Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
ramboacdc

Drayton Manor incident

Recommended Posts

Well it will be investigated. If the ride was open since 1993 (I think I read that) then the obvious question is why hasn't this happened before? As a general rule, if people are unrestrained then merely standing up shouldn't lead to death or serious injury. We are talking about preteens here, they are likely to disobey signs and misjudge danger especially when they are excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

Well it will be investigated. If the ride was open since 1993 (I think I read that) then the obvious question is why hasn't this happened before? As a general rule, if people are unrestrained then merely standing up shouldn't lead to death or serious injury. We are talking about preteens here, they are likely to disobey signs and misjudge danger especially when they are excited.

It has happened before, was on the BBC page some young lad fell in but they fished him out. Sounds like the same situation with the lad standing up from his seat and over balancing. 

 

Warnings are played over the tannoy as you queue and there are signs all over the place. There isn't anything more Drayton could have done imo, kids will be kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It has happened before, was on the BBC page some young lad fell in but they fished him out. Sounds like the same situation with the lad standing up from his seat and over balancing. 

 

Warnings are played over the tannoy as you queue and there are signs all over the place. There isn't anything more Drayton could have done imo, kids will be kids. 

 

Might be some blame if it had happened before. I don't know what the procedures for assessing risks are exactly.  signs and warnings are no use really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

Might be some blame if it had happened before. I don't know what the procedures for assessing risks are exactly.  signs and warnings are no use really. 

If warnings and signs are no use then we shouldn't be spending money on them and should just let nature take its course. If you follow the rules you don't get hurt, it's that simple. If you don't follow the rules when they are not just clearly stated, but repeatedly told out loud then there's no one to blame but yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

If warnings and signs are no use then we shouldn't be spending money on them and should just let nature take its course. If you follow the rules you don't get hurt, it's that simple. If you don't follow the rules when they are not just clearly stated, but repeatedly told out loud then there's no one to blame but yourself. 

 

It really isn't that simple to be fair.

 

If there is a risk of death if you stand up on a ride as an excited 11 year old..... surely there's an argument to suggest that in order to eradicate that risk people should be strapped in - in order that they can not do so?

 

If kids have come out of the boat on numerous occasions there is a safety argument especially to ensure that the child has actually understood the safety briefing and regulations especially in relation to learning differences or mental health issues that some young people may have......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

It really isn't that simple to be fair.

 

If there is a risk of death if you stand up on a ride as an excited 11 year old..... surely there's an argument to suggest that in order to eradicate that risk people should be strapped in - in order that they can not do so?

 

If kids have come out of the boat on numerous occasions there is a safety argument especially to ensure that the child has actually understood the safety briefing and regulations especially in relation to learning differences or mental health issues that some young people may have......

So if the raft capsizes and you're strapped in what then? 

 

Hundreds of thousands of kids will have gone on that ride without any problems whatsoever. You can't change it for a handful of kids who refuse to follow simple and clear instructions. If they can't follow simple instructions, the parents shouldn't be letting them out of a padded room. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

So if the raft capsizes and you're strapped in what then? 

 

Hundreds of thousands of kids will have gone on that ride without any problems whatsoever. You can't change it for a handful of kids who refuse to follow simple and clear instructions. If they can't follow simple instructions, the parents shouldn't be letting them out of a padded room. 

Oh dear.

 

1. If its possible to capsize the raft or get out of your seat whilst upside down on a rollercoaster - guess what? Its not safe.

 

2. So what's an acceptable amount of deaths for a ride in your book then?

 

3. They are 10 and 11 year old kids - theme parks shouldn't allow kids to participate in activities when there is unmitigated risks of harm.

 

4. What if kids have special circumstances like partial sight, mental health or deafness - even with an adult can they be prevented from falling in the water and dying?

 

5. If it was one of your family members who had died you'd be like @TiffToff88 on crack about it all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Oh dear.

 

1. If its possible to capsize the raft or get out of your seat whilst upside down on a rollercoaster - guess what? Its not safe.

 

2. So what's an acceptable amount of deaths for a ride in your book then?

 

3. They are 10 and 11 year old kids - theme parks shouldn't allow kids to participate in activities when there is unmitigated risks of harm.

 

4. What if kids have special circumstances like partial sight, mental health or deafness - even with an adult can they be prevented from falling in the water and dying?

 

5. If it was one of your family members who had died you'd be like @TiffToff88 on crack about it all.

 

I think we have to be a little bit rational about it, the probability of death or injury on these type of rides is incredibly low. I'm not saying there aren't lessons to learn but I'd imagine there are far riskier things that we do on a daily basis than going on a ride at a theme park. The theme parks in this country have excellent safety records.

Im shocked and saddened by this and my own kids were on this ride no more than two weeks ago but you can't wrap them in cotton wool, as much as I would like too sometimes.

