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

Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

texasmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 115 posts

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#81

Post by GavinMcG »

wyldfire wrote: post #3

I love capitalism and the idea behind laissez faire. I still think it might be the least bad thing out there but I keep coming back to stuff like this where people just don't act in their own long-term (or even short-term sometimes) interest. Caleb's gone, many people who lived in Grenfell Tower are gone, and now I think many markets where safety is critical deserve some good regulation. > He never got a conventional…

This isn't a personal accusation, but had you never heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, or read The Jungle, or Silent Spring? I'm asking because these are things I encountered in high school, and in a community that very much "love[s] capitalism and the idea behind laissez faire."

I'd like to hope that everyone's education would be enough to instill an understanding of these things. The alternative is a Grenfell Tower for every generation.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#82

Post by robocat »

edmccard wrote: post #42
watwut wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that hurt men even more? If they spread legs there are privates and men tend to be sensitive when those are hit.

>Wouldn't that hurt men even more? More than the internal injuries that could be caused by water forcibly entering the vagina? Probably not.

The common term seems to be "water skiing douche" and it is something to protect against. Presumably males and females also need to avoid an anal douche.

See references of this paper which refer to some specific instances: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305204/

Edit: the term is "water skiing enema" for rectally injected water injuries... The worst case scenario is severe lacerations to the vagina wall or a rectal blow out.

https://www.sheknows.com/health-and-wellness/articles/809730...

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#83

Post by cowboysauce »

laretluval wrote: post #62

Does Schlitterbahn have a higher fatal accident rate than other water parks? Other amusement parks? This incident is horrific in its graphic details but is it actually exceptional?

Getting decapitated by a water slide is exceptional. The only other cases I can find about amusement park decapitations involve people being struck by roller coasters after they either entered a restricted area or were thrown out of a roller coaster. This case might be the only one of someone being decapitated while they stayed in the ride vehicle. Keep in mind that deaths at amusement parks are very rare, typically only two or three per year in the United States. And that's among all amusement parks. Most of those deaths are either due to pre-existing medical conditions or safety devices failing and people being ejected from the ride vehicle.

This case is neither. The kid died because the tallest water slide in the world was designed through trial and error by a guy with no experience in physics or engineering.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#84

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

tzs wrote: post #80
donarb wrote: post #69

The really tragic thing is that the father of the killed 10 year old was a Kansas legislator who voted for a cap on damages (max $300K) when someone is killed due to negligence. A quirk in Kansas law allows for Kansans injured by out-of-state parties to apply the laws of the state where the other party is located. So Scott Schwab parlayed the payout for his son's death from $300,000 to $20 million, all while denying…

Any of his constituents injured by out of state parties can do exactly the same thing he did. Any injury he suffers at the hands of a Kansas company will be subject to the same damage limits that such injuries suffered by his constituents are. I don't see how this is either hypocrisy (as alleged in the article you link to) or denying his constituents some benefit that is allowed to him (as you claim). I am curious wh…

> I don't see how this is either hypocrisy

Seriously, you don't? It's all "over burdensome regulation" and "tort lawyers looking for a huge payday" until it's YOUR child that is hurt or killed. Legislator is damn lucky the tortfeasor was from out of state.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#85

Post by bb88 »

FTA:

  What’s more, according to court documents, the
  investigators learned that on July 3, 2014, one week
  before the ride’s grand opening, an engineering firm 
  hired by Jeff and Schooley to perform accelerometer tests 
  on Verrückt’s rafts had issued a report suggesting that   
  if the combined weight of the three passengers in a raft 
  was between 400 and 550 pounds—the weight Jeff and 
  Schooley had agreed was appropriate—there was a chance
  the raft would go airborne on the second hill. The ride 
  opened anyway, with the weight range unchanged.
So that sounds pretty damning.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#86

Post by untog »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #84
tzs wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any of his constituents injured by out of state parties can do exactly the same thing he did. Any injury he suffers at the hands of a Kansas company will be subject to the same damage limits that such injuries suffered by his constituents are. I don't see how this is either hypocrisy (as alleged in the article you link to) or denying his constituents some benefit that is allowed to him (as you claim). I am curious wh…

> I don't see how this is either hypocrisy Seriously, you don't? It's all "over burdensome regulation" and "tort lawyers looking for a huge payday" until it's YOUR child that is hurt or killed. Legislator is damn lucky the tortfeasor was from out of state.

