• 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.

Drayton Manor Park

H&S can check if a problem with the ride led to her ending up in the water. We know she’s the main blame for ending up if the water as she moved seats.
It’s lists on the website Height Restrictions: Minimum height of 0.9m, anyone under 1.1m. must be accompanied by an adult so my 6 year old could have gone on her own this season. I’m sure Alton Towers were the same rule to this accident/death happened.
I just watched many POV of splash canyon on you tube and it clearly says on the boat to remain seated at all times while holding the centre wheel. It’s also written around the course on yellow notices. There’s pa speakers that I guess is linked to the control booths and cctv round the area so I’m not sure what any park can do but if she got out the boat near the tunnel section it would take at least 5 mins from the call for a member of first aid to get from the 4D cinema to the area where she ended up.
Does anyone remember the videos on you tube about 10 years ago where there was people been filmed swimming in the rapids water and holding on to the shark as it went round on battle gallons?
 
EuroSatch said:
If Drayton pays a hefty fine, it’ll be covered by their own indemnity, or considered a provision on the balance sheet. Suggesting that they shouldn’t have to pay a fine because they are a private family run company, is ridiculously hypocritical as you’re suggesting you wouldn’t bat an eyelid if it was a Merlin Park, because they deserve it for being greedy corporates...
Click to expand...
What? Please feel free to point out where this argument was made or even slightly insinuated...

Go back to page 1 if you are going to try and tell us that the girl died and that it is tragic. We all know that. What we are arguing is that given the evidence that has been given, Drayton are not likely to be responsible and that the girl most likely died because she stood up whilst the boat went over the final wave; and that whilst everything was done to try and keep her alive, she sadly died because of the blunt force chest trauma. What we are also admitting is that we don't know this for certain, we don't have the information, but with the information that has been given, it does raise questions.
 
Themeparksandy1981 said:
H&S can check if a problem with the ride led to her ending up in the water. We know she’s the main blame for ending up if the water as she moved seats.
Click to expand...

That hasn't be determined, but even if it was, it isn't how the law works. A judge will be looking to be convinced that risk was reduced as low as reasonably practicable.
 
Tom said:
That hasn't be determined, but even if it was, it isn't how the law works. A judge will be looking to be convinced that risk was reduced as low as reasonably practicable.
Click to expand...
But you can say that to any rapids rides in the world which doesn’t have seat belts.
Like on Alton Towers for example if a guest stands up they play the announcement please remain seated if someone fell out by the tunnel area would staff get over there in time to save them.
Drayton Operated the ride for 25 years without any injuries or death.
In 68 years there’s only been 3 deaths on rides in the park history and both of the other rides are still open today.
 
Mikw said:
Thing is, people just don't read ride notices. She was probably chatting to friends instead of reading them, like we all do
Click to expand...
unknown.png


Problem sorted.
 
Bert2theSpark said:
unknown.png


Problem sorted.
Click to expand...

Sorted...if she was looking at it and not chatting to friends. I mean, i go to towers with friends, i usually focus in them when i'm in a queue, or even on the rapids themselves. I tend to notice more when i'm on my own.

I don't know what the solutions are really. You can have signs, announcements and the like, but you can't always account for human behaviour. How many of us listen to the Airplane safety demonstration?
 
EuroSatch said:
Wow, this topic makes grim reading. You lot need to get some flipping perspective here rather than tugging out your hair because it involves a theme park.

A girl died. An 11 year old girl. She died, and she and her family had put their trust in Drayton Manor to keep her safe. That trust was breached, and no amount of crying that ‘she didn’t obey the ride rules’ will change the fact there was not enough safeguarding in place to prevent this from happening.

SHE WAS 11 YEARS OLD!
Click to expand...

Amen to that. Exactly like the hypothetical scenario I mentioned yesterday involving a child who knows the dangers of a road still getting hit by a car. Obviously not all the blame for the situation can lie with Drayton, but a good portion of it does.

Sauron97 said:
What? Please feel free to point out where this argument was made or even slightly insinuated...

Go back to page 1 if you are going to try and tell us that the girl died and that it is tragic. We all know that. What we are arguing is that given the evidence that has been given, Drayton are not likely to be responsible and that the girl most likely died because she stood up whilst the boat went over the final wave; and that whilst everything was done to try and keep her alive, she sadly died because of the blunt force chest trauma. What we are also admitting is that we don't know this for certain, we don't have the information, but with the information that has been given, it does raise questions.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the way things and the law works matey.

Say for example, the safety signs were covered up by vegetation. Which I have seen before with my eyes. The girl did exactly what the safety signs tell you not to do! This puts the blame straight onto Drayton.

We all know most people do not read safety signs, but there is no strong evidence to support that. There is strong evidence to support that the safety signs were not adhered to though as a girl did exactly what the signs say not to do. Unfortunately she lost her life because of that decision. Now if it wasn't adhered to because of the signs been covered up, then that factor alone is very, very bad news for Drayton. This is before we move onto the point of how long it took the staff to respond. This is just one small example of many in which the blame can lie with Drayton. The park have a duty of care to keep people safe. That includes accounting for human mistakes and idiocy. That is the same with anything in life. You buy a piece of electronic equipment, or a tool, it has to be safe for use. But it also has to account for human mistakes and idiocy to a certain level, to keep them safe in those circumstances too.

