That’s really not going to help very much with a 400 pound gorilla, or with a lion or tiger either. Even if you had a helmet and body armor they could still be lethal just pounding on you.
Your examples are apples to oranges. The definition you have describes the difference between a “lifeline” and a “railing”, or the appropriate protections around a hole on what is presumably an industrial site. Not exactly on point here.
Your proposed definitions do not take into account the fact that the “barrier” is supposed to be capable of “preventing a child” from falling. A “railing” suitable for workers at an industrial site would be well over the head of a three-year-old child, the victim in this case. Your proposed definition would fail the most obvious test: a “railing” such as you propose would not be “capable of restraining children from falling” in this case.
Therefore, the definition you propose simply cannot be the one intended.
The better and more sensible interpretation does not require adding any terms to the words actually used - and certainly does not directly contradict them. In this case, the better definition is that a “barrier” that would pass the test (note it does not say “railing”) would be capable of “restraining” a child. You do not speak of “restraining” an adult, and the assumptions you would naturally use of adults on industrial sites (that they will not deliberately fling themselves into danger) are not appropriate when designing safety barriers for 3 year old children.
For examples of “restraining” barriers in the specific context of children, you don’t have to look far - the term is used all over the place, and everywhere means the same sort of thing:
http://www.childrestraints.com.au/store/products03.php
https://www.bunnings.com.au/perma-multi-purpose-barrier-up-to-3-7m_p4210671
http://ramabo.com/lindam-051300-baby-barrier-easy-fit-plus-deluxe-tall/4199956-4119508751
Nowhere I have seen does it ever mean “a railing that a child could easily slip through”. Rather, it means “a barrier a child cannot get through or over”.
Thanks for the pic of the fence.
Funny how ostensibly reasonable people can look at the same thing and see things differently. You see a low, easily climbable fence, and I see a pretty damned dense taller shrubbery behind it. It is pretty hard to imagine the kid was able to get over the fence and through those bushes without anyone noticing and being able to grab his clothing. Of course, in today’s climate I would be hesitant to “lay hands” on someone else’s child, even if my intention was to save him from such clearly apparent harm. :rolleyes:
From the earlier description, I guess “nonclimbable” suggests a lack of footholds, but when I was not much older than the kid in question, I was quite adept at vaulting fences taller than the zoo’s without relying on any footholds. A good running start, jump, and use only the upper bar. Lots of practice in the backyards of the NW side of Chicago! 
Just saying, the barrier looks pretty sufficient to me. The fact that it was breached by a determined kid with an assist by his (IMO) negligent parent, does not make me feel differently.
A three year old wouldn’t even have to climb that fence, he could easily go right through it - there are only two wires under the guardrail. Plenty of clearance for a kid that age to crawl under the lowest wire, and then presumably through the bushes.
As for vaulting over it - if a 3 year old could vault over a 1.2 meter “non climbable” fence, I’d be astonished. I have to assume somewhat older children capable of vaulting a fence that high would be rather less likely to vault straight into a moat - which is probably why (say) pool regulators do not demand that pool fences be “non climbable” by adults.
Yeah, all well and good. But if that fence is like similar ones I’ve seen, I bet those wires are under pretty tight tension. Not clear how much space is between them, and how easy it would be for a kid of what age to squirm through. Do we know for certain whether the kid crawled under, through, or over?
Your supposition about the abilities of 3 yr olds and the tendencies of older kids, impresses me as illustrating how difficult it is to prevent EVERY possible idiot from causing harm. Someone does something stupid and/or careless, and it is always easy to say, “Yeah, but if ONLY they had made the fence taller/put a net on the moat wall/etc.”
I get what you said about survivor bias. But I’d bet not too many well behaved children of attentive parents fall into gorilla moats - no matter what barriers are in place.
We don’t know if the kid went through or over. Given that the kid is three, and that the upper rail is 3’ off the ground, I’m betting on “through”.
I agree it is impossible to prevent EVERY accident. I wouldn’t go as far as to describe a 3 year old as an “idiot” or “badly behaved” though. Kids that young are capable of doing what, for older people, would be truly dumb things, and when they do, we usually don’t fix them with responsibility. If an adult leapt into the moat, obviously the situation would be quite different.
In this particular case, preventing the accident would have been pretty easy: just have a fence a 3 year old (or indeed any child too young to know better) could not climb through or over. This isn’t some exotic and mysterious technology of vast expense unknown to the world: similar fences exist in other contexts. Moreover, it wouldn’t make much difference to the viewing experience, as the bushes are higher than the necessary fence. It strikes me as having little downside.
Obviously, such an accident is rare. However, the downside risk is huge if it does happen: it could result in the death of a child or the death of one of the animals. It is perfectly foreseeable that it could happen; in this case, it did happen; therefore, it makes sense to install the safeguard.
I’m confident we agree on more than we disagree on.
Maybe 3-yr olds are not idiots, but I do believe they can be poorly behaved, and poorly parented. IMO a 3 yr old who has been taught how to behave in public, and who is being adequately supervised, does not get under/through/or over that fence. So I place the blame entirely on the mom.
I’d like to think that by the time my kids were 3, they had some idea of how to behave in public, in potentially dangerous situations, as well as the importance of listening to me when I told them NOT to do something they wanted to do. IMO, it is never to early to start training kids as to time/place/manner restrictions. Funny how the parents of the most poorly behaved kids are generally the first to excuse misbehavior saying, “Kids will be kids.” No, poorly behaved kids will be poorly behaved. If your kid is incapable or unwilling of acting appropriately in public, then you remove him/her.
