Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well, I wasn't explaining the logic of the law, but the logic I use. I'm consistent; we have rejected requests for a trampoline, and the usage my kids have had has been heavily supervised.

One thing about trampolines is that AIUI, the vast majority of the danger comes from having multiple people on one at a time. Most of the remaining risk is manageable, more in the normal range of risk, especially with supervision. As evidence, I cite that in lawsuit-crazy USA, there are businesses like Sky Zone that provide trampoline play commercially. That kinda bounds the upper level of risk...

I have some additional considerations that require that for other reasons, but I think I'd still feel the same way even without them.



>Well, I wasn't explaining the logic of the law, but the logic I use.

Great! The whole point is that you are capable to do that, and that the total ban is unreasonable. Nobody is arguing that having small magnets around little kids who don't know better is a good idea.


> there are businesses like Sky Zone that provide trampoline play commercially. That kinda bounds the upper level of risk...

In the past few weeks I've seen a couple articles about people breaking their spine doing flips into foam pits. I would avoid that particular activity, at least.

I had a trampoline as a kid. It resulted in a few very painful injuries, but it was a lot of fun. My brother broke his arm rolling off of it (nobody was even jumping). You can't fall off the edge at those businesses because the trampolines are built into raised floor areas. That removes one of the larger dangers from the equation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: