Alligator dragged 2 year old into 7 seas lagoon

[The Mystery Machine]

Disney doesn't want guests to have unpleasant thoughts, so doesn't mention the alligators, unlike the Hilton on the same body of water.
View attachment 176159

That is a reasonable sign.

 

[asta]

1. In my memory the area by the beaches at Polynesian and Fort Wilderness are clear , is this not the case?
2. The reeds etc at most places are a strategy to keep Canada geese away. They would be intentionally put there by Disney, because the Geese don't want to land where predators might be... I wonder if that might increase Disney's culpability? If they intentionally landscaped in a Gator friendly manner to not deal with Geese?

I don't consider this clear but someone else may think this looks ok.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gra...AUIBygB&biw=768&bih=928#imgrc=xu2RdUUc68z4SM:
Or this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gra...AUIBygB&biw=768&bih=928#imgrc=Z-l86TZsr5yD8M:

To me it looks like at best there is something slimy on or in the water. What is so sad to me is that just a few yards further there is the GF themed pool with a sandy zero entrance. So much cleaner and safer than the lagoon for a little one who wanted to wade.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Can you read? Does the sign say don't go in the water? No.
If what they wanted was people not to enter the water at all then that is what the sign should have said.
It's pretty simply really, it said no swimming, no one was swimming by any definition of swimming.

Not so sure... #3 and #5 could do it..

—verb (used without object), swam, swum, swim·ming.

1. to move in water by movements of the limbs, fins, tail, etc.
2. to float on the surface of water or some other liquid.
3. to move, rest, or be suspended in air as if swimming in water.
4. to move, glide, or go smoothly over a surface.
5. to be immersed or steeped in or overflowing or flooded with a liquid: eyes swimming with tears.
6. to be dizzy or giddy; seem to whirl: My head began to swim.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't consider this clear but someone else may think this looks ok.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gra...AUIBygB&biw=768&bih=928#imgrc=xu2RdUUc68z4SM:
Or this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gra...AUIBygB&biw=768&bih=928#imgrc=Z-l86TZsr5yD8M:

IMO, that pretty obviously means people aren't supposed to be in the water.

 

[asta]

IMO, that pretty obviously means people aren't supposed to be in the water.

I was just replying to a poster who thought Disney kept the water clean at the beaches. I wan't referring to the sign but the new signs are much clearer than the old ones.

 

[sam_gordon]

I was just replying to a poster who thought Disney kept the water clean at the beaches. I wan't referring to the sign but the new signs are much clearer than the old ones.

Sorry, misunderstood your post.

 

[Iowamomof4]

Considering people from all over the world visit wdw, wouldn't it be best for them to not have signs that require reading between the lines? I mean, if "No Swimming" literally means "Don't go in the water", they're expecting the general public understand implied meaning. With guests from across the country and around the world, the more explicit the sign, the better.

 

[Magpie]

Considering people from all over the world visit wdw, wouldn't it be best for them to not have signs that require reading between the lines? I mean, if "No Swimming" literally means "Don't go in the water", they're expecting the general public understand implied meaning. With guests from across the country and around the world, the more explicit the sign, the better.

The new signs are a lot better:

 

[mummabear]

And yet here I have lived near a major body of water for years, and when they post a No Swimming warning it means STAY OUT OF THE WATER. It took a while for me to understand how people could think that getting their toes wet was ok when there is an obvious NO SWIMMING sign. It seemed obvious to me that means stay out, but I guess not to others.

Hopefully the new clearer signs will stop the confusion.

Btw, if you go to the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary, on of the definitions of swim is "to play in the water (as at a beach or swimming pool)."

So when my kids run through the sprinkler or play with the water table they are therefore swimming?

Like no diving signs at the pool and you see people jumping in the water but "I'm not diving".

And they aren't. If people want to warn of a danger they need to be speak I like other posters would have thought jumping was fine, it is not diving.

Good Lord I hope not. I think what we are trying to say is that to some of us, the sign wasn't ambiguous. In certain parts of the country No Swimming means you don't get in the water at all. It never even dawned on me before this that others didn't read it the same way.

And yet some people are trying to make it sound to those of us that read it literally that we are "special" and trying to get around rules like a child.
A simple do not enter the water would have been enough.

Let's take a "Caution Hot" sign

It doesn't strictly say you can't touch it.
It says you should exercise caution.

To my son, I will tell this means "don't touch it"
To me it means I will avoid touching it if I can.

the whole thread seems to be revolving around the 'I will touch it because I'm not explicitely forbidden to, therefore this means I can, and I will'

some would argue that since it's not forbidden, it's okay to push it with their foot because it's not forbidden, and there is no indication about body parts, and no manual of operation stating the proper use of the "hot thing"

come on guys, if you have a scalding hot kettle on your stove, there's nothing preventing you from grabbing it with your toes and pour coffee for the whole table
it doesn't change the fact that it's will seem as a lack of common sense to many people, and is potentially very dangerous

sometines it's not because you're not specifically forbidden to do something that it means it's alright to do it (and for some it means that they have to do it to exercise their freedom of acting stupid)

would you cross I4 on foot during rush hour ? No ... why ... I didn't see a sign informing that it was dangerous.

See if it had said caution alligators I think you would have found most people wouldn't have entered the water at all.
Disney did not post a warning about a danger as caution hot does. See how when they tell you the danger they don't need to tell you what you can't do.
This is more like if instead of saying caution hot it said no skulling.

If we had to have signs for every danger ... signs would be every where and no one would read them. Most people dismiss signs anyway.

Does Disney have a sign that says don't bend down near shrubs or don't walk through shrubs? I haven't seen any, but we all know that snakes go there for the shade. A person can easily be bitten by a pigmy rattle, copperhead or a cotton mouth.

It didn't need a sign for every danger, it just needed the no swimming sign to say do not enter the water.
Even better if it added an alligator reference.
One would think that a company who micromanages how grown adults walk in a carp park would have some sort of warnings about alligators on a beach they created at an event they ran on the waters edge.

I have been to beaches/lakes where you can enjoy the sand, but not the water.

Good for you.
Why didn't you enter the water?
Was there a sign warning you of danger?
Also a good point to remember here is that they weren't at a real beach, this was Disney property, in that they made and maintained this beach, it is not a natural occurence

 

[ZachnElli]

A Disney advertising photo:

 

[maxiesmom]

A Disney advertising photo:

From when? Just curious because the swimwear looks a bit dated.

 

[ZachnElli]

From when? Just curious because the swimwear looks a bit dated.

I don't know. Does it matter?

 

[indimom]

I think using the "Disney Bubble" "everything is safe here because it's Disney" comments to imply that these parents (and many others like them) were lax or ignorant is pretty insulting to these parents (and many, many others).
I don't think for one second they suddenly stopped being wary/watchful parents just because they were on vacation. I'd bet money that even though they were in the Disney Bubble, they held their children's hand when crossing streets. I bet that they made sure their lap belts were fastened on rides. I bet they cut the child's meal into small bites so they wouldn't choke on it. Even on vacation, they were doing what all parents do, taking the information and understanding they had accumulated over the course of their life, interpreting it, coming to conclusions, and responding accordingly.
Obviously, nothing in their experience/knowledge/evaluation led them to the conclusion that they were putting their beloved child who they would gladly die for (like all the others before them) at any risk by splashing their little feet through some lake water with a parent close at hand. Sheesh. I kinda wish we'd all stop talking. Even the people who "don't blame the parents" are saying things that sound so hurtful.
This was a horrid accident, a terrible tragedy. The statistics for alligator attack are no different than they were one week ago...which is practically nill. And it's gut wrenching to even think about what these parents may be feeling right now, particularly if... instead of support and love they are faced with comments and discussions like these.

