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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

jjenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your post!! Unless someone is an engineer or someone well educated in G-Forces or other related fields, how can they deem whether an activity is safe or not. Just looking at an activity and thinking 'that doesn't look safe to me' is hardly enough to jump on the bandwagon and try to close it down. Your parachuting example is excellent.
 
Rocco said:
I totally agree with your post!! Unless someone is an engineer or someone well educated in G-Forces or other related fields, how can they deem whether an activity is safe or not. Just looking at an activity and thinking 'that doesn't look safe to me' is hardly enough to jump on the bandwagon and try to close it down. Your parachuting example is excellent.
Click to expand...
It's not about getting an activity "closed down." The point is totally being missed.
 
You can shut down this water slide and prevent other people from being injured or killed on it but there are many other rides in Kansas and other states with lax regulations that are not being inspected, and eventually, someone else will meet the same fate. And the people who decided that water parks should follow their own rules know this, but the revenue it will bring to their state is worth more than the lives of their consistituents. They knew the risk and they accepted it. Shutting down this water slide is the easy thing to do. Getting Kansas (and other states) to increase the amount of regulation amusements parks have to be under is a whole other ballgame.
 
SophieRose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unified Government backed off that assertion:

The provenance of the netting — who ordered it, who designed it and who installed it — remains a mystery. In two separate phone calls with The Star on Monday, UG spokesman Taylor said UG raised the issue of installing the netting.

By Thursday, after being pressed about details of who made the call for the netting and who designed it, Taylor withdrew those statements. He said he misspoke.

“Since it is really part of the way the ride operates (and we don’t inspect or approve the actual mechanics of an amusement ride) we were not involved in that,” Taylor wrote in an email to The Star. Taylor’s email also pointed out that the Schlitterbahn’s Master Blaster ride at its New Braunfels, Texas, location has similar netting. “The UG did not suggest they add the netting.”
Click to expand...

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article95562432.html#storylink=cpy

Interesting article.
 
IBsleuthin said:
I see a lot of back peddling here with concerns to that netting. I 'm sure it will 'remain a mystery' for a very long time to come.
Click to expand...

Here's what UG said back in 2014 at the opening.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/schlitterbahn-cancels-media-preview-of-worlds-tallest-water-slide/26662130

The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, inspected the ride to make sure it was structurally sound but is not responsible for the safety of riders, Unified Government spokesman Edwin Birch said.

"There are very few, if any, rules in the state of Kansas regulating amusement parks and rider safety," Birch said.
 
http://www.kansas.com/news/article1148131.html

One of the adjustments included making the raft for three people instead of four, as originally announced. The ride is covered in netting, but Henry [Verruckt designer and a co-owner of Schlitterbahn] said that was always in the plan. The net is needed because the chute’s sides are much lower than a typical water slide. That, he said, “allows the rider to see out of the ride.”

But the low sides aren’t safe for maintenance workers, he said. And the net is an extra precaution for riders too.

“It’s nice to always know that nobody’s ever going to come out of the ride,” Henry said.

“This ride is ready for the public. I’m very happy with it.”
 
Kind of a disjointed article from right before it opened. They were still tweaking the design. Very disturbing quotes.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/25590567/worlds-of-fun-new-ride-wont-open-on-saturday

Schlitterbahn officials admitted this week that Verruckt is "not behaving properly," but deny online reports that test dummies went airborne.

"I can tell you no test riders have gone airborne on the Verruckt," said park spokesman Layne Pitcher.

BBM.

Statement analysis, anyone?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
KDOL audit of Schlitterbahn safety compliance complete.

Kansas says a water park where a 10-year-old boy recently died on a huge slide is in compliance with the state’s legal requirements for amusement rides.

But the requirements cited in a letter from the Kansas Department of Labor to the general manager of the Schlitterbahn park in Kansas City, Kansas, mostly involve proper record-keeping.
Click to expand...

State law mandates that parks annually “self-inspect” their rides and maintain the records. The state has authority only to audit the records.
Click to expand...

http://fox4kc.com/2016/08/12/kansas...e-regulations-at-time-of-deadly-accident/amp/

Link contains a link to the KDOL audit report/letter.

