Gator grabs 2 year old at Grand Floridian?

[Madteaparty001]

For the argument of people missing the signs at night they could easily do something similar to this.

That way the sign is noticeable, and legible in the dark, and hell, make it solar powered so it's eco friendly too.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Absolutely right that no amount of signage will stop everyone, but it does limit legal liability in these situations. I'm kind of surprised there aren't signs when entering the beaches. Not a very Disney, or any other premises owner, thing to do. Even the beaches in Chicago have warning signs before walking out onto them.....odd.

There's an obvious reason for this...

Putting up "warning: might be eaten by prehistoric reptile" is bad for business. At least until Tuesday it was.

That is the reason here. It's not like they never considered it...I'm sure they did and it was rejected for operational purposes.

 

[dlavender]

Specific warning signs on rides are often regulated by the state and the manufacturer. You're arguing apples and oranges.

And why do we have to have these regulations?......

 

[lockedoutlogic]

And why do we have to have these regulations?......

Ahhh...the civics question...

"Because people won't do what makes sense 99 times out of a 100 until they are damn told to"?

...that one is easy. If we are talking about "nature"...might as well acknowledge all of it.

 

[dlavender]

Ahhh...the civics question...

"Because people won't do what makes sense 99 times out of a 100 until they are damn told to"?

...that one is easy. If we are talking about "nature"...might as well acknowledge all of it.

Or, is it because companies wont do the right thing unless held accountable/forced to do so. Seat belts anyone?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Or, is it because companies wont do the right thing unless held accountable/forced to do so. Seat belts anyone?

Yeah...that too...

 

[dlavender]

If we are talking about "nature"...might as well acknowledge all of it.

Amen. A simple, "dangerous natural predators" sign would cover it.

 

[mcjaco]

Or, is it because companies wont do the right thing unless held accountable/forced to do so. Seat belts anyone?

Think you need to bone up on your history. Seatbelts weren't mandatory in vehicles for a very long time. The govt stepped in and made them.

Manufacturers need warnings to limit their liability. In the USA. Go over seas, and you won't see such broad waivers (which is what these signs are), in parks.

 

[dlavender]

We got a package yesterday with some of those little gel packets.

What was written on the packets? "Do not eat"

Saving people from themselves is not a new venture.

Time for Disney to care about your welfare at least as much as the manufacturer of the gel packets.

 

[mcjaco]

You're right, Disney doesn't care for your welfare at all.

There's a reason for that warning on those gel packets. Some dumb person ate one, and sued.

 

[dlavender]

Seatbelts weren't mandatory in vehicles for a very long time. The govt stepped in and made them.

Which is exactly my point.

Companies have the opportunity to self regulate. To ensure the consumer's safety. But they don't, until they are forced to.

Same with limiting liability. Which came first, the lawsuit or the warning sign? It wasnt the latter.....

 

[mcjaco]

I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

Working on premises liability claims as long as I did, no amount of signage, warnings, etc. prevented general stupidity. It happened everyday.

I'll defer on all this at this point. What we really need is a Loss Control Expert to chime in.

 

[dlavender]

You're right, Disney doesn't care for your welfare at all.

There's a reason for that warning on those gel packets. Some dumb person ate one, and sued.

In this case, sadly, I fear you are correct.

They chose a docile no swimming sign because it fit the beach theme better than a "dangerous nature present" sign.

They relied on statistics.

And look at the marketing picture below. Screams stay out of the water, doesn't it?

 

[dlavender]

Perhaps this one paints the appropriate picture?

 

[mcjaco]

In this case, sadly, I fear you are correct.

They chose a docile no swimming sign because it fit the beach theme better than a "dangerous nature present" sign.

They relied on statistics.

And look at the marketing picture below. Screams stay out of the water, doesn't it?

View attachment 175815

To be fair, the statistics were in their favor. Obviously, the odds go against as time goes on, BUT the situation has to be perfect.

 

[Metalliman98]

Ahhh...the civics question...

"Because people won't do what makes sense 99 times out of a 100 until they are damn told to"?

...that one is easy. If we are talking about "nature"...might as well acknowledge all of it.

When everything is required to be idiot-proof, you end up with a nation of idiots.

We've created the expectation that we should constantly be warned and told about every possible danger, however remote or obvious, in clear and unambiguous terms, and if we aren't, and we get hurt, then others must be to blame. It's why there is literature in products that say the packaging is not a toy. It's why plastic bags have to have warnings that tell you it's not a good idea to put them over your head. It's why instruction manuals for toasters warn not to use them in water. And countless other such ridiculous things.

An ever increasing amount of warnings only teaches people that they don't have be on the lookout for danger because someone is legally required to tell them about it. If we got away from the warnings, and let consequences from actions (ours and others) be the teacher, we would be far better off in terms of intelligence and safety.

 

[whiporee]

Did I actually see somebody advocate eradicating the alligator population to control the invasive Burmese pythons that typically stupid floridians bought back in the 70's and 80's and released?

Nah...that didn't happen...that would be the most "American" comment ever.

Nope...I think I'm done too. We've crossed over to the alternate universe.

"Scotty, beam me up"

i think you're safe if the transporter doesn't work. My read was they were arguing against my alligator eradication program because alligators might help keep the pythons under control. Also, pretty sure it was in jest.

 

[Accident]

There was a post in another forum that I think had a great idea of how to better inform everyone on lake safety.... They had an example of a small retaining wall with a beach. It still looked like a beach with a great view but there was a visual element not meant to protect you but to alert you that passing towards the water wasn't a good idea... not high enough to feel safe/be a seat, but not low enough to get covered over with sand.

I think this is an excellent way to keep the charm of the beach, have a place to put some more signs.. A wall isn't going to protect anyone but it will help inform everyone to stay out of the water without an overblown eye soar...

I personally like the beaches but agree that there isn't enough visitor education on what the local wildlife is and what to do or not to do while visiting.. It's also first time in 45 years and alligators are part of the ecosystem here.. 1/3rd of the land will be a sanctuary/unused so some education is good.

 

[dlavender]

To be fair, the statistics were in their favor. Obviously, the odds go against as time goes on, BUT the situation has to be perfect.

They were in their favor.

However, in my opinion, if there is a 1 in a million chance that someone dies, you don't play the odds.

Especially if you are only playing the odds to preserve an image.

 

[Metalliman98]

They were in their favor.

However, in my opinion, if there is a 1 in a million chance that someone dies, you don't play the odds.

Especially if you are only playing the odds to preserve an image.

Well in that case, I guess we should work on eliminating automobiles, since there is definitely a much greater than a one in a million chance that someone dies in one of those!

Planes too!

Swimming pools!

Bathtubs!

Can't afford to "play the odds"!