KS - Caleb Schwab, 10, dies on 17-story Schlitterbahn waterpark slide, Aug 2016

[Hatfield]

One other thought about the netting.

Instead of the netting, what they should have done is just make those areas have an enclosed tunnel tube with smooth walls so if it did fly upwards the worst that would happen is the people would hit the top or sides and then bounce down into the chute to slide to the bottom. Still could cause injuries but at least would have prevented body parts getting caught up in the netting or support bars.

I bet the designers thought of that but didn't want to spend extra money making the chute be an enclosed tunnel design in those dangerous areas so they chose to go with just cheap netting and support bars.

 

[Hatfield]

that's what i have been thinking also,

it would be good to hear from somebody who has a ticket stub from this park, im sure if you read the fine print on it, it would basically say "use rides at your own risk" but in more legal terms

I was watching a couple lawyers on a show once talking about those ticket disclaimers and they basically said that even though that is written on them and even though a person buying the ticket is basically agreeing to the terms that the people can and do still sue places when they have injuries. Sorry no link because I cant remember what I was even watching at the time. The lawyers said it doesn't mean the people will win their cases but those disclaimers sure don't prevent people from trying to sue and going to court over it.

The example they were using on the show was a Ski Resort and I think they were talking about the incident when someone died on a ski slope.

I believe almost every ski resort has tickets with those sorts of disclaimers on the back of the ski ticket. I think what it does more than anything is discourage people from suing the ski resort if they fall and break their own leg due to their own lack of skiing ability. Most people would realize it was their own fault and not sue. But if some accident happens that a skier feels is the cause of the ski resort like a ski lift cable breaking and they crash to the ground then I dont believe it prevents anyone from trying to sue the resort.
Or if the skier hits a tree and dies then the family may try to sue the resort claiming the ski resort should have cut down trees in certain areas where skiers are commonly going. Things like that where the family or injured person thinks the resort was liable and not their own fault. It doesn't mean the person will win their case but I believe they sure try to sue regardless of those waivers.

If I remember the show I was watching correctly I believe one lawyer even said those waivers are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

[Madeleine74]

I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people watched those Travel episode(s) about this very ride, thought "wow, that thing is unsafe" and then said nothing and went back to whatever they were doing.

It's everyone else's responsibility, is the logic. The designers, the engineers, they're not objective and they have $$$$ on the line. The state, the park, the buck stops wayyy over there. Except regular people with common sense have something these others don't have: no dog in the fight.

If Caleb's tragedy has done anything at all, I hope it will motivate people with plain common sense to speak out and be heard and make sure they're heard. Seeing something and then sitting back doesn't help. There's no glory in bemoaning an accident after the fact. Making a difference means getting involved and being proactive. Action begets Action!

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

One other thought about the netting.

Instead of the netting, what they should have done is just make those areas have an enclosed tunnel tube with smooth walls so if it did fly upwards the worst that would happen is the people would hit the top or sides and then bounce down into the chute to slide to the bottom. Still could cause injuries but at least would have prevented body parts getting caught up in the netting or support bars.

I bet the designers thought of that but didn't want to spend extra money making the chute be an enclosed tunnel design in those dangerous areas so they chose to go with just cheap netting and support bars.

Dunno... I think even if there was a smooth tunnel, if someone lifted up and hit it at 60 mph they would be unlikely to survive.

I think the entire design is flawed.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I was watching a couple lawyers on a show once talking about those ticket disclaimers and they basically said that even though that is written on them and even though a person buying the ticket is basically agreeing to the terms that the people can and do still sue places when they have injuries. Sorry no link because I cant remember what I was even watching at the time. The lawyers said it doesn't mean the people will win their cases but those disclaimers sure don't prevent people from trying to sue and going to court over it.

The example they were using on the show was a Ski Resort and I think they were talking about the incident when someone died on a ski slope.

