Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#91

Post by comex »

teraflop wrote: post #4

The full indictment [1] is well worth reading. The most relevant sections for HN, in my opinion: > 35. [Designer Jeffrey] HENRY compared the construction of Verrückt to an arms race against rival waterparks. > 37. HENRY admitted that he was ignoring established industry safety standards because he felt he could redefine those standards with his own achievements. While describing his vision of how Verrückt would chang…

Another particularly egregious bit:

> 61. In response to the Groves incident, MILES intercepted the incident reports which the lifeguards had written. MILES destroyed these written witness statements. MILES then forced the lifeguards to write coached statements which omitted any detail of how the injury had occurred. MILES then ordered the medical staff to alter their medical reports.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#92

Post by slavik81 »

ada1981 wrote: post #79
JBlue42 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems similar to the one who shot and killed her boyfriend (husband?) in front of their kid for a YouTube prank.

Wait, what?

They ran a YouTube channel. He convinced his girlfriend to shoot him with a pistol while he held a thick book in front of himself, expecting the book to stop the bullet. The book did not stop the bullet, and he died from the gunshot wound. She pled guilty to manslaughter.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/us/youtube-shooting-minne...

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#93

Post by walrus01 »

dawnerd wrote: post #77
kazinator wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... netting that is held together with metal hoops, through which you're shooting at high speeds. If that situation occurs for which the netting is there, it follows that the riders are hitting those hoops at full speed at an oblique angle. You're not going to somehow nicely land between those metal hoops and be caught just by the netting alone. (If that were possible, it doesn't seem safe, either, for that matter).…

Alternative would be a different track layout. Universal opened Volcano Bay last year with an aqua coaster where it's pretty much impossible for the raft to come up because it, surprise, uses upstops to prevent it from going airborne. Whats interesting, and where they probably for the idea for the netting (they have one in the park): https://www.whitewaterwest.com/products/master-blaster/

It is pretty normal to have netting underneath things like inverted rollercoasters, since people inevitably drop things... Not netting where people could collide with it.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#94

Post by jessaustin »

smitherfield wrote: post #52
crazypyro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

edit: The owner was arrested just today, so I had missed that. Can someone explain why they are charging the 29 year old director of operations who started as a lifeguard and had no formal training or connection to engineering/design and not one of the designers or owners, both of which are mentioned in the indictment multiple times? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me other than they needed to charge someone.

The owner was just arrested as well,[1] and I'd bet that more will follow. My guess is the director of operations will get a plea deal in exchange for testifying against the others. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html

Yeah typically the defendant they want to testify (often the lowest-level, least-responsible defendant) is charged first. In exchange for a deal, that person will provide as much evidence as possible against everyone else.

It is interesting that this firm has an "owner" rather than a CEO and a board. It's my impression that executives and board members would be less likely to face criminal charges in this sort of situation.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#95

Post by jessaustin »

cma wrote: post #82
crazypyro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its likely that its an easier case to prove, but they are charging him with some things that take quite a high bar to prove. For instance, the involuntary manslaughter charge is going to be hard to proof when the evidence that he was planning on going on the ride the same day is presented. They have to prove recklessness which includes proving the person knew their actions were likely to cause harm. Also wort…

> For instance, the involuntary manslaughter charge is going to be hard to proof when the evidence that he was planning on going on the ride the same day is presented. They have to prove recklessness which includes proving the person knew their actions were likely to cause harm. Surf instructor sends novice who has never surfed before out to surf Teahupoo. In his defense, the instructor was planning on surfing it the…

Can one develop expertise in riding dangerous amusement rides?

