Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Watch an an Hour-Long Stevie Wonder… | Cisgender, Able-Bodied, Thin Privil… »

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Transportation / Education Something's Terribly Wrong With This Picture

Posted by Riya Bhattacharjee on Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:12 PM

Updated at 3:45 p.m. with information from Seattle Public Schools.

On Jan. 13, approximately 15 minutes after school got over at 3:35 p.m., a student who was playing unsupervised inside an unfenced playground at Green Lake Elementary School ran out into the street and was struck by a car. A bulletin sent to parents from the school's principal Joanne Bowers published in the blog MyGreenLake.com, said that "the student was not hurt and attended school the next day."

The blog said that Bowers admitted that the unfenced playground is "a huge safety concern," promising that fencing will go in "ASAP." "This is my biggest fear," Bowers told parents of the accident.

Mygreenlake.com
Fence 'em in

I have a call in to Bowers to find out the timeline for constructing the fence, and why a children's playground, which is right across a street with moving vehicles, has no fence around it. Or rather, has a fence which due to some odd landscaping detail, stops right before the jungle gym.

Seattle Public Schools spokesperson Teresa Wippel said that the district had approved a request for a fence back in December, even before the accident happened, but that construction had been held up because "parts were not available." Wippel said that construction was expected to finish this week or early next week. "I am not aware of the long-term history of why there's no fence," she said.

A quick chat with Brian Dougherty of the Seattle Department of Transportation's Safe Routes to School program revealed that he's just as clueless as I am. "It's certainly uncommon," Dougherty said of the half-fence/non-fence. "I have no idea why they kept that open. It's an individual school's decision whether to have a high fence or a low fence—sometimes the community's desire to access the playground could result in no fencing."

Which of course gives ample access to kids to run into the path of oncoming traffic during a game of tag, as was the case two weeks ago. Dougherty explained that the car that hit the student had fortunately been going really slow (that whole area across from the playground is zoned for 20 miles an hour during school and 25 when there's no school). The crossing where the child was hit is a non-arterial crossing which experiences a low volume of traffic compared to an arterial crossing, he said, and hasn't seen any collisions in the last two years.

Bowers reminded parents through the My Green Lake blog "to obey traffic rules," near the school and not to leave their children unsupervised after school ends at 3:35 p.m., as per school policy. Bowers also informed parents that speeding patrols would increase near the school (an officer has already cited drivers for speeding earlier this month, she said).

Green Lake recently received a Safe Routes to School grant from SDOT which Dougherty said would aim to improve traffic circulation around the campus. Since the (non) fence sits on school property SDOT cannot go ahead and construct a fence around the playground. Dougherty will, however, sit down with Bowers on Friday to talk about it.

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I live near that playground and now I'm sad that it's going to be fenced in. Guess it was too good to last.

Posted by rejemy on January 25, 2011 at 3:20 PM

THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG the kids are fenced in but the CARS ARE LEFT FREE TO HIT. Just shows where the priority is. God oh Dear God there a stupid people in charge of our sweet children. They value the freedom of the road over the freedom of the child.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn on January 25, 2011 at 3:27 PM

No Sargon--the fence is to slow down the cars should they attempt to drive into the playground.

Posted by tiktok on January 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Yes. We must cage our children. Our car addiction demands it.

I'd guess the reason for the fence is to stop balls from rolling into the street (with children following along). Most playgrounds aren't put in cages, but most play fields are. Children should be taught about not running in the street, and cars should be careful near playgrounds. It sounds like half of that system worked here.

Posted by Matt the Engineer on January 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM

The fence around the concrete part of the field is to keep balls from rolling into traffic or, if a ball clears the fence, to keep children from running into traffic while focused on a ball. There is no fence around the playground for the same reason there's no fence around a sidewalk -- if kids are there with their parents, they shouldn't need the fence. If they're there alone they're old enough not to run into traffic. Meanwhile, the driver who hit the kid did so in spite of the signs warning him or her to slow down, and that he or she was entering a school zone and that children would be present. The problem here is not that there is no fence around an object that may attract children. The problem is that we've normalized a level of negligence on the part of drivers that makes it necessary to wave little fucking orange flags while you're crossing the street in a crosswalk, and to keep your children off the street unless there's a fence between them and the cars.

Posted by Judah

on January 25, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I am guessing the logic behind the fence stopping there is that it currently lines up with the blacktop. This is where kids are designated to play with balls. And the fence was to keep the balls (and kids running after them) from going into the street.

Posted by coolio on January 25, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Something there is that doesn't love a wall, I mean fence. Good fences make good children live long lives and become the neighbors the fence protects them from. - Robert Flossed

Posted by Rhett Oracle on January 25, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Kids in a city are still safer than ones in rural areas.

