Bad Day in Texas

After reading the discussion since my last post, I still have to fault the fan. People must have personal responsibility. As I and SOOPOO have said, we are very aware and take caution when near these types of rails. When I fish I go to very secluded, hard to get to places. I usually cross many high ledges and cliffs over rushing, half frozen water. I know I can't get too excited and give a monster hook set, or I risk falling in. The fish ain't worth it, much like a ball ain't worth it.

As someone pointed out, the human body is both resilient and fragile. Case in point, I sat down wrong during a hockey game a broke my wrist. End of my season, 6 weeks of disability, all for sitting down. Once it healed I hit the motorcross track. After getting the gumption to hit the big table top in high 3rd gear, I rounded the last corner, unknowingly shifted into fourth, and hammered it full out. I fell out of the sky from over 20ft at over 40mph, got bucked off on landing, did 4 backflip/somersaults and landed on my feet. After 15 minutes for the shock to wear off, I did three body checks to make sure I really wasn't dead, hopped back on the wheeler and rode the rest of the day with no injury whatsoever.

I'm sure we've all heard a crazy "meth-head takes 3 gunshots, 2 tasers and 6 cops to wrestle him down, recovering nicely in local hospital", and then there's the thread, "Man get's punched, dies". Point of story, too many variables to eliminate theats and guarantee safety. I'd rather rely on myself to be safe than to have my fishing spot fenced off with "No Trespassing. Too Dangerous" signs (as has happened to one). I'd rather see a good Sabres/Leafs game than try to figure out whats happening through 2" plexiglass, safety nets, "Don't be dumb" signs and the like. I'd rather sit close enough to the race track to smell the exhaust and feel the rumble, rather than be relegated to the nose bleeds because of Talledega 2009.

Tragic, yes. But reactionary rules/laws are the worst kind.

Quote: Doc

I didn't mean to imply that this particular spectator had been drinking, only that alcohol consumption is common in baseball stadium outfield stands, and I feel it is prudent for the stadium management to take that into consideration when designing safety features.


I acknowledge that I have not seen any report that specifically states the height of those rails, nor have I seen any official proclamation that they "exceed all standards", so I don't know whether anything is really in dispute.

From the photo at the beginning of this thread and the observation that the top rail is mid-chest-high on the seated guy in the blue shirt and mid-chest-high on the standing (six-year-old?) boy in the red shirt, my guess was that the rail might be in the range of 36", perhaps as high as 40". Just a guess with no definitive info.

I don't know for sure, but I think they're 40". But, they are higher than this photo taken from nearly-new Yankee Stadium's decks. Look at all the other decks you can see. The railings are lower than those at the Ballpark:



So, assuming Yankee Stadium built theirs to (at least OSHA or UBC or whatever), and seeing that the Ballpark's are (probably) higher, I think we can draw some conclusions:

* fans chasing foul balls and/or tossed balls is not a "when conditions warrant" situation, at least insofar as rail height. The Rangers rail height is even higher than that.
* the Rangers (and the Yankees, and all other teams) use this rail height in anticipation of such behavior from their fans. The Rangers rail height is even higher than that.
* the Rangers (and the Yankees, and all other teams) are acting "responsibly" in terms of potential legal liability by using the rail heights they use. The Rangers rail height is even higher than that.

Yes, I'm a Rangers fan, and I think that, if they were negligent, then they should be held accountable. But this is not one of those times, not by any stretch or measure, no would've's, could've's, should've's, what's-wrong-with-talking-about-it's, aren't-there-some-questions-worth-asking standpoints. It's just simply an irreducible tragedy. I think you'll drive yourself crazy if you try to assign anything other than "tragic accident" to it.

While it won't bring back the kid's dad, the Rangers, the A's, and the community are doing what's right. The family will get far more money from receiving the generosity of the teams and the people than they would get by suing. Besides, knowing the codes and seeing how other stadiums are built, they wouldn't win anyway unless they showed negligence on the part of the agencies who wrote those codes and MLB. Which they weren't.

I voted that it was Hamilton's fault. A better throw, and the fan doesn't die.

By the way, in case I haven't mentioned it, I have not voted in this poll. I think the fan behaved atrociously and stupidly and paid dearly for it. I have no trouble with anyone who feels he brought it on himself (mostly). My point is that the stadium management could likely have prevented this death by using safety techniques that (probably) would not have cost noticeably more and would not have reduced the fans' enjoyment of the game. Yes, it is irritating if you have to idiot proof everything, but it shouldn't take much exposure to sports crowds to know that there are a whole bunch of idiots that you will be dealing with. If you recognize that, and plan for it, you might make some adjustments that save even more lives.

