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

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#81

Post by mabbo »

In Canada, a certified Professional Engineer (a protected title not just anyone can use) would have had to sign off on such a construction. They would have had to certify it was safe. And if someone died because they ignored engineering principles and signed off on it anyway, they can be criminally charged and sent to jail.

There's lesser charges for lesser offences of course- lose your licence, be fined, etc. There are regular publications of who was found guilty of what. My wife eagerly awaits her monthly(?) engineering magazine to read "the blue pages" at the back that name and shame

This is all to day that the whole system here is designed to give very strong incentives to engineers not to assert something is safe when it isn't. And for the most part, it works pretty well.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#82

Post by cma »

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. 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 same day.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#83

Post by tzs »

crazypyro wrote: post #32
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…

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.

As others have noted, there has been another arrest. The operations director was merely the first. So, the question then becomes why him first?

According to the article:

> As investigators were looking into the death of the boy, Caleb Schwab, in August 2016, Mr. Miles, then the operations director, hid or destroyed documents detailing injuries sustained by riders, the indictment said.

I'd guess that this might have something to do with it. Even if it turns out that no one did anything actually criminal in regards to the building and operation of the ride itself, destroying evidence to impede an investigation is criminal. The criminal charges for this are probably also easier to prove than the ones related to the ride itself.

Furthermore, even if it turns out there was nothing actually criminal in the operation of the ride, so that none of the owners or designers are guilty of anything, he can still go down for destroying evidence.

In short...he's potentially double screwed. So indict him first, point out that even if he gets off on the ride-related charges (which is plausible...he can try to argue that he is not an engineer, so he trusted the judgment of the engineers who designed and built the thing), they've got him on the destroying evidence thing. His only realistic hope, therefore, is to accept a deal. Tell him you really want to nail the owners and designers, and offer him a deal.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#84

Post by djrogers »

badloginagain wrote: post #2

Surprised the park hasn't gone totally bankrupt from the amount of class-action suits available here.

Class action? Who would be in the class other than the family of the deceased?

Anyone else who rode the ride without being harmed has no grounds to sue...

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#85

Post by DFHippie »

JBlue42 wrote: post #64
sbarre wrote: post #3

Ugh, it says they rushed the design and build in order to impress a Travel Channel show/producer.. (Not putting this at the feet of the TV channel, just so insanely wrong priorities on the part of the park)

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

I rubber-necked and looked that up. In the case you're referring to the husband convinced his wife to shoot a book while he held it in front of his chest, believing it would stop the bullet. He set up two cameras to film it. So yes, this is arguably also poor engineering, but it would be more similar if the slide designer had been accidentally killed by the 10-year-old boy after convincing the boy to launch him down the slide.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#86

Post by JBlue42 »

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?

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

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

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#87

Post by erichurkman »

duskwuff wrote: post #24
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…

Holy shit. This is some Action Park [1] level irresponsibility here. A few other horrifying details: * Riders were restrained by Velcro straps. These frequently came loose. One rider broke several toes after his restraint came undone during a ride, forcing him to dig his feet into the corners of the raft. * The brake system on the ride was completely nonfunctional when the boy was killed, and had been that way for se…

Even more damning on the brake system was that the operators initially claimed to investigators that the brake system was only in place during testing. They had to find a visitor's GoPro footage to prove that the brake system was supposed to be there, but was missing.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#88

Post by JBlue42 »

DFHippie wrote: post #85
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.

I rubber-necked and looked that up. In the case you're referring to the husband convinced his wife to shoot a book while he held it in front of his chest, believing it would stop the bullet. He set up two cameras to film it. So yes, this is arguably also poor engineering, but it would be more similar if the slide designer had been accidentally killed by the 10-year-old boy after convincing the boy to launch him down…

Yes, not exactly the same but more so on the note of our societal chase for those reality bucks/YouTube views and their sometimes deadly consequences.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#89

Post by DFHippie »

djrogers wrote: post #84
badloginagain wrote: post #2

Surprised the park hasn't gone totally bankrupt from the amount of class-action suits available here.

Class action? Who would be in the class other than the family of the deceased? Anyone else who rode the ride without being harmed has no grounds to sue...

Apparently there were a lot of lesser injuries before this fatality.
Post reply on HN