Reasons for irrational recklessness?

[al78]

I'm sure we've all heard of the tragic case of the deaths of a group of children who fell through ice in the Midlands, but it seems for some people a direct demonstration of consequences has no effect:

Group caught on camera playing on frozen lake just days after tragic Solihull deaths​

The article talks about some members of the group abusing anyone who tried to warm them of the dangers. I cannot fathom the mentality here, does anyone here have any knowledge of human psychology who could give some insights?

It is a bit like trespassing on railway lines and dangling legs over station platforms. Could it be that modern society feels so safe that a minority have lost any sense of danger and survival instinct and are immune to feelings of vulnerability?













Advertisement
Advertisement

 

[GS250]

Because....at the time it seems like a right larf.......

 

[Yew]

I'm sure we've all heard of the tragic case of the deaths of a group of children who fell through ice in the Midlands, but it seems for some people a direct demonstration of consequences has no effect:

Group caught on camera playing on frozen lake just days after tragic Solihull deaths​

The article talks about some members of the group abusing anyone who tried to warm them of the dangers. I cannot fathom the mentality here, does anyone here have any knowledge of human psychology who could give some insights?

It is a bit like trespassing on railway lines and dangling legs over station platforms. Could it be that modern society feels so safe that a minority have lost any sense of danger and survival instinct and are immune to feelings of vulnerability?













Advertisement
Advertisement

with children, I think we have enough imported culture from Scandinavia/Canada/the northern US, where such a thing is commonly done and managed safely.

I wonder if we should be a little more careful about this, similar to the « spiders are your friends » episode of Peppa Pig not being broadcast in Australia.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Children don't have well-developed risk analysis in their brains. This is said not to develop properly until ages 21-25 or thereabouts, hence why so many young men (in particular) die in car accidents. This is why we supervise children.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Children don't have well-developed risk analysis in their brains. This is said not to develop properly until ages 21-25 or thereabouts, hence why so many young men (in particular) die in car accidents. This is why we supervise children.

Furthermore men aged 21 or thereabouts make more effective soldiers. Need to be careful what we wish for !.

It is also perhaps a problem that the younger generation are so protected nowadays that they do not ever learn the hard way on things that are serious but not fatal. For example double glazed washing machine windows to prevent children getting burns when they touch them means saying "careful don't touch - it will hurt you" means nothing. They have to progress to even more dangerous things like cars to learn lessons.

With ice I can imagine it is the way they get told. Remember we are just old fuddy duddy kill joys. But it is the "invincibility" they have that stops them moving onto thinking why am I being ordered about.

Supervising children is an alien concept to a lot of adults I am afraid. But they quite quickly blame when it is too late of course.

 

[Broucek]

Children don't have well-developed risk analysis in their brains. This is said not to develop properly until ages 21-25 or thereabouts, hence why so many young men (in particular) die in car accidents. This is why we supervise children.

Particularly in the case of males... The actuarial tables generally show monotonic increasing probability of death with increasing age (if we ignore the period immediately after birth). But the male chart shows a pronounced "accident hump" from late teens to early 20s due to car/motorbike accidents.

And then there's the "macho" dimension. I was once mocked at school for running away when someone threw a firework towards us(!). (With the wisdom of age, I realise I should have responded, "was everyone else too scared to move?").

 

[al78]

Children don't have well-developed risk analysis in their brains. This is said not to develop properly until ages 21-25 or thereabouts, hence why so many young men (in particular) die in car accidents. This is why we supervise children.

The article implies it was adults, and not just men, venturing onto the ice:

"One woman went on the ice, and then like lemons, the rest of them followed until there were ten of them on the ice."

I can understand it with children but adults ought to know better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2022 ==

It is also perhaps a problem that the younger generation are so protected nowadays that they do not ever learn the hard way on things that are serious but not fatal. For example double glazed washing machine windows to prevent children getting burns when they touch them means saying "careful don't touch - it will hurt you" means nothing. They have to progress to even more dangerous things like cars to learn lessons.