We used to jump from bridges and cliffs all the time - way riskier.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on January 25, 2011 at 3:40 PM

" The problem is that we've normalized a level of negligence on the part of drivers that makes it necessary to wave little fucking orange flags while you're crossing the street in a crosswalk, and to keep your children off the street unless there's a fence between them and the cars."

read this over and over till the nanny state gets a fucking clue.

Posted by meanie

on January 25, 2011 at 3:44 PM

But if we put fences up, natural selection will never get the chance to give us our newly evolved, more impact-resistant great-great-grandchildren.

Posted by Timrrr on January 25, 2011 at 3:46 PM

@5,

The fact that the kid wasn't hurt indicates that the driver wasn't particularly negligent. But please continue with your usual dumbassery.

Posted by keshmeshi on January 25, 2011 at 3:52 PM

They could preserve the natural beauty of the place if they planted land mines instead.

Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 25, 2011 at 3:53 PM

I don't care what happens with the playground, but I sure hope someone gets sued for malicious negligence!

Posted by Zebes

on January 25, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I think the real solution is barbed wire and prison guards with rifles, um, I mean lifeguards with rifles.

Posted by Matt the Engineer on January 25, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Ugh, nanny state. I'm with @4.

Posted by starsandgarters on January 25, 2011 at 4:32 PM

teach your fucking children to not run into the streets, parents. problem solved.

Posted by Womyn2me $http://http:\\www.shelleyandlaura.com$ on January 25, 2011 at 6:08 PM

If there were no cars we'd still need a fence to keep kids from being killed by the bicyclists.

I know you don't want to believe that and you don't have to believe it because it's moot. Bikes will never be more than 3% of traffic; the rest will be cars. So get on with the fence already.

Posted by The Wretched Harmony on January 25, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I'm not surprised. This district's first priority has never been safety and why they allow schools to make safety decisions that should be district domain is a mystery.

There are no video cameras at Roosevelt either. One of the biggest high schools in Seattle, a $93M investment by taxpayers (thank you, Seattle) and the only comprehensive high school not to have cameras to monitor the school against vandalism, theft and break-ins. Not to mention the random shootings that seem to happen in this country.

Posted by westello on January 25, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Darwin?

Posted by Captain Wiggette on January 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM

There were many areas of my childhood that were completely fence-free, but then again, they did give me a 12 gauge when I was 14.

Posted by PRS-1 on January 25, 2011 at 10:33 PM

I've read through this slog post, looking for evidence of sarcasm, and have found none. Is The Stranger seriously condemning a school for failing to have a fence around it's playground? This seems to go slightly against the philosophy that the paper tends to subscribe to.
In any school that I attended as a child, I never remember having a fence around the playground. I don't think we needed one. One child running into the street, being hit by a car and emerging unscathed is certainly not an indication that a fence is needed. The fact of the matter is, sometimes children get hit by cars. I think the playground is working just fine as it is.
Somebody should probably have a stern conversation with the child though. Running out into the street is dumb.

Posted by wesbot on January 26, 2011 at 1:49 AM

supervise your children. really, i do, and it takes a ton of my time. but that's how i choose to spend it. i'm sorry for the child, and the parents. and i'm really sorry for the school - we had J Bowers for 2 years. she is barely competent to function in a group and has no diplomacy skills at all.

Posted by mrbd on January 26, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Children shouldn't be caged.
Let them roam free!

You know, in theory, humans are supposed to be smarter than opossums.

Posted by Cynickal on January 26, 2011 at 9:54 AM

If you're talking about history, I grew up across the street (65th) from that school, and I watched a number of kids get hit (and often killed) by cars while walking to that playground. In the crosswalk, no less. We used to go out and look at the blood stains on the pavement. In one case, it was 3 siblings, holding hands, in the crosswalk. I don't know the extent of the injury to those three, but I know they were ambulanced to the hospital. I suppose we can sit in our armchairs and make snide comments about nanny states or attentive parental supervision (really?), and a lot of "shoulds", while natural selection takes its course at the expense of a few more kids, or we can simply do the minimum to see to the kids' safety. I can't imagine not being able to go play in that playground without my parents' supervision when I was a kid - that was the cool thing about living near a school. Kids are kids, and cars are unintentional weapons. What is wrong with saving a few lives, just because it's possible? I mean, what is a fence (or a little orange flag) possibly going to hurt or limit? Your view? Your pocket book? What could you all possibly be whining about?

Posted by Linn on January 28, 2011 at 4:37 AM