Crazy People on Trampoline with segway! - Page 5

sombody · 09-07-2006, 12:20 AM

Hey Man- after reading you letter I just had a paradigm shift-

Thanks

rick

Jet · 09-07-2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waynen

I am also a pilot and own my own aircraft, I have flown aerobatics and my kids have too. We also race drag boats and offshore race boats. Anyone seen this month's Hot Boat magazine? That's me on page 26 driving the drag boat on the top of the page.

Just because I am not same typical antique boring sue happy lazy old Segway owner as many here, doesn't make my uses for my "toy" wrong. When I am in public with my toy, I ride very slowly and I hate the fact that people rent the Segways and knock people over and make them a irritation which could make them not welcome in the near future. It is in my nature however to explore the limits of every toy I own and will continue to do so.

I have not met any antique boring segway owners on this group to date. In a recent gathering most of us were well to do business professionals with other hobbies including flying. Personally have not done aerobatics with my children as parachutes for children are hard to come by.... You were wearing parachutes or was that another oversight?

SEGsby · 09-07-2006, 01:19 AM

Lawn Jarts were involved in the deaths of 3 children in the US and is why they're no longer any metal ones sold since December 19, 1988 in the United States. And yes, they were a lot of fun.

All it takes is a few high profile accidents to ruin it for everyone. The often overlooked side to having fun is being responsible for the safety of yourself and others; as when you ride a Segway...

I saw no evidence of this from watching the video.

SEGsby

Quote:

Originally Posted by sombody

Does anyone remember LAWN DARTS- perfectly fun game unless you tried to catch them with your teeth.

rick

glen_d · 09-07-2006, 02:15 AM

I speak to this point because it think it's important.

Russian roulette is a well-known way of killing someone. It happened just yesterday a few miles from my house. The risk of death versus the return of excitement has been demonstrated as a losing proposition over and over.

Perhaps the situation for Little League Baseball is not so clear. Thousands of children are injured every year. A few even die. Millions of children live out their childhood without ever playing Little League, going on to lead happy, productive lives. Despite these outcomes, parents continue to send their children into harm's way in return for whatever benefits Little League offers. Parents, children and society have made a collective favorable judgment about Little League, based on many, many exposures to the risks and returns.

The instance of a Segway on a trampoline, however, is a unique event. There aren't any case studies on the safety of this activity. Those that would venture onto a Segway on a trampoline do so at their own risk. Perhaps you could speculate about what might have happened (but didn't happen). Was the trampoline any less safe than riding backwards, riding double, riding two Segways at once, or jumping off of curbs? All of these might be dangerous, and members here boast of these very maneuvers, sometimes including the participation or within view of children. Are these maneuvers more or less dangerous? How do you know? Did you answer for yourself or Wayne's child?

Karl tries to elevate his arguments because he's a father and I'm not. Hogwash . . . parents aren't endowed with any special intelligence (Karl seems to argue just the opposite). Then he describes his special devotion to his children - irrelevant since none of them are in the video. Finally, he decides to insult my ability to judge risk, without any knowledge of the matter at all (sorry Karl, I skydive quite safely too). TheRonster makes facetious comparisons to activities society has already labelled as dangerous and then suggests that the tape may have been edited to remove the depiction of an injury. Jet chides the father for allowing someone less than 100 pounds to operate the Segway (something a number of posters here have admitted to allowing). None of you speak to the issue, and all of you try to invoke emotions instead of logic to further your argument.

The issue is whether or not the father deserves to have someone interfere in the raising of his child. What's the difference between "I wouldn't do that" and "Wayne's a bad man"? You can point out that your personal risk assessment would be different without much effect. But if you damn the father for his judgment when his actions did not injure the child, you call for an intrusion into your own life too.

If it takes such a low hurdle to intrude in Wayne's life, perhaps the hurdle is low for you too. "Your kids haven't been hurt yet, but they could be, and we're just here for their safety," says the Child Protection Services officer. I doubt any of you would sit still for a second if the officer showed up to monitor the next wrestling session with your 5 year-old son. Intrusion into how we raise our kids ought to take an extraordinarily high threshold. As a parent, you ought to be afforded the greatest latitude possible in how you raise your children. I'd wager most of you would fight for it. Intrusion only after reckless and consistent disregard for the child's welfare, difficult to prove without result, is the standard most people would choose for themselves.

