TilenB
Strata Poster
Well, the one in Dreamworld did turn over last October when 4 people passed away (the reasons being a but different there). And that ride did have seatbelts which might have even contributed to the death toll a bit...
Accident on Splash Canyon
- Thread starter elephant58
- Start date
Gazza
Giga Poster
How though? Gasping for air is not going to be a peaceful process.
djreplay26
Roller Poster
It might be less painful than multiple blunt force trauma to the head and body.
Robbie
Hyper Poster
Possibly the main issue here is that the girl was part of a school group, so no adult supervision on the ride. No parent or teacher saying "sit down." So it may be the regulations are brought in that under-16s can only ride with adult supervision.
witchfinder
Giga Poster
I think with this and the Dreamworld incident, parks are definitely going to review their safety rules for Rapids rides. Seatbelts would seem the obvious solution but they could cause their own problems, so maybe enforcing adult supervision is the only answer.
Sandman
Giga Poster
Awful accident regardless of cause. One thing I should add is that up until now, BBC's reporting of this incident is by far the shoddiest. Some of the language and phrasing used in a few of their articles already suggests the park is at fault.
I feel as though this is an unnecessary addition to the article. Again, it sort of hints towards the park being at fault and the ride being unsafe. At the end of the day, this lady is basically admitting she is unable to safely supervise her own kid in the necessary circumstances. Of course, an excited kid isn't going to listen to a safety tannoy... but surely as a mother you are there to ensure he doesn't do anything stupid like... you know... stand up? In any other country, this wouldn't be regarded as a H&S issue but more of a 'common sense' factor. Yet, the repercussions will be felt at all parks nationwide I would imagine.
BBC said:
I feel as though this is an unnecessary addition to the article. Again, it sort of hints towards the park being at fault and the ride being unsafe. At the end of the day, this lady is basically admitting she is unable to safely supervise her own kid in the necessary circumstances. Of course, an excited kid isn't going to listen to a safety tannoy... but surely as a mother you are there to ensure he doesn't do anything stupid like... you know... stand up? In any other country, this wouldn't be regarded as a H&S issue but more of a 'common sense' factor. Yet, the repercussions will be felt at all parks nationwide I would imagine.
CrashCoaster
CF Legend
I'm younger than 16 but I am perfectly capable of staying seated on rapids without adult supervision, I mean, I know the risks!
Astro61201
Roller Poster
The issue is that Rapids rides are seen more as family rides, provided that younger children are supervised then there is no issue, I don't think teenagers (13 +) need adult supervision, however I think that this group of ~11 year olds should have been supervised to ensure that they are riding safety as they are generally unable to see some of the dangers associated with the ride, hence they are more likely to do things such sas stand up (this doesnt go for all in that age group but probably about 70%).
mouse
Giga Poster
^^^ Congratulations, although that doesn't mean every under 16 does.
Problem is that no matter how many 'Do Not Stand Up' signs there are there is no guarantee people will see them, especially with kids. The boats are so open I can understand why people would think it will be okay to stand up or swap seats or whatever, adults included. Of course strong restraints aren't the answer, unless manufacturers can absolutely guarantee that the boats are un-capsizable. I think not allowing people under a certain age to ride unsupervised is probably a good idea, as a boat full of excited kids is bound to be less safety conscious than one with an adult. However that relies on the adult being aware of the dangers of the ride, and with such an open boat I can appreciate why they too would assume it would be safe to stand up, especially if they don't notice any signs.
Perhaps some kind of velcro seatbelt could work, not to restrain people as such but just to provide less of an incentive to get up out of the seat. I just think there needs to be something extra to hold people back (not physically, but to make them think twice before getting up). I think it would be more effective than signs as there won't be a chance of them going unnoticed, especially if the ride op makes a big thing of them being fastened. They don't even need to be that tight, so that people can easily get out of them in the event of a boat capsizing. It will be interesting to see how (or if) Drayton alters the ride, whether they add more signs, alter the boats, do nothing or even demolish it.