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#96

Post by kazinator »

teraflop wrote: post #4

The full indictment [1] is well worth reading. The most relevant sections for HN, in my opinion: > 35. [Designer Jeffrey] HENRY compared the construction of Verrückt to an arms race against rival waterparks. > 37. HENRY admitted that he was ignoring established industry safety standards because he felt he could redefine those standards with his own achievements. While describing his vision of how Verrückt would chang…

Sounds eerily like some Silicon Valley startup founder.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#97

Post by crooked-v »

dawnerd wrote: post #77
kazinator wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... netting that is held together with metal hoops, through which you're shooting at high speeds. If that situation occurs for which the netting is there, it follows that the riders are hitting those hoops at full speed at an oblique angle. You're not going to somehow nicely land between those metal hoops and be caught just by the netting alone. (If that were possible, it doesn't seem safe, either, for that matter).…

Alternative would be a different track layout. Universal opened Volcano Bay last year with an aqua coaster where it's pretty much impossible for the raft to come up because it, surprise, uses upstops to prevent it from going airborne. Whats interesting, and where they probably for the idea for the netting (they have one in the park): https://www.whitewaterwest.com/products/master-blaster/

The difference, of course, is that the netting in the image on that page pretty obviously isn't meant to catch people. It's more likely there to keep birds out or to keep somebody's phone or hat from shooting across the park at high speeds, or just to keep idiots from intentionally climbing out of the tube while it's elevated.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#98

Post by slg »

ams6110 wrote: post #68
slg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"If we actually knew how to do this, and it could be done that easily, it wouldn't be that spectacular." The same logic applies for a majority of cryptocurrency and gig economy startups.

Most of which don't put lives at risk.

"Most" might be true but it certainly doesn't apply to all. Uber's self driving car recently killed someone and there are plenty of indirect examples of deaths like the reported suicides after Mt Gox collapsed. Either way, "it isn't going to kill anyone" shouldn't be an excuse for ignoring the law or reasons for why that law might have been created in the first place.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#99

Post by lfowles »

ams6110 wrote: post #66
justherefortart wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad rode a cliffhanger type of slide at Action Park in the mid 80s. It had a plastic covering about 1/2 way down so you couldn't "fall off" the slide. I'm still amazed to this day he did it because he's afraid of heights. It was easily 50' high. Fortunately, the only downside was it was like getting an enormous enema. Those sled things that went down the concrete track, everyone has scars from those. Great memorie…

Fond memories of childhood visits to a local "flume" ride, essentially a long concrete-lined ditch dug in a switchback pattern down a big hillside. Painted to make it slick, and they pumped a continuous stream of water all along it. You rode it by sitting or lying on foam mats, about 3x4 feet in size. A ton of fun, you could get going pretty fast and you definitely wanted to have your legs crossed when you hit the po…

I have memories myself of a summer camp with a nice long slide that was waxed with the insides of McDonalds cups. You rode down on a burlap sack and if for some reason you touched the slide itself you would get a gigantic friction burn (ask me how I know!).

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#100

Post by chrisacky »

I'm a new father of two boys and couldn't imagine the torment I'd go through if something tragic would happen to them, pain like that cannot be "made right" by a simple settlement, however large. What irks me though in this instance, is that Caleb's father is state legislature in Kansas and because of laws he has voted for, (or rather against) his compensation should have been capped at $300k -- but instead through "getting around laws" which he himself has helped pass, he was awarded one of the largest settlements in Kansas history[1]. No sum of money could ever compensate such loss, however, when he's made a career out of denying other Kansians for similar losses it just seems hypocritical to me. Even after receiving the settlement money, he hasn't had an epiphany moment and campaigned/voted to help other families with similar losses. If ever there was negligence sufficient to warrant one of the largest tort settlement in his state, this strikes me as a short-runner, but what about other families, why is it a one rule for me, and one rule for my constituents.

[1]: He did this by bringing suit out of Kansas and instead in Texas under "choice of law" ...

I read about this here: https://www.injuryrelief.com/blog/how-is-representative-scot... - I assume it's a reputable source.... but could be a load of crap and out of context falsehoods, written by authors who have an interest in raising the cap in Kansas.. but hey, even if they do, the underlying sentiment is still true?..

Post reply on HN