U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:07 AM
 
15,187 posts, read 16,039,895 times
Reputation: 25076

Advertisements

There are signs telling you to stay on the boardwalk about every two feet. I guess he learned the hard way that they meant what they said.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Sarasota, FL
2,581 posts, read 1,381,318 times
Reputation: 4783
When we were at Yellowstone last, a ranger told us a story of how some tourist wanted to take a picture of his wife behind the wheel in the car sitting next to a bear in the passenger seat (ha, ha?), so he put her in the driver's seat and then enticed a bear into the car with food. The result wasn't good, but fully deserving of a Darwin Award.


More to the topic -- no, you cannot save people from themselves if they're determined to do dangerous things, but a railing on that boardwalk would not cost much, would not materially affect the park experience, and might save another life someday.


Besides, if you are looking for a wilderness experience in Yellowstone, the thermal area isn't the place to get it anyway.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:20 AM
 
4,508 posts, read 1,898,701 times
Reputation: 9446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
I can claim that it is very safe because (unlike you) I HAVE BEEN THERE! Several times, in fact. If you take reasonable care (which includes walking, not running) and pay attention to what you are doing, you are not going to trip on the boardwalk. It takes either real effort or seriously bad luck to be hurt in the thermal areas.

We shouldn't modify the park in ways that degrade the experience for everyone just because some people don't have the brains God gave a grasshopper.
I have to agree with you. My family visited Yellowstone many years ago. I'm not certain of the year but I, as the youngest child, would have been around 5 or 6. This would have been in the early 1950s. I don't remember if they had boardwalks, but I'll double damn guarantee you we didn't go falling into mudpots or gorilla ponds. Back then, our parents laid down the law and we obeyed.


Back then, Old Faithful was faithful and parents disciplined their kids. Those were indeed the good old days!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,297 posts, read 3,474,966 times
Reputation: 14916
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapnTrips View Post
More to the topic -- no, you cannot save people from themselves if they're determined to do dangerous things, but a railing on that boardwalk would not cost much, would not materially affect the park experience...
And I disagree on both counts. There are miles of boardwalks in Yellowstone; it would cost a small fortune to put railings along the entire length of all of them. And the experience of walking down a boardwalk with a fence on either side of you is quite different (and greatly inferior!) to the experience of walking down the boardwalk with nothing but air separating you from the beautiful thermal features to either side.

And I can't see how it would stop injuries. If you tripped, you could just as easily seriously injure yourself hitting the railing. And fools who want to reach down and touch the water and scald themselves would still be able to put their hands through the railing to do so.

Millions of visitors visit Yellowstone each year, and most suffer no injuries at all. The park is safe enough as it is.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:48 AM
Status: "Finally Done With C-D BYE BYE" (set 13 days ago)
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,947 posts, read 21,473,086 times
Reputation: 15430
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovi8 View Post
^ I'm not sure how you can claim this boardwalk design is very safe:

The guy you quoted had a story about a man falling right over into 200F water.



True this is not Disney and people have to have some level of mental & physical competence (welcome to earth), but that's not what I'm contesting. This is deliberately offering people a walkway potentially above scalding waters, which you deem very safe. And why do they opt to put railing in certain places and not others (such as where that man in the other story tripped and fell from the boardwalk)? It makes zero sense.



4ft wide doesn't mean much when it's busy like the above. Also I never argued about people deliberately leaving the boardwalk, they deserve what they get.
We saw how stupid people will do just as they wish NO MATTER what the barrier or danger at our visit to the Grand Canyon last week. Stupid people stepping over rock walls right next to signs telling them not to so they could walk out and get a selfie out on the very lip of the unstable edge of the canyon. If one shot the picture properly only the person shooting it would know whether you were at the edge or 10 feet back.

It doesn't matter how safe you try to design something, unless you totally enclose it in plexiglass, like a tube that people walk through you'll never stop the stupid.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Sarasota, FL
2,581 posts, read 1,381,318 times
Reputation: 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
. . . And I can't see how it would stop injuries. If you tripped, you could just as easily seriously injure yourself hitting the railing. And fools who want to reach down and touch the water and scald themselves would still be able to put their hands through the railing to do so.

Millions of visitors visit Yellowstone each year, and most suffer no injuries at all. The park is safe enough as it is.

