Lanyard banning in Calgary


Locutus
#1
from Fark headline:

While the U.S. wrestles to balance liberty and security in the wake of a horrible firearms massacre, Alberta is banning string to make its schools safer


Calgary area schools move forward without lanyards in wake of near strangulation

Psychologists ready to help as students return to classes Monday

Rocky View Schools officials are figuring out how their schools will handle a new ban on lanyard use implemented after a student at Bearspaw School nearly strangled to death on one last week.

Meanwhile, crisis response team members will return to the school Monday and remain as long as they are needed to help students and staff cope with the incident.

Its been very heartbreaking for everyone, said school board spokeswoman Angela Spanier.


read on


Calgary area schools move forward without lanyards in wake of near strangulation
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
SLM
+5
#2  Top Rated Post
For crying out loud. Sad and tragic as this accident was, and it was an accident, why is the first reaction always to 'ban' something???

They make safety lanyards, designed to break apart should they get caught in anything. I have no idea why all lanyards are not designed this way, seems kind of ridiculous to have anything around your neck if it poses any kind of choking hazard. I went through this with my mom when she got her medical/personal home alert system; choice of wristband (like a watch) or pendant fob. We (I) chose the wrist band because the pendant fob is not designed to breakaway should the person fall and get it caught on anything. Yet the purpose of the home alert system is for someone who is prone to falling to be able to access assistance even if they cannot get to a telephone. Is it just me or is there a flaw in the design logic there somewhere?

To me it only makes sense that if you are going to put a lanyard around a child's neck it should be the break away kind. Even though it's probably a one in a million chance that a child will get in caught in such a way that they could choke themselves on it, why take that chance at all?
 
captain morgan
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

To me it only makes sense that if you are going to put a lanyard around a child's neck it should be the break away kind. Even though it's probably a one in a million chance that a child will get in caught in such a way that they could choke themselves on it, why take that chance at all?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when you were a kid, your mom tied a house key around your neck with a shoe lace or something like that... Call it an old-school lanyard if you like.

That said, I'd also bet that back in the day, a few kids also had accidents with these arrangements as well, yet there was no municipal bylaws passed that necessitated the removal of the keys/shoelaces to save society.

The entire trend to protect kids to this extreme degree is getting out of hand. I fully expect that there will be legislation in place before I move on that requires all kids to wear plush sumo suits at all times and possibly have one or two adults (safety personnel) follow the wee ones around during their every waking moment to ensure there are no 'accidents'. (NB: only one safety officer required to watch and monitor snookums while they sleep in case they role out of bed).
 
SLM
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that when you were a kid, your mom tied a house key around your neck with a shoe lace or something like that... Call it an old-school lanyard if you like.

Nope. stay at home Mom. I was not a latch-key kid.

Quote:

That said, I'd also bet that back in the day, a few kids also had accidents with these arrangements as well, yet there was no municipal bylaws passed that necessitated the removal of the keys/shoelaces to save society.

The entire trend to protect kids to this extreme degree is getting out of hand. I fully expect that there will be legislation in place before I move on that requires all kids to wear plush sumo suits at all times and possibly have one or two adults (safety personnel) follow the wee ones around during their every waking moment to ensure there are no 'accidents'. (NB: only one safety officer required to watch and monitor snookums while they sleep in case they role out of bed).

I can remember when my kids were in school there were a fair number of stories in our community about kids getting their hood drawstrings caught on playground equipment (slides) and I even recall one where a little girl got one caught in bus doors and was dragged beside the bus because the driver didn't see it. Are these freak occurrences? Yes they are, absolutely, they don't happen every day. But at the same time if you had the option between a drawstring on a hood for a child or a velcro closure, which would you choose?

So if we have options for a lanyard between one that, if it got caught on something could pose a definite choking hazard, or one that would breakaway in the event it got caught, again which would you choose? That's the only point I'm making.

I'm not prone to exaggeration or hysterics, I think you know that much about me by now. I think it's ridiculous to ban a very useful product because of a few isolated incidents but if a safer version of that product exists currently I do have to ask why that isn't being used.
 
captain morgan
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Nope. stay at home Mom. I was not a latch-key kid.