 

[mummabear]

http://www.disboards.com/threads/man-almost-attacked-by-alligator-in-seven-seas-lagoon.2190532/

Interesting thread from the DIS from 2009 (came up in my suggested threads down the bottom)

 

[FINFAN]

A Disney advertising photo:

If there is any question on how a lawsuit would be decided, that's pretty damaging, right there. I personally think Disney will pay whatever it take to handle this as quietly as possible, and I also like to think they will pay above and beyond simply because of the tragic situation itself.

 

[sunshinehighway]

You do realise this isn't a technicality?



I don't see the point of any warning sign at all if they aren't going to adequately make people aware of the rules.
If the rules are no jumping or diving what is the point of saying just no diving?



There was no sign indicating danger here. It specified that you couldn't swim, that is not the same as making someone aware of danger.

Those people sharing the photos are doing so as a sign of solidarity for the parents, for people like you who think these parents where breaking a rule and must be a special snowflake to think otherwise, who think they were trying to be clever by using a technicality. These people sharing the photos are saying to the parents it's not your fault, lots of us did it too, it was horribly bad luck that it was you not me.
And some of us are feeling angry at Disney for being aware of this danger and not making their guests aware of it.



There really isn't a drowning risk in ankle deep water with the parents right there.

Of course I think it's a technicality. People love to try and be clever and use technicalities to do stuff they aren't supposed to. If I grabbed a tube and went in the water, I wouldn't be swimming. Are you really saying it should be reasonable for me to do that? I could walk into the water and hop on my tube, never is there swimming involved.
Should I think it's reasonable to do my morning water aerobics in that water? I mean as long as it's not swimming, it follows the sign, right?

 

[mom2rtk]

I do not blame Disney at all.....

I'm not ready to give Disney a pass yet. We don't have enough information to say.

We know the signs were not specific enough (or there would not be such a variety of interpretations here).

We don't know if they made a conscious decision to not put up alligator danger signs because it might hurt the marketability of their most expensive resorts.

We don't know if someone really did see a large gator an hour before this child was taken, and whether anything was done with that information.

We don't know if people really were feeding gators from the bungalow walkways and if Disney was aware and did nothing.

We don't know if any wildlife control staff was cut in the midst of all the rest of the recent cuts in the parks.

Answers to these questions would likely come out in a trial. That's why I don't think there's going to be a trial.

 

[CPanther95]

The new signs are a lot better:

Much better.

Saying "Stay Away From the Water" is a great idea if you want people to stay away from the water.

 

[sam_gordon]

Of course I think it's a technicality. People love to try and be clever and use technicalities to do stuff they aren't supposed to. If I grabbed a tube and went in the water, I wouldn't be swimming. Are you really saying it should be reasonable for me to do that? I could walk into the water and hop on my tube, never is there swimming involved.
Should I think it's reasonable to do my morning water aerobics in that water? I mean as long as it's not swimming, it follows the sign, right?

So it makes more sense to you, even after ALL the posts in this thread and others around the internet, that Lane's parents were looking for a "technicality" and that's why they let him wade in the water?

Schools have signs and rules that say "No running in the halls". So let me ask you this, how are kids supposed to get to class? If they can't run, they obviously can't walk, right?

If a sign said "No Water Entry", that means you can't wade, swim, jump, or dive. A sign that says "no jumping" means you can wade and swim, but can't jump or dive.

ETA: If Disney truly meant "don't go in the water", why have CMs not reprimanded people when they've seen people wading?

 

[CPanther95]

Everyone likes to overlook the fact that even Disney didn't consider wading at the edge of the water to be a violation of the "No Swimming" sign. They've witnessed wading, and allowed it, ever since the GF opened.

If Disney was counting on the "No Swimming" sign meaning "Do not even enter the water" to most people, then they are 100% negligent and responsible for this tragedy.