Problem is that no matter how many 'Do Not Stand Up' signs there are there is no guarantee people will see them, especially with kids. The boats are so open I can understand why people would think it will be okay to stand up or swap seats or whatever, adults included. Of course strong restraints aren't the answer, unless manufacturers can absolutely guarantee that the boats are un-capsizable. I think not allowing people under a certain age to ride unsupervised is probably a good idea, as a boat full of excited kids is bound to be less safety conscious than one with an adult. However that relies on the adult being aware of the dangers of the ride, and with such an open boat I can appreciate why they too would assume it would be safe to stand up, especially if they don't notice any signs.
Perhaps some kind of velcro seatbelt could work, not to restrain people as such but just to provide less of an incentive to get up out of the seat. I just think there needs to be something extra to hold people back (not physically, but to make them think twice before getting up). I think it would be more effective than signs as there won't be a chance of them going unnoticed, especially if the ride op makes a big thing of them being fastened. They don't even need to be that tight, so that people can easily get out of them in the event of a boat capsizing. It will be interesting to see how (or if) Drayton alters the ride, whether they add more signs, alter the boats, do nothing or even demolish it.
Astro61201
Roller Poster
I am completely unsure if this would work, but on the way home today I thought of a latch (like two hooks hooking together), that can be undone normally but is in place to deter people from getting up, now this is where I was thinking, if the boat was to capsize a small ball (about 5mm across, in the latch) under gravity could fall on the latch to un-hook the hooks allowing the the latch to release allowing people to escape, this may not work but I hope that some people can see where I'm going with this. I'm just suggesting a restraint that can deter people from standing but allow them to escape if the boat goes past 90 degrees on the horizontal.
Ireeb
Mega Poster
What about ride OP telling every boat that leaves "please do not stand up during the ride or you may fall out and drown" or even an automated announcement. That combined with signs and everyone should be aware of the safety rules, even children. If someone still stands up, it's their own fault. It is the parks responsibility to make their guests aware of potential dangers, but I do not think that it is their job to protect people from their own stupidity.
In that case you could actually blame the park for not making it clear enough. I have never been to the park and can't tell how clear they say it, but I can't remember very big signs from the rafting rides I have been on. Seatbelts are not the solution in my opinion, but the parks have to teach their guests about the danger and their responsibility. So if something happens, it's their stupidity, and ae I say it is not the parks job to protect them from their own stupidity. Having an adult in every raft should also be compulsory.
I am still not saying the girl was stupid, I guess no one told her how dangerous it is to stand up.
In that case you could actually blame the park for not making it clear enough. I have never been to the park and can't tell how clear they say it, but I can't remember very big signs from the rafting rides I have been on. Seatbelts are not the solution in my opinion, but the parks have to teach their guests about the danger and their responsibility. So if something happens, it's their stupidity, and ae I say it is not the parks job to protect them from their own stupidity. Having an adult in every raft should also be compulsory.
I am still not saying the girl was stupid, I guess no one told her how dangerous it is to stand up.
Astro61201
Roller Poster
I know that at Alton towers there are various speakers around the ride which tell people to remain seated, I can only assume that this is not the case at Drayton, as even for an excited 11 year old the announcements are hard to ignore.
Ireeb
Mega Poster
Exactly, children hardly read sign, and are rather used to hear instructions from their parents, teachers etc. that's why a spoken instruction is probably the most effective, even to adults. It's hard to keep talking when there is an announcement from a speaker. It does not replace signs though, as I am sure there are deaf guests as well.
ThemeCrafter264
Roller Poster
I have never even considered standing up on rapids and I am younger than 15. What amazes me is that the school allowed them to sit in their own boats with absolutely no members of staff
Jarrett
Most Obnoxious Member 2016
This is tragic as anything and I feel horrible for everyone involved. 
