Theme parks & fairs - ok to ask to review risk assesment and operating procedure of each ride?

[Thekwango]

I HAVE NOT SAID THIS (and capitals again).

I wonder when you type out these shouty shouty caps locky words - is your face red with anger, are there veins bulging in your neck and on your head.....are you shouting out loud wishing you could shout into my face. do you fantasise that you could behave like this in real life, do you wish you could subjugate people just by being angry and loud? do you feel more manly for having done this online - pretending to be all shouty? even though you know you couldn't do anything like this in real life as you wouldn't be able to deal with the consequences?

 

[kitch9]

Hi

Might have to visit some places with rides in the near future... Is it unreasonable for me to request and review H&S documentation relating to each ride prior to taking the plunge and riding it so to speak? Specifically, I would like to see a detailed risk assessment, a standard operating procedure, and a 'worst credible event' scenario plan. Will these be available?

Are these companies legally obliged to let me review this documnetation prior to me going on the ride? How should I approach it? Should I request digital copies prior to my visit or should I only expect them to be avilable on site. Can I test the operators on the risk assessment to make sure they have actually read it? What does the HSE say on my rights?

Thnx

Are you a trainspotter as well by any chance?

 

[AndyCr15]

I'm just going to say, from those quotes (I really cba to go and check the full context now - in fact I did, look to be fine. Kwango said it was about appeal and you corrected the severity of the accident), I would deduce you had effectively said that part of the attraction was that something might go wrong. If that's not what you mean, fair enough, but demanding apologies seems a little much

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I wonder when you type out these shouty shouty caps locky words - is your face red with anger,

No, I'm smiling at your inability to quote me correctly, it's quite funny and something people do in GD all the time to other posters.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I would deduce you had effectively said that part of the attraction was that something might go wrong.

I've never said anywhere that part of the attraction was something will go wrong.
I said that there is a 'scare' side to it where some people might think things will go wrong and that you can't deny.
You've only got to watch the reactions of people/kids when they're queuing up but nobody would get on that ride if they thought something was really going to hurt them.
So no, no matter how you mix my words up and add stuff to them, I never said that people are attracted to go on thrill rides because they may go wrong.

 

[Thekwango]

So no, no matter how you mix my words up and add stuff to them, I never said that people are attracted to go on thrill rides because they may go wrong.

you did....

here

Perhaps not a mangled wreck but there is obviously a scare side to it that something might go wrong.

that may not be what you meant to say but say it you did

 

[Thekwango]

No, I'm smiling at your inability to quote me correctly, it's quite funny and something people do in GD all the time to other posters.

I doubt very much you are smiling.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

that may not be what you meant to say but say it you did

I meant exactly that because it is different to what you are claiming I said.

I said this
"there is obviously a scare side to it that something might go wrong".

That is not saying that people are attracted to thrill rides because they may go wrong, that is saying there is a scare side to it that something might go wrong.

How can you mix the two up?
They are two totally different things.
Please say you can see the difference.

I'll make it simpler:
I'm scared of flying on planes because they might crash
is not the same as
I'm attracted to flying on planes because they might crash

get it now?

 

[Thekwango]

I said this
"there is obviously a scare side to it that something might go wrong".

That is not saying that people are attracted to thrill rides because they may go wrong, that is saying there is a scare side to it that something may go wrong.

How can you mix the two up?
They are two totally different things.

because when you quoted me I was talking about what attracted people to the rides. you just can't accept that your choice of words was poor, or perhaps you just didn't read/understand all of my post when you quoted it.....now you are on the constant defensive. veiled insults and shouty caps, how very sad and childish.

edit: quote your full sentence and the post it was in relation to. quite ironic you accuse people of not quoting properly then do the exact same thing.

 

[AndyCr15]

I've never said anywhere that part of the attraction was something will go wrong.

As I said, effectively.

It's clear over the last few pages you're struggling with this though, so I'll just unsub an move on.

 

[Diddums]

Heh, you lot still at it eh?


And what exactly are you hoping to achieve with this?

 

[SexyGreyFox]

As I said, effectively.

.

Thanks, at least you can see it.

Heh, you lot still at it eh?


And what exactly are you hoping to achieve with this?

Excuse me, I stuck up for you the other week when somebody was misquoting you, what does it achieve?
EVERYTHING.

 

[Nitefly]

There’s only one way to sort this argument - build a rollercoaster that has two trains that pass each other in opposite directions. Give them each a lance and let them joust.

 

[Diddums]

Excuse me, I stuck up for you the other week when somebody was misquoting you, what does it achieve?
EVERYTHING.

That didn't go unnoticed mate. Still, eventually you get to a point where it's just not worth the time any more.

 

[dowie]

I guess it is true to an extent. I remember going on holiday to the US as a kid, we went on some big modern rollercoasters in Florida and they were cool etc.. but the ride that gave a real adrenaline rush was at some small local theme park we went to when visiting relatives in the mid west - I guess a part of that was the fact that it just had the safety bar that comes down and locks off just above your waist (no shoulder straps etc..) and it didn't feel anywhere near as safe. There was only one loop mind, but the big drop beforehand gave a buzz and being in a little cart at some naff fairground type set up + closer to the ground etc.. probably did have an effect.

 

[Chris Wilson]

Maybe the OP has a point, especially if the ride is in Mexico....

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mum-dies-daughter-left-fighting-12503252

A woman has been killed and her daughter is fighting for her life after the pair fell from a funfair ride.

Shocking mobile phone footage captured the moment 50-year-old Irma Sanchez Albarran and daughter Nayeli Morales Sanchez dropped from the top of the ride.

The ride had been flipping over and over as it was meant to, but as it got to the highest point, a safety bar failed.

One woman falls first, quickly followed by the second, and they could be seen dropping about 33ft.

The 50-year-old died at the scene (Image: CEN)
The mum died at the scene and her daughter, 26, remains critically ill in hospital.

Footage of the shocking incident that took place in Penjamo in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato surfaced online.

Mirror Online has decided to edit the end of the video, due to its graphic nature.

In the short video, the amusement ride flips and thrills its screaming occupants before suspending in mid air while inverted.

The safety bar on one section suddenly springs loose.

 

[tomparker95]

@Acme this is what i was mentioning