Street hockey bans and kids’ play
When my children were small, we lived on a narrow residential street where lots of kids played. One day, a bouncing ball got away from one boy, and he ran after it. As it bounced past my parked car, he lunged to grab it.
There he met my driver’s side mirror and sheared it off.
We were poor. I saw dollar signs. This was coming out of my pocket, and I wanted to scream.
Then I reflected.
The kids are having fun outdoors—not on their computers or their phones. And they’re not setting fires or vandalizing bus shelters. I want them to continue playing.
“Don’t worry about it,” I told the boy.
City of Mississauga bans street hockey
These memories returned to me recently when I watched a comedic sketch on CBC’s This Hour Has 22 Minutes. It shows an imaginary police street crime unit in Mississauga busting kids for playing road hockey in front of their homes.
The sketch satirizes a decision by Mississauga city council in November 2024 to keep its residential street sports ban. The ban means road hockey and basketball still can’t be played on neighbourhood streets.
Most councillors felt there were too many risks in lifting the ban. The mayor pointed to the potential of drivers hitting kids playing on the road.
Other Ontario cities such as Brampton, Hamilton, and Kitchener also prohibit playing sports on city streets. Toronto and Ottawa permit sports on streets with certain conditions.
Still, a heated debate arose around the Mississauga decision, raising interesting questions. Should play be protected by municipal bylaws? What kinds of safety risks are acceptable for children? What legal risks are tolerable for municipalities?
The debate is not new. Play and risk are frequently found in conflict. Sometimes play presents risks to individuals and property, and other times law and regulation present risks to play, especially when they involve liability for schools and municipalities.
Author and management consultant Robert Fritz talks about the challenges that arise for individuals and organizations when two or more competing goals come into conflict in this way. As the competing objectives push and pull against each other, an “oscillating structure” takes shape where none of the goals can be realized or satisfied.
For example, I want to be fit, but I don’t want to exercise. I want to speak Italian, but I don’t want to make the effort to study the language.
It seems children’s play in the urban landscape is often subverted by similar contradictions. We want kids to play outside, but we fear they will be abducted. We want kids to experience the thrill of climbing a tree, but we don’t want them to fall and break bones. We want kids to play street sports, but we don’t want them to scratch our cars, make noise while we’re eating dinner, or run even the smallest risk of getting hit by a vehicle.
Where do we draw the line between risk tolerance, personal interests, and our desire to see children engaged in healthy play? How far are we willing to go, knowing that play is essential for learning [PDF] and a crucial part of healthy child development?
We like the idea of children playing and developing as they should. But we oscillate.