Our society has become increasingly numb to foisting responsibility for raising children on others. Many parents seem to have abdicated their responsibility (I don't hear any on SegwayChat). "The school will teach them all they need to know; They're friend's will keep them out of trouble; The parole officer will straighten them up; Maybe prison will get them on the right track." Parents have uttered all of these to me personally and to my community.

Our society doesn't need more help raising kids, it needs less. Parents need to take responsibility, and society has to stop making it convenient not to do so. That means we must not interfere with parents except in cases of reckless and consistent disregard for a child's welfare. I don't think a child riding a Segway on a trampoline without getting hurt meets that difficult test.

Glen

Sal · 09-07-2006, 05:29 AM

Okay, I'm moving this thread off-topic.

-Sal

TheRonster · 09-07-2006, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glen_d

TheRonster makes facetious comparisons to activities society has already labelled as dangerous and then suggests that the tape may have been edited to remove the depiction of an injury.

Actually, I was homing in on your "but look, he wasn't hurt" argument, which was problematic to begin with, and which moreover was buttressed only by someone's self-edited, self-submitted videotape. YEs, it IS edited (not "may have been edited") into at least three chunks. Each segment ends abruptly right after something a bit shaky happens. It made me wonder "what happened next?" Can you say, definitively?

You're pinning your entire defense on the "fact" that no person or property was harmed. If you want logic, that very same defense is 100% perfect almost every time for Russian Roulette. Why don't you stick with that defense for Russian Roulette and slingshot Jarts? A kid could try it several times on UNedited videotape without getting hurt. Why do you even care whether society has "already labeled as dangerous" my comparison activities, since the relative danger of having your kids do these things is (according to you) nobody else's business to judge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by glen_d

None of you speak to the issue, and all of you try to invoke emotions instead of logic to further your argument.

No, I used logic to poke holes in your excuses for blatantly reckless behavior that, by the way, doesn't even look fun or exciting. You're the one trying to pitch this into an emotional civil rights case, raising the spectre that if we don't look the other way when the Russian Roulette fad catches on, someday a busybody gubmint bureaucracy will end up deciding what color crayons my little girl can use.

You keep saying nobody has a right to interfere with the father who set that up and videotaped it. So far as I can remember, none of us did interfere. None of us said we had a right to interfere. I don't recall giving Segway Tramp Dad any advice on any other aspect of his child-raising philosophies.

But I stand by my initial reaction. It looks to me like a dumb, risky thing to do with almost no payoff in adrenalin. It's not a parental-rights case. And if you don't want people commenting on it, you don't set it up on Google Video for all the world to see.

waynen · 09-07-2006, 08:31 AM

Yes we do, and a ballistic recovery chute to boot and relitively low risk aerobatics, mostly loops and rolls while the kids are on board. Also, they never see actual race speeds in the boats or cars although still much more than most people ever see. Sorry about the antique comment, sounded like a bunch of people older than I will ever be, bashing on my way of living life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet

I have not met any antique boring segway owners on this group to date. In a recent gathering most of us were well to do business professionals with other hobbies including flying. Personally have not done aerobatics with my children as parachutes for children are hard to come by.... You were wearing parachutes or was that another oversight?

sombody · 09-07-2006, 10:29 AM

At least they werent smoking cigarettes too-

rick

sholloway · 09-07-2006, 10:35 AM

I didn't mention anything about someone sending in Child Services to take away Wayne's kids. I said it was stupid to let his kids jump on a trampoline on a Segway, and then noted further the most basic safety precautions weren't being taken, like a helmet, a nearby adult to even try to grab a kid as they were falling, pillows on the bars. And if you don't have kids, you are at a disadvantage for discussing how much risk you should let your kid take. Your kid's brain cannot properly assess risks until they're over 20 years old from what I've read. Therefore it is the parent that has to make this decision. If you're not a parent, no matter how many times you hear someone say "I never knew I could love someone this much", you'll never know how much that is.
I love that you keep pointing out that no one actually got hurt in the video. Then you keep telling us things we are saying is irrelevant. I think the fact that no one was hurt in the video is completely irrelevant. None of the people playing russian roulette get shot in the head right up until the very hundreth of a second when one of them gets shot in the head. That doesn't mean it's only dangerous AFTER someone gets shot. You even say that if it isn't our specific child in the video we can't comment on whether it is too much risk or not. I'm sure if this were some type of scientific debate on whether or not the kids in the video were harmed and we could only use the video as evidence then you could end up winning. But to say they didn't get hurt so there is no unneccessary risk is WAY oversimplifying. You say society should stay out of it, then you say society decided it's dangerous to play russion roulette. You've got some logic in there but you keep bouncing around.