Sometimes nobody or no institution is to blame, sometimes it's a mixture of misfortune and fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think we have to be a little bit rational about it, the probability of death or injury on these type of rides is incredibly low. I'm not saying there aren't lessons to learn but I'd imagine there are far riskier things that we do on a daily basis than going on a ride at a theme park. The theme parks in this country have excellent safety records.

Im shocked and saddened by this and my own kids were on this ride no more than two weeks ago but you can't wrap them in cotton wool, as much as I would like too sometimes.

Sometimes nobody or no institution is to blame, sometimes it's a mixture of misfortune and fate.

Sure - though in the case of a theme park it is different as I'm sure the courts will decide in this unfortunate case. Unless the parents or guardians have signed a disclaimer to risks within the park then the park are pretty much liable. Of course we engage in riskier activities but the ones we pay for that are deemed suitable for children - when they fail to protect the child from harm will end up with the liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Sure - though in the case of a theme park it is different as I'm sure the courts will decide in this unfortunate case. Unless the parents or guardians have signed a disclaimer to risks within the park then the park are pretty much liable. Of course we engage in riskier activities but the ones we pay for that are deemed suitable for children - when they fail to protect the child from harm will end up with the liability.

It's hard to know what the courts will decide without evidence but I'm not sure they would just pin it on the theme park unless they were negligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

Oh dear.

 

1. If its possible to capsize the raft or get out of your seat whilst upside down on a rollercoaster - guess what? Its not safe.

 

2. So what's an acceptable amount of deaths for a ride in your book then?

 

3. They are 10 and 11 year old kids - theme parks shouldn't allow kids to participate in activities when there is unmitigated risks of harm.

 

4. What if kids have special circumstances like partial sight, mental health or deafness - even with an adult can they be prevented from falling in the water and dying?

 

5. If it was one of your family members who had died you'd be like @TiffToff88 on crack about it all.

 

We might aswell just lock all the kids in padded rooms til they're adults then hey. 

 

No more walking across the road, people die! 

 

No more riding in a car, people die! 

 

No more swimming, people die! 

 

You keep babbling on that the ride isn't safe, if you follow the rules, it is. I wouldn't let my kid cross a road without knowing to look both ways, if you let yours go to a theme park without them being able to follow instructions, like hundreds of thousands of other kids can, then there is noone to blame but yourself. There is risk in EVERYTHING, you are never ever in a million years going to make everything a hundred percent safe. Playing the blame game doesn't change it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

We might aswell just lock all the kids in padded rooms til they're adults then hey. 

 

No more walking across the road, people die! 

 

No more riding in a car, people die! 

 

No more swimming, people die! 

 

You keep babbling on that the ride isn't safe, if you follow the rules, it is. I wouldn't let my kid cross a road without knowing to look both ways, if you let yours go to a theme park without them being able to follow instructions, like hundreds of thousands of other kids can, then there is noone to blame but yourself. There is risk in EVERYTHING, you are never ever in a million years going to make everything a hundred percent safe. Playing the blame game doesn't change it. 

I can't keep explaining the same points to you in different ways lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I can't keep explaining the same points to you in different ways lol

You can explain them as many ways you like, it doesn't make them any more valid. 

 

Was she told to remain seated? Yes, and repeatedly at that. 

 

Did she remain seated? No. 

 

Would she be alive if she had remained seated? Bar some final destination type shite, I'd think so. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Innovindil said:

It has happened before, was on the BBC page some young lad fell in but they fished him out. Sounds like the same situation with the lad standing up from his seat and over balancing. 

 

Warnings are played over the tannoy as you queue and there are signs all over the place. There isn't anything more Drayton could have done imo, kids will be kids. 

I went on sunday and didn't hear any warnings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Innovindil said:

You can explain them as many ways you like, it doesn't make them any more valid. 

 

Was she told to remain seated? Yes, and repeatedly at that. 

 

Did she remain seated? No. 

 

Would she be alive if she had remained seated? Bar some final destination type shite, I'd think so. 

 

 

Eleven.

 

She was eleven.

 

Not 18.

 

Eleven.

 

Nowhere near mature enough to assess the risk for herself and fully understand the consequences - which is why the park don't have rides that put 11 year olds on 1000cc motorbikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Eleven.

 

She was eleven.

 

Not 18.

 

Eleven.

 

Nowhere near mature enough to assess the risk for herself and fully understand the consequences - which is why the park don't have rides that put 11 year olds on 1000cc motorbikes.

I know plenty of eleven year olds who know that when they're told not to do something for safety reasons, they won't do it. An eleven year old is definitely mature enough to know that if you stand up on a ride like that (especially when there are warning signs telling you not to do so) then you put yourself in danger.

 

My 5 year old nephew is old enough to know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Eleven.

 

She was eleven.

 

Not 18.

 

Eleven.

 

Nowhere near mature enough to assess the risk for herself and fully understand the consequences - which is why the park don't have rides that put 11 year olds on 1000cc motorbikes.

