GUILTY WA - Seattle bus, duck boat crash leaves four dead, dozens injured, Sept 2015

[Montjoy]

In post #16 above, I asked for stats on accidents per miles driven.

Anyone who believes these things are so dangerous they must be banned should certainly have those stats at hand.

By that token, anyone who wants to defend their safety should have those stats at hand. We're not going to find them -- so by your judgment, we're not allowed to discuss this at all?

 

[sonjay]

By that token, anyone who wants to defend their safety should have those stats at hand. We're not going to find them -- so by your judgment, we're not allowed to discuss this at all?

I think it's reasonable that a person who wants to ban something that is currently legal should bear the burden of proving that it's so inherently dangerous that it must be banned.

So far, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that these things are so inherently dangerous that they must be banned. From what I can tell, they have a pretty good track record.



You can discuss anything you like. It's a free country. I thought we were discussing this topic.

 

[SophieRose]

In 2010, two student tourists from Hungary drowned in a duck boat in Philadelphia. More info about duck boats.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/17/duck.boat.safety/

General Motors Corp. built 21,000 of the vessels, officially called DUKWs, between 1942 and 1945, when production ceased. Most were scrapped after the war, but entrepreneurs converted a few dozen for jolly excursions across land and water for tourists.

Herschend's 90 or so boats are latter-day replicas, manufactured at a Branson, Missouri, shop and designed to look like the WWII workhorses. Today, 128 duck-style boats have certificates to remain in service with several companies, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.

 

[al66pine]

You do understand that you are comparing a couple of hundred 70 year old military surplus vehicles that were never designed to be used as tour vehicles, vs millions of modern vehicles with safety equipment that didn't even exist during World War 2, right? It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Of course the millions of modern vehicles, are going to have more accidents, then a couple of hundred WW2 surplus vehicles. But that has only to do with sheer numbers. It doesn't prove that they are as safe as modern vehicles.

^bbm I've not (yet) located federal or state (my state, anyway) requirement that all motorized vehicles on public roadways meet safety standards of modern vehicles (whatever 'modern' means - requirements for current year new cars? Or 5 yrs old? 10? 25? 50?).
Maybe ^ poster or others can chime in w link to statutory or regulatory requirements for Wash or other states where Duck vehicles are used for tours. Anyone think Wash has no laws or regs?

From skimming a few pages at
https://*******csa.dot.gov/app/home and http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/resources-for-carrier-companies
not sure if which, if any, fed laws & regs. apply to Duck vehicle operations. Anyone know? if so, thx in adv.

Asking those wishing to shut down Duck tour vehicle operations,
- is that based on type of vehicles or age of vehicles?
- is it possible - some of these vehicles have been renovated/updated, meet modern safety stds, are as safe as 'modern' vehicles?
- is it possible - some operators of these commercial vehicles (just like private passenger car owners) ignore fed & st laws?
- should Seattle Duck vehicles be banned from public roads & highways? Or Ducks everywhere in US?
IDK.
_______________________________________________________________
Multiple states have periodic (annual or biennial) safety inspections for one or more classifications of motorized vehicles - passenger cars, commercial cargo trucks, motorhomes, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States

 

[al66pine]

FWIW, ran across this info.

"....Today, we own and operate 20 amphibious Ducks...."
".... All our Captains hold a United States Coast Guard Master’s license, as well as a commercial driver’s license, are CPR and First Aid certified and must complete a rigorous training program before any paying-passengers board their Duck. Our fleet of DUKWs is annually inspected by the USCG and bi-annually by the DOT and our paperwork files are audited frequently by both organizations. There are redundant safety systems onboard and our Operations Manual has been used as a prototype for amphibious tours around the country. Our goal is always to exceed the requirements of regulatory agencies and set the standard for others to follow."
http://www.ridetheducksofseattle.com/about/ <----bbm

 

[al66pine]

Are Seattle Ducks -
- inherently unsafe 70 yr-old vehicles?
- or replicasmanuf'ed (in 1999, 2006 or since) to simulate experience of WWII amphibious vehicles?


