Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm
I glad someone is enjoying themselves.
Again, saying it is flawed doesn't make it flawed. You carry on as though it's not worth wasting your time to even address it directly, and then you proceed to spend a significant amount of time elsewhere on this increasingly pointless discussion.
I have no concerns with that list - as I have said from the start, I was as inclusive of Intamin accidents as I am of everyone else's accidents. I am happy to admit it is not complete, nor is each accident of the same scale and scope. The general thrust, however, remains.
And while you clearly take issue with my conclusions, let's not pretend this is any sort of legal proceeding. The information I have been discussing, while not all cataloged and marked as exhibits A, B, and C - is there for anyone to see, and for them to form whatever opinions they like. So unless there is contrary information that I haven't come across or considered (which there certainly maybe), I don't see this conversation going anywhere.
The expectation of safety is WHY I hold each manufacturer to such high (again, you may call unrealistic, I call principled) standards. Unfortunately I'm not IN the shop with Intamin engineers to see exactly what they're doing (or doing wrong). Incident counts, as an outside consumer, is really all we have to go on to raise red flags. Is this 100% foolproof in measuring design failures? No, but until an engineer or inspector comes forward (and violates some NDA) and gives us unfettered access, we only have the information we have. And in the end, due to such a disproportionate number of accidents, there is nothing invalid about raising this as a concern.
I guess your overwhelming opinion is that I lack prudence. Ok, great, noted. I'll keep that in mind. Unless there is anything else, I see little point in continuing this.
(If you'd like more information on HF/E field, visit Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: About HFES)
I glad someone is enjoying themselves.
Originally posted by flynnibus
View Post
I have no concerns with that list - as I have said from the start, I was as inclusive of Intamin accidents as I am of everyone else's accidents. I am happy to admit it is not complete, nor is each accident of the same scale and scope. The general thrust, however, remains.
And while you clearly take issue with my conclusions, let's not pretend this is any sort of legal proceeding. The information I have been discussing, while not all cataloged and marked as exhibits A, B, and C - is there for anyone to see, and for them to form whatever opinions they like. So unless there is contrary information that I haven't come across or considered (which there certainly maybe), I don't see this conversation going anywhere.
The expectation of safety is WHY I hold each manufacturer to such high (again, you may call unrealistic, I call principled) standards. Unfortunately I'm not IN the shop with Intamin engineers to see exactly what they're doing (or doing wrong). Incident counts, as an outside consumer, is really all we have to go on to raise red flags. Is this 100% foolproof in measuring design failures? No, but until an engineer or inspector comes forward (and violates some NDA) and gives us unfettered access, we only have the information we have. And in the end, due to such a disproportionate number of accidents, there is nothing invalid about raising this as a concern.
Originally posted by flynnibus
View Post
(If you'd like more information on HF/E field, visit Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: About HFES)
Comment