I guess back in what I have heard as the good old days before mass motoring took off and parents kept their children within sight as much as possible because the roads are so dangerous, children were allowed to venture out and play and they learnt from experience the painful but non-lethal consequences of pushing your luck too far.

 

[najaB]

"One woman went on the ice, and then like lemons, the rest of them followed until there were ten of them on the ice."

I wasn't aware that citrus fruit were in the habit of moving in groups.

 

[PaulJ]

Did anyone ever take notice of Tufty, Charlie Says, Joe and Petunia, the Green Cross Man et al and pay attention from an early age? Or was that just me?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Did anyone ever take notice of Tufty, Charlie Says, Joe and Petunia, the Green Cross Man et al and pay attention from an early age? Or was that just me?

Oh yes the Tufty Club - Jack Daw was the hapless fool iirc ?. And then Cycling Proficiency test. And don't forget that "Green Cross Code".

Nowadays kids are taught invincibility in computer games. It is probably too upsetting in this politically correct world to confront them with real injuries and bloodshed.

Is this the "know your getting older thread" ?.

 

[Yew]

Nowadays kids are taught invincibility in computer games. It is probably too upsetting in this politically correct world to confront them with real injuries and bloodshed.

Is there a significant uptick in the number of children dying in accidents since the widespread availability of video games?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wasn't aware that citrus fruit were in the habit of moving in groups.

Perhaps lemmings were more relevant. I'm sure my parents berated me for standing somewhere aimlessly like a lemon, though. Which to be fair a lemon does (as does a bad car, often described as that).

 

[dmncf]

The article talks about some members of the group abusing anyone who tried to warm them of the dangers. I cannot fathom the mentality here, does anyone here have any knowledge of human psychology who could give some insights?

Some people don't like being told what to do and like to 'stick it to the man'.

 

[deltic]

I'm sure we've all heard of the tragic case of the deaths of a group of children who fell through ice in the Midlands, but it seems for some people a direct demonstration of consequences has no effect:

Group caught on camera playing on frozen lake just days after tragic Solihull deaths​

The article talks about some members of the group abusing anyone who tried to warm them of the dangers. I cannot fathom the mentality here, does anyone here have any knowledge of human psychology who could give some insights?

It is a bit like trespassing on railway lines and dangling legs over station platforms. Could it be that modern society feels so safe that a minority have lost any sense of danger and survival instinct and are immune to feelings of vulnerability?

Because 99.99% of the time all these things are perfectly safe. In the past far more people walked along railway lines than now and sadly plenty of children have died playing on the ice

 

[Basil Jet]

I wasn't aware that citrus fruit were in the habit of moving in groups.

Haven't you heard of Orange marches?

 

[DustyBin]

Oh yes the Tufty Club - Jack Daw was the hapless fool iirc ?. And then Cycling Proficiency test. And don't forget that "Green Cross Code".

Nowadays kids are taught invincibility in computer games. It is probably too upsetting in this politically correct world to confront them with real injuries and bloodshed.

Is this the "know your getting older thread" ?.

This was being discussed on another forum I use the other day. One poster provided a selection of YouTube links to old public information type films, including one about frozen water. It wasn’t long before someone opined they were “hardly appropriate for children” as they may find them “frightening and upsetting”. Words fail me at times!

 

[SargeNpton]

This was being discussed on another forum I use the other day. One poster provided a selection of YouTube links to old public information type films, including one about frozen water. It wasn’t long before someone opined they were “hardly appropriate for children” as they may find them “frightening and upsetting”. Words fail me at times!

A couple of old British Rail safety films for children were definitely in that category. One comes of mind of a school sports day held on the tracks that was full blood and gore (or seemed to be).

If you don't highlight exactly what the dangers are in a given situation you won't dissuade the people you are trying to get the message over to.

 

[Yew]

This was being discussed on another forum I use the other day. One poster provided a selection of YouTube links to old public information type films, including one about frozen water. It wasn’t long before someone opined they were “hardly appropriate for children” as they may find them “frightening and upsetting”. Words fail me at times!

Meanwhile all sorts of media show safe ice lakes. From Bambi, to skating in Canada or ice fishing in Alaska.