I believe almost every ski resort has tickets with those sorts of disclaimers on the back of the ski ticket. I think what it does more than anything is discourage people from suing the ski resort if they fall and break their own leg due to their own lack of skiing ability. Most people would realize it was their own fault and not sue. But if some accident happens that a skier feels is the cause of the ski resort like a ski lift cable breaking and they crash to the ground then I dont believe it prevents anyone from trying to sue the resort.
Or if the skier hits a tree and dies then the family may try to sue the resort claiming the ski resort should have cut down trees in certain areas where skiers are commonly going. Things like that where the family or injured person thinks the resort was liable and not their own fault. It doesn't mean the person will win their case but I believe they sure try to sue regardless of those waivers.

If I remember the show I was watching correctly I believe one lawyer even said those waivers are not worth the paper they are written on.

IANAL, but I don't think those waivers will protect a business if that business causes harm through its own negligence.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

Other examples where you commonly see waivers on backs of tickets:
-Baseball games because a foul ball can hit someone in the stands

-Hockey Games.
This is one I know about personally because I remember years ago there was no netting behind the 2 goals and someone got killed when they got hit with a puck that careened into the stands so they put netting up behind the goal area.
When going to a hockey game I always worry about seats too close to the ice. Those pucks are very heavy and hard as a rock. They don't have netting along the sides and I worry about one careening over the side boards so I never sit down too low. Lots of people don't realize the risk along the sides. The people behind the goals are now safe due to the netting the NHL put up due to the unfortunate death of this person in the link below.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081111065655AAe5nEg

 

[DatelineFan]

I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people watched those Travel episode(s) about this very ride, thought "wow, that thing is unsafe" and then said nothing and went back to whatever they were doing.

It's everyone else's responsibility, is the logic. The designers, the engineers, they're not objective and they have $$$$ on the line. The state, the park, the buck stops wayyy over there. Except regular people with common sense have something these others don't have: no dog in the fight.

If Caleb's tragedy has done anything at all, I hope it will motivate people with plain common sense to speak out and be heard and make sure they're heard. Seeing something and then sitting back doesn't help. There's no glory in bemoaning an accident after the fact. Making a difference means getting involved and being proactive. Action begets Action!

I agree with you!

I'm following along pretty closely, but I don't think I've commented yet. Anyway, late last night I was going through different social media like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. I did find a man who had tried to get parents together in KC, to confront the water park about that particular slide. He had been very frustrated because he wasn't getting much active support. He also contacted the "designers" many times, with no response. I could really feel his passion in his posts. It breaks my heart that he's been trying to fight this ride for years.

I'm pretty sure no one has posted this, but it's a picture of one of the (alleged, since I've never been) signs posted by the ride entry. The 5'4 height requirement really stood out to me.

 

[DatelineFan]

I've been pretty upset about this. I dreamt of Caleb and his older brother last night. The terror that those boys and so many others, must have felt in those moments, just takes my breath away. This is a far reaching tragedy. My heart goes out to everyone affected.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people watched those Travel episode(s) about this very ride, thought "wow, that thing is unsafe" and then said nothing and went back to whatever they were doing.

It's everyone else's responsibility, is the logic. The designers, the engineers, they're not objective and they have $$$$ on the line. The state, the park, the buck stops wayyy over there. Except regular people with common sense have something these others don't have: no dog in the fight.

If Caleb's tragedy has done anything at all, I hope it will motivate people with plain common sense to speak out and be heard and make sure they're heard. Seeing something and then sitting back doesn't help. There's no glory in bemoaning an accident after the fact. Making a difference means getting involved and being proactive. Action begets Action!

This is really a good point.
I actually feel a little guilty because even I could at the very least have written a letter to the owners of the park expressing safety concerns after watching that show. If they would have gotten enough letters then maybe the park owners would have done something.

Seeing the empty rafts fly off the thing when they were testing it literally made my jaw drop and it was very scary to see that show.
The attitude of the builders is what put it over the top for me.

 

[neesaki]

I agree with you!

I'm following along pretty closely, but I don't think I've commented yet. Anyway, late last night I was going through different social media like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. I did find a man who had tried to get parents together in KC, to confront the water park about that particular slide. He had been very frustrated because he wasn't getting much active support. He also contacted the "designers" many times, with no response. I could really feel his passion in his posts. It breaks my heart that he's been trying to fight this ride for years.