Wayne, thank you for posting here. It was much easier to talk about you when you weren't here, using the Big Man behind the internet where no one can see you thing. But now that you are hear I would love it if you could comment even more. Of course you don't have to answer any of us but I'm curious. When you say "older than I will ever be" are you referring to a disease that you mentioned earlier or are you referring to a risky lifestyle that you think may end your life earlier than average? I'm pretty sure you love your kids as much as I love mine. Can you think of anything that would make me SO against what you were doing in the video and make you OK with it? As a child were you allowed to explore more risky activities? Do you feel you were safe or lucky? I am not looking to call you names anymore here, just discuss it with you. Thanx for your time.

waynen · 09-07-2006, 12:40 PM

I was referring to the diseases that effect the men in our family. as a child there was no way to keep me from risky activities. I can't say I didn't have any luck, but I did keep the risk within my own safty range although that didn't always fall into others idea of safe. Lets face it, if any of us was given 24 hours to live, how many hours would we sleep? None I say. But again I admit, I should have had helmets on all of us. My car would never move from the driveway without seatbelts on them, and I of course use all mandated safety equipment as well as some optional ones in my various other hobbies. I was involved in a motorcycle accident back in 1985 in which I broke ny seventh cervical as well as many other injuries, and the helmet saved me there. Was a collision with a car which was not my fault, and I also did not sue even though clearly, I could have spending 19 months in bed. I believe accidents are accidents, had they been drinking, It would have been a different story. BTW, I am a Sheriff's deputy and make my main living as an auto repossessor. I guess I have a different idea of what dangerous than others here. I have strong beliefs that I live by. For instance, I don't believe that any parent should be able to sign consent to have their minor child get a tatoo. I think tatoo's are like sex, until you are old enough to make your own decision, nobody, not even your parent should be allowed to make a choice like that for you. Thanks for your comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholloway

Wayne, thank you for posting here. It was much easier to talk about you when you weren't here, using the Big Man behind the internet where no one can see you thing. But now that you are hear I would love it if you could comment even more. Of course you don't have to answer any of us but I'm curious. When you say "older than I will ever be" are you referring to a disease that you mentioned earlier or are you referring to a risky lifestyle that you think may end your life earlier than average? I'm pretty sure you love your kids as much as I love mine. Can you think of anything that would make me SO against what you were doing in the video and make you OK with it? As a child were you allowed to explore more risky activities? Do you feel you were safe or lucky? I am not looking to call you names anymore here, just discuss it with you. Thanx for your time.

09-07-2006, 02:15 AM	#44
glen_d Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Anchorage, AK, USA. Posts: 213	Who's Watching You? I speak to this point because it think it's important. Russian roulette is a well-known way of killing someone. It happened just yesterday a few miles from my house. The risk of death versus the return of excitement has been demonstrated as a losing proposition over and over. Perhaps the situation for Little League Baseball is not so clear. Thousands of children are injured every year. A few even die. Millions of children live out their childhood without ever playing Little League, going on to lead happy, productive lives. Despite these outcomes, parents continue to send their children into harm's way in return for whatever benefits Little League offers. Parents, children and society have made a collective favorable judgment about Little League, based on many, many exposures to the risks and returns. The instance of a Segway on a trampoline, however, is a unique event. There aren't any case studies on the safety of this activity. Those that would venture onto a Segway on a trampoline do so at their own risk. Perhaps you could speculate about what might have happened (but didn't happen). Was the trampoline any less safe than riding backwards, riding double, riding two Segways at once, or jumping off of curbs? All of these might be dangerous, and members here boast of these very maneuvers, sometimes including the participation or within view of children. Are these maneuvers more or less dangerous? How do you know? Did you answer for yourself or Wayne's child? Karl tries to elevate his arguments because he's a father and I'm not. Hogwash . . . parents aren't endowed with any special intelligence (Karl seems to argue just the opposite). Then he describes his special devotion to his children - irrelevant since none of them are in the video. Finally, he decides to insult my ability to judge risk, without any knowledge of the matter at all (sorry Karl, I skydive quite safely too). TheRonster makes facetious comparisons to activities society has already labelled as dangerous and then suggests that the tape may have been edited to remove the depiction of an injury. Jet chides the father for allowing someone less than 100 pounds to operate the Segway (something a number of posters here have admitted to allowing). None of you speak to the issue, and all of you try to invoke emotions instead of logic to further your argument. The issue is whether or not the father deserves to have someone interfere in the raising of his child. What's the difference between "I wouldn't do that" and "Wayne's a bad man"? You can point out that your personal risk assessment would be different without much effect. But if you damn the father for his judgment when his actions did not injure the child, you call for an intrusion into your own life too. If it takes such a low hurdle to intrude in Wayne's life, perhaps the hurdle is low for you too. "Your kids haven't been hurt yet, but they could be, and we're just here for their safety," says the Child Protection Services officer. I doubt any of you would sit still for a second if the officer showed up to monitor the next wrestling session with your 5 year-old son. Intrusion into how we raise our kids ought to take an extraordinarily high threshold. As a parent, you ought to be afforded the greatest latitude possible in how you raise your children. I'd wager most of you would fight for it. Intrusion only after reckless and consistent disregard for the child's welfare, difficult to prove without result, is the standard most people would choose for themselves. Our society has become increasingly numb to foisting responsibility for raising children on others. Many parents seem to have abdicated their responsibility (I don't hear any on SegwayChat). "The school will teach them all they need to know; They're friend's will keep them out of trouble; The parole officer will straighten them up; Maybe prison will get them on the right track." Parents have uttered all of these to me personally and to my community. Our society doesn't need more help raising kids, it needs less. Parents need to take responsibility, and society has to stop making it convenient not to do so. That means we must not interfere with parents except in cases of reckless and consistent disregard for a child's welfare. I don't think a child riding a Segway on a trampoline without getting hurt meets that difficult test. Glen