 

[DustyBin]

A couple of old British Rail safety films for children were definitely in that category. One comes of mind of a school sports day held on the tracks that was full blood and gore (or seemed to be).

If you don't highlight exactly what the dangers are in a given situation you won't dissuade the people you are trying to get the message over to.

I think it was called "The Finishing Line" (before my time but it's on YouTube!). We used to get shown one called "Robbie" which was rather effective.... Unpleasant, but as you say it needed to be to have the desired impact.

Meanwhile all sorts of media show safe ice lakes. From Bambi, to skating in Canada or ice fishing in Alaska.

True, which is fine if it's balanced out by something that reflects real life (in the UK) and highlights the dangers.

 

[najaB]

Meanwhile all sorts of media show safe ice lakes. From Bambi, to skating in Canada or ice fishing in Alaska.

I know that it's said people's geographic knowledge is less extensive than in years past, but I'd hope that most people realise that the UK is neither Alaska nor Canada.

 

[DustyBin]

I know that it's said people's geographic knowledge is less extensive than in years past, but I'd hope that most people realise that the UK is neither Alaska nor Canada.

You'd be surprised (or maybe not!).

 

[al78]

Because 99.99% of the time all these things are perfectly safe. In the past far more people walked along railway lines than now and sadly plenty of children have died playing on the ice

Walking on a frozen lake in the UK is 99.9% safe? Really? We have a temperate climate not a northern Scandinavian one and ice on lakes is not generally inches thick.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Dec 2022 ==

A couple of old British Rail safety films for children were definitely in that category. One comes of mind of a school sports day held on the tracks that was full blood and gore (or seemed to be).

If you don't highlight exactly what the dangers are in a given situation you won't dissuade the people you are trying to get the message over to.

Maybe need something like this aimed at careless pedestrians:

 

[Bayum]

Children don’t associate the effects of extreme temperature as being severe enough to cause cardiac arrests, sudden gasping, inability to move etc. Ice smashes - fall in water. Water is easy to get out of. I don’t think we pay enough attention to water safety in this country. Railway lines - yes. Fast moving vehicles - yes. Jumping from a height - yes. Water? Not so much.

 

[nw1]

I am of a generation which featured several really cold winters (not like this year's half-hearted effort) during my childhood and teenage years, and I think it was common sense not to walk on the ice.

I'm not sure how I learnt this, you "just knew". Perhaps through children's stories featuring non-human protagonists (cuddly bunny rabbits, etc) trying it, falling through the ice and then getting really cold and miserable afterwards.

Just like the notice "Danger - do not touch the live rail" was enough to understand why you shouldn't walk on an electrified line.

 

[bernardsmith]

Hi, just came across this discussion, and I'll add my opinion for what it is worth. Man has always underestimate some higher risk situations, and overestimated other lower risk situations. What is the difference in risk of having a heart attack against the risk of being diagnosed with AIDS in any one year? In the US it's 0.24% (800,000 per year) for having a heart attack in any one year, against 0.009% (30,000 per year) of being diagnosed with AIDS in any one year. I remember someone mentioning that Man tends to play down the higher risks and overestimate the low risks, and the error is often about a factor of 1,000 between the two. And this appears to be almost built-in into our genes. We are quite good at estimating risk to do with heat, but less so with cold, because by experience heat has done more damage to mankind than cold. Of course estimating risk was important for survival in the past, as was assessing risk-reward.
Also we tend to mix up the ratio of risks, which is a dimensionless quality and does not imply a relationship, and the rate of different, which retains the dimension. We can compare the risk of a car accidents against other types of accidents. We can also make claims about cause and effect. Young people (18-25) have a higher risk of car accidents, but do we know the reason, e.g. lack of experience, excessive speed, age of car, distance driven per year, alcohol/drugs, etc. Can we say if we do this, it will results in this effect?
I see common sense as something more important, more useful everyday, and it encapsulates risk. And is it me, but judging by what I read in the press, people have less common sense today than in the past. If for no other reason than they were more suspicious in the past about what they did not know or understand, and there were more things they didn't understand. Today we think we understand things better, but do we really?
About 30 years ago I went to see a major waterfall, and there were no barriers, etc. The guide said people understood and had common sense. Today there are barriers and signs warning people. I preferred it when we assumed that people had common sense, rather than trying to remove in every little risk, no matter how small. And I suspect that the risk of accident is the same before and after the introduction of barriers and signs. I remember a test were in a village all road marking and signs, etc. were removed, and the frequency of accidents went down. Simply because everyone had to be more attentive and careful, ... A lesson worth learning today, or is it just too late for Man?

