I'm not sure what Matt thinks would be an appropriate solution -- we don't want kids burning themselves on hot slides.
 
Geez, watch the kid and touch the slide before letting him/her use it? It will be a non-issue once the trees grow tall enough to provide shade.

AoD
 
I don't disagree, but I'm sure the city wants to avoid possible legal issues.
Yes but parents have some responsibilities to supervise their kids and the slides have been there for 3+ years with no reports of "baked child' that I have heard of. Nothing is risk-free and boarding them up is, I fear, a typical Toronto over-reaction!
 
I'm not sure what Matt thinks would be an appropriate solution -- we don't want kids burning themselves on hot slides.

Well then the question is who decided it was a good idea to have metal slides in the first place?
 
I'm guessing someone had first complained to the city? I dunno, I chalk it up to the learning process when I was a kid and slid down a hot slide.
 
Well then the question is who decided it was a good idea to have metal slides in the first place?

If we keep bubble wrapping these kids they'll not be able to function in the real world. If a kid gets a little red mark from hot metal consider it a learning experience. From that point onward, he/she will know that metal gets hot in the sun. He/she will also learn that it was his/her fault for touching it; nobody else's. Bubble wrapped kids turn into idiot adults with no common sense at all. We have enough of those already.
 
Last edited:
Great point - the five year old that burns himself on the slide will grow up without common sense because - with that five year old's full knowledge, consent, and instructions - his parents sue the City, in a proceeding that he never sees, doesn't understand, and doesn't personally see a dime from.

Also, let's be clear on two points:
  1. The City is protecting itself from claims that it has breached its duty of care - it has absolutely no control over the law of tort (of which duty of care falls under), it can't simply choose to decide that it won't be liable and that people should "suck it up" instead (and especially once someone has complained, as that would be evidence that the City was negligent if someone subsequently got severe burns);
  2. This is not meant to deal with "a little red mark". An infant sliding down slowly (or placed in a seating position at the top or bottom) with bare legs could get severe, disfiguring burns. Yes, it ends up preventing the "little red mark" events too, but that's not what the City is primarily worried about (though I would add that every case brought against the City, even the little ones, can easily cost thousands of dollars, and I'm willing to bet you would be at the front of the line to complain if the City raised taxes in order to pay for this and other avoidable expenses).
Look, I don't actually like that the slides are boarded up any more than you do. But, the City is acting within the legal system as it stands and amongst the various possible bad options it has chosen the "common sense" solution.
 

"Maybe someone who didn't have children potentially had this idea," she said.
...
That's a frustration for Gillians, who said the exposed metal design itself is the problem.
"Put in slides, that's great — but make kid-friendly slides," she said.

How about - act like a parent instead of expecting 100% safety where it is unreasonable to do so. As to the retort to the first point - we have all been kids too and somehow we survived hot metal slides. So take a number and don't trot out being a parent as a talking point.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing someone had first complained to the city? I dunno, I chalk it up to the learning process when I was a kid and slid down a hot slide.
Here's the missing link, guys:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/metal-slides-toronto-1.4193525

park.jpg
 

Attachments

  • park.jpg
    park.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 713
Last edited:

Back
Top