09-07-2006, 05:29 AM	#45
Sal Enjoys a well balanced glide Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 3,422	Okay, I'm moving this thread off-topic. -Sal __________________ If every value is negotiable upon circumstance, we have no true values. (Anon?)

09-07-2006, 10:29 AM	#48
sombody Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Huntington Beach, Calif, USA. Posts: 202	Cigarettes At least they werent smoking cigarettes too- rick

09-07-2006, 10:35 AM	#49
sholloway Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Atlanta, Georgia, . Posts: 901	I didn't mention anything about someone sending in Child Services to take away Wayne's kids. I said it was stupid to let his kids jump on a trampoline on a Segway, and then noted further the most basic safety precautions weren't being taken, like a helmet, a nearby adult to even try to grab a kid as they were falling, pillows on the bars. And if you don't have kids, you are at a disadvantage for discussing how much risk you should let your kid take. Your kid's brain cannot properly assess risks until they're over 20 years old from what I've read. Therefore it is the parent that has to make this decision. If you're not a parent, no matter how many times you hear someone say "I never knew I could love someone this much", you'll never know how much that is. I love that you keep pointing out that no one actually got hurt in the video. Then you keep telling us things we are saying is irrelevant. I think the fact that no one was hurt in the video is completely irrelevant. None of the people playing russian roulette get shot in the head right up until the very hundreth of a second when one of them gets shot in the head. That doesn't mean it's only dangerous AFTER someone gets shot. You even say that if it isn't our specific child in the video we can't comment on whether it is too much risk or not. I'm sure if this were some type of scientific debate on whether or not the kids in the video were harmed and we could only use the video as evidence then you could end up winning. But to say they didn't get hurt so there is no unneccessary risk is WAY oversimplifying. You say society should stay out of it, then you say society decided it's dangerous to play russion roulette. You've got some logic in there but you keep bouncing around. Wayne, thank you for posting here. It was much easier to talk about you when you weren't here, using the Big Man behind the internet where no one can see you thing. But now that you are hear I would love it if you could comment even more. Of course you don't have to answer any of us but I'm curious. When you say "older than I will ever be" are you referring to a disease that you mentioned earlier or are you referring to a risky lifestyle that you think may end your life earlier than average? I'm pretty sure you love your kids as much as I love mine. Can you think of anything that would make me SO against what you were doing in the video and make you OK with it? As a child were you allowed to explore more risky activities? Do you feel you were safe or lucky? I am not looking to call you names anymore here, just discuss it with you. Thanx for your time. __________________ Scott Holloway To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 404.993.6364

09-07-2006, 12:20 AM	#41
sombody Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Huntington Beach, Calif, USA. Posts: 202	Hey Man- after reading you letter I just had a paradigm shift- Thanks rick

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)