____________________________________________________________________________
FWIW:
"1977 The McDowell&#8217;s launch Ride The Ducks in Branson, MO...."
"1999 RTD subsidiary Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented &#8220;Stretch Duck,&#8221; significantly improving the classic WWII DUKW...."
"2006 Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented &#8220;Truck Duck,&#8221; an entirely new and modern design based on nearly 30 years of operating experience."
^bbm, http://ridetheducks.com/about-us/ more detail below in Sept 28 stmt.

RTDI's Sept 28 stmt (Ride the Ducks International" imo, appears to be a diff co. than Seattle Ducks licensee).
The NTSB has released information about a 2013 service bulletin issued by RTDI to our company-owned locations and our licensees regarding a recommended front axle housing repair involving 57 Duck vehicles. This bulletin is typical of the ongoing communication we have with all operators of these vehicles, all of which are either owned by RTDI or one of our licensees. We had no reason to believe that Seattle had not complied with the bulletin. We can say that the operators of the other in-service vehicles covered by the bulletin in Stone Mountain Park, GA, Branson, MO, Newport, KY, and Philadelphia, PA had complied. This maintenance work involved inspection and reinforcement of the front axle housing assembly.Safety:...."
"All vehicles used by RTDI and its licensees are fully modern designs, built to DOT specifications and under supervision by the United States Coast Guard, with ongoing periodic inspections by various state and federal agencies. While our vehicles contain limited elements of their military origins such as the original frame rails, the vehicle is fully refurbished, modernized and updated to meet and exceed DOT standards. This includes everything from engine, suspension, interior, and safety equipment similar to what is found in a modern bus or heavy duty truck."
^bbm, rbm http://ridetheducks.com/seattle-statement/

 

[al66pine]

It's not just the number of vehicles that makes the comparison useless -- it's also the relative number of miles, hours of usage, etc.

FWIW, source = apparently from the Duck franchise-holder or license-holder.
"More Ducks on the road than anyone. 99 Ducks operating in 8 US markets. Entertaining over 1,500,000 people on 50,000 tours annually." http://ridetheducks.com/franchising/ <--bbm
^ above wording suggests, imo - other companies also operate tours w other Ducks. IDK what total # of Ducks is in US.

Per http://www.ridetheducksofseattle.com/about/ : "....Today, we own and operate 20 amphibious Ducks...."

 

[KaaBoom]

You do understand that I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that these things are so inherently dangerous that they must be banned... right?

Well, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has suspended their operating license, “Because of the possibility of continuing safety problems and a current lack of confidence surrounding the company’s operations”.

So apparently they have some evidence that these things have some safety issues.

 

[KaaBoom]

FWIW, source = apparently from the Duck franchise-holder or license-holder.
"More Ducks on the road than anyone. 99 Ducks operating in 8 US markets. Entertaining over 1,500,000 people on 50,000 tours annually." http://ridetheducks.com/franchising/ <--bbm
^ above wording suggests, imo - other companies also operate tours w other Ducks. IDK what total # of Ducks is in US.

Per http://www.ridetheducksofseattle.com/about/ : "....Today, we own and operate 20 amphibious Ducks...."

I believe 99 is the number operated in the US. The rest are operating in other markets. No matter how you look at it, the number of these vehicles is rather small, and most of them have been put on the roads in the last 20 years. Considering the small number of these vehicles, and the short time most of them have operated, their safety record is not that great.

 

[sonjay]

Well, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has suspended their operating license, “Because of the possibility of continuing safety problems and a current lack of confidence surrounding the company’s operations”.

So apparently they have some evidence that these things have some safety issues.

Not necessarily. Sometimes they do things like that "out of an abundance of caution."

I would guess that in general, you don't believe that just because some government bureaucracy does something, that they have proof positive that that thing needed to be done.

 

[sonjay]

I believe 99 is the number operated in the US. The rest are operating in other markets. No matter how you look at it, the number of these vehicles is rather small, and most of them have been put on the roads in the last 20 years. Considering the small number of these vehicles, and the short time most of them have operated, their safety record is not that great.

On-water accidents (such as being run down by a barge when the captain of the tugboat was busy texting on his cell phone) really can't be counted against the street safety record of these things.

There was a women (busy reading her tablet) who stepped out right in front of a Duck Boat. Not the driver's fault, no charges or citations.

There was a motorcyclist that the Duck Boat driver didn't see. Driver cited, I believe.

And now this incident, according to reports, due to a wheel freezing up and coming off.