You missed-out on sooo much... You poor thing you

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I can remember when my kids were in school there were a fair number of stories in our community about kids getting their hood drawstrings caught on playground equipment (slides) and I even recall one where a little girl got one caught in bus doors and was dragged beside the bus because the driver didn't see it. Are these freak occurrences? Yes they are, absolutely, they don't happen every day. But at the same time if you had the option between a drawstring on a hood for a child or a velcro closure, which would you choose?

So if we have options for a lanyard between one that, if it got caught on something could pose a definite choking hazard, or one that would breakaway in the event it got caught, again which would you choose? That's the only point I'm making.

I'm not prone to exaggeration or hysterics, I think you know that much about me by now. I think it's ridiculous to ban a very useful product because of a few isolated incidents but if a safer version of that product exists currently I do have to ask why that isn't being used.

Not to nitpick, but velcro wasn't around when I was a kid, at least not something that was readily available.

In the end, the entire process related to growing-up is fraught with all manner of risks and opportunity for accidents... Bikes, rough-housing with friends, baseball (or many sports) let alone navigating traffic daily whilst crossing the street.

All you can really do is impart as many lessons and as much responsibility and hope that any accident experienced (and there will be many) are something that they can rebound from and learn.

This is not to say that precautions aren't taken, but I think that we all understand that it is almost physically impossible to shelter a kid from every conceivable threat that exists in the world
 
karrie
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The entire trend to protect kids to this extreme degree is getting out of hand.

Have you ever lost a child to something preventable?

While I scoffed as well at the notion that they would instantly ban all lanyards rather than make it the rule to have breakaways, I think for any teacher in that school, you'll find the idea of keeping lanyards after seeing a child removed from their school, dead, would be ludicrous. The ban would be common sense for them. And probably for any student in that school as well.

The other thought that jumps to mind about it being 'out of hand'.... have you ever seen the 'quality of life' metrics that rate countries? What's one of the biggest indicators of a good place to live? How well we protect our children
 
SLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

This is not to say that precautions aren't taken, but I think that we all understand that it is almost physically impossible to shelter a kid from every conceivable threat that exists in the world

No of course you can't but where other options, safer options, currently exist why are those not chosen? We aren't talking about something that becomes too cost prohibitive (it's not like the break away types are more than a few cents more in cost) and we are talking about small children here. They don't pay that much attention to safety, so where we can, we should.
 
taxslave
+1
#8
Does a province or a municipality have the legal authority to ban something like this? How long is the jail term for doing something this dangerous to society?
 
petros
+1
#9
This would have never happened if there were mandatory helmet laws.
 
taxslave
+2
#10
Wonder what WCB will say when they find out workers can no longer use fall arrest lanyards?
 
captain morgan
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Have you ever lost a child to something preventable?

While I scoffed as well at the notion that they would instantly ban all lanyards rather than make it the rule to have breakaways, I think for any teacher in that school, you'll find the idea of keeping lanyards after seeing a child removed from their school, dead, would be ludicrous. The ban would be common sense for them. And probably for any student in that school as well.


With respect, almost everything is preventable if one is willing to go to an extreme.

The events surrounding the child that had the accident in Bearspaw is tragic, but the message that I forwarded is not unrealistic... Sure, 'ban' lanyards and this event won't happen via a lanyard.

  1. Probably later this year, some child will break their leg skiing.. Let's ban skis.
  2. A couple of years ago (at Bowness HS in Calgary), one of the players died as a result of playing football for the school... Let's ban football.
  3. A few years back, a boy in Calgary was sledding in a park by his home. His sled traveled a short distance from the green space onto a roadway and was killed... Let's ban sledding.
  4. Children's access to lakes and rivers?... Clearly that must be banned

All of the above (except the skiing bit) occur very rarely are entirely preventable, yet they happened as the result of an accident. We can prevent all manner of accidental harm and death - I suppose that all we need is the will to 'ban' anything that may lead to these events.


Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

The other thought that jumps to mind about it being 'out of hand'.... have you ever seen the 'quality of life' metrics that rate countries? What's one of the biggest indicators of a good place to live? How well we protect our children

With respect, how did Canada rank on the quality of life scale prior to lanyards being banned... Lawn darts?.. Legislation that required bicycle helmets?
 
JLM
#12
Any recent news on how that boy is doing?
 
karrie
#13
You're comparing recreation to a lanyard, do you get how absurd that is?

A truly inconsequential piece of school equipment that has actually killed a child, even if through a freak accident. The school board removing them from their school will cost dollars, and provide peace of mind. As far as school board actions go, it's got to be one of the least objectionable I've ever seen in light of the incident.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Any recent news on how that boy is doing?

