Lanyard banning in Calgary
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Is that deadly treat still around?
Those small parts?
Won't someone please think of the children!
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.
The choking hazard on that product is outrageous.... Clearly a nation wide ban is appropriate
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???
That does make perfect sense, I never suggested otherwise
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?
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.
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.
Alright.... Apparently I put more credence in the word 'ban' then I should. It sounds more like a policy decision.
Let me ask this question; If a student at that school opted to bring in and use their own lanyard that was not in a break away format, would they be subject to any disciplinary actions?.. How about an instructor or administrator?.. Any fall out?
If the answer to the above is 'yes'. then this is no longer an exercise in 'opting'...
It really comes down to this: Do we really need to promote an even stronger nanny-state when simple common sense can solve this problem?
In many cases, yes... Examples may include trampolines, bunsen burners (shudder), football gear, baseball equipment, hockey rinks (at some schools), gymnastics equipment, etc, etc..
How about the example of a young student falling and hitting their head on a sink or toilet?... Sure, I'm being overly extreme, but I'd bet you that there are more incidents of a child slipping and injuring themselves by hitting the corner of a desk or sink in one year than can be justified by a provincial ban based on one highly visible incident.
So, I ask again? Where is there no ban on these historically recognized dangers?
Don't think for one minute that I am treating this event in Bearspaw in a cavalier manner... It's tragic for that boy and his family and that tragedy will be amplified even more due to it being close to Xmas.
I appreciate the insurance angle on this and the motivation to keep all the costs down as best as possible, but knowing that insurance companies base all of their decisions on actuarial analyses; I can't really see that this event would have ever made it on the radar of to begin with.
But let's take this to it's logical conclusion... The liability is not limited to just schools. Municipal, Provincial and Federal Lands/facilities would assume that same potential liability. That also says nothing of the private sector facilities or lands.
Caveat: Understanding how a n a l insurance companies are - I am most likely wrong in this assertion
That's honestly how I interpret it. I reiterate that they were stupid for not using the break away kind in the first place. Now they can use neither, and quite frankly they are useful especially for children who are prone to losing things.
That I have no idea about. They can, I suppose, not allow it's use on school property. Again, I'm thinking of the secondary incident just waiting to occur. While it may never occur that's what they have to be wary of.
The board of education will have a huge list of safety standards that have to be maintained in order to have these activities. In some cases specific parental consent is required because of the risk involved. Think about that explosion that occurred in the Ottawa high school in the spring. I don't think we'll see an end to shop class. We also won't see an end to sports. That's about learning and physical activity, the benefits outweigh the risks provided the appropriate precautions are taken.
They aren't going ban toilets, I'd stake my life on that, lol. Pretty essential to the human condition.
I don't for one second think that you're dismissing the tragic event that occurred. I just think we're comparing apples and oranges here. Yes, there is risk in life, period. But this particular item was not essential to the learning experience (like sports or shop class) and while it may not have ever occurred to someone that this could happen, it did. Do they hold on to something not essential or re-evaluate at how they issue hall passes? I think it's a no brainer.
I think it still comes down to schools being responsible for the safety and well being of other people's children. If anybody has to be a*n*a*l* about safety, it's probably the schools. Lots of things are dangerous in the wrong hands specifically children's hands because they don't pay attention to safety that would be just fine in someone else's hands.
Bottom line is I just think that if they school board (or whoever it was) came out and made a statement more like this:
"In light of recent tragedy at the Calgary school we are ceasing use of lanyards in our schools effective immediately."
it would come off completely differently than
"Lanyards banned in Calgary".
I honestly think it's a 'look beyond the headline' thing.
That's just the way it is these days. If an organization doesn't manage their risks then they can expect to pay through the nose for liability insurance. Society isn't just a bunch of liberal do-good decisions. After 911 liability insurance spiked enormously putting a lot if small business out of business. It's no longer the two-bit policy of ld lore, it is extremely expensive.
Unfortunately for the boy in the lanyard accident, the young girl probably made a full recovery due to her body's activity slowing down so much due to the cold. That is why some children survive and make a full recovery even after having been underwater for longer than it should be possible to survive.