Where is the evidence of the terrible safety record that's so horrendously bad these things must be banned? I still don't see it.

I don't believe in banning things on the basis of the strength of your belief. Actual evidence is needed.

 

[Jade]

There is this to consider regarding street driving:

Some attorneys also question the focus of the drivers. In Seattle, tours are complete with exuberant operators who play loud music and quack through speakers.

"This is a business model that requires the driver to be a driver, tour guide and entertainer at the same time," said Steve Bulzomi, the attorney for a motorcyclist who was run over and dragged by a duck boat that came up behind him at a stoplight in Seattle in 2011.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/national/us/story/2015/sep/25/critics-say-duck-boats-are-too-dangerous-city/327249/


On the water safety-I used to have to ride a refurbished WWII Duck into a major river as part of my job at a tourist attraction and it felt like riding in an old washtub. I was scared that it would sink like the one in Arkansas and I’d get tangled up in the canopy:

''The driver told us that all of a sudden the front started coming up, almost vertical,'' Sheriff Selig said. ''Thirty seconds later, the whole thing was underwater.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/02/us/11-are-killed-as-a-tourist-boat-sinks-on-arkansas-lake.html


NTSB’s report of that sinking:

During the tour of the lake, water entered the hull through a loose rubber boot that provides the watertight barrier where the drive axel penetrates the hull.

And

The Miss Majestic was built by the U.S. Army in 1944 and used as an amphibious landing vehicle, known as a DUKW, to transport personnel from ship to shore. DUKWs were not originally designed for passenger service and do not have adequate reserve buoyancy to remain afloat in the event of a breach of watertight integrity. Without reserve buoyancy, the Miss Majestic sank rapidly after flooding began.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NTSB_Determines_Cause_of_1999_Duck_Boat_Sinking.aspx


Riders would be wise to ask about the retro fitting of reserve buoyancy and make sure there is no canopy on if it has not been done.

In my opinion water and street safety hold equal weight. That is the Ducks whole deal by land and water –both need to be safe for everyone.

IMHO

 

[KaaBoom]

On-water accidents (such as being run down by a barge when the captain of the tugboat was busy texting on his cell phone) really can't be counted against the street safety record of these things.

There was a women (busy reading her tablet) who stepped out right in front of a Duck Boat. Not the driver's fault, no charges or citations.

There was a motorcyclist that the Duck Boat driver didn't see. Driver cited, I believe.

The Duck Boat driver couldn't (not didn't) see, because of design issues with the vehicle.

And now this incident, according to reports, due to a wheel freezing up and coming off.

Where is the evidence of the terrible safety record that's so horrendously bad these things must be banned? I still don't see it.

Poor maintenance of a 70 year worn out vehicle.

 

[al66pine]

The Duck Boat driver couldn't (not didn't) see, because of design issues with the vehicle.
Poor maintenance of a 70 year worn out vehicle.

^ re rbm Curious as to whether you saw my post of yesterday, C & P below.
==============================================_

"Was Seattle Duck vehicle in Sept 2015 collision a 70 y/o, unsafe vehicle?

Are Seattle Ducks -
- inherently unsafe 70 yr-old vehicles?
- or replicas manuf'ed (in 1999, 2006 or since) to simulate experience of WWII amphibious vehicles?
__________________________________________________ __________________________
FWIW:
"1977 The McDowell’s launch Ride The Ducks in Branson, MO...."
"1999 RTD subsidiary Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented “Stretch Duck,” significantly improving the classic WWII DUKW...."
"2006 Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented “Truck Duck,” an entirely new and modern design based on nearly 30 years of operating experience."
^bbm, http://ridetheducks.com/about-us/ more detail below in Sept 28 stmt.

RTDI's Sept 28 stmt (Ride the Ducks International" imo, appears to be a diff co. than Seattle Ducks licensee).
The NTSB has released information about a 2013 service bulletin issued by RTDI to our company-owned locations and our licensees regarding a recommended front axle housing repair involving 57 Duck vehicles. This bulletin is typical of the ongoing communication we have with all operators of these vehicles, all of which are either owned by RTDI or one of our licensees. We had no reason to believe that Seattle had not complied with the bulletin. We can say that the operators of the other in-service vehicles covered by the bulletin in Stone Mountain Park, GA, Branson, MO, Newport, KY, and Philadelphia, PA had complied. This maintenance work involved inspection and reinforcement of the front axle housing assembly.Safety:...."
"All vehicles used by RTDI and its licensees are fully modern designs, built to DOT specifications and under supervision by the United States Coast Guard, with ongoing periodic inspections by various state and federal agencies. While our vehicles contain limited elements of their military origins such as the original frame rails, the vehicle is fully refurbished, modernized and updated to meet and exceed DOT standards. This includes everything from engine, suspension, interior, and safety equipment similar to what is found in a modern bus or heavy duty truck."
^bbm, rbm http://ridetheducks.com/seattle-statement/
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Can you or others pls provide link stating that this particular Seattle Duck was 70 y/o vehicle, w no refurbishments or updates to meet 'modern safety' stds?

Per above, this Seattle Duck was not 70 y/o; it was a 1999 to 2006 (or newer) replica, designed & manuf'ed to simulate passenger experience in 70 y/o DUCK.
Thx in adv.
​

 

[sorrell skye]

Tourism dollars should NEVER take precedence over lives.

I live in Seattle. I'm heartbroken and outraged that people were killed due to this stupid duck boat.

There are many wonderful tourist attractions in and around Seattle - the duck boat is NOT one of them. Get rid of it already, before anyone else dies.

I also think it's high time to erect a barrier between the oncoming lanes on the Aurora Bridge.

 

[KaaBoom]

^ re rbm Curious as to whether you saw my post of yesterday, C & P below.

Yes, I did see it. Did you see what I posted that these vehicles were not designed to be tour vehicles? The drivers cannot see the traffic in front of them.

 

[al66pine]

From the Wikipedia article.
{The company was involved in two other collisions in recent years, in December 2010 and June 2011, when different Duck drivers rear-ended passenger vehicles at Third Avenue and Pike Street and at Aurora Avenue North and Denny Way. No one was injured, but both Duck drivers told officers they didn’t see the cars because of the height of their own vehicles, according to the collision reports.}

Again these vehicles are being used for a purpose other then what they were designed for. They should be treated the same way any other vehicle on the road is treated that doesn't have a clear line of sight with the traffic. They should be required to run with a pilot car in front, one behind, and they should have and additional tour guide on board to provide the entertainment, so the driver can concentrate on communicating with the pilot cars, so they don't run into anyone.

^ibm & bbm Seattle duck drivers can describe their own operating experience w Duck vehicles, e.g., told officers they didn’t see the cars because of the height of their own vehicles, according to the collision reports.
But respectfully, is a Duck driver qualified to state which purposes Duck vehicles were 'designed for.' IDTS.

Is it poss -
1. if both drivers were, say, 5'1", could not see the cars they rear-ended,
(a) Seattle ridetheduck co. should not have hired them, because of (hypo) 5'1" stature?
(b) drivers should/hv/bn provided w adaptive equip like a cushion to raise seat for them, to give lower line-of-sight w traffic ahead?
2. both drivers fabricated that as excuse for their inattention or careless driving?
IDK re ^.

Not saying Seattle ridetheduck co is not responsible for accident, if co had/bn advised to replace axle or other part. (Also imo, Seattle Ducks combo-driver-tour commenter position may distract from safe driving.)

Just saying, prior collisions involving Ducks (not all were Seattle ducks) -
- being runover by huuuuge barge on river,
- hitting male pedestrian crossing against traffic light,
- hitting female ped. w eyes on tablet, etc.
does not prove, imo, all Ducks should be banned from public roads.

Also after ^ road collisions, appears Seattle ridetheduck co took steps to improve driver's point of view, to prevent recurrence. July 2015 or before, Brian Tracy, chief executive of Ride the Ducks said: "... the vehicles now have “cameras and mirrors all over the Ducks, and the drivers are required to take a safety class once a month." Christine Clarridge (2015-07-28). "Pedestrian struck by Ride the Ducks vehicle in downtown Seattle". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2015-09-25.

____________________________________________________________________________
* al66pine: ^bbm and from http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...by-ride-the-duck-vehicle-in-downtown-seattle/

 

[al66pine]

Yes, I did see it. Did you see what I posted that these vehicles were not designed to be tour vehicles?....

