Delhi – hot, colourful, polluted, noisy, crowded. Wonderful in it own particular way.
The roads, traffic seething: cars, three-wheeled autos, pedal rickshaws, buses – some new(ish), some distinctly rickety. Taxis, swarms of bicycles, motorbikes, some seemingly transporting entire families.
And people, all ages – that’s ‘all’ ages – crossing the turbulent traffic sea as the mood or need takes them with what appears to be suicidal intent; though, eventually, I, too, acquire novice suicidal status, willing oncoming traffic to avoid me as I hazard to cross to the other side of the road.
In this article Bernard Spiegal discusses the role, scope and authority of play equipment standards. The article is one of a number of papers, comments, blogs, presentations and articles being generated by members of The York Group.
The York Group, comprising Professor David Ball, Tim Gill, Harry Harbottle, Bernard Spiegal, has come together to contribute to thinking about risk and play equipment Standards. The York Group will also be publishing jointly authored papers.
Responsibility for the views expressed in this article is the author’s. The article does, however, introduce some key lines of argument for the group, to be explored further in both its individual and joint papers.
Standards: the strong distinction
The overarching purpose of this article is to initiate a process of emancipation. To liberate occupied territory – the too large terrain that play equipment standards occupy – thereby freeing play providers to make their own judgments about where, in their provision, the balance between risk and benefit lies.
In what follows I want first to establish what I shall call a ‘strong distinction’, one that marks clearly conceptual distinctions in respect of the role, scope and authority of play equipment standards. These distinctions have for too long been allowed to remain blurred and confused. Continue reading