by the same reasoning. Add them all up and you get that High actually costs you, Mr. or Mrs. Playground, $3,500 per year, and Low costs you $3,833 per year!
So, there we have it: it can make financial sense to invest in high-quality equipment for your playground. My Uncle Nick used to tell me never to skimp on what I put on my feet, or what I put in my car; now, I can add to that list, what I put on my playground!
Yet, is this a high price to pay? Let's do a few numbers. Suppose you, the superintendent of a playground, are in charge of what piece of equipment to buy. You have two options: High and Low. High costs $15,000 fully installed, and Low costs $5,000 fully installed. Assume that High and Low are both equal in terms of the amount of joy they bring to the children. They are NOT equal, however, in either their durability or their safety: High will last for 10 years before it needs to be replaced, and implies a 10% yearly injury risk (so, there is a ten percent chance in any given year that a child will incur a hospital-worthy accident on it). Assume that Low will last for 6 years, and implies a 15% injury risk. Assume, finally, that any hospital-worthy injury incurred on the play equipment will necessitate a $20,000 financial settlement.
So! We must balance these probabilities. First, the aging: correcting for the difference in durability, we have that High costs the owner $1,500 per year (which is just $15,000/10), and Low costs $833 per year (which is just $5,000/6). Now, each year they are operational, High has an expected loss of .10*$20,000 (the probability of an injury happening times what it would cost the playground owner if the injury DID happen), or, $2,000. Low has an expected loss of .15*$20,000, or $3,000 by the same reasoning. Add them all up and you get that High actually costs you, Mr. or Mrs. Playground, $3,500 per year, and Low costs you $3,833 per year!
So, there we have it: it can make financial sense to invest in high-quality equipment for your playground. My Uncle Nick used to tell me never to skimp on what I put on my feet, or what I put in my car; now, I can add to that list, what I put on my playground!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Most Common Playground Violation
There are many rules and regulations governing playground safety, and as with any context in which there are rules, some rules will be violated by some of the people, some of the time. But which is the most often-violated playground safety regulation?
From my own field experience as a safety analyst, I'd say that the most common violation is the maintenance of the proper depth of resilient surfacing. That is, woodchips, wood mulch, rubber mulch, etc. There are supposed to be at least 6 inches of woodchips (or whatever other surfacing material is used) within a 6 foot radius of the equipment, and more if the equipment is above a certain height. I've rarely seen adherence to that, though, and this report by researchers at Monash University, Australia, confirms my suspicion: only 4.7% of the playgrounds they studied had the recommended depth of protective surfacing, given the equipment height. Fewer than 1 in 20!
Marc Miller, of Maryland Materials, offers another opinion: overlapping areas of play. Structures are not meant to be too close together - just picture kids trying to leap from swingset to monkeybars to spring toy. It's a safety nightmare. And, often, playgrounds do have structures that are a bit too close together, because of schools or day care centers wanting to squeeze in more equipment than the allotted area can safely support.
I'll do some reading on the subject, and post if I find anything particularly egregious. Until then, happy playing...
From my own field experience as a safety analyst, I'd say that the most common violation is the maintenance of the proper depth of resilient surfacing. That is, woodchips, wood mulch, rubber mulch, etc. There are supposed to be at least 6 inches of woodchips (or whatever other surfacing material is used) within a 6 foot radius of the equipment, and more if the equipment is above a certain height. I've rarely seen adherence to that, though, and this report by researchers at Monash University, Australia, confirms my suspicion: only 4.7% of the playgrounds they studied had the recommended depth of protective surfacing, given the equipment height. Fewer than 1 in 20!
Marc Miller, of Maryland Materials, offers another opinion: overlapping areas of play. Structures are not meant to be too close together - just picture kids trying to leap from swingset to monkeybars to spring toy. It's a safety nightmare. And, often, playgrounds do have structures that are a bit too close together, because of schools or day care centers wanting to squeeze in more equipment than the allotted area can safely support.
I'll do some reading on the subject, and post if I find anything particularly egregious. Until then, happy playing...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
A little bit of trivia
When you're at your next cocktail party, break out this little gem to astound and amaze your peers:
Q: When, where, and in what form was the first even public playground in America?
A: "The first public playground in the United States was located in Boston where, in 1885, the Massachusetts Emergency and Hygiene Association procured a heap of sand for the yard of the Parmenter Street Chapel to create opportunities for children’s play."
Source: the Harvard School of Public Health report, from a couple of posts ago.
Q: When, where, and in what form was the first even public playground in America?
A: "The first public playground in the United States was located in Boston where, in 1885, the Massachusetts Emergency and Hygiene Association procured a heap of sand for the yard of the Parmenter Street Chapel to create opportunities for children’s play."
Source: the Harvard School of Public Health report, from a couple of posts ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)