I'm not clear if this is the extent of post-accident investigation by KDOL.

Early am and my first cup of coffee so my brain is still somewhat asleep.
 
Everyday Grace said:
KDOL audit of Schlitterbahn safety compliance complete.

http://fox4kc.com/2016/08/12/kansas...e-regulations-at-time-of-deadly-accident/amp/

Link contains a link to the KDOL audit report/letter.

I'm not clear if this is the extent of post-accident investigation by KDOL.

Early am and my first cup of coffee so my brain is still somewhat asleep.
Click to expand...



After just being in court last month forcing a business into compliance on a negligence matter I can tell you unequivocally that these are the statements negligent people make in order to attempt to squirm out of their responsibilities when someone is injured and they are facing a lawsuit. It sickens me, it makes me want to make sure that their dark little world sees the light of day and for the life of me I cannot understand why some people find it so difficult to just behave.

"We were only doing our jobs.", "We followed orders.", "We did what we were told.", "We were within the legal limits.", "The state says we only needed_____________to comply.", "There is no law stating we needed to do that.", "When we didn't hear anymore we ASSUMED there wasn't a problem."

These are the statements cowards make when faced with the consequences of their actions. One of the reasons the 'justice' system is so extremely frustrating is precisely because people constantly look for loopholes in the wording of legal statements so they can get themselves off the hook, and there is simply no possible way for law makers to word a piece of legislation so that it is all encompassing into the future.

To me, in my opinion and at the heart of all things that motivate me, when people know they are just under the radar and someone gets hurt and then they try to snake out of it, that drives me more than anything.

An example would be a man with a long history of driving while intoxicated convictions and he killed someone while driving drunk. But because the calibration on the field sobriety test was just a tad off that night, his lawyer fought, (and won) that these results were inadmissible. They know he was drunk, they know he did this but they are trying to get him off the hook. This is disgusting and despicable behavior. This is also why; in my state we draw a blood sample. :D
 
Betty P said:
Waiver or no, what's so hard about running a safe, well-maintained amusement park? Nothing.
Click to expand...

i think the goal of any park owner would be to run a safe well maintained amusement park, do you really think a park owner would open the place thinking "i hope we have an accident and somebody gets injured today.....or better yet a death" :thinking:

that would be like a restaurant owner hoping one of his customers gets food poisoning, even if there is no lawsuit against them its bad publicity,

but here is the harsh reality.....amusement park accidents have happened in the past, they are happening in the present, and they will continue to happen in the future, there is no way to prevent accidents, that's why they are called "accidents"

some fault must be placed on the customer for putting themselves in that position to begin with, you must assume some kind of risk, in this case it was a child who may not realize the risks involved and therefore the fault is on the parents,

if im a park owner i am definitely putting a disclaimer on your ticket stub saying "you are entering this park at your own risk, you are riding the rides at your own risk, and we will not be responsible for any injury for any reason whatsoever" (but in more legal terms)....if you don't like it do not enter

i would never go skydiving and jump out of a plane in fear the parachute did not open, so i simply do not put myself in that position,

now lets say next week i change my mind, i jump out of the plane, my parachute does not open, i slam into the ground and i survive but im paralized from the waist down.....im not going to blame the company who flew the plane, and im not going to blame the maker of the parachute, im going to blame myself for my own actions and the choice i made to jump.....i was the one who put myself in that position.....people need to stop blaming everybody else for their own choices and actions

aside from what most people think it is actually very difficult to run a safe amusement park, aside from the rides, there is a risk of injury whenever you crowd that many people into a relatively small area,

if you buy a brand new car and maintain it by the book, take it in for service once a week, there is still the possibility of it breaking down, same goes for amusement rides.....you can not eliminate the unknown 100%.....its impossible,
 
Wyle_E_Coyote said:
Kind of a disjointed article from right before it opened. They were still tweaking the design. Very disturbing quotes.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/25590567/worlds-of-fun-new-ride-wont-open-on-saturday

Schlitterbahn officials admitted this week that Verruckt is "not behaving properly," but deny online reports that test dummies went airborne.

