site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   2764 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 8, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do trampoline nets reduce the incidence of serious injuries? (I don't really care about minor injuries like sprained ankles).

This study states that, of children taken to hospital due to trampoline injuries, there was no difference between those whose trampolines had nets and those who did not in terms of the percentage who received severe injuries. Therefore

There is no difference in the severity of the injury regarding trampolines with or without special safety measures. Safety nets do not reduce the risk of severe injury.

But reading it makes me think of this famous picture about selection bias. Could it simply be that many children who would have received injuries, serious or not, didn't get injured because their trampoline had a net?

The again, this study suggests that the introduction of safety features like nets and pads didn't actually make any difference in the number of different categories of injury (at least during the study period). Amazingly, this includes falling off, which you'd think is the one thing that nets would prevent.

I grew up with a net-less trampoline (although it did have cushions covering the springs) and I'd like my kids to enjoy the same, but I can imagine my wife being pretty pissed off if we get an old-fashioned trampoline and someone breaks an arm. I'm not sure how amenable she'd be to the 'risky play is necessary for healthy psychological development' argument if our child has a bone sticking out of his arm.

My neighbors had a netless trampoline growing up and the kids there and a lot of the neighbors jumped on it for hours a day and I don't recall any injuries from it, but most of the falls and near injuries were from hitting the part with the covered springs.

On looking it up there are a bunch of different types of trampoline nets, some that are outside the spring portion and some that are inside the spring portion and of varying heights as well. I imagine if the net were arranged within the springs rather than outside the whole of the trampoline it'd fair much better at preventing injuries than ones that are completely outside of the trampoline because you can still fall onto the covered spring portion which was about 95% of how people fell while using the trampoline either hitting the spring portion and falling off or just hitting the springs and twisting their ankle on them.

The most common factor to people--that I can remember--getting hurt but not really injured, on the trampoline, was multiple people using it at once, though.

Helmets don't reduce bike injuries either. Stats show that people drive riskier around cyclists with helmets than they do with ones without. Cyclists also ride riskier when they have helmets on. You can call it 'induced recklessness'.

Recklessness gets calibrated to perceived risk. If I know that falling off a trampoline means broken bones, I'm not going to be jumping as high.

IMO, the riskiest activities are ones that offer the optics of safety without any material gains. Large cars and soft suspensions are a classic example. Jumping into water from great heights is another. Free soloists (people who climb mountains without ropes) are renowned for dying young. Ironically, most of them die from non-free-solo activities. It's because they're willing to try activities with higher odds of failure than free soloing, if they think failure doesn't mean death. But, 1 badly clipped bolt when leading or a gust of wind in a wingsuit.....and you're just as dead.

The funniest use of this is the proposal of Tullock spikes.

Hilarious followup.

Today, J cut myself on an open tin can. I never cut myself on knives because i take the appropriate care. But tins just sit them innocuously until you touch them and they tear you up.

You can also call it "risk compensation".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

This perfectly captures it !

I grew up with a trampoline without a net. Never did me no harm.

There has got to be something wrong with that study. Some form of survivorship bias could definitely account for it. Lets say a hospital sees half of trampoline injuries from net-less trampolines, and half from net-having trampolines. Well the relevant information is: what portion of the population has nets for their trampoline? Unless its a 50-50 split, then the hospital data is actually skewed.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/pediatrics/news/when-its-kids-vs-trampolines-kids-often-lose/mac-20431484

  • Ensuring that a backyard trampoline has a net — that alone can cut the fracture rate in half.
  • Allowing only one child on the trampoline at a time. A significant mismatch in size and weight, such as a teen and a toddler, is especially dangerous.
  • Teaching kids not to jump onto the trampoline from roofs and other high places, which can lead to especially serious injuries.

My daughter is turning 6 and she wants her birthday at a Trampoline park. I'm dreading it, because I don't want to host the party where a kid gets seriously injured. And the party feels somewhat out of character for her. Since her other preferences are for butterflies and princess themes at the party. Or maybe its in character for her since butterflies fly, and she recently watched the Gymnastics Olympics where the women wore "princess" outfits.

Falling off is basically only part of the danger. The other danger is just that you can get a lot of height on trampolines, and that height can all come down in the wrong place or the wrong angle. Sometimes the wrong place is "on another person" sometimes it is off the trampoline. The wrong angle can break or sprain ankles, wrists, etc.

Either way, its maybe a good intermediate step for you to go to a trampoline park, watch your kid closely, and see how fine you feel with their safety in an environment that is monitored and modified for maximum safety. If you are uncomfortable with their behavior there then it will be even worse with an at home trampoline.

Have you thought about taking her to a trampoline park before her birthday to test the waters, so to speak? This way you won't be stuck there if she tries it for a minute and doesn't like it at all. Tell her it's a party rehearsal.

She's been before. She went for another kids birthday, that's how she got the idea.

Ah, okay. Has anyone injured themselves at that party?

Two minor injuries that resulted in lots of tears. But nothing permanent.

I had a trampoline with a net as a kid, and never got a serious injury. I also kind of liked having the net, you could jump up high and grab on to it like Spider-Man.

(Kids will do anything to make their play unsafe.)

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats