quote:

---

In the context, I read it to mean they thought, at the time, that they would never do that again.

I think it's incredibly cynical to hold the view that they only felt it was dangerous after someone died. It's very possible for someone to have a very scary experience and tell their friends and family that they didn't feel that was safe.

You may find that odd or grandstanding on their part, but I actually find your position of some sort of weird goaltending for Schlitterbahn more troubling. It's almost like the Blue Bell situation. Well, if you're fat and eat ice cream, you're gonna die anyway.

---

how is it goal-tending? I just think the human psyche is interesting and these comments in light of a tragedy play into that in some regard. I think this is pretty common in human nature.

horrible situation. T&P

quote:

---

quote:

---

I actually find your position of some sort of weird goaltending for Schlitterbahn more troubling. It's almost like the Blue Bell situation. Well, if you're fat and eat ice cream, you're gonna die anyway.

---

Not sure how you thought I was defending Schlitterbahn, I just don't think it means much of anything when somebody says they aren't going to do something, 45 minutes after they see somebody die doing that thing.

---

But what I read, that is not what happened at all. And people are not trying to get camera time on Reddit

I agree the human psyche can do some strange things and there probably are some grandstanders.

Maybe I conflated multiple folks arguments here but it sure seemed like there was an air on the thread of, 'oh well, scary rides and sometimes folks die. No possible way schlitterbahn could be liable'.

No there was more of an Air of "jail? Lol. That ain't gonna happen. " Which is vastly different from "designed a ride to intentionally kill kids? Sucks to be dumb enough to use it"

Right. Everyone realizes they are liable and are going to pay. Most of us just do not think anyone is going to jail.

quote:

---

Right. Everyone realizes they are liable and are going to pay. Most of us just do not think anyone is going to jail.

---

they may not be liable. Just because someone was injured or killed doesn't mean they are liable.

You're not going to like this. See post #2 on this thread. From 2014.

http://www.sh****texas.com/board/showthread.php/144384-Verrukt-Tallest-water-slide-in-the-world.

and I"m sure all of you know how to fill in the ****s


Verrukt is ****ed

I don't get your post... So because some t-sip on a message board said this would happen, that makes this worse somehow?

2 years ago someone said a kid would die on that ride.

Well, here we are. Actuarial people are now scrambling to figure out what the acceptable number of deaths per riders is.

quote:

---

2 years ago someone said a kid would die on that ride.

Well, here we are. Actuarial people are now scrambling to figure out what the acceptable number of deaths per riders is.

---

I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand how liability, insurance, or actuaries work

I am not saying this kid did this but I remember going to a waterpark with a group way back and we went down the slide where you have to lay back and cross your legs and arms before you go down a steep and long straightaway into deeper water that slows you down at the bottom. The walls of the slide came up about 3 feet on either side. This obstinate girl with us decides that despite what all of the signs say and what the lifeguard tells her, that she doesn't have to lay back, so as soon as she goes over the edge she sits up. She slides down fine but when she hit the deeper water her torso was thrashed about like rag doll. She ended up bashing her head against the side walls and had to get stitches above her eye.

That said, based on what I know about physics, neither I nor my kids would ever be going on that ride. Too many variables.

quote:

---

quote:

---

2 years ago someone said a kid would die on that ride.

Well, here we are. Actuarial people are now scrambling to figure out what the acceptable number of deaths per riders is.

---

I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand how liability, insurance, or actuaries work

---

I understand insurance and actuarial science. All of Texags awaits what the acceptable number of deaths/ride is based on cost per ticket and number of annual riders.

Please enlighten us.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

2 years ago someone said a kid would die on that ride.

Well, here we are. Actuarial people are now scrambling to figure out what the acceptable number of deaths per riders is.

---

I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand how liability, insurance, or actuaries work

---

I understand insurance and actuarial science. All of Texags awaits what the acceptable number of deaths/ride is based on cost per ticket and number of annual riders.

Please enlighten us.

---

it doesnt matter how severe an injury is if liability isnt present. Risk assesment deals with what risks are one the property and how they are managed. You aren't going to find some magic table that says X number of deaths are acceptable. The fact is, we have no idea what caused the accident. It could have been the fault of the operator, manufacturer of the equipment, or even rider error. The mere occurrence of an accident only proves that an accident occurred. It says nothing of who is liable for the accident.


At this point no one knows what caused the accident or who is liable, And making a blanket statement that the park is responsible shows ignorance of the situation

Where does one purchase such a net? /ISIS

Let's see. We have dead kid, BBQ, insurance and Isis. Fffffffaaaakkkkkkkk (read in Australian accent)

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

2 years ago someone said a kid would die on that ride.

Well, here we are. Actuarial people are now scrambling to figure out what the acceptable number of deaths per riders is.

---

I'm getting a feeling that you don't really understand how liability, insurance, or actuaries work

---

I understand insurance and actuarial science. All of Texags awaits what the acceptable number of deaths/ride is based on cost per ticket and number of annual riders.

Please enlighten us.

---

it doesnt matter how severe an injury is if liability isnt present. Risk assesment deals with what risks are one the property and how they are managed. You aren't going to find some magic table that says X number of deaths are acceptable. The fact is, we have no idea what caused the accident. It could have been the fault of the operator, manufacturer of the equipment, or even rider error. The mere occurrence of an accident only proves that an accident occurred. It says nothing of who is liable for the accident.


At this point no one knows what caused the accident or who is liable, And making a blanket statement that the park is responsible shows ignorance of the situation

---

It's called 'root cause analysis'. And it will be done for this accident.

Working in O&G, accidents happen, and I have learned to be completely unbiased when accidents happen and wait for facts. You never know why or who or what caused the accident, even though it may seem obvious at first glance. It's easy to point the finger at the obvious party, and most people do, but a good safety manager never does.