He was dead for at least four minutes. They're calling him stable but critical. My assumption is that he's brain dead.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Wonder what WCB will say when they find out workers can no longer use fall arrest lanyards?

Seriously, why bust his balls over the wording of the thread? It doesn't take much to understand what it's about.
 
JLM
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post




He was dead for at least four minutes. They're calling him stable but critical. My assumption is that he's brain dead.

Oh no! I was feeling optimistic, as I always took "stable" to be a good sign- just hope for the best I guess. I always think of the little girl years ago near Edmonton who spent a night outside in her nightie in minus 30C and made a full recovery. That one was a miracle, so I guess there is always hope.
 
captain morgan
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

You're comparing recreation to a lanyard, do you get how absurd that is?

Whether it was 'a convenience' or it's a recreational activity is irrelevant, all of the examples are entirely preventable... So, you'll have to decide if recreational activities qualify as worthy for the accidental death prevention program or not.

This is not about taking unnecessary risks - this is about a knee-jerk reaction requiring a formal banning to solve the problem.

Fact is this; (in retrospect) a poor decision was made to use the lanyard, the solution is to change that decision and learn from the mistake... And let's also recognize that this very same lanyard was used for (probably) thousands of similar visits by many many students

What happened to this boy was terrible, but it was a freak accident. That boy could have very easily fallen in the toilet and cracked his head wide open hitting the porcelain, but you don't see a move to ban toilets.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

A truly inconsequential piece of school equipment that has actually killed a child, even if through a freak accident. The school board removing them from their school will cost dollars, and provide peace of mind. As far as school board actions go, it's got to be one of the least objectionable I've ever seen in light of the incident.

All of the examples I provided can be considered inconsequential if one bends the logic far enough... Sledding, skiing and football are not activities that are essential for a child to mature into adulthood.... So, how far do you really want to take this?
 
JLM
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post


What happened to this boy was terrible, but it was a freak accident. That boy could have very easily fallen in the toilet and cracked his head wide open hitting the porcelain, but you don't see a move to ban toilets.


Then, sh*t would hit the fan! -
 
karrie
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post


All of the examples I provided can be considered inconsequential if one bends the logic far enough... Sledding, skiing and football are not activities that are essential for a child to mature into adulthood.... So, how far do you really want to take this?

Did you have a similar dislike for the decision to remove looped cloth towel dispensers from schools?

The bottom line is, the school supplied a piece of equipment that a child strangled on. They've banned that piece of equipment, an unnecessary, piece of equipment, from their schools as a result. It's not the first time, it won't be the last time. Especially since they have to think about the fact that it might not be a freak accident, it might be exactly the same issue as the looped towel dispensers.
 
captain morgan
#18
You're right Karrie and I'm wrong.

The solution is to ban them outright
 
SLM
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

This is not about taking unnecessary risks - this is about a knee-jerk reaction requiring a formal banning to solve the problem.

Fact is this; (in retrospect) a poor decision was made to use the lanyard, the solution is to change that decision and learn from the mistake... And let's also recognize that this very same lanyard was used for (probably) thousands of similar visits by many many students

I've got to ask, is it just the word 'ban' that is the problem here?

The school has decided to ban use of lanyards./ The has decided to change their prior decision to use lanyards. What really is the difference here? Semantics? It all amounts to the same thing.

As much as it may very well be a freak accident that will likely never again occur, if they chose not to stop using them and another similar situation happened in the future, what then? It would no longer be reasonable to say it was unforseen. You have to remember that the school is dealing with the safety of other people's children. While most kids might not be so rambunctuous as to turn a lanyard into a choking hazard, clearly some are. (I'm not blaming the boy at all but we've all seen kids when they take off running, not paying attention to what's around them.) Once that's been established, how can they not stop using them?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

For crying out loud. Sad and tragic as this accident was, and it was an accident, why is the first reaction always to 'ban' something???

Insufficent and deep enough thought.

Quote:

They make safety lanyards, designed to break apart should they get caught in anything. I have no idea why all lanyards are not designed this way, seems kind of ridiculous to have anything around your neck if it poses any kind of choking hazard. I went through this with my mom when she got her medical/personal home alert system; choice of wristband (like a watch) or pendant fob. We (I) chose the wrist band because the pendant fob is not designed to breakaway should the person fall and get it caught on anything. Yet the purpose of the home alert system is for someone who is prone to falling to be able to access assistance even if they cannot get to a telephone. Is it just me or is there a flaw in the design logic there somewhere?

