The issue is here that whilst the rules are there for people not to, we all know that people do not abide them. Like when you are in hurry, how many people jump a red light?
Obviously we'll find out more as it goes on. But the rules for the ride did say Do Not Stand Up, Remain Seated etc, on the info boards and on the ride. But you can then say that about any T&Cs, how many of us have actually read the whole thing?
Yes there is video evidence to prove that they were not abiding by the rules and the ride was running normally, nothing broke down on it, as far as the ride goes, systems were fine.
The teachers did a risk assessment to say that the kids were well behaved on the first go but was this because the teacher was there? By removing that authority figure was it now a case of "kids will be kids"? It did seem a little odd to me when it said in the article that it was normal practice for the teacher to remain with any students that didn't want to ride, again they've used a risk assessment to say that was the greater threat.
With it being a free flow water ride instead of tracked ride makes the ride very different. If the ride had have broken down, stuck, stranded etc then its the parks responsibility but unlike the Smiler incident, the ride wasn't giving off warning signs to say it was broken/or an issue.
However on the flipside, their needs to be this contingency, no matter how unlikely, if this was to happen.
If the kids were sitting on the ride normal and followed the rules, it would never have happened but when riders don't follow the rules, who is to blame.
The park for the response time on a ride that cannot be easily stopped? Or the riders themselves for putting themselves in danger and ignoring the rules? Or the school for simply assuming it was someone else's responsibility?