webslave

I have the right gear to convert off those for free if the need be. Happy for you to post it to me,

The tape doesn't look like the smaller one in this image, does it? http://www.pro8mm.com/Merchant5/graphics/00000001/VHS-S-VHS-S-VHS-C-comp-650.jpg

See, thing is I think the growth of internet usage has revealed that there are many among us who many would term hyper-sensitive. If you ask me - and few people do - I think there's a portion of people who now think that being offended is meaningful. I'm not sure why this is, but it's growing by the day. The worst part to me is that quite often people are offended by-proxy for others. "I'm offended about what you said about indigenous people", "I'm offended by what you said about people with a disability", "I'm offended by the language you used in front of the women". In poor-taste or classless maybe - but leave being offended to the people actually affected and then let them make up their own mind. Twitter seems to be the worst for it. Being offended isn't an injury - nobody should feel sorry for you, because you haven't come to any harm. It's almost like the term 'offensive' is interchangeable with 'unpleasant'. Some people are offended by religion, or by language or by images. The thing I think we can all agree on is that nobody cares. It sounds harsh, but probably only if you're over-sensitive and have too high an opinion of yourself. It's okay for nobody to care about something you think or say - they have no obligation to you. Your offence is your problem to deal with - and a very easy problem to deal with at that. As for me - I'll get as good as I give. If someone wants to take me to task so much the better - I learn more from watching someone get passionate and debate something than I do watching people try to get along and avoid offending each other. If I don't agree I'll call you out on it and tell you why - it doesn't mean I don't like or respect you; it simply means I don't see it that way.

Yes, plugging your ears and yelling 'la-la-la' is probably easier than trying to have an adult discussion. Of course, if I was trying to offend you I wouldn't have toned down by wording before hitting submit.

Sir, that is about the silliest thing I've ever read. To be able to sue somebody you have to be able to prove that you were legitimately harmed through the negligence of another. If you follow your own logic you're saying that someone who is legitimately harmed in an accident caused by the negligence of a theme park is out to ruin your fun so they can make a quick buck. I mean, sure, they may suffer permanent pain or disablement - but your fun is more important than covering their medical bills and lost wages, right? Get a grip. Thankfully we worked out that attitudes like yours are entirely counter-productive to public safety - that's why there's always a race to determine what the root cause of an accident is, and by extension who is or was responsible for that root cause. Accidents shouldn't happen, but do. They don't happen in isolation.

Sorry if that one went over your head. I mean, they teach that sort of thing to fourteen year olds now, but sure.

See, duty of care is a funny ol' term - people think it means things that it doesn't. To be able to sue somebody you are talking about civil law. To sue someone under civil law you need to identify a tort (or civil wrong) to sue under. Duty of care is not a tort - to go down that path you need to sue for negligence. To make out a case for negligence you generally need to satisfy: - That a duty of care exists - That the duty of care was broken - Proximity (that a relationship exists; somewhat like causation - That the plaintiff came to harm (and that the harm can be proven) So, to think about duty of care as an element of negligence - how is it determined? Glad you asked; - The party knew or ought to have known of the risk (was it reasonably foreseeable?) - The risk was not insignificant (different from reasonably foreseeable - was the risk far-fetched or fanciful?) - A reasonable person in the position of the party would have taken precautions against the risk (were they careless?).

You'd be pretty silly not to at least have a quick consult with a lawyer if for no reason other than to make sure you're informed enough not to prejudice your future legal rights, I'd reckon. After all, you can bet the park will be speaking to theirs. A simple chat with a lawyer doesn't have to result in litigation - instead it may be beneficial to simply know what things you should and should not do from a legal perspective that could come back to bite you later.

It would make quite a lot of sense, it just at immediate glance from the photos I thought to check (Parkz > Google Images) there appeared to be some differences.

To my eye there appears to be some differences in the wheel assembly: http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/image_10595.jpg http://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Green-Lantern-Movie-World-feature.jpg http://www.parkspot.eu/nl/wp-content/uploads/Warner-Bros.-Movie-World-Green-Lantern-Coaster.jpg This one looks more like it: http://cdn.parkz.com.au/cache/photo/individual_photo/general/2012/05/0530-1_Green_Lantern_IMG_2700.jpg Perhaps what is/was throwing me off is the additional stuff you can see here that you miss the detail of on the TPR photo: http://cdn.parkz.com.au/cache/photo/individual_photo/general/2012/05/0530-1_Green_Lantern_IMG_2797.jpg

I'm not sure Crazy Bird's wheel assembly is directly comparable to GL's.

You'll find when you look at that in context I pointed out the difference was that the engine was not owned by the operator. In this case the ride is owned by the operator. You may also find that a failure may not be covered by the manufacturer regardless of whether it's a maintenance issue.

I wouldn't be so sure. Even in the case of QF32 the grounding was not an immediate thing, at least not outside Qantas. Instead they quickly got to a hypothesis and asked operators to carry out specific checks which indicated there was a wider problem.

Sorry, it was the Scenic Railway rather than the Big Dipper at LPM. There's a mention of it here: http://melbourneforeveryone.com.au/city/st-kilda/theme-parks/luna-park/Airmaxx 360 - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-show-visitors-tell-of-problems-with-airmaxx-360-ride-from-which-girl-8-was-fatally-flung-from/story-fni6uo1m-1227057829956 Probably plenty more on Google.

Yes, there's the Ghost Train disaster at LPS. Big Dipper derailment at LPM injuring ~20. Consider also the various incidents at the state fairs/shows. There's the Arthurs Seat chairlift in Melbourne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthurs_Seat,_Victoria#Chairlift. Plenty if you look.

Far from the most serious in Australia.

The engine was owned by Rolls Royce and leased by Qantas. Furthermore it was a manufacturing defect, rather than a maintenance one.

Computers aren't very good at that because unlike us they can't see or hear, or at least don't generally make decisions on such stimuli. Instead they rely on sensors, and those sensors need to be connected to the control system. I wouldn't think it to be likely for the vehicle bogies to have sensors that are in wireless (or third-rail) comms with the control system.

The brakes on these ride vehicles require a co-acting mechanism be fitted to the track for braking to take place. Ergo, the only ways a vehicle will stop once moving is due to mechanical failure causing excessive friction, a brake section, or contact with an obstruction.

Er, no.

If it took off the front bogie it may have caused the rear to run into it doing more damage. Ditto if, say, the first bogie jammed.

It appears that the lateral bogies are missing off both the front and rear cars judging from the photo of the underside, with the front one (if it is still attached) not where I would expect it to be, and the rear is missing all three bogies. I wonder if it may have hit an obstruction? Note the expected position of the front bogie: http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m44uwtySIo1rre72ko1_500.jpg

Unsubstantiated speculation? The incident happened, and it was agreed by those within the industry that it's something that shouldn't (failure of the primary restraint). We don't call a car crash no big deal simply because an air bag is fitted. You may want to check what was said in that thread - at least one poster admitted to playing it down. How about this one?

Not a bad idea. I'm sure we will have a few foamers along shortly to tell us how it's all a big misunderstanding and that's what it's meant to do and that it happened during pre-opening checks. The revisionist approach to history, isn't it?

OP says "stranded" and "malfunctioned". Of course, last time we talked about an issue like this we had to play it down...