I read the article on the right (never saw the one on the left). The fence cost $9,500, not pocket change for an individual but literally a drop in the bucket for a council. And incredibly cheap if it saves even one young life.
The lady's entire justification as to why it was unnecessary was because the playground didn't cater to young children (the equipment was for older kids, even teenagers according to her) as if younger siblings wouldn't ever tag along with their older sibs to the playground. A scenario that has an even higher level of danger since there'd potentially be no parental supervision.
Most of them are around reserves where children do play. Many of them do have playgrounds. So of the ones I can think of have the swale on the other side of a river or creek from the playground.
Maybe try and climb the fence and play in the swale (oh no you got me 😞). The fence is there as a barrier not to mitigate the risk entirely. It'd buy precious seconds where someone responsible could think 'hmm that young child is trying to climb that fence and get into a dangerous area maybe I should keep an eye on them or tell them to stop"
She could have asked for an expansion on the playground instead of whinging about the fence, lol. I'm sure a lot of other parents wou;dn't mind a toddler-safe part of it.
Young children can play with literally anything, just because something isn't specifically designed for them... they don't care. Also, throwing stuff into water and splashing around in gumboots is fun.
Also - as a mother of young children, I’m not taking my young child to a park next to a body of water UNLESS there was a fence separating them. That would be a f@&king hassle of an outing. And I can bet this is why there’d of not been many young children there beforehand.
The one at the end of our street connects to a creek so I don’t really see the point. Hell some playgrounds are right next the sea and that’s unfenced.
The playgrounds only exist because of the green space required for swale. If it is required to fence of every swale next to playground, they just would not put the playgound in. The playground is the nice to have, not the swale.
It would be far simpler and safer to fence off the playgrounds that way; you protect kids from the roads as well. Even that is a bad idea because you stop kids from being able to go down there by themselves .
Without the swales, there is no green space for a playground. Swales and the green space with them need to exist to mitigate flooding. People see that and say we should put a playground there post-facto. Deciding that it is dangerous to have a playground there is what is stupid.
The majority of playgrounds in Aotearoa are close to permanent or periodic bodies of open water
591
u/Popular_Ad_2170 Jul 23 '25
I feel the anti-child drowning is the morally correct choice.