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.
I agree it shouldn’t be possible. But the operators manual specifically stated in bolded sentence that if a larger person didn’t fit properly on the seat the person must be told they cannot ride. Which is exactly what the attendants told him on the two rides he tried to go on before this one. So to me it’s both. Actually 3 way fault, because the state shouldn’t allow it to be optional to post height and weight restrictions.
And I hate to be that guy on here, but this is exactly how engineers protect themselves. One thing I learned from the very beginning: Even if it seems like a silly, redundant remark, put it in writing. And the engineers DID. So, they protected themselves from damage.
Engineers reject contractor and owner suggestions ALL THE TIME, with spec references as to why. In the end, if the owner/contractor chooses to override the specs/manuals, they are at fault for anything. It's how engineers cover their asses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
It was, re-read the article. It specifically says the “individual attendant” and to accommodate Sampson’s size. It wasn’t a bigger seat. They loosened the restraint to accommodate his size. In doing so they made it large enough for him to slip out from under.
I don’t think that the investigators are guessing, they specifically said that video was used in determining the cause as well as other things
Probably under the direction of a supervisor, who is under the direction of an owner, etc. The owner of the ride will be held accountable. The manufacturer? Unlikely.
If my job was to provide a safe experience for everyone and there was a chance that someone could die otherwise, yeah, I'd be that guy. Seems kinda obvious to me
Yes and the attendants on the other two rides had no problem doing that. But it shouldn’t have gotten to the stage where he was seated already. The height and weight restrictions should have been posted at the entrance.
And I hate to be that guy on here, but this is exactly how engineers protect themselves. One thing I learned from the very beginning: Even if it seems like a silly, redundant remark, put it in writing. And the engineers DID. So, they protected themselves from damage.
Engineers reject contractor and owner suggestions ALL THE TIME, with spec references as to why. In the end, if the owner/contractor chooses to override the specs/manuals, they are at fault for anything. It's how engineers cover their asses.
Probably under the direction of a supervisor, who is under the direction of an owner, etc. The owner of the ride will be held accountable. The manufacturer? Unlikely.
IDK it’s very clearly stated in the rides manual that large people need to be examined in the seat to make sure they fit properly and if not they cannot be allowed to ride. It’s bolded in the manual.
And I hate to be that guy on here, but this is exactly how engineers protect themselves. One thing I learned from the very beginning: Even if it seems like a silly, redundant remark, put it in writing. And the engineers DID. So, they protected themselves from damage.
Engineers reject contractor and owner suggestions ALL THE TIME, with spec references as to why. In the end, if the owner/contractor chooses to override the specs/manuals, they are at fault for anything. It's how engineers cover their asses.
Probably under the direction of a supervisor, who is under the direction of an owner, etc. The owner of the ride will be held accountable. The manufacturer? Unlikely.
I’m saying it shouldn’t have been designed to allow an attendant to override the system. It shouldn’t be a choice. How safe is the design if a 16 year old can bypass it and kill someone?
IDK it’s very clearly stated in the rides manual that large people need to be examined in the seat to make sure they fit properly and if not they cannot be allowed to ride. It’s bolded in the manual.
Examined by whom? What is "fitting properly"? Most people would assume that, if the brace (harness) locked, it was secure. If the warning wasn't triggered, then for all the teenage attendant knew, he "fit properly."
I’m saying it shouldn’t have been designed to allow an attendant to override the system. It shouldn’t be a choice. How safe is the design if a 16 year old can bypass it and kill someone?
Typically, the only way to override such features is through a key or code. The owner/operator of the ride has this.
If my job was to provide a safe experience for everyone and there was a chance that someone could die otherwise, yeah, I'd be that guy. Seems kinda obvious to me
Sure, if you knew it would dangerous, of course you wouldn't-- but if you thought it was safe (which was the part of my post you didn't bold)? I mean, I wouldn't think *I* could slip through a six-inch gap, let alone someone his size. Someone who'd seen the override done before without mishap or concern, and who, again, may have been told it was safe and okay to do, is probably going to think all will be well.
Examined by whom? What is "fitting properly"? Most people would assume that, if the brace (harness) locked, it was secure. If the warning wasn't triggered, then for all the teenage attendant knew, he "fit properly."
The attendant had to loosen the restraint in order to have the restraint lock and override the safety system. He loosened it to the point that the boy was able to slip out from under it. The investigator said it was almost twice the opening size that it should’ve been. I posted an excerpt from the operators manual that specifically says what areas of the seat to examine to make sure the person fits properly. There were several different points of fit to look at. And then the bolded, that if they do not fit properly in those areas they must not be allowed to ride. There is nothing in there that says you can loosen the restraint to make them fit.
Examined by whom? What is "fitting properly"? Most people would assume that, if the brace (harness) locked, it was secure. If the warning wasn't triggered, then for all the teenage attendant knew, he "fit properly."
It only locked because he loosened the bottom of the restraint so much that it was able to lock without him being properly secured.
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 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.