"The Ducks
The actual vehicle is based on the famous World War IIDUKW amphibious design (see post-war use). Today, the company manufactures its own amphibious vehicles that incorporate advances in marine design and safety."
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride_the_Ducks

Thanks for responding to post. Trying to follow line of thinking. Is above post saying, in essence: in 1999/2006 Ride The Ducks (parent co) contracted w manuf'er for vehicles, including Ducks for Seattle, but failed to specify intended usage as amphibious tour vehicles & specified vehicles did not need to meet then-current safety standards of 1999 & 2006? *

Does anyone imagine ^ contracts specified usage this way - transporting goods & US military troops over land and water, for approaching & crossing beaches in amphibious warfare attacks. Must meet only WWII era military safety stds.

_______________________________________________________
FWIW:
* "1997 - Ride The Ducks agrees to provide vehicles to Ride The Ducks of Seattle..."
"1999 - RTD subsidiary Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented &#8220;Stretch Duck,&#8221; significantly improving the classic WWII DUKW
"2006 - Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented &#8220;Truck Duck,&#8221; an entirely new and modern design based on nearly 30 years of operating experience." http://ridetheducks.com/about-us/
Duck vehicle design, per RTDI's Sept 28 stmt:
"All vehicles used by RTDI and its licensees are fully modern designs, built to DOT specifications and under supervision by the United States Coast Guard, with ongoing periodic inspections by various state and federal agencies. While our vehicles contain limited elements of their military origins such as the original frame rails, the vehicle is fully refurbished,modernized and updated to meet andexceed DOT standards. This includes everything from engine, suspension, interior, and safety equipment similar to what is found in a modern bus or heavy duty truck." ^bbm, rbm http://ridetheducks.com/seattle-statement/
Not vouching for truth or accuracy of above stmts.

 

[sonjay]

"The Ducks
The actual vehicle is based on the famous World War IIDUKW amphibious design (see post-war use). Today, the company manufactures its own amphibious vehicles that incorporate advances in marine design and safety."
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride_the_Ducks

Thanks for responding to post. Trying to follow line of thinking. Is above post saying, in essence: in 1999/2006 Ride The Ducks (parent co) contracted w manuf'er for vehicles, including Ducks for Seattle, but failed to specify intended usage as amphibious tour vehicles & specified vehicles did not need to meet then-current safety standards of 1999 & 2006? *

Does anyone imagine ^ contracts specified usage this way - transporting goods & US military troops over land and water, for approaching & crossing beaches in amphibious warfare attacks. Must meet only WWII era military safety stds.

_______________________________________________________
FWIW:
* "1997 - Ride The Ducks agrees to provide vehicles to Ride The Ducks of Seattle..."
"1999 - RTD subsidiary Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented “Stretch Duck,” significantly improving the classic WWII DUKW
"2006 - Amphibious Vehicle Manufacturing receives USCG approval for patented “Truck Duck,” an entirely new and modern design based on nearly 30 years of operating experience." http://ridetheducks.com/about-us/
Duck vehicle design, per RTDI's Sept 28 stmt:
"All vehicles used by RTDI and its licensees are fully modern designs, built to DOT specifications and under supervision by the United States Coast Guard, with ongoing periodic inspections by various state and federal agencies. While our vehicles contain limited elements of their military origins such as the original frame rails, the vehicle is fully refurbished,modernized and updated to meet andexceed DOT standards. This includes everything from engine, suspension, interior, and safety equipment similar to what is found in a modern bus or heavy duty truck." ^bbm, rbm http://ridetheducks.com/seattle-statement/
Not vouching for truth or accuracy of above stmts.

So far, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that these Duck Boats are so inherently dangerous they must be banned.

Simply repeating an opinion a number of times doesn't magically turn that opinion into fact.

 

[al66pine]

So far, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that these Duck Boats are so inherently dangerous they must be banned.
Simply repeating an opinion a number of times doesn't magically turn that opinion into fact.

And I have seen no info (other than one or two posters here, w no linked sources) showing Seattle Ducks are 70 yrs old.
Multiple posts (mine & others) link to sites stating they were manuf'ed 1997 or later.


^bbm, sonjay What if people repeat their opinion, close their eyes & clicks ruby slipper heels together three times? J/K. Nuff from me. LOL.