I can't help but feel like the OP's post is an example of getting carried away in legalese. It isn't hypocritical in the legal sense, but absolutely is in the moral sense.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#87

Post by toast0 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #8
wyldfire wrote: post #3

I love capitalism and the idea behind laissez faire. I still think it might be the least bad thing out there but I keep coming back to stuff like this where people just don't act in their own long-term (or even short-term sometimes) interest. Caleb's gone, many people who lived in Grenfell Tower are gone, and now I think many markets where safety is critical deserve some good regulation. > He never got a conventional…

Is it really possible that no licensed engineers were involved with the project, and that none of them signed off on anything significant? Based on the article, it sounds like at least one licensed engineer noticed that rafts were leaving the track.

Given that Kansas apparently allows water parks to self-assess the safety of their rides, and that the owner of the park doesn't care about safety, but has a construction background, it's not a surprise to me that no engineers were involved in the design.

It's not a good idea to build public buildings without the input of a structrural engineer, but it's not impossible.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#88

Post by bb88 »

wyldfire wrote: post #3

I love capitalism and the idea behind laissez faire. I still think it might be the least bad thing out there but I keep coming back to stuff like this where people just don't act in their own long-term (or even short-term sometimes) interest. Caleb's gone, many people who lived in Grenfell Tower are gone, and now I think many markets where safety is critical deserve some good regulation. > He never got a conventional…

> This is actually a mildly compelling argument.

I liked your post up to this point. But no, it's not a compelling argument -- especially one made by a lawyer.

I wouldn't absolve Tesla for the liability of its cars just because Elon Musk is a "genius". I would expect a genius to know the limits of his knowledge. Maybe he was too proud to ask for help.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#89

Post by userbinator »

An interesting thing to calculate is the actual fatality rate, in deaths per passenger-km. The article mentions that ~100K riders had already taken it, and the ride is ~100m in length or 0.1km (data found elsewhere on the Internet), so that nicely works out to 1 in 10K passenger-km.

In contrast, the fatality rate of driving in the US is in the 1 in 100M range, so the ride was far more dangerous than driving. That gives a good perspective on the risk.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#90

Post by StillBored »

svrtknst wrote: post #36
userbinator wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, they probably caught his head and then quite naturally, ripped it off. It seems almost common sense to use something smoother and softer, but as the saying goes, "common sense isn't common". You can see them in this video of the ride (start at 1:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZsK7zSCJ2w

According to the article, the metal hoop seems to have caught him in the neck. I can't imagine being there in the raft, nor being there as a bystander, watching.

Having just taken the kids to the new braunfels location..

Oddly, master blaster continues to have the same net and hoop layout. I wondered about it years ago when I first rode that ride.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=master+blaster+schlitte...

While I didn't ride it this time (the wait is generally really long), I think I was more aware of the fact that there are a lot of dangerous areas in the park. A couple years ago when my kids were younger, I saw first hand how just a bit of running on wet concrete can result in some serious road rash. The park is very responsive to these kinds of injuries, but they must be very common.

This time I came away with the idea that these parks are built around 70's era don't protect the kids from the daily bumps bruises of life mindset. If there were actual regulation, I suspect there would be a _LOT_ of changes forced on by the safty crazies.

For starters, many of the rides should probably require helmets. I myself cracked my head (twice) against concrete tube chutes after having fliped off tubes in fairly minor drops (just a few feet).

Maintenance isn't really top notch either, years ago I remember sitting at a picnic table on a windy day and a fairly large limb broke off a nearby tree and missed a woman and her baby by inches.

This probably won't keep me from going again next year. The place is a blast, and if you do manage to injure yourself, there is literally a hospital across the street. It does make me more respectful of the attractions though, something I don't think most people going there really understand. Water + speed + hard objects will result it some injuries. Hopefully like many other activities (riding a bike/skate board, jumping off cliffs, climbing trees, etc) the user learns where their limits are and if they exceed them, the injuries aren't life threatening.

Post reply on HN