Rank: Guest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil H
Merv
Totally agree that children should be encouraged to take 'controlled' risks. The focus is moving more towards calculated risk taking.In Scandinavia children's nurserys use proper glasses, knives and forks and children learn to deal with them at an early age.They go out in freezing conditions and play - and go home safely.Whilst here I heard a recent example of nursery children not being allowed out between 11.00 and 3.00 due to the hot weather!..I hope there isn't any truth in that and my source is inaccurate..but who knows.Maybe the health and safety advisers should take a little more risk. Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
Merv,
It's easy to say kids should be exposed to more risk but institutions are afraid of the financial consequences of something going wrong.
Parents, often through media horror stories, are often guilty of over reacting to the slightest incident.
My sons child minder looks terrified when she has to tell me he has scraped his knee while playing. Why? because of the reactions she's had off parents in the past.
If she told me he had been injured while knife juggling I would be upset - he should be able to do that competently now as he's 18 months old...
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I agree with both the above responses. Unfortunately many responsible people are scared of the legal repercussions, although it is unlikely that there will be any, event the courts apply some common sense to the issue.
However, people need to be reassured this rather than constantly reading scare mongering stories in the media.
As I said in a recent thread, practitioners need to 'stand up' and be counted and declare trivial risks as just that. In the words of the late Allan St Jhon Holt, we need "sensible safety" not strangulation.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Merv
In many contact and high-speed sports, risk of 'minor' injuries are interwoven with risks of 'major' and even fatal injuries.
In addition to physical impairment, major injuries sometimes cause psychological traumas which are too easily overlooked until they contribute to anxieties later.
While bruises and abrasions may well be acceptable prices of taking part in many sports, severe disability and death are much less so.
I'm glad to observe how risks that I used to regularly expose myself to in rugby and water sports, with minimal understanding on the part of most involved, are now much more intelligently identified and managed.
Useful debate emphasises how fans, referees and coaches as well as players need education about prevention of injuries through rigorous assessment and management of risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
I think the hobbies thread on this forum clearly showed that we are comfortable taking risks.
As I said earlier I'm father to an 18 month old son. At 42 (it looks old written down!)I've had many years to learn of the many accidents and illnesses that can occur during a lifetime. My first response was to move house from a busy main road to a cul-de-sac so he was less at risk growing up.
On the other hand the new house has a huge oak tree and a stream down the bottom of the garden. He will inevitably end up in the stream and climb up the tree.
I spent some of the happiest days of my life climbing trees and jumping steams, very often ending up in them. I've no intention of robbing him of the same opportunity.
I do think, however, that just accepting kids will get hurt and let them get on with it is not necessarily the right approach. I remember an argument being put forward that apprentices all cut themselves and they learn by doing it.
Our convener suggested we line them up on day one and slash there hands with a Stanley knife so that they knew what it felt like and got it over with.
We introduced a close fitting glove and eliminated the accidents completely - without injury.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I must admit that I always went along with the "it never did me any harm" approach, but what is the alternative, and why is it so bad?
Is there any evidence that a child protected from hazards grows up any different?
Is there anything wrong with being risk-averse?
There have always been those labelled as "wimps" but many of those have been major contributors to human development.
I have never jumped off a cliff, but apparently it's bad for you. I learned that one without personal experience, why not other things?
Just a thought, why is risk taking necessary? ... no intention to stop my hobby (a contact martial sport).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Buzz Lightyear
Good point Tabs.
I also think this common debate gets a bit confused. Good to challenge the view that risk aversion is always a bad thing. It's a very necessary human instinct!
I think we need to recognise the difference of severity and likelihood.
I have two children. I don't have a problem with them risking getting a grazed knee - even with a high likelihood - such as playing football on a playground. However, I expect them to come home alive after being with school or the scouts etc. Isn't that a reasonable expectation of a parent? If they didn't come home alive, then they would have not learnt anything anyway - it would be too late!
I really don't get this myth that playground equipment is too safe - with rubber flooring and play equipment that are not death traps. People that make these types of assertions - which I even read in the new scientist once either don't have children are cannot be very loving parents!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
Perhaps what we need to start discussing is what are acceptable levels of injury.
Buzz (i'm assuming that isn't your real name!) says he doesn't mind children coming home with grazed knees but expects them home alive. Very reasonable but how does he feel about a broken arm or a few stitches? Are we prepared to accept that if we allow children to climb trees, use rope swings, bouncy on castles etc then some of them will get broken bones etc. One or two may die or be seriously hurt. Are we as a society prepared to accept this the way we accept 1000's of people dying on the roads annually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
With respect to Sally's comment, I think we need to consider what is the acceptable level of RISK - not harm. I have advocated for some time that we need to gain respect from our workforce. For instance, by introducing mandatory PPE as opposed to that which has been identified via a RA, is in my opinion poor form. Yet, many large companies do this without a murmur from the health and safety establishment.
Sensible safety (my apologies for miss spelling the late Allan St John Holt's name in my previous post) is about knowing and accepting or tolerating minor risks. Indeed, I have lost count how may threads on this forum have condoned intervening in trivial risks. My philosophy is not to meddle in trivialities, but I am sure the workforce know that if I was aware of serious safety breaches, then I would be on them like a ton of bricks. It's about respect.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
This may be an old chestnut but one that deserves a regular chew in my opinion. I survived childhood but many of my mates didn't and others only with life changing injuries. I also survived severe bullying from peers and elders including teachers. Would I do it all again? No way.
So I am firmly in the camp that says we must continue to improve the way we help our kids and grandkids get through their formative years. That has to include giving them the skills to better determine risks in their lives and cope with them. That, of course, involves a mixture of exposure to and knowledge of hazards and risks. Most importantly that one cannot eliminate risk from life, so best learn how to survive. If that needs a rope climb, then we must find ways to allow kids to do that within a level of socially acceptable risk and not just say no because it is difficult to manage.
