According to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh on Facebook, Verruckt is expected to open tomorrow.

One of their reporters wrote about his experience here: http://www.wpxi.com/ap/ap/strange/heart-pounds-eyes-close-on-the-tallest-waterslide/ngcLW/ The part of that I found most interesting was this:

Among the warnings delivered to riders before they start their ascent is that one of the possible hazards of going down the waterslide is ... death.

Truly the Mission: SPACE of waterslides.

I hope and pray this is not true.

Assuming it is, and, heaven forbid, someone does die on that thing, the park will deeply regret that marketing move. Premeditation can be an awful thing, both emotionally and in the law.

Frankly, I think a marketer should be ashamed. Deeply humiliated and ashamed. And sans a job. In addition, the ones who approved this statement, if it is even being made by the park, are equally responsible. .

Perhaps more importantly, if this is even a risk worth mentioning, why is the park opening the ride anyway? If it isn't a significant risk, why is the park cynically using the prospect of death as a cheap marketing ploy?

Again, hopefully, the park is doing nothing of the kind.

Just like all of the videos showing rafts and sandbags being launched off the ride. The "death" ploy is a cheap marketing ploy. Like Terpy mentioned it could very well bite them in the end. The "death" ploy is not edgey or exciting to me, it is down right insulting and shows a contempt for the guest. They will regret this ploy once someone passes out from walking those stairs or when their raft launches in to one of the numerous nets on this ride.

Oh by the way who thinks a safety belt is a good idea on water ride like this? Plus the fact that if one of these boats were to turn over in the splash pool the life guard will not be able to flip it back over. Once again, stellar engineering.

It's smart to have the belts, gives a bit of a secure ride for those onboard.

It's better than a lapbar for a ride that is know to perform backflips

I think it's about time someone marketed something a little more extreme. Disagree all you want but this slide is getting talked about more than Banshee around my work and people I know because of the videos, And most say they want to go try it. So obviously just marketing that way is getting it talked about and looked at more than your average ride and is working for them.

Well it has taken two years to finally get on the darn thing

The possibility of "death" seems to be in connection with a warning to riders, not marketing. I would guess that it's in connection with instructions to follow safety instructions.

Many rides can be hazardous if a guest engages in prohibited behavior and/or defeats the restraining system.

Yea but with the release of the raft video and a warning of death, if someone does die it could be argued that the park knowingly opened a very dangerous ride

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As one who loves amusement parks, it sickens me to have one capitalize on the direct implication of unsafety.

Most of the rest of this post is something I already had been writing in response to aspersions cast against media reports using the translation of the ride name "Hell" in relation to the recent incident.

It is no secret I am disgusted by the state of modern news reporting. There is very little fact checking, they only want to be first to the punch with click-bait headlines and don't update them even when further information is received (Four Fires at Flight of Fear, was showing on their Facebook page hours after the press release that it was a smoking motor and zero fires, for example).

However, this really makes me realize that how parks encourage the public to think about rides is complicit in, well, how the public thinks about rides. The media grabs on any incident (or creates their own "incidents" even when reporting on what is actually entirely safe and normal operation: Banshee "stuck" on lift hill) to get the public's attention, because feeding into the public's perception that coasters are scary, and thus unsafe, happens to be an effective way to get the public's attention.

As enthusiasts, we know the public is wrong in thinking that just because coasters are thrilling or scary means they are unsafe. We know tons of work goes behind creating rides that are as safe as humanly possible, and tons of maintenance goes toward keeping rides as safe as humanly possible, and lots of procedures are in place to operate rides in as safe a manner for all riders as is humanly possible. Although they are heavily covered by the media, serious injuries at theme parks are exceedingly rare (and often caused by circumventing of safety protocols by the patrons themselves or unpredictable and unpreventable "acts of god"). But, it is not a very hard mental leap from scary to unsafe.

Coasters are given very scary names. So, the parks encourage the scariness when it suits them. They don't, in my opinion, emphasize the public perception of safety enough, and we clearly can't count on the media to do it.

It is bad enough, in my opinion, to allow the public to take the small step from actual advertisement that "this is scary" to their own conclusion "this is unsafe." To literally advertise more or less "this is unsafe, so come do it!" is almost criminal, and in my opinion it is a disservice to amusement parks in general.

Schlitterbahn has willing allowed the ride to be promoted as unsafe and shown as such. More than likely the first minor accident will bring a lawsuit which Schilitterbahn will struggle to defend. The argument of the ride is perfectly safe we just promoted and marketed it otherwise, will not hold water.