I'm pretty sure no one has posted this, but it's a picture of one of the (alleged, since I've never been) signs posted by the ride entry. The 5'4 height requirement really stood out to me.

Hi dateline, thanks for the sign. Not sure if you misread or just mistyped, but it's 54" rather than 5'4". Though the latter would probably be more appropriate... I take it back, it's a death trap so no height would do. Jmo

 

[DatelineFan]

Hi dateline, thanks for the sign. Not sure if you misread or just mistyped, but it's 54" rather than 5'4". Though the latter would probably be more appropriate.

Ha! Thank you! I totally misread it. Oops. Anyway, there's the sign.

Yes, 5'4" would probably be more appropriate, although this damn thing shouldn't have been there to begin with.

 

[DatelineFan]

Re the sign: does anyone else think that 11 inches in the landing area is too shallow?

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Hatfield]

Re the sign: does anyone else think that 11 inches in the landing area is too shallow?

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Its probably enough since I think the raft is coming in mostly flat in a skimming fashion. I haven't actually seen a picture of how it enters the landing area though.

They probably don't want it too deep if its not necessary so that it would be easier to lift someones head out of the water if they pass out or get knocked out and end up floating or sinking in the landing area.

You have probably seen those dare devils that jump off a ladder into a small pool of water that is really shallow. I don't think the water depth needs to be that deep to slow the raft down especially if it is skimming towards the end.

 

[jjenny]

I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people watched those Travel episode(s) about this very ride, thought "wow, that thing is unsafe" and then said nothing and went back to whatever they were doing.

It's everyone else's responsibility, is the logic. The designers, the engineers, they're not objective and they have $$$$ on the line. The state, the park, the buck stops wayyy over there. Except regular people with common sense have something these others don't have: no dog in the fight.

If Caleb's tragedy has done anything at all, I hope it will motivate people with plain common sense to speak out and be heard and make sure they're heard. Seeing something and then sitting back doesn't help. There's no glory in bemoaning an accident after the fact. Making a difference means getting involved and being proactive. Action begets Action!

Are you suggesting that upon seeing something on TV that I deem unsafe, I should be doing something to make sure people can't do it? There are a lot of things that I think unsafe and would never do. For instance, I wouldn't jump out of perfectly good plane with a parachute. But other people will. Some of them might die and have died.
Somehow I don't see it my responsibility to police what other people might do.

 

[Madeleine74]

No, but if you are, say, an engineer type and you see something that many thousands of people in your area may do and be at risk, it would be good to let that be known and also why it's unsafe. Jumping out of an airplane is not a good example as it is inherently risky for the person jumping, and children are not allowed to do that, so you won't see 9 yr olds jumping. Going to an amusement park, something millions of people do, is not (supposed to be) inherently risky.

Or, if people are really concerned about the safety of something in particular that affects them/their community, I say band together with other people who are concerned and get attention put on the thing that needs addressing. I keep using the example of MADD (mother's against drunk driving). They were focused on a particular dangerous thing that could be prevented.

Sure, life is dangerous, but that's not the issue.

 

[neesaki]

Re the sign: does anyone else think that 11 inches in the landing area is too shallow?

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Idk, but the whole thing sounds like an experiment to me, and the passengers were the guinea pigs. :furious:

 

[AmyPond]

I agree that Disney does a good job with safety. I believe that in 65 years Disneyland has had about nine deaths and most of them have been the fault of the guest. Things like guests defeating safety equipment or trespassing where they weren’t supposed to be. It’s just about impossible to get killed on a ride at Disneyland. Disney World has about the same number of deaths. Most of the deaths there are results of guests suffering medical issues or being attacked by wildlife. Tokyo Disneyland is even better. In 25 years they have never had a death, and I believe they have had exactly one ride related injury.

Deaths and injuries at amusement parks should never happen. There is no excuse for this type of thing.