 

[duncanp]

Maybe need something like this aimed at careless pedestrians:

That video was very powerful, but it didn't just feature careless pedestrians - there were careless motorists as well.

It did show what can happen in just a split second if you lose concentration.

But the number of people I see walking around with their heads buried in their phones not looking where they are going, and motorists taking a casual attitude to using their phones whilst driving at speed - it is no wonder there are accidents.

Back in the day, I remember British Rail putting out a safety video for young people where it showed someone getting hit by a train, and the dead body that resulted from that.

When it was shown in schools, some of the pupils had to leave the room because it made them feel sick, and British Rail was criticised for that.

But much better that a child feels sick after watching a video than they think that playing on the railway is OK.

In 1991, British Rail commissioned Roald Dahl to write a book about railway safety specifically aimed at children

Roald Dahl's guide to railway safety by Dahl, Roald

Buy Roald Dahl's guide to railway safety First Edition by Dahl, Roald (ISBN: ) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[Tracked]

. I preferred it when we assumed that people had common sense, rather than trying to remove in every little risk, no matter how small.

Think the amount of "where there's blame, there's a claim" style legal firms these days might be partly behind that.

Sure there were similar frozen lake story's when I was young, some 30-odd years ago; Person dies in a frozen lake, a day or two later the news reports on people still doing it somewhere else, despite the risk. Not sure whether they did so after getting the idea from the news, or the newspapers were looking for similar examples to spin out a story. Another thing, even back then; when there was a bad storm, you'd got news reporters on the seafront getting soaked and telling people not to risk it ... with a crowd of people nearby getting soaked watching the reporter

 

[dangie]

I’m now 72. When I was a child we often used to walk on the frozen canal. In hindsight stupid, but winters were more severe back then.

We also used to do long jumps across the canal locks. Probably no more than 8 feet across but it seemed a hell of a lot more. Not only did we do it when the lock was full, but empty as well. Most of us couldn’t even swim…!!

When I look back now, absolutely bonkers…..

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think there are far more warnings and reminders about but that leads to people being de-sensitised. I think, for instance, some people think the lack of a safety barrier means something must be safe.

There is also the attitude that its someone else's fault if it goes wrong without thinking about the actual consequence.

Plainly there are some people who are just plain stupid. I know of a driver who is going to end up having an accident. No one can be in the car with him all the time nagging.

Things are so much safer nowadays that people do not experience the pain etc of something going wrong so they are not aware of what a bad consequence is.

I also think people react more to an accident/fatality than they used to. A death nowadays is seen as a bigger event than it was 50 years ago,

How much of the reaction to a disaster is down to media coverage. Make no mistake the media are not going to report a boring story. They need to sell advertising space. Also it is very clear people react to media hype. How many shortages have been caused by media hype. There was no petrol shortage in 2021 (iirc) until the media whipped up a story. I have seen more than one sugar shortage triggered by photos of people buying extra sugar - ignoring the fact that it was the jam making season when supermarkets expect extra sales and have more in stock.

A real danger I have seen is a crowd surge potentially leading to people being crushed to death. It is why I will avoid large crowds in places where there is no easy way out. I have been shocked by the dynamics of a large crowd suddenly stampeding towards a stage. Some dangers are easy to spot but euphoria can override common sense. Young peoples car accidents are down to youthfull immunity of fear and also a need to show off to ones peers.

 

[dangie]

People crossing the road without looking!
If they don’t hear a vehicle coming from behind them they automatically step into the road.
Of course they’ll blame the near silence of electric cars, when they should be blaming their own stupidity.