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

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#131

Post by cryptonector »

ams6110 wrote: post #67
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…

Prosecutors will often start with very serious charges, then lower them in exchange for cooperation against the people they are really after.

This is true, but I wish they did not overcharge to scare defendants into pleading guilty to lesser charges. Sometimes prosecutors go way overboard with this approach (think of Aaron Swartz). I don't see why the courts allow this practice.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#132

Post by cryptonector »

wolfgke wrote: post #127
dandare wrote: post #123

There is only one question that really matters in this story: will the managers do serious jail time or not.

> There is only one question that really matters in this story: will the managers do serious jail time or not. What problem is solved by serious jail time?

It's about deterrence. Make the next Schlitterbanh's owners think thrice about safety and engineering.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#133

Post by wolfgke »

cryptonector wrote: post #132
wolfgke wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is only one question that really matters in this story: will the managers do serious jail time or not. What problem is solved by serious jail time?

It's about deterrence. Make the next Schlitterbanh's owners think thrice about safety and engineering.

> It's about deterrence. Make the next Schlitterbanh's owners think thrice about safety and engineering.

If the current owners of the water park had been afraid of jail, they would not have built such a dangerous contraption.

If jail is supposed to be about deterrence, this gives a (Darwinian) advantage to people who do not care about getting into jail. Is this what you desire?

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#134

Post by jonhendry18 »

crazypyro wrote: post #53
Maybestring wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Evidence suggests that the park planned to delay maintenance until the park closed for the season. When a safety feature was out of service, they decided to keep running it. That sounds like a director of operations decison. And much easier case to prove than design deficiency.

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. "

I'm pretty sure you can get involuntary manslaughter for driving recklessly, crashing your car, and killing your passenger. Or failing to maintain your car properly, crashing it due to an avoidable failure, and killing your passenger.

If I'm correct and you can get inv. manslaughter when you're in the same vehicle as the victim, it shouldn't be too hard to prove when the person was only planning to be in the ride later.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#135

Post by jonhendry18 »

MandieD wrote: post #122
the8472 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that have been defined in the industry that we couldn't find good reasons for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton%27...

How on earth have I missed that encapsulation of a conservatism that is a good balance for liberalism (or progessivism)? When you can explain what that rule might have been good for, you can seriously discuss changing it.

That's what kills me about GOP deregulation. It's purely profit driven, without concern for actual effects. I'm okay with improving regulations. But that take time and effort and isn't amenable to the reckless clearcutting approach.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#136

Post by cryptonector »

wolfgke wrote: post #133
cryptonector wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about deterrence. Make the next Schlitterbanh's owners think thrice about safety and engineering.

> It's about deterrence. Make the next Schlitterbanh's owners think thrice about safety and engineering. If the current owners of the water park had been afraid of jail, they would not have built such a dangerous contraption. If jail is supposed to be about deterrence, this gives a (Darwinian) advantage to people who do not care about getting into jail. Is this what you desire?

> If the current owners of the water park had been afraid of jail, they would not have built such a dangerous contraption.

That's just silly. First, this case is being publicized. A light sentence will not deter anyone watching, but a heavy one will, at least for as long as this case is remembered -- if we have to do this again 20 years from now, so be it. Second, that the owners/operators in this case were not deterred says nothing about future potential owners/operators of similar attractions.

> If jail is supposed to be about deterrence, this gives a (Darwinian) advantage to people who do not care about getting into jail. Is this what you desire?

I don't follow. I think you're way oversimplifying things. Also, most people don't want to go to jail, while the ones that don't care should land there early and often and eventually for long, thus negating their "darwinian advantage".

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#137

Post by jonhendry18 »

djsumdog wrote: post #30
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…

Society has moved into a dangerous position of rewarding people for extreme risk taking, so long as it pans out. I'm not saying this guy wasn't responsible. He totally was, but things like this are going to keep happening the more we encourage disastrous risks. They use to happen all the time before we started focusing on safety standards for cars. There's a great 99% Invisible episode about the shift from believing…

At the most basic level you have the people doing risky stunts for YouTube, etc, and getting killed. Like the woman who shot her boyfriend in the chest with a Desert Eagle, at his insistence, because he thought an encyclopedia volume would protect him.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#138

Post by jonhendry18 »

adventured wrote: post #130
bambax wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprising it isn't the case everywhere; can you really open a ride in the US without a prior safety inspection??

Amusement park regulations are state-based, and literally vary for every state in the US - “Fifty states in the United States of America and no two inspect rides the same way. That’s wrong,” said Ken Martin, an amusement park safety consultant who has been one of the loudest critics of the nation’s patchwork of state laws. “We’re not close to being in the same book, state to state. We’re not even on the same page of…

I'd think most amusement park / fair ride fatalities are due to maintenance problems.

I can see that being difficult to oversee, especially with the mobile fairs that pack up the rides and move to another town. Check a ride in one town, and maybe on the way to the next town the truck hits a big pothole and something breaks on the tilt-a-whirl.

But checking a new ride's engineering and design and construction ought to be possible, just like checking that a building is up to code.

Of course, this is self-harming Kansas, so amusement rides are probably checked by a poultry inspector, one day each month.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#139

Post by jonhendry18 »

codezero wrote: post #47
TylerE wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really true. They had been building and operating rides with similar mechanics (e.g. uphill sections with boosters) for years. They opened the original Master Blaster ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e2p6Qw4yIE ) in 1996.

Fair point, I guess the question then remains: were they qualified to build those either?

Perhaps they only build parks in low-regulation states.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#140

Post by jonhendry18 »

JBlue42 wrote: post #86
ada1981 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what?

When it happened: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40438207 Now in jail: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43410816

She got a pretty short sentence, to be served in multiple short periods of incarceration. I suppose so she isn't away from the kids very long at a time.

I think they took pity on her, as it was the guy's idea, he assured her it would be safe, she had one kid, and had another one on the way at the time of the incident.

Of course, if she were black she'd probably be in for life.

Post reply on HN