I also hesitate to dilute the park experience, but I disagree that it would really change that much just by adding a railing, even if only on one side of the boardwalk. You can still see the thermal area quite well. Yes, those who insist on getting second-degree burns on their hands could still do so, but those who trip accidentally would probably prefer to bang their head on a railing rather than drop into boiling water.

If the Park Service is going to hold out the boardwalk experience to the public, it has a duty to allocate its funds to prevent foreseeable accidents. They don't have to protect the stupid, just the ordinary taxpayers.

And anyone who wants a wilderness experience in Yellowstone is just going to have to walk a little further from their car.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 6,823,128 times
Reputation: 37337
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia View Post
I have to agree with you. My family visited Yellowstone many years ago. I'm not certain of the year but I, as the youngest child, would have been around 5 or 6. This would have been in the early 1950s. I don't remember if they had boardwalks, but I'll double damn guarantee you we didn't go falling into mudpots or gorilla ponds. Back then, our parents laid down the law and we obeyed.

Back then, Old Faithful was faithful and parents disciplined their kids. Those were indeed the good old days!
Oh, please. Spare us the sermon about how in the good old days everyone supposedly behaved better. It's not true.

This most recent fatality was the first in 16 years at the park in a spring/geyser/pool. In history, there have been a total of 21 such fatalities at the park. Do the math - it's happening less often. And it's happening less often despite the fact that people are visiting the park in unprecedented numbers (2015 was the first year visitation ever topped four million). So the rate of such fatalities is down even more than the actual numbers of such fatalities.
Yellowstone National Park Visitor Statistics

Oh, and as for injuries from wildlife encounters? They're way down, too, from previous decades - again, despite there being more visitors overall.
Bear-Inflicted Human Injuries in Yellowstone National Park

The demonstrable fact is that fewer people these days are getting themselves killed at Yellowstone.

Finally, as for the notion that way back when parents were too perfect to ever let a child be in danger in a zoo?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,297 posts, read 3,474,966 times
Reputation: 14916
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapnTrips View Post
I also hesitate to dilute the park experience, but I disagree that it would really change that much just by adding a railing, even if only on one side of the boardwalk. You can still see the thermal area quite well. Yes, those who insist on getting second-degree burns on their hands could still do so, but those who trip accidentally would probably prefer to bang their head on a railing rather than drop into boiling water.

If the Park Service is going to hold out the boardwalk experience to the public, it has a duty to allocate its funds to prevent foreseeable accidents. They don't have to protect the stupid, just the ordinary taxpayers.
Have you ever actually visited Yellowstone?

The spots where tripping would have a person dropping directly into a significant qualtity of boiling water ALREADY have railings. Trip elsewhere, and you may suffer some mild injuries, but you're not likely to be scalded to death. The risk has already been mitigated as much as is reasonable. No, I don't think the Park Service owes the visitors a totally risk-free experience. Stay home if you expect that!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,885 posts, read 8,860,357 times
Reputation: 18290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
He didn't have to be an "idiot" or a showoff. Maybe he was dazed, confused or groggy? Perhaps he's that downbeat guy who walks around and daydreams. You don't have to be an arrogant, reckless fool in order to die like this. There are so many other possibilities.
Based on the news stories I have read about this, we have no evidence that he walked off the boardwalk for any reason other than stupidity. Have you read something to the contrary? For all I know you wrote your response while wearing a tin foil hat...but I have no evidence of that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2016, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,297 posts, read 3,474,966 times
Reputation: 14916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
This most recent fatality was the first in 16 years at the park in a spring/geyser/pool. In history, there have been a total of 21 such fatalities at the park. Do the math - it's happening less often. And it's happening less often despite the fact that people are visiting the park in unprecedented numbers (2015 was the first year visitation ever topped four million). So the rate of such fatalities is down even more than the actual numbers of such fatalities.
Yellowstone National Park Visitor Statistics

Oh, and as for injuries from wildlife encounters? They're way down, too, from previous decades - again, despite there being more visitors overall.
Bear-Inflicted Human Injuries in Yellowstone National Park

The demonstrable fact is that fewer people these days are getting themselves killed at Yellowstone.
This! Most visitors to the park suffer no injuries at all. Most of the injuries that DO occur are minor, and many of them are essentially self-inflicted. Why so much concern over what is actually a non-problem?

The park will never be 100% safe. There's no point in wasting either time or money trying to make it even safer than it already is, because by any reasonable standard it is already safe enough.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top