Now to actually address the situation at hand, the first thing I think that we should bring up is that the park didn't do anything wrong. Any media making those "are these rides really safe?" news stories or demonizing Drayton Manor over this is just missing the point and trying to put on a good show for hits and money.
This is, in my mind, the problem of unattended school groups finally going off the deep end. You go to Kings Island in May on a weekday and you'll be greeted by a mess of school busses and unattended middle and high school students running around the park like idiots. The worst example I ever saw was on the Vegas-LA big trip in 2014. At Knotts there was a group of about twelve 7-8 year olds in line for Coast Rider in front of me that kept yelling at their friends on the midway to come jump line and ride with them. Worst of all? No adult in sight to watch these children. As awful as it is, schools, churches, whoever will gladly just let children run off into a park completely unsupervised to do whatever. There are just certain rules that a bunch of excited junior high schools aren't all going to follow, be it a federal safety regulation like standing on a moving ride or just a jerk move like line jumping. Parents or guardians need to be there to supervise them and be responsible for the behavior of the little screaming demons they take to the parks.
So here's what I think needs to happen:
If anything good can come out of something so tragic, it should be parks putting the wabash on school group anarchy.
Now to actually address the situation at hand, the first thing I think that we should bring up is that the park didn't do anything wrong. Any media making those "are these rides really safe?" news stories or demonizing Drayton Manor over this is just missing the point and trying to put on a good show for hits and money.
This is, in my mind, the problem of unattended school groups finally going off the deep end. You go to Kings Island in May on a weekday and you'll be greeted by a mess of school busses and unattended middle and high school students running around the park like idiots. The worst example I ever saw was on the Vegas-LA big trip in 2014. At Knotts there was a group of about twelve 7-8 year olds in line for Coast Rider in front of me that kept yelling at their friends on the midway to come jump line and ride with them. Worst of all? No adult in sight to watch these children. As awful as it is, schools, churches, whoever will gladly just let children run off into a park completely unsupervised to do whatever. There are just certain rules that a bunch of excited junior high schools aren't all going to follow, be it a federal safety regulation like standing on a moving ride or just a jerk move like line jumping. Parents or guardians need to be there to supervise them and be responsible for the behavior of the little screaming demons they take to the parks.
So here's what I think needs to happen:
- Don't be an idiot and stand up on a moving ride vehicle.
- School, churches, sports teams, whatever it is, nobody should think for a minute that it's okay to send kids into the park unsupervised.
- Parks should have policies regarding school groups being chaperoned. Schools and churches should have to work the visit out with the park prior to them coming, like how many groups they will have and how big they will be and who will be chaperoning. Maybe even hire somebody who does just school groups as a full time job if they don't already have that.
- Such above policies should be enforceable by the school/church/team being disallowed to have group days at the park if they don't behave. Coaster clubs have been uninvited to park events because of poor member behavior, why not schools? Sending your little demons in to terrorize the park should be a privilege, not a right. You aren't entitled to just have your badly behaved children tear the park up and break the rules and expect everything to be okay. If you try to use a media day to sell cheap coaster club memberships, you get banned from future media days. If they catch one of your groups unattended or striking another park guest with a phone flung from a ride, your school can't visit anymore. That's fair.
- Parks should be able to charge parents/guardians under Rider Responsibility Law (that's what we have in Ohio, I think other states have similar laws but basically it states that not following a posted ride rule, be it set by the park, manufacturer, whoever, is illegal and the park can press charges for it). Furthermore, if a misbehaving child jeopardizes the safety of themselves or someone else, the parent/guardian of that child should be charged for it.
If anything good can come out of something so tragic, it should be parks putting the wabash on school group anarchy.
Thing is, though, that school trips to amusement parks are neither a recent nor local phenomenon, and neither are rapids rides. If there had been obvious and inherent safety problems with either, accidents such as this would have been a lot more common. Even if the odds of unsupervised children - even narrowed down to one particular age group - hurting themselves badly was one in a thousand, we'd see dozens if not hundreds of serious injuries every day. These rides have a capacity of a thousand people or more per hour, and there are hundreds of them out there. And parks are swarming with school kids during large parts of the season, while serious injuries are rare.