She doesn't need to assess the risk, it has been done for her, she just has to follow 1 simple rule, sit! 

 

My dog can manage that, are you telling me that's beyond an 11 year old? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TiffToff88 said:

I know plenty of eleven year olds who know that when they're told not to do something for safety reasons, they won't do it. An eleven year old is definitely mature enough to know that if you stand up on a ride like that (especially when there are warning signs telling you not to do so) then you put yourself in danger.

Danger is reasonable sure - we don't want kids not allowed to experience some risk.

 

But danger in this case is a risk of death - and this kid is not the first to manage to end up in the water.

 

This isn't like going to school or crossing the road - this is a firm charging people as a fun/adventure park. If an adult fell out of a rollercoaster whilst upside down there's a problem and this is no different - there is a problem with this ride as there is the potential for children to be killed on it. That element of risk requires mitigation against - this whole thing is about accountability and believe me when I tell you that they will be held accountable....

 

A children's ride which every couple of years a kid nearly dies? They have to make the ride child proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

She doesn't need to assess the risk, it has been done for her, she just has to follow 1 simple rule, sit! 

 

My dog can manage that, are you telling me that's beyond an 11 year old? 

 

I don't believe the risk assessment has been done appropriately - if it's a child's ride part of that assessment must be that some children will in their excitement potentially make poor decisions - why? Because they are children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

I don't believe the risk assessment has been done appropriately - if it's a child's ride part of that assessment must be that some children will in their excitement potentially make poor decisions - why? Because they are children.

You can't blame a company because others make bad decisions. It's ridiculous. They did everything they needed to do, if you can't follow the rules then you shouldn't be going to a place that has rules, especially a place that has rules in place specifically for your safety. 

 

If a kid runs across their car park and gets hit by a car are Drayton still responsible because they didn't offer underground tunnels away from the traffic. :dry:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

You can't blame a company because others make bad decisions. It's ridiculous. They did everything they needed to do, if you can't follow the rules then you shouldn't be going to a place that has rules, especially a place that has rules in place specifically for your safety. 

 

If a kid runs across their car park and gets hit by a car are Drayton still responsible because they didn't offer underground tunnels away from the traffic. :dry:

 

 

Okay, I'm bored now and have to go continue with over a decades worth of work relating to risk assessment and young people... hint nudge....

 

I take your point. I understand your point. 

 

The problem is is that your common sense argument is not child centric - you've in this thread basically compared a dead 11 year old girls judgement as so stupid she should not be let out of a padded room and that your dog has a greater ability to follow instruction than she did. Basically implying that she got what she deserved..... Perhaps think about that for a moment before writing the same thing again in another post.

 

Your car park analogy is bullshit and it's bullshit because in a car park the child is under parental / gaurdian supervision and also if at a child's theme park there are not pavements or marked walkways for children then to be honest you've also got some issues there too! On a ride it's different - if 11 year old kids can pay to get on a ride unsupervised it needs to be fit for purpose and if there is scope for children to behave like children then there are elements of the ride that need adapting in order to mitigate that risk or else when accidents happen you'll be held liable.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Innovindil said:

You can explain them as many ways you like, it doesn't make them any more valid. 

 

Was she told to remain seated? Yes, and repeatedly at that. 

 

Did she remain seated? No. 

 

Would she be alive if she had remained seated? Bar some final destination type shite, I'd think so. 

 

 

 

If your sat down and you find yourself on a puddle of water... what's your instant reaction? 

 

Whats ts the circular silver bar in the middle for - to hold on to, because people do tend to stand up briefly on the ride when they get wet.

 

I find your post above quite crass, it shows a complete lack of compassion and you might wish to consider this is somebodies child.

 

Chances are, this situation involved a freak combination of unfortunate and unforeseen occurrences that resulted in the saddest of results. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Foxin_mad

People always try and blame the companies in this situation. Fact is this is a ride that involves rapid flowing water and bumping into the side of a fake river (rocks etc.) it is highly probable you will get wet and bumped about a bit but if you follow all the guidance you will be fine. Millions of people per day ride similar rides with no problem. All accidents are an unfortunate chain of events.

 

I blame the school more than anything. It sounds like there was no adult in this raft. This is a adult supervision ride, there should have been a teacher (or responsible adult) in each raft, not the raft behind or stood at the side, that is simply not good enough. The school has failed in their duty of care, if an adult was in the ride as recommended then things may have been different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Actually I blame the school more than anything. It sounds like there was no adult in this raft. This is a adult supervision ride, there should have been a teacher (or responsible adult) in each raft, not the raft behind or stood at the side, that is simply not good enough. The school has failed in their duty of care, if an adult was in the ride as recommended then things may have been different.

If it's a ride that requires an adult to be in the raft then the Park should not have allowed it to leave the boarding area. And would an adult being in the raft saved this from happening? Perhaps not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...