To me it only makes sense that if you are going to put a lanyard around a child's neck it should be the break away kind. Even though it's probably a one in a million chance that a child will get in caught in such a way that they could choke themselves on it, why take that chance at all?

BUMP!

Having said that, whatever happened to those clip things that nurses use that cling to the bottom hems on their shirts to hold ID and whatnot?
 
CDNBear
+4
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

For crying out loud. Sad and tragic as this accident was, and it was an accident, why is the first reaction always to 'ban' something???

To many under worked risk management types trying to justify their jobs that see life in black and white.
 
Locutus
#22
At least we still have Kinder Surprise.
 
CDNBear
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

At least we still have Kinder Surprise.

Is that deadly treat still around?

Those small parts?

Won't someone please think of the children!
 
Kreskin
#24
Society is run by insurance. It's a helluva lot tougher to get affordable lisbility insurance now, especially now that everyone sues for every accident.
 
CDNBear
#25
Hey Kreskin, don't you guys have those breakaway lanyards out west?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Oh no! I was feeling optimistic, as I always took "stable" to be a good sign- just hope for the best I guess. I always think of the little girl years ago near Edmonton who spent a night outside in her nightie in minus 30C and made a full recovery. That one was a miracle, so I guess there is always hope.

In that case the girls body would have been cooled down almost like scifi type hibernation. There have been cases where people make full recoveries from that. I think at some point that scifi could even become a reality. But in this case, its just strangulation. The brain is dead but the heart goes on.
 
captain morgan
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

At least we still have Kinder Surprise.

The choking hazard on that product is outrageous.... Clearly a nation wide ban is appropriate

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Hey Kreskin, don't you guys have those breakaway lanyards out west?

Here out West, we opted to forgo the breakaway units as they provide no impediment to the catastrophic contact related to the fall.
 
SLM
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Here out West, we opted to forgo the breakaway units as they provide no impediment to the catastrophic contact related to the fall.

Oh come on now, lol, is it really that outrageous to suggest that between the two types the one designed to absolutely never pose a choking hazard might be the safer option?

I was talking to my daughter and her boyfriend this evening, the lanyards their former office place gave them with their ID badges on them were, for safety reasons, the break away kind. And this was an office. And they're adults. Is it honestly that unreasonable a suggestion for children???
 
captain morgan
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Oh come on now, lol, is it really that outrageous to suggest that between the two types the one designed to absolutely never pose a choking hazard might be the safer option?

That does make perfect sense, I never suggested otherwise

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I was talking to my daughter and her boyfriend this evening, the lanyards their former office place gave them with their ID badges on them were, for safety reasons, the break away kind. And this was an office. And they're adults. Is it honestly that unreasonable a suggestion for children???

Did they invoke a province-wide ban on them in offices?

I'm also a little curious; I outlined some other questionable activities that had lengthy and proven track records of harm and on occasion, death, specifically among children in that same age group... So far, no affirmative answer that not only recognizes this apparent danger, but no hint of 'banning' those activities.

Where is the move to put the ban on them?
 
SLM
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

That does make perfect sense, I never suggested otherwise.



Did they invoke a province-wide ban on them in offices?

They are "banning" or "opting to not use them any longer", if that makes more palatable, in schools only. They aren't removing them from store shelves and burning them. They could have chosen to use the break away kind in the first place, which is what I think they should have done, but given that a very public and catastrophic incident has taken place, they do need to remove themselves from their use altogether.

Quote:

I'm also a little curious; I outlined some other questionable activities that had lengthy and proven track records of harm and on occasion, death, specifically among children in that same age group... So far, no affirmative answer that not only recognizes this apparent danger, but no hint of 'banning' those activities.

Where is the move to put the ban on them?

Were the schools providing/requiring these activities? Because if they were and such a 'questionable activity' caused extensive harm or death, you bet they'd be 'banning' that as well.

I know when I was in school we had many field trips, every year, several times a year. I can count on one hand the number of field trips my kids went on when they were in school. It's been drastically reduced. The reason? Insurance. Dollars to donuts it's the same thing at work here.
 
no new posts