"I can tell you no test riders have gone airborne on the Verruckt," said park spokesman Layne Pitcher.

BBM.

Statement analysis, anyone?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's ODD.
 
IBsleuthin said:
An example would be a man with a long history of driving while intoxicated convictions and he killed someone while driving drunk. But because the calibration on the field sobriety test was just a tad off that night, his lawyer fought, (and won)
Click to expand...

i dont see anything wrong with that defense, his past convictions have nothing to do with the present charge against him, and if the equipment malfunctioned then maybe he was not over the legal limit to drive, and should not be convicted because he did not commit a crime.....would you like to be convicted of a crime you did not commit?
 
JohnPaul said:
i think the goal of any park owner would be to run a safe well maintained amusement park, do you really think a park owner would open the place thinking "i hope we have an accident and somebody gets injured today.....or better yet a death" :thinking:

that would be like a restaurant owner hoping one of his customers gets food poisoning, even if there is no lawsuit against them its bad publicity,

but here is the harsh reality.....amusement park accidents have happened in the past, they are happening in the present, and they will continue to happen in the future, there is no way to prevent accidents, that's why they are called "accidents"

some fault must be placed on the customer for putting themselves in that position to begin with, you must assume some kind of risk, in this case it was a child who may not realize the risks involved and therefore the fault is on the parents,

if im a park owner i am definitely putting a disclaimer on your ticket stub saying "you are entering this park at your own risk, you are riding the rides at your own risk, and we will not be responsible for any injury for any reason whatsoever" (but in more legal terms)....if you don't like it do not enter

i would never go skydiving and jump out of a plane in fear the parachute did not open, so i simply do not put myself in that position,

now lets say next week i change my mind, i jump out of the plane, my parachute does not open, i slam into the ground and i survive but im paralized from the waist down.....im not going to blame the company who flew the plane, and im not going to blame the maker of the parachute, im going to blame myself for my own actions and the choice i made to jump.....i was the one who put myself in that position.....people need to stop blaming everybody else for their own choices and actions

aside from what most people think it is actually very difficult to run a safe amusement park, aside from the rides, there is a risk of injury whenever you crowd that many people into a relatively small area,

if you buy a brand new car and maintain it by the book, take it in for service once a week, there is still the possibility of it breaking down, same goes for amusement rides.....you can not eliminate the unknown 100%.....its impossible,
Click to expand...

So if your child is decapitated on a ride...it's your child's fault/your fault then? Okay.

And your car analogy is irrelevant. The ride didn't break down. It clearly has many design flaws.
 
Possible design flaws:
Velcro straps;
Lack of analysis of individual weight distributions and their affect on a plastic raft gaining and losing g-forces;
The height of steel cage over the slide, as well as analysis of what the steel cage will do to a human traveling at x mph.

We'll find out soon. In many activities, the participant implies a certain skill level and that gets the facility off the hook. Downhill skiers assume liability because they agree not to get on a run beyond their ability.

There was no skill level required for this ride.
 
Hatfield said:
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
Click to expand...

That is the most insane thing I have ever heard of in my life. It’s corporate welfare at it’s absolute worst. The team owners can afford to pay players over a $100,000,000 a year, but they need special laws protecting them from liability for medical expenses, if one of their fans gets hit by a foul ball. Because if they have to pay for the medical expenses for fans hit by fouls, they will go out of business, and baseball as we know it will be over. :facepalm: The medical expenses of injured fans would be a drop in the bucket compared to the players salaries. If some kid gets hit buy a foul ball, and is permanently disabled for the rest of his life, somebody has got to pay for his disability. If it’s not the team, then it’s tax payers. The greed of these team owners, know no bounds. These guys literally want to rake in billions of dollars, and have no expenses to pay for, what so ever. Tax payer’s already pay for everything except the player’s salaries, and it’s just a matter of time before they figure out a way to make tax payer’s pay for that too. It’s a business, that even the worst business man could never fail at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 98 more.
Total: 1,528 (members: 99, guests: 1,429)

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
1,429
Total visitors
1,528
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,282
Messages
18,093,865
Members
230,841
Latest member
FastRayne
Back
Top