Moreover, I’m pretty certain that I made a point of holding onto my kids’ hand if there were ANY doubt in my mind.
But we’re well beyond the point of beating this dead gorilla.
Prosecutor will not bring criminal charges against the mother. Article from Cincinnati Chicago Tribune article It sounds like a farily thorough investigation, including county social workers interviewing the mother. Key quote from the prosecutor:
[QUOTE=Hamilton County Prosecutor Joseph Deters]
She had three other kids with her and turned her back. … And if anyone doesn’t believe a 3-year-old can scamper off very quickly, they’ve never had kids.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a parent so I have no horse in this race. But a few seconds of googling found a couple of interesting (IMHO) blog entries on child leashes. Bloggy opinionated goodness. And more. Unlike most news coverage, I find the comments not only readable but actually useful. The consensus seems to be that keeping a constant grip of one’s child is not a realistic expectation.
I thought this a particularly interesting comment, which I personally agree with:
[QUOTE=Ettina]
Kids aren’t robots. They won’t always do what a parent tells them to do, no matter how well-disciplined they are.
[/QUOTE]
IMHO, your references to poorly-behaved kids smacks of the fallacy of the excluded middle: either a child is perfectly obedient or running amok, and a child who isn’t perfectly obedient should for their own safety not be in public. Or stated in a parent-focused way: either a parent has perfect control over their child or they’re letting them run amok, and no fit parent allows for a moment’s distraction even if that distraction is attending to another kid.
I have what I can truthfully describe as a very well-behaved child. She has made things incredibly easy for us. She has always been very cautious, to the point that it has been annoying sometimes. More than once I have wished she were a bit more adventurous (I am sure I will eat my words someday).
Having said that… I find it incredible that anyone can think that an accident cannot happen to the best-behaved child with the most attentive parents. I appreciate how lucky we are that it never happened to us. There but for the grace of Og go we.
I wonder how many people crucifying this mother have ever lost a kid at the grocery store or another public venue. My mother raised me with a firm hand, but I have countless memories of wandering off from both her and her “hand”. Fortunately I never fell into a gorilla pit during these misadventures.
But if I had, I wouldn’t have been the only one down there with King Kong. Don’t Gen Xers and Boomers pride themselves on how independent and unsupervised they were back in the 60s, 70s, ad 80s? Based on the ridiculous standards of today, almost all of us had abusive and neglectful parents. All of us should be dead a million times over, but we’re not. Not because we were raised “right”. Not because of our parents’ ever-watchful eyes and supervision. But because of sheer luck.
If the little boy had been tied to his mother by a leash, the same chorus calling for her head now would be calling her a “helicopter” mombie and complaining about “parents today.”
I’m becoming more misanthropic with each turn of the news cycle.
Yeah, but the zoo is apparently in full compliance with whatever rules they’re required to follow. When you take your kids someplace where there is a 15’ drop they can access you don’t get to let your attention wander. Sure, your kids will get out of your sight once in awhile, but not when there is a cliff or ledge a few feet away.
It wasn’t exactly a cliff that was easy to fall off. The kid had to deliberately separate the very dense bush that is used as a barrier to the gorilla moat.
Of course, it can. Not this accident, though.
I agree with this - there’s a goodly percentage of damned if you do, damned if you don’t going on here.
It is interesting to note that, in fact, the zoo is now taking exactly the step I recommended earlier in this thread - putting up an improved barrier. It’s slightly higher, but more significantly, its made of a mesh too small to be climbable.
Naturally, they are still claiming the previous barrier was “safe”. However, actions speak louder than words - if the previous barrier was really “safe” there was no reason to replace it.
To my mind, this change is simply sensible.
A thorough police investigation found no grounds on which to charge the parent. The better position therefore is that it was “an accident”, not “parental negligence”.
Given that fact, it makes sense to have a barrier so that accidents such as this do not happen. The barrier, as pictured, isn’t a big deal in terms of expense - my backyard fence was probably more expensive. A minor expense to prevent a major loss.
When discussing the actions of a three year old, how much “deliberation” do you think there was?
There is a reason we don’t usually hold three year olds civilly or criminally responsible for their actions: they are three years old.
point is - he didn’t just ‘fall’ - as in there’s a ledge that he was meandering around and fell (liken @ a quarry) - the kid had to work for it - and while I’m sure it didn’t take long, it did take more than a blink or two.
Well, apparently there was an investigation and no charges were laid; the Hamilton County prosecutor tasked with interviewing witnesses (four of them) and examining the facts did not find any grounds for parental negligence. Not sure we are better placed then he was to make that determination.
Different parenting styles (likely a continuum):
-Come over here and hold my/your sibling’s hand, to ensure nothing bad happens
-I assume I’ll have time to respond in case anything bad happens
Seems as tho the mom in this case was closer to the second, and was proven incorrect in her assumption.
Of course, the zoo probably should have done more, as they ought to have anticipated that among their visitors would be inattentive parents with poorly behaved/inadequately supervised kids. Doesn’t change the fact that - IMO - this mother was inadequately attentive of her child - especially after that child expressed an intention to swim with the gorilla. Doesn’t mean she should be criminally/civilly liable for anything.
As an aside, given your username Malthus, oughtn’t you be advocating removing the kids’ genes from the pool? 