In response to your question about Intamin giving guidelines on riders ect. They do not give specific guidelines, just height and other loose general guidelines. This is because the laws and H&S are different in each country, so it will be down to a park level to decide things more specific. But the general guidelines Intamin do supply are generally good enough for the safe operation of and riding of the ride.
 
Last edited:
I admit that nothing is absolute and that my theory may be wrong, but working with the information I know, I do not believe Drayton to be at fault, and that this was an accident .
With regards to the signs, I always thought the ones being used during the time of the accident were highly visible (bright yellow) and placed very well. At the start of the ride going round the first bend where there isn’t much else to look at. At the pumping station attached to the building. At the entrance to the shed, and importantly, next to the photo shoot camera. There are also plastic signs inside the boat that say the same thing.
The school of thought I subscribe to is: there will always be accidents, and danger is in every situation of life, even if lots of steps are taken to mitigate it. There comes a point where a decision you are able to make make is stupid or thoughtless enough to get you killed despite a large of warnings and common sense dangers that you can easily observe. If she was blind, very young, or disabled in some kind of way, then her decision making is impaired.

But at the age she was at, she should of known not to stand up. From the sounds of it she was still standing up at the point where the boat hits the side, So she was likely stood up for a significant length of time and should of known what she was doing was against the rules. In summary:

-The boats contain large upwards pointing seats and a low center rail, which is the first sign that standing up is not allowed. Next to the seats and under the rail, these instructions are given clearly and briefly on plastic signs.
-The large signpost at the entrance explains not only the rules, but what the ride contains, which should be observed, particularly by guardians, parents and supervisors.
-Very importantly, numerous highly visible yellow signs exist every 10 meter or so explicitly stating the key rule, with a security camera next to the sign to add to further warning
-The boasts travel at high speeds and bump in to objects and travel over white water rapids at nearly every point of the ride, it’s common sense to not muck about when you can observe this
-Drayton were (unless I’m wrong) following all the guidelines set by Intamin which you describe as generally safe.
-The girl stood up between the final wave all the way to the bump at the end of the ride, knocking her out. She swam immediately to catch up with the boat, but was sucked in by the current of the final wave. No real length of time is required for another boat to hit her as the boats have very little distance in between eachother, so the operators could not have stopped her from being hit. It also, as I understand it (you will know this), takes a short while to drain, which explains why she was not in any position to be saved in the first few minutes.
-I know next to nothing on the response time or the nature of the response, save that it was ‘a few minutes’ (which is painfully ambiguous), but for the reason above, I cannot think that ‘a few minutes’ was anything out of the ordinary as to what any emergency response would take (but I don’t know this yet)

With this in mind, the only outcome I can see is that this was an accident, and that the girl sadly is responsible for her own actions. This is why the charges of corporate manslaughter do not seem to target a lack of safeguarding or warning, and attack the response time instead. Once we are privy to the wider picture, then a clearer judgement will be easy to make. But I sense no alarm bells that Drayton are to blame, and hope I am right on this, but am not certain.
 
spinba11 said:
Regarding the standing up bit, IMO if signs were clearly visible saying please remain seated then Drayton aren’t to blame.
Click to expand...

Ah, but they are. That is simply not enough in this day and age. They are expected to manage the risks and also manage the mistakes and idiocy people make to a certain level. Putting up a sign simply does not dissolve them of responsibility. Are you mad?!

Like I said last page, if I teach my kid the dangers of a road, then go let him play by the road and he gets struck and killed by a car. Does that mean I have no responsibility? No, I would be charged with many offences including manslaughter, neglect ect. Rightly so too, it would have been my fault not my kids, despite him being taught the dangers. Exactly the same principle applies here.
 
Also her family didn't put any faith in Drayton to keep her safe, that is the schools job on a trip like this and iirc they sent her to school in the wrong clothing and no packed lunch for the trip. The school had to borrow clothing so she could go and make her a lunch. Which begs the question if they were that disorganised, did they even know about the trip? Was she even supposed to be there?

There's lots of unanswered questions, not just from Drayton's perspective.
 
IanSR said:
Also her family didn't put any faith in Drayton to keep her safe, that is the schools job on a trip like this and iirc they sent her to school in the wrong clothing and no packed lunch for the trip iirc. The school had to borrow clothing so she could go and make her a lunch. Which begs the question if they were that disorganised, did they even know about the trip? Was she even supposed to be there?

There's lots of unanswered questions, not just from Drayton's perspective.
Click to expand...

Just because there is nothing said about the family not putting faith in Drayton doesn't mean there wasn't.

Of course her family put faith in Drayton to keep her safe. If the park was an unsafe place to be, or had a string of accidents in the past and was notorious for danger, her family would of refused her going on the trip. Her family knew she was going to a theme park, they would expect the rides to provide safe enjoyment and their daughter to return home at the end of the day, safe and sound. Of course there is an implied expectation and trust that the place your child is going is going to provide a safe day out. Else you simply would not send your child there! Simple as that.

Just because something is not explicitly said doesn't mean it is not implied. Quite obviously it is implied here, because no one in their right mind would intentionally send somewhere they believed to be unsafe. Not in a million years. They absolutely put faith in Drayton to keep her safe on their rides. Everyone does every time you go to a park.
 
Assuming the family knew she was there, some of the early stuff that came out suggested she should never had been on the trip and her parents didn't know about it (hence why they sent her to school in the wrong clothing and without a lunch).
 
Oh I see, well that does change it a bit if true. I was assuming you was saying they sent her to Drayton but put no faith in the park to keep her safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top