There have actually been a few deaths at Disneyland that were Disney's fault (Big Thunder, Columbia, Roger Rabbit, if anyone wants to Google to read about them.) But for being open 60 years, their safety isn't too awful. A few people have lost fingers/toes on rides but some of those could be partly the person/partly Disney to blame.

I wonder how many thousands upon thousands of people watched those Travel episode(s) about this very ride, thought "wow, that thing is unsafe" and then said nothing and went back to whatever they were doing.

It's everyone else's responsibility, is the logic. The designers, the engineers, they're not objective and they have $$$$ on the line. The state, the park, the buck stops wayyy over there. Except regular people with common sense have something these others don't have: no dog in the fight.

If Caleb's tragedy has done anything at all, I hope it will motivate people with plain common sense to speak out and be heard and make sure they're heard. Seeing something and then sitting back doesn't help. There's no glory in bemoaning an accident after the fact. Making a difference means getting involved and being proactive. Action begets Action!

In my opinion, it shouldn't be Joe Schmo T.V. Watcher's responsibility to stop things that could be unsafe in cases like this. It is absolutely the designers, engineers, state, etc. who are responsible for deciding if a ride is safe enough to be in a park.

 

[K_Z]

Apologies for quoting myself, but I found more on Jeff Henry's engineering training, or lack thereof...

Henry never finished high school and never formally learned to draw. All his knowledge came from his work along the river.

http://grantland.com/features/the-wet-stuff-verruckt-waterslide-schlitterbahn/

Long, but interesting article on the origins of the water park .

And more..

Incentive packages like the one offered by Corpus help keep the company’s costs down, as does the fact that all the design work is done in-house by Gary’s younger brother, Jeff, a self-taught savant of water park design who learned the business as a teenager by building rides with his father.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/lucrative-when-wet/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Wanted to say a separate thank you for finding and linking grantland.com "The Wet Stuff" article. A very interesting history of the development of water amusement parks in the U.S.

Interesting to follow the development of the parks, then the selling and purchasing to large entertainment corporations like Universal. And the early pioneering development of "mom and pop" designers, evolving into large design corporations like White Water West and Proslide. The Schlitterbahn owners have remained mostly outside that trend, selling their "master blaster" to the big Proslide corporation, but still designing their own parks and attractions.

The whole design and regulatory/ inspection oversight system of waterparks has developed in fits and starts. We don't treat research and design as if these are vehicles, nor are they "consumer products" (the earliest oversight agency). Because they are in a nebulous zone of definition, that has allowed the patchwork of regulation, inspection, and design to be decentralized and inconsistent (especially as it relates to permanently mounted attractions, vs travelling carnivals).

I'm not a fan of big government and new programs just for the heck of it, but I'd like to see some consistency in this area, and more clarity as to who the responsible parties are, guidelines, inspection, investigation of accidents. Something like the NTSB to investigate serious accidents and deaths, a reporting process, consistency in inspection criteria, etc. These attractions are "at least as" dangerous as cars, buses, streetcars, and trains, for example.

Hopefully some good can come out of this in terms of a national discussion of sensible oversight and regulation that will help ensure the protection of the public. I hope that the victim in this horrific accident being the son of a legislator will help that discussion along, though it shouldn't matter. But it did help with pool drain legislation, because SOS James Baker's granddaughter was the victim in a fatal pool drain accident.

Those that favor more local decision making and oversight believe that federal oversight and regulation would be the kiss of death for extreme park attractions, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Roller coasters, or waterslides, or amusement parks are not essential parts of society, but that becomes a larger justification for pretty extreme safety oversight in the design, manufacturing, and operational areas, IMO. They attract kids and young people, they are marketed as "safe", and companies make a lot of $$ from them. We can do much, much better.

The little girl who lost most of her intestines in a pool drain accident in my state (she died a few months later), spurred one of our senators to champion the issue of pool drain covers to prevent another senseless death. Hopefully there are legislators who would be willing to revisit the amusement park issues.