From a business standpoint it is just dumb. Why you would intentionally open yourself up to this kind of liability I do not understand.

Why is the state of Kansas allowing this to be open?!

This is beyond stupid if this is all true. I can't believe they're going through with opening it at all.

It its a marketing ploy, it has to be one of the worst ones I've ever seen come from an amusement park of any kind.

The slide was redesigned after rafts were ejected. Extensive testing was done before allowing members of the public to ride.

The puzzling aspect is an apparent marketing focus on this attraction being risky/dangerous. Almost any ride (see Pirates of the Caribbean) can be dangerous when riders don't follow instructions, but using this fact to market the ride is more than a bit odd.

What's more puzzling is that they put that out in the midst of those things happening pretty recently- the PotC incident, Ninja derailing, and the ZacSpin in Spain throwing a rider off. It just makes it look like more of a bad idea.

One has to wonder if the mention of death as a potential hazard was forced on the park by state regulators following the incident with a raft flying off the ride. Schlitterbahn might not have had a choice in saying that.

Or if for some reason they think it might help them in a liability case... which it wouldn't.

Would this attraction be opening were it in California or New Jersey?

Terp, who likes to ask questions.

Don't most things of this nature have death listed as a potential hazard? I went canoeing today and death was listed on the liability release form. I would imagine that most rides have it on the list of potential hazards...

They do not. It's unheard of in the US park business.

Death is often listed as a hazard when participant control is involved, primarily with sporting activities. (Go karting, parasailing, skydiving, bungee jumping, kayaking, etc)

Marketing for this slide has compared it to an extreme sport. In reality, riders have very little control over their own safety when strapped into a raft on an amusement device. They may bear responsibility for any inherent risks of going down a water slide, but the park almost certainly has a responsibility to mitigate these risks - not use them to attract business.

On the other hand, the park does need to make sure that riders understand the importance of following the instructions to ride safely. Riding any water slide incorrectly can certainly result in serious injury. With speeds of 70mph on this ride, an extra emphasis on risks and safety seems warranted.

At least one state treats rides as public conveyances and submits their operators to the same standards as common carriers. That's one reason there is knott a WindSeeker there anymore.

Ahh that makes sense. Thanks!

Would this attraction be opening were it in California or New Jersey?

Terp, who likes to ask questions.

No, but neither would WindSeeker. And that just keeps riders locked in less than 300 feet in the air!

Edit: Just noticed that the forum fixed my capitalization of WindSeeker. WindSeeker is a trademark of Cedar Fair, L.P. or its subsidiaries. As such, it must be capitalized exactly like that.

An interesting sidenote (to some). That should say related companies, not necessarily subsidiaries. Cedar Fair LP is itself a subsidiary. An LP, the master partnership controls it. Cedar Fair is a very complex corporate entity. Were it not structured the way it was, Q could not have walked in and forced the changes it did, and Mr. Kinzel could probably have sold out the shareholders to Apollo. It wasn't. Unitholders, 80 percent, were required to consent to the sale. They didn't.

A provision that had been meant to keep the pesky unitholders from selling Kinzel out instead kept Kinzel from selling the pesky unitholders out.

Oh, the irony

Corporate organization and governing! I'm glad we met.

About time to hear more about Mr. Falfas. Unless they settled.

"Among the warnings delivered to riders before they start their ascent is that one of the possible hazards of going down the waterslide is ... death."

Don't forget that this appears to be reported from one single source from one reporter. I'm not so sure I would throw too much weight behind it without actually contacting the park for clarification.

Also, as we have seen, what happens on a Media Day may or may not coincide with what happens in regular, public operation.

Have they noted the new top speed of this ride? I am fairly sure it is no longer hitting 60-65 mph anymore with all of the rebuilding, friction strips and water braking that has been added. I am guess the top speed is more along the lines of 45-50mph.

Then again if they are marketing your potential death, I doubt they want to market the new and improved speed...

Do not want. It scared me when I went above the sides of the slides at The Beach. There's a cage around this thing now, I see, and they are using rafts, but still I wouldn't ride it.

The possibility of flipping upside down is too much.

Son of Beast 2.0 or Son of Beast H20

Or how the lawyers use that footage if, God forbid, there are serious injuries or fatalities on this ride.

The United States of America is not Europe.

Foreseeability?

I immediately thought of this quote when I saw the news pop up yesterday.

 

Or how the lawyers use that footage if, God forbid, there are serious injuries or fatalities on this ride.

The United States of America is not Europe.

Foreseeability?

 

Meaning that in Europe forseeability goes less far? I know in the United States forseeability extends quite far.