Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters • Hacker News Board

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#51

Post by michaelt » Fri, Aug 14, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

toothbrush wrote: post #18

I've seen it mentioned here and there that one isn't supposed to ride it all the way around (that is, on the horizontal sections), but the reason escapes me. If you stay inside the cabin, what exactly can go wrong? (serious question) Getting stuck doesn't seem logical, why would the probability of the paternoster stopping increase when there is a (modest) load on the horizontal sections?

If you look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paternoster_animated... presumably, as the open-fronted compartments pass over the top of the mechanism, the red drive chain is exposed to people in the cabin. If you watch the video in the guardian article labelled "the loop: from the top" you see an exposed chain that looks easily strong enough to take off a few fingers without stopping.

You could probably come up with an overlapping arrangement of guards, of course. And presumably anyone riding one of these things already knows not to put their limbs into trap points - I couldn't say if the danger of trapping at the top is any greater than the danger of trapping at one of the floors.

Rescue might also be difficult if there's a power cut or breakdown.

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#52

Post by furyg3 » Fri, Aug 14, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

Someone wrote: post #33

matt4077 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed! Also, they should probably find a solution for that problem where little children get smashed like a not-so-lucky group of rebels in a trash compactor when the paternoster goes over the top.

That problem has been solved (look at the animation on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster ). I guess it had been solved before the first paternoster got installed. If so, it never was a real problem.

I'm slightly disappointed it doesn't flip over :)

That'll teach to to disobey the signs!

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#53

Post by Someone » Fri, Aug 14, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

furyg3 wrote: post #52

Someone wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That problem has been solved (look at the animation on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternoster ). I guess it had been solved before the first paternoster got installed. If so, it never was a real problem.

I'm slightly disappointed it doesn't flip over :) That'll teach to to disobey the signs!

You could have deduced that by observing that you never find footprints on the ceilings of the cars, or that the left and right walls of cars do not get switched.

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#54

Post by slgeorge » Sat, Aug 15, 2015, 3:44 AM UTC

Asbostos wrote: post #44

KuchenKerze wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree partially. But labelling a coffee cup with a notice that it is hot should not be necessary.

In the same way that labeling a guillotine with a notice that it could cut your fingers off should not be necessary? In both cases they seem safe because the people using them use them every day and are familiar with the risks. Unfortunately, what happens is every now and then an experienced factory worker cuts his fingers off in the same guillotine he's been operating for decades, or an old lady needs skin grafts on…

I'm not following you. Your examples are of the inherent risk in the activity or device - a person drinks coffee regularly, and then burns herself after drinking safely for years - this is just a risk of a hot drink, it could happen at any time. Having a sign on the item doesn't impact the risk for a regular user: the regular user knows the risks, and will ignore signs they see all the time.

Signs might protect a new user - 'this is a guillotine if you hit the button it will cut your hand off'. Is that the point your making?

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#55

Post by animefan » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

einrealist wrote: post #45

nemo44x wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't much different than an escalator. Escalators are fairly unsafe and not very accessible with children and the elderly the most common victims in terms of injury and death. Quite a few people die every year on escalator's from tripping, falling and other things.

True. Maybe the escalator industry has a bigger lobby. ;)

Accessibility is itself something can can be and is lobbied for. Compared with many smaller interests, like specific kinds of business, this lobby may even be considered powerful.

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#56

Post by ams6110 » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 6:43 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #28

Yuioup wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity. I have never ridden one of those but what can actually go wrong? From what I can see: * You can jump in too late, thus falling an unexpected height and break your ankles. * You take too long getting in thus getting a garment/arm/leg stuck between the ceiling of the paternoster and the floor. Am I correct? Or am I missing something?

Uneven floor means increased risk of trips and falls. Considerable effort is spent on reducing falls because they're a cause of a lot of avoidable injury. There have been some deaths caused by paternosters. The number (5 between 1970 and 1993) is tiny, but there aren't that many paternosters. A man died in 2012 when he fell into the shaft. We probably shouldn't be installing more paternosters unlesss we come up with…

If we're worried about trips and falls, staircases should be banned. Yet it's a recent "healthy living" and "sustainability" trend at workplaces to encourage people to take the stairs (gives you a bit of exercise and also saves electricity). I wonder if these benefits have ever been compared to the increase in worker-compensation injury claims from stairway falls.

Re: Lovin' their elevator: why Germans are loopy about paternosters

#57

Post by seanp2k2 » Sun, Aug 16, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

KuchenKerze wrote: post #39

thomasz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you that this is a very dangerous assumption. In theory, almost all workplace safety regulations could be replaced by a "Just put up a 'don't be an idiot'" sign. But then we would have a lot of unnecessary deaths and horrible accidents. The are many reasons for this, but it mostly comes down to people being distracted and simple statistics - given enough time, even a small risk will lead to accidents.

I agree partially. But labelling a coffee cup with a notice that it is hot should not be necessary.

Or car window stickers which are hard to remove and designed to be permanent stating the risks of driving a car. Also, the warnings printed onto the interior visors about child seats.