• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

2022: General Discussion

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Danscott22 said:
The fact "Risk of Drowning" and "Sit Down, Hold On" signs have appeared makes me think the latter.
Click to expand...
I know the park's hands are tied somewhat when it comes to health and safety and legalities, but this kind of thing is just a bit daft.

Surely everybody knows that water poses a risk of drowning, just like entering a ride area is dangerous.
 
Alsty said:
I know the park's hands are tied somewhat when it comes to health and safety and legalities, but this kind of thing is just a bit daft.

Surely everybody knows that water poses a risk of drowning, just like entering a ride area is dangerous.
Click to expand...

I believe these signs are in response to the report sent out to all U.K. parks with rapids rides from the coroner following the Drayton incident. Specifically this bit:

A6A1F5FF-8AD0-42B9-880F-E9B913330A19.jpeg
 
I would argue that's entirely foreseeable and doesn't need a specific warning.

I'm not one to jump on the "H&S gone mad" bandwagon but surely we have to allow some level of personal responsibility as well?

I know the park can't depart from this kind of thing for liability reasons but it just feels a bit unnecessary to me.
 
If the waterfalls are back in some form, do we think the wave machines will return as well? Probably not if they want everyone to stay seated and not be thrown about too much!
 
Alsty said:
I would argue that's entirely foreseeable and doesn't need a specific warning.

I'm not one to jump on the "H&S gone mad" bandwagon but surely we have to allow some level of personal responsibility as well?

I know the park can't depart from this kind of thing for liability reasons but it just feels a bit unnecessary to me.
Click to expand...

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but given the historical context Alton Towers are operating in, the risk of not following instructions to the letter are just not worth it.

Imagine they didn’t amend the signage and someone came to harm. Even if the signage didn’t play a part the upshot would be extremely bad should the press get hold of it.
 
Alsty said:
I would argue that's entirely foreseeable and doesn't need a specific warning.

I'm not one to jump on the "H&S gone mad" bandwagon but surely we have to allow some level of personal responsibility as well?

I know the park can't depart from this kind of thing for liability reasons but it just feels a bit unnecessary to me.
Click to expand...

Unfortuantly people when at a theme forget that the real world applies. Some people think, "I'm in a theme park I can't possibly drown, what could go wrong if I stand up". Put people out in the same raft in the real ocean or river and they would behave entirely differently.
The signs aren't great but I kinda get why the HSE advised them.
 
Steve74 said:
If the waterfalls are back in some form, do we think the wave machines will return as well? Probably not if they want everyone to stay seated and not be thrown about too much!
Click to expand...
Hope so, but the ride is utterly boring without the wave machines running at their potential and the waterfalls. I'd even have the water guns coming back as people were always on them!
 
To be fair it isn’t quite as simple as that, the water looks quite shallow and kids don’t always think logically about stuff. Not sure a sign will change anything but I suppose it’s not the end of the world.
 
GaryH said:
You’d like to think people would realise there is a risk of drowning from water but in a world where hot drinks have to have a label on the cup warning of “contents may be hot” and a bag of peanuts warning “contains nuts” then there is no hope!
Click to expand...

The nut one is more needed than you think. It means may contain traces of nuts that aren't peanuts. Someone might be fine with peanuts but have an almond allergy, therefore a pack of peanuts with "may contain nuts" is not suitible for that person because a trace amount of almond may kill them.

Similarly I can sort of see why people in a theme park need to be told there is a risk of injury, its way to easy to assume you are in a theme park and everything is safe, when unexpected guest behavour ay put yourself at risk, but people forget that.
 
The thing with H&S signs like that is that you can't assume everyone has a certain level of knowledge about risk.

I remember it once being said that one of the key principles of theme park safety is that you have to assume that "every guest has left their brain in the car", and some people may well not twig certain risks for certain reasons. For instance, with the rapids example, a guest might think that the water isn't that deep, or that the current isn't that strong, so there isn't a huge risk in standing up.

To be as safe as possible, it's probably best to ensure that the largest demographic possible knows about the risk involved in doing certain things and are informed as such before they do them. It's better to be safe than sorry; in this instance, it's far safer for the park to preach to the converted than to assume that everyone knows certain things when some people don't.

And after all, what tangible effect will these signs have on the ride experience?
 
Signs have their place where dangers are not obvious. I see no benefit in signs when it's blatently obvious what the dangers are.
 
Alsty said:
Signs have their place where dangers are not obvious. I see no benefit in signs when it's blatently obvious what the dangers are.
Click to expand...
It might be obvious to you, but the issue is; would it be obvious to everyone without the signs? I'm not so sure, and even if it was obvious to the vast majority, a tiny minority not knowing the risks could still create huge issues.

It's better to be safe than sorry, in my view.
 
What would probably be much more sensible is for staff to clearly advise each group as they board. Sticking signs up that most will ignore as they float past them spinning (well, unlikely in the recent state of rapids but you get the idea). There is also a point where too many signs starts to dilute their importance, something that has been seen on the roads in recent years. If you label literally everything as "danger of death", how can you really emphasise the importance of greater dangers in the park?
 
Craig said:
What would probably be much more sensible is for staff to clearly advise each group as they board. Sticking signs up that most will ignore as they float past them spinning (well, unlikely in the recent state of rapids but you get the idea). There is also a point where too many signs starts to dilute their importance, something that has been seen on the roads in recent years. If you label literally everything as "danger of death", how can you really emphasise the importance of greater dangers in the park?
Click to expand...
But is it more to do with the park covering themselves, "we put signs up why didn't they read them" rather than them actually thinking it's worth while? I doubt the signs will make much if any different to guest behaviour but what it might do is cover the park if a case were to arise.
 
JAperson said:
But is it more to do with the park covering themselves, "we put signs up why didn't they read them" rather than them actually thinking it's worth while? I doubt the signs will make much if any different to guest behaviour but what it might do is cover the park if a case were to arise.
Click to expand...
Oh of course it's to cover themselves, but at the same time they should also be questioning what alternatives there are to just whacking signs up all over. Box ticking is one thing, but first and foremost the park want to avoid any such incidents occurring in the first place. Sure the signs might please the insurers, but I still feel there are far better and effective options available to properly brief guests.

Quirky pre boarding videos, a quick word from the staff as they enter the boats, existing audio messages during the ride - all far more effective than static signs which guests are unlikely to read mid ride.
 
Craig said:
Oh of course it's to cover themselves, but at the same time they should also be questioning what alternatives there are to just whacking signs up all over. Box ticking is one thing, but first and foremost the park want to avoid any such incidents occurring in the first place. Sure the signs might please the insurers, but I still feel there are far better and effective options available to properly brief guests.

Quirky pre boarding videos, a quick word from the staff as they enter the boats, existing audio messages during the ride - all far more effective than static signs which guests are unlikely to read mid ride.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree but all of that costs far more than whacking up a few signs to cover themselves. I don't think it's the right thing to do but I understand why they've done it. As you've suggested there are other solutions, all of which would be better, but I just don't see them doing them simply due to cost.
 
Health & Safety tends to sit in one of two camps:
  • Measures that actually eliminate or reduce risk,
  • Measures that have little or no effect on risk but "tick a box"
These signs sit firmly in the latter.

Health & Safety should be about genuine measures to control risk rather than simply about covering your backside.
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top