I think it's easy for us as grown adults to state so brazenly that 'strict rules are in place' and they weren't followed. Yes, that's all and well but 'strict rules' and the understanding danger means little to 10/11 year olds. So if the alternative to not following strict instructions of holding on to a ring in the middle or mucking about with your mates is fatality, then yeah, perhaps the theme parks should introduce restraints for children and allow the adults to continue holding on as per usual.
11 year old girl dies at drayton manor theme park
- Thread starter sprite1275
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,537
- Location
- Bucks
no offense but I went to a similar ride at thrope park at that age with the school, and you know not to **** around on it. The ride is scary enough at that age to not go and try stupid stuff.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
People moan about "health and safety gone mad" and then woman like Vikki Treacy want to blame the park for her son mucking about.
I remember going to Thorpe Park with the school when I was 12 and loads of people were messing about, changing seat, standing up etc. That's just teenagers trying to show off and be cocky.
I don't want to comment on the death of the 11 year old as it's all rumours thus far, but when the mother above is moaning about lack of safety even though her son flat out ignored the rules, it gets on my nerves.
I remember going to Thorpe Park with the school when I was 12 and loads of people were messing about, changing seat, standing up etc. That's just teenagers trying to show off and be cocky.
I don't want to comment on the death of the 11 year old as it's all rumours thus far, but when the mother above is moaning about lack of safety even though her son flat out ignored the rules, it gets on my nerves.
Kids do what kids do. And that has little to do with 'rules'.
We encourage them to do things for their own safety, but sometimes that isn't enough.
The question is, how likely is it that tragedy can occur, and are we prepared to live with the consequences of those marginal risks, or should something more be done to add extra protection?
We encourage them to do things for their own safety, but sometimes that isn't enough.
The question is, how likely is it that tragedy can occur, and are we prepared to live with the consequences of those marginal risks, or should something more be done to add extra protection?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
IMO if a ride has been open for 25 years already with no deaths, it's safe and this is simply a tragic accident.
Everyone knows those rides have whirlpools and currents, you wouldn't ever dream of getting in the water on purpose.
Even if the rules state that adults should accompany children under a certain age, you are relying on (mainly) teenage ride operators to judge the age of a rider. Usually they do it on height, not age, for that very reason.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 638
- Location
- Birmingham
So the ride is dangerous because Vikki's son can't follow instructions? Right, let's close the thing down because it's so lethal.
It seems they are giving out both visual and audial instructions. What more can they do?
Seems to be the way things are now, got to blame others and not accept responsibility for their own actions
Can't see any way they can change this ride for the better other than banning kids going in rafts alone, even then that isn't guaranteed to stop an accident
I have stood up on that very ride on more than one occasion. I reckon many thousands of people have done the same without dying or even falling in.So the ride is dangerous because Vikki's son can't follow instructions? Right, let's close the thing down because it's so lethal.
It seems they are giving out both visual and audial instructions. What more can they do?
The risk is real, but it's also unlikely and remote. It's human nature to have a dissonance about such peril.
So if a kid runs across a road and gets hit by a truck, it's the councils fault for not installing an impenetrable barrier? Nothing to do with the parents lack of teaching road safety or failing to supervise properly and ensure their child follows basic instructions? It's always someone elses fault...
The issue with adding restraints (as others have already posted) is the danger of capsize, suddenly you end up with 6 dead people trapped under water, instead of 1 dead person because they failed to follow instructions and fell in.
I guess they could make the ride more sedate, but then it wouldn't really be a river rapids ride.
Ultimately there is an inherent risk in any kind of theme park ride, it should be negligible in most cases, but it's still there (that's part of the thrill). By going on the ride you accept that risk, but that doesn't mean you should ignore any means to minimise that risk
Kids aren't safe with crossing roads on their own until they get to 14 years old, per this recent study:So if a kid runs across a road and gets hit by a truck, it's the councils fault for not installing an impenetrable barrier? Nothing to do with the parents lack of teaching road safety or failing to supervise properly and ensure their child follows basic instructions? It's always someone elses fault...
The issue with adding restraints (as others have already posted) is the danger of capsize, suddenly you end up with 6 dead people trapped under water, instead of 1 dead person because they failed to follow instructions and fell in.
I guess they could make the ride more sedate, but then it wouldn't really be a river rapids ride.
Ultimately there is an inherent risk in any kind of theme park ride, it should be negligible in most cases, but it's still there (that's part of the thrill). By going on the ride you accept that risk, but that doesn't mean you should ignore any means to minimise that risk
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kids-cross-road-alone_uk_58f86a3ce4b091e58f386211
Their perception of distance and danger is not developed like an adult. So we put safety measures in place.
I'm not actually saying Drayton Manor should have more safety measures in place, simply that just writing it off as "she should have followed instruction" is pretty base. There's a lot more to it than that.
And actual risk isn't 'part of the thrill' of theme park rides. Perceived risk is. There's an important difference.
Kids aren't that stupid, they're perfectly capable of understanding there is dangers - especially if a responsible adult has told them all not to stand else they might fall in. I think so long as there was at least one adult in the ride supervising them then I don't think the park is at fault here. The question is was there one present and what did he or she say to the kids in relation to any of them standing up.
So the ride is dangerous because Vikki's son can't follow instructions? Right, let's close the thing down because it's so lethal.
It seems they are giving out both visual and audial instructions. What more can they do?
Yeah she sounds a bit ridiculous - especially:
"I'll never go back to the park. No way. Their aftercare was shocking."
In her case her son seemingly simply fell in the water and had to be dragged out - other than getting him dried off etc.. what exactly did she want in terms of after care...
A million pound payout at a guess.
Yeah but you just know the government will bring in a new law requiring all rides such as this to have seat belts. Legislating for single moments of stupidity is a government pastime.
I suspect we've all done silly things during our childhood that could have resulted in death if the odds had been stacked against us, you've just got to live and learn.
Last edited:
Drayton Manor staff might not have dealt with it very well. That's what I assumed from the quote - perhaps they weren't especially sympathetic to the near-death experience the family just had.
What safety measures? An overwhelming majority of roads in this country have no barrier whatsoever to prevent a child from running across them, but when it happens, no one goes blaming the council for not having a 6ft fence across preventing it.
Sitting in a fibreglass carriage hurtling downwards at 80mph attached to rails by only a few plastic wheels is inherently risky.
As I said, the actual risk is negligible (as evidenced by the rarity of theme park accidents), but it is still there (as evidenced by the fact they DO occur)
Nah, they'll bring in a law banning theme parks outright, the public can't be trusted to not die so let's ban them, ALL OF THEM.
I don't blame them for not exactly being too sympathetic in a self inflicted case like that, especially as there was no real harm done other than a kid getting wet. Other than maybe fetching the kid a towel or taking them somewhere to dry off (especially if it is a cold day) I don't see that there is much more to do on their part towards the kid/mum. Obviously on their side they'll need to review tapes, see how it was able to occur and presumably conclude it was the result of him standing up.