I guess that one rider standing up during a calm moment on a rapids ride brings the risk of serious injury up from "marginal" to "quite unlikely". In, say, 95 % of cases, it'd be fine. Up, swap places, sit down, no biggie. In the last few percent, the rider would be thrown against something by a sudden and violentr movement. In a small (but not minuscule) fraction of those cases, injury would occur. Most likely teeth being knocked out, bruises, a broken arm if unlucky. In a smaller fraction of the injury subset again, the rider would be thrown out of the boat. At that point, survival is a coin flip. Rapids rides are brutal like that. But in most cases, the odds of something going badly wrong is really small, even when safety procedures are broken. If standing up led to injury every time, there's no way in hell the ride would be allowed to operate.
The fault tree in the above example begins with a rider standing up (that would be the "top event"), and of the thousands of possible outcomes, only a few lead to injury. You probably can't reduce it much further without killing the capacity of the ride, and making it safer to stand up might have an encouraging effect (that is, the odds of the top event leading to disaster is reduced, but more top events occur since the risk is considered so low, leading to the overall number of disasters staying the same). What you could try to do is reducing the likelihood of the top event occurring, preferably without compromising other aspects (loading times, other safety aspects, ride enjoyability...).
However, at some point you have to consider the risk acceptable, and the actions taken to mitigate it sufficient. One in a million, one in ten million... It can never be zero, and the more you want to reduce it, the more it will cost. There has to be a cutoff point.
I think Drayton Manor just hit a perfect storm of unlikely factors. The girl shouldn't have stood up, but she did. Even though she did stand up, she shouldn't have fallen, but she did. Even though she did fall, she shouldn't have fallen out, but she did. And that's the disaster scenario. It normally wouldn't occur, and there were risk-reducing measures in place. But marginal odds are still means there is a possibility, and reduced risk is still risk.
I guess that one rider standing up during a calm moment on a rapids ride brings the risk of serious injury up from "marginal" to "quite unlikely". In, say, 95 % of cases, it'd be fine. Up, swap places, sit down, no biggie. In the last few percent, the rider would be thrown against something by a sudden and violentr movement. In a small (but not minuscule) fraction of those cases, injury would occur. Most likely teeth being knocked out, bruises, a broken arm if unlucky. In a smaller fraction of the injury subset again, the rider would be thrown out of the boat. At that point, survival is a coin flip. Rapids rides are brutal like that. But in most cases, the odds of something going badly wrong is really small, even when safety procedures are broken. If standing up led to injury every time, there's no way in hell the ride would be allowed to operate.
The fault tree in the above example begins with a rider standing up (that would be the "top event"), and of the thousands of possible outcomes, only a few lead to injury. You probably can't reduce it much further without killing the capacity of the ride, and making it safer to stand up might have an encouraging effect (that is, the odds of the top event leading to disaster is reduced, but more top events occur since the risk is considered so low, leading to the overall number of disasters staying the same). What you could try to do is reducing the likelihood of the top event occurring, preferably without compromising other aspects (loading times, other safety aspects, ride enjoyability...).
However, at some point you have to consider the risk acceptable, and the actions taken to mitigate it sufficient. One in a million, one in ten million... It can never be zero, and the more you want to reduce it, the more it will cost. There has to be a cutoff point.
I think Drayton Manor just hit a perfect storm of unlikely factors. The girl shouldn't have stood up, but she did. Even though she did stand up, she shouldn't have fallen, but she did. Even though she did fall, she shouldn't have fallen out, but she did. And that's the disaster scenario. It normally wouldn't occur, and there were risk-reducing measures in place. But marginal odds are still means there is a possibility, and reduced risk is still risk.