The Interpreter Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=2258 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 This reminds me of another waterslide tragedy. My prayers to those affected by this accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 This reminds me of another waterslide tragedy. My prayers to those affected by this accident. 70 people on a water slide? What the heck were they thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Sad to say, they were not thinking. On a side note: Isn't it funny that the media questioned the safety at waterparks, yet still had all the information that the waterpark could not control the situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Sad to say, they were not thinking. On a side note: Isn't it funny that the media questioned the safety at waterparks, yet still had all the information that the waterpark could not control the situation? Well, I'm not completely convinced that they could not control the entire situation. It would seem that they would have known something were up if properly trained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollerNut Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 My question is why would the lifegaurds permit more than one person on a slide at a time? Some slides have cameras at the bottom, and TVs at the top to prevent such a accident. The WaterWorld accident could have been prevented because lifegaurds are supposed to be able see each other(one at top, one at bottom), and give hand signals to each other when it is safe to send another rider down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 My question is why would the lifegaurds permit more than one person on a slide at a time? Some slides have cameras at the bottom, and TVs at the top to prevent such a accident. The WaterWorld accident could have been prevented because lifegaurds are supposed to be able see each other(one at top, one at bottom), and give hand signals to each other when it is safe to send another rider down. That's exactly what I was thinking. After 10 or say 15 kids did not come out the bottom don't ya think someone should notice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 How is a couple of lifeguards supposed to stop 70 determined teenagers? The video did specify that the teens were aware that they would be kicked out of the park if they did this stunt. Even if security was called, by the time they arrived and made it up the steps to the elevated platform, the deed would have already been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Sad to say, they were not thinking. On a side note: Isn't it funny that the media questioned the safety at waterparks, yet still had all the information that the waterpark could not control the situation? Considering that they brought up the fact that the industry was policing itself and had no/little federal regulation, i think its a valid question, to which the allowed an answer that set the record straight. Nothing wrong with investigative journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 ^ Absolutely nothing wrong with investigative journalism. Bring up all the waterpark fatalities, not just the ones owned by a specific group and do the math. Is there a need to have national safety standards for waterparks from the stats attained, or are the parks policing themselves accordingly? This particular incident really had nothing to do with waterpark safety because it was an isolated event, and the reasons why it happened are rather clear. Now the SFKK incident is on the other end of the spectrum. So far there is a rather frayed cable and a ride op that could not hit an E-Stop in time. Fault certainly does not fall on the shoulders on the young girl, but with the park itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 This particular incident really had nothing to do with waterpark safety because it was an isolated event, and the reasons why it happened are rather clear. True, the reason it happened was clear.....the kids did something stupid, but that brings up other questions that challenge the credibility of safety in a water park. This event has everything to do with safety in water parks. Perhaps had security acted more quickly or had the ride attendant acted sooner something could have been done to stop it. Luckily this was an incident where only the folks in their party were hurt, but what if someone unrelated to their group and innocent was hurt as well. How safe is the water park for them. The incident brought up a good question.....how safe are you when visiting a water park whether its the way the park is maintaining and regulating things or other people acting stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollerNut Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 The lifegaurd at the top's whole job is to tell the riders when it is safe to enter. They also have an emerengy cut off switch at the top too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Yes, I am aware of what the lifeguards job is. Also, how do you know there was a cut off switch at the top of this particular slide? This is a park in California in 1997, not Carowinds when you were employed there. I see from your signature you currently work at a water park, 10 years after this incident, we don't know exactly if these slides had an emergency stop or who even built them. There's not enough information given about the life guard to really blame him/her or alleviate them of the blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Stopping 70 teens from doing this stunt is like stopping college students from rushing the basketball court after a big win. It unfortunately takes a tragic accident to prove that some records should not attempt to be broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Anyone know if that section of the slide was rebuilt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 The ride does not appear on their website. http://www.waterworldcalifornia.com/ Article on incident: http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/03/water.slide/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 Thai News Agency: Four boys from waterslide accident remain in hospital: http://enews.mcot.net/view.php?id=2264 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Chantra Purnariksha, secretary-general of the Office of Insurance Regulatory and Supervision Commission, said Siam Park was insured with a local insurance firm and children who had suffered serious injuries would be entitled to receive Bt500,000 each as compensation. Unless my figures are incorrect, $1 US = appoximately $33 Baht. That is $16,500,000. Talk about a fast, and lucrative, settlement. Even if that amount is incorrect, it is too bad that insurance companies as well as the court system drag their feet when it comes down to claims in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Chantra Purnariksha, secretary-general of the Office of Insurance Regulatory and Supervision Commission, said Siam Park was insured with a local insurance firm and children who had suffered serious injuries would be entitled to receive Bt500,000 each as compensation. Unless my figures are incorrect, $1 US = appoximately $33 Baht. That is $16,500,000. Talk about a fast, and lucrative, settlement. Even if that amount is incorrect, it is too bad that insurance companies as well as the court system drag their feet when it comes down to claims in the US. Drag their feet? How do you figure? The only time things slow down is if something goes into litigation. Not often do claims go into litigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 It was just settled in December, in court no less, as to which company would be inspecting the cable from the SFKK incident. That took six months to decide. And still the family is struggling financially. The accident in Siam happened two days ago, and money to be dispersed has already been determined? Yeah, we have a lot to learn when it come down to accidents in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 It was just settled in December, in court no less, as to which company would be inspecting the cable from the SFKK incident. That took six months to decide. And still the family is struggling financially. The accident in Siam happened two days ago, and money to be dispersed has already been determined? Yeah, we have a lot to learn when it come down to accidents in the US. And that is why things are stretched out..... Rather than attempt to resolve through normal means, they filed immediately in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 So why didn't the families in Siam file in court as well? Or is it because they didn't have to file since the park had nothing to fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 So why didn't the families in Siam file in court as well? Or is it because they didn't have to file since the park had nothing to fight? Laws vary greatly from state to state let alone from country to country. Really, Six Flags has little to fight in this battle. I can't think of a way that they would be able to get out of paying at least a portion of the damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 Chantra Purnariksha, secretary-general of the Office of Insurance Regulatory and Supervision Commission, said Siam Park was insured with a local insurance firm and children who had suffered serious injuries would be entitled to receive Bt500,000 each as compensation. Unless my figures are incorrect, $1 US = appoximately $33 Baht. That is $16,500,000. Talk about a fast, and lucrative, settlement. Even if that amount is incorrect, it is too bad that insurance companies as well as the court system drag their feet when it comes down to claims in the US. Actually, at current figures, it's more like $16,950. As in less than $17,000. http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?...;submit=Convert Lucrative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I guess it is a good thing that I mentioned my figures may be incorrect. But that would still make it lucrative to those in Saim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I guess it is a good thing that I mentioned my figures may be incorrect. But that would still make it lucrative to those in Saim. I would imagine hugely lucrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Bangkok Post: Owner Set To Sell Siam Park After Another Accident: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/14Jan2008_news01.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 http://www.bangkokpost.com/Business/15Jan2008_biz30.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 From Fairy Tale to Nightmare: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Jan2008_news19.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.