Is the current situation really any different when viewed more holistically? Are parents really more protective or just the same level in a different way or is it all just another media myth? Are there not just different hazards for kids in modern life? Drugs, sex, alcohol abuse, binge drinking, mobile phones, home PC and so on. Also the social picture is very different, more fragmented communities, more aggressive and assertive behaviour etc. All this might require a different level as well as type of parental protection?
So just who is right? The "chuck 'em in and see what happens or the wrap 'em in a pinny brigade. Well both in my view dependant on the, wait for it... risks of each situation.
What would help?
Look at how and by whom risk assessments are done. Make sure we are using the best expertise or adequately train people to assess more confidently. Many of those with the day to day responsibility for risk assessing have little more than a day or two training on "risk assessment". Put that with either the "tick list" or 100 page procedure approach that often accompanies such cultures and you have a recipe for over estimation of any risk. There is after all absolutely no motivation for any employee to "take a risk" in such circumstances, is there? I often wonder ,when I hear that phrase "H&S, it say no", just how much that person actually believes it themselves or are they just blindly following the procedure?
Involve parents more in the risk assessments that affect their children BEFORE the event. Especially as far as school led activity is concerned. Want your kids to go on the trip, then you need to come along and work on the risk assessment with us. ( I think that is what is called informed consent.)
A campaign to better inform parents on all the risks to their kids and what they can do to help keep them as low as possible. In other words, get the debate going where it needs to be: not in the press but across the desks, in the sports clubs, the youth groups etc. It could be supported by some urban myth stuff in our mags, using either actual or example situations where the laws, both crim and civil, do not actually work in the way that most parents might think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zyggy Turek
A number of years ago I investigated an incident involving a teenage pupil who fell down a mountainside whilst on a school trip.
She suffered severe injuries and was airlifted to hospital where she was in a coma for nearly 3 months.
Fortunately she survived with no further complications.
My investigations concluded that everything possible had been done by the school to reduce potential risk & the parents were satisfied that nobody was to blame.
The response from the school however was to ban all future school trips so that a similar incident could not happen again.
There are still some teaching Unions with this view, which, in my opinion, does nothing to prepare our children for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
But all RISK is is the likelyhood of something occuring that causes harm.
So how do we decide on the cutoff point. Do we allow children to take part in an activity if there is a 1 in a thousand chance of a broken arm, or 1 in a million or 1 in 100 million.
Sensible Health and Safety is only going to work if there is an acceptable of some people getting injured either through a pure accident or because they were that 1 in a million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner www.hse.gov.uk/foi/inter...ctors/cactus/5_02_15.pdf I would encourage the reader to look at the positional paper generated jointly by the play 'industry' and HSE. The interesting point about this paper is that HSE describes (or calculates) RISK as being something OTHER THAN simple multiplication of likelihood X severity. In this paper HSE recognises benefits and rewards in 'risk taking' behaviour and asks for this behaviour to be favourably recognised. To my knowledge HSE has NEVER looked at risk in this way in any other sector or application.????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman The link provided : www.hse.gov.uk/foi/inter...ctors/cactus/5_02_15.pdf is to a statement published by the Play Safety Forum of which the HSE is a member. The HSE did not publish it, nor, in the covering letter, did they explicitly endorse the conclusions or the method of evaluating/managing risk. The HSE merely brought the statement to the attention of inspectors. Also, in the body of the statement, a distinction is made between the play environment and the workplace. Interesting read though. Sally, do you have any additional comments ? Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Sally
The 'cutoff' point in determining the level of risk and its acceptability depends on a host of factors and not simply 'the activity'.
These factors include the intensity, speed and force of an activity; physical and social environmental factors; as well as physical, temperamental and attitudinal differences.
While I'm surprised and disappointed in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in quashing the sentence of the headteacher to whom responsibility for a 3-year-old's death was attributed, I can also appreciate how it may be too simplistic to put the burden solely on an individual in authority.
Safety professionals can usefully educate all concerned about the range of different classes of hazard, so they can make better judgments about risks arising in a host of work and play situations to children and adolescents. John Reason's research model of cognitive approaches to safety management - usually applied in high hazard settings - has been used in this vein by the ergonomist Rachel Benedyk to throw light on designing safety of outdoor play facilities used by young children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Hold on hold on Merv.!
Take a look at the HSE Positional Statement.Yes I agree-Its not their document and it is primarily a reference document for enforcement officers BUT I would suggest HSE hasn't put much distance between themselves and the forum which has generated this document.Its that word 'benefit' which I consider has HSE well aligned to a very different approach to risk evaluation.(ie different to HSE workplace/work activity assessment)
MANAGING RISK IN PLAY PROVISION: A POSITION STATEMENT
"We consider Managing Risk in Play Provision to be an important document that will
contribute to the debate on the provision of children’s play. It articulates the balance
between the BENEFIT and the need for children to play against the duty of play providers to
provide safe play.
HSE Executive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
Kieran
"While I'm surprised and disappointed in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in quashing the sentence of the headteacher to whom responsibility for a 3-year-old's death was attributed.."
Be a bit more careful please. The original sentence was that the Headmaster had allowed an injury to occur - he was never accused of killing the youngster! That was down to the NHS.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright Apologies if this recent case has been discussed already; severe injuries sustained on a bouncing castle, and a compensation claim aimed at the parents who hosted the party, 'not providing sufficient supervision', possibly covered by liability/home contents insurance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...england/kent/7390803.stmJohn W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
You're quite right, Colin.
Thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.