Example of the pool drain entrapment issues and CPSC federal oversight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Graeme_Baker_Pool_and_Spa_Safety_Act

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/0...y-sucked-out-by-swimming-pool-drain-dies.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/paren...-accidents-outraged-federal/story?id=10241722

 

[neesaki]

Wanted to say a separate thank you for finding and linking grantland.com "The Wet Stuff" article. A very interesting history of the development of water amusement parks in the U.S.

Interesting to follow the development of the parks, then the selling and purchasing to large entertainment corporations like Universal. And the early pioneering development of "mom and pop" designers, evolving into large design corporations like White Water West and Proslide. The Schlitterbahn owners have remained mostly outside that trend, selling their "master blaster" to the big Proslide corporation, but still designing their own parks and attractions.

The whole design and regulatory/ inspection oversight system of waterparks has developed in fits and starts. We don't treat research and design as if these are vehicles, nor are they "consumer products" (the earliest oversight agency). Because they are in a nebulous zone of definition, that has allowed the patchwork of regulation, inspection, and design to be decentralized and inconsistent (especially as it relates to permanently mounted attractions, vs travelling carnivals).

I'm not a fan of big government and new programs just for the heck of it, but I'd like to see some consistency in this area, and more clarity as to who the responsible parties are, guidelines, inspection, investigation of accidents. Something like the NTSB to investigate serious accidents and deaths, a reporting process, consistency in inspection criteria, etc. These attractions are "at least as" dangerous as cars, buses, streetcars, and trains, for example.

Hopefully some good can come out of this in terms of a national discussion of sensible oversight and regulation that will help ensure the protection of the public. I hope that the victim in this horrific accident being the son of a legislator will help that discussion along, though it shouldn't matter. But it did help with pool drain legislation, because SOS James Baker's granddaughter was the victim in a fatal pool drain accident.

Those that favor more local decision making and oversight believe that federal oversight and regulation would be the kiss of death for extreme park attractions, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. Roller coasters, or waterslides, or amusement parks are not essential parts of society, but that becomes a larger justification for pretty extreme safety oversight in the design, manufacturing, and operational areas, IMO. They attract kids and young people, they are marketed as "safe", and companies make a lot of $$ from them. We can do much, much better.

The little girl who lost most of her intestines in a pool drain accident in my state (she died a few months later), spurred one of our senators to champion the issue of pool drain covers to prevent another senseless death. Hopefully there are legislators who would be willing to revisit the amusement park issues.

Example of the pool drain entrapment issues and CPSC federal oversight:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Graeme_Baker_Pool_and_Spa_Safety_Act

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/0...y-sucked-out-by-swimming-pool-drain-dies.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/paren...-accidents-outraged-federal/story?id=10241722

Oh my God, I wasn't aware of the case , how unthinkable and horrific. That poor child. :cry:

 

[SophieRose]

One other thought about the netting.

Instead of the netting, what they should have done is just make those areas have an enclosed tunnel tube with smooth walls so if it did fly upwards the worst that would happen is the people would hit the top or sides and then bounce down into the chute to slide to the bottom. Still could cause injuries but at least would have prevented body parts getting caught up in the netting or support bars.

I bet the designers thought of that but didn't want to spend extra money making the chute be an enclosed tunnel design in those dangerous areas so they chose to go with just cheap netting and support bars.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article94371692.html

Before opening to the public in 2014, Verrückt did not have netting covering the flume. Mike Taylor, a spokesman for the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan., said it insisted on adding the netting to the top.

“We raised that issue,” Taylor said Monday.

The sides of Verrückt aren’t tall, designed that way so riders can see out of the chute.

“I think they realized we need to put that extra safety precaution,” Taylor said. “The sides on that thing are really low.”

The design was changed so that netting is attached above the flume with a series of semicircular supports.

The Unified Government’s Development Review Committee examined plans for Verrückt before the attraction opened. That committee includes representatives from the the Kansas City, Kan., Fire Department, the Board of Public Utilities, the city’s building inspection and engineering departments, and the Public Health Department. The review process did not evaluate the how the ride worked or was supposed to operate, nor is there any state or local law that compels the city to carry out such an inspection.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article94371692.html#storylink=cpy

There is also a video on that page of howt the ride works.