There are perhaps some who would even blame the victim in that tragedy that Face related in the other thread, saying that given his unfortunate personal situation he should never have gotten on that kind of ride. Maybe they would be right, but I think that either the designers of the ride or the operators who put him in the seat should have known that they were exposing him to unreasonable dangers. If they had even said directly to him something to the effect, "You are placing your life at great risk by going on this ride with your unfortunate physical condition", then he might have decided that it wasn't an experience he needed in order to live life to the fullest. I think that rather than speaking or posting such a warning, it would have been better to equip the ride with shoulder harnesses or rigid upper-body restraints as they have on many thrill rides. Or prohibit riders who can't experience the ride safely. They probably didn't violate any law or regulation, just as the ballpark probably didn't, but different facility design would not have been unreasonable and likely would have led to better outcomes in both events.

ItsCalledSoccer:

I must have been typing when you posted. Slow as always. I agree that this was clearly an unfortunate tragedy, but I don't agree completely with your statement, "It's just simply an irreducible tragedy." We often learn to do things better after encountering tragedies; sometimes we can reduce the impact in the future.

As for your new photo, I don't think I can judge that rail height at all. It may be an optical illusion, but it appears that there is a transparent portion of the wall above the metal rail. Is that correct? If so, that seems to be a nod toward increasing the barrier higher than the line of sight to something of interest to the fans. Don't know how strong the window section is, but it should discourage leaning over so far.

I didn't follow the process you followed to reach the "conclusions" that you starred.

I would consider (just an opinion) 40" rails in a ballpark upper deck to be risky -- it's certainly well toward the bottom end of the range (39 - 45) called for by the OSHA reg that I cited. Did you say that's the height the Yankees use or the "higher" one that the Rangers use? I wasn't clear. Have you seen any references as to the actual design of the rail, the regs that apply to stadiums or any special considerations (such as fan behavior) they took into account? I haven't followed this story outside this thread.

Glad the team is being quickly responsive to those harmed in this particular case.

Here's a good vid of what happened for those still having the discussion:

YouTube video The video starts with the ball being hit foul to deep left field and bouncing off an unrelated rail back into the field. The Texans' left fielder presumably picks it up and tosses it up into the stands. This isn't shown live, but is replayed to at about 0:55 of this video.

Quote: Doc

I would consider (just an opinion) 40" rails in a ballpark upper deck to be risky -- it's certainly well toward the bottom end of the range (39 - 45) called for by the OSHA reg that I cited. Did you say that's the height the Yankees use or the "higher" one that the Rangers use? I wasn't clear. Have you seen any references as to the actual design of the rail, the regs that apply to stadiums or any special considerations (such as fan behavior) they took into account? I haven't followed this story outside this thread.

Glad the team is being quickly responsive to those harmed in this particular case.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but it smells a little like hyper-retrospect to do something other than put it where it probably should be. I just don't think that's a healthy response, but you really shouldn't care what I think is "healthy."

A few facts ...

* Yankee stadium (at least the part in the photo) doesn't have rails at all. The plexiglass sits on a concrete stub wall.
* The sitting surface of your average chair is about 16" - 18" above where your foot lands.
* In the original photo, you see two horizontal red rails. The bottom rail is the original. The top rail is the addition after the 1994 accident, and looks to be about 6".

The perspectives make it hard, but the seats at the Ballpark are normal, meaning, 16" - 18". Let's go with 16". You can see in the photo that the sitting surface (not the top of the guy's legs, but the surface on which his butt sits) falls below the top of the concrete stub wall. So, let's say the stub wall is about 22", which hits a 6' man at about the knee. The stub walls in Yankee Stadium look about the same height, maybe a little higher ... we'll guess 26", by the looks of the people above the "Komatsu" sign, but that's probably an over-guess.

The plexiglass at Yankee Stadium looks to be about 10", judging by the guy in the Yankees cap. Top-of-head to chin for a 6' man is about 10", so 10" is probably close, if not a little bit of an over-estimate. This would make Yankee Stadium about 36" with both components being a little high. But let's bump that up more, call it 38" for argument's sake.

Back to the Texas photo ... for a 6' man, top-of-knee to bellybutton is about 24". Mr. Scott was more than 6' tall, so that estimate is on the short side. Add that to 16" and you get 40", probably about 42".

The OSHA code you mention is for under-construction guard rails. The code chapter is entitled, "Safety and Health Regulations for Construction" and goes into several criteria for employers to provide for safe construction conditions. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10758

I'm sure that, when the Ballpark was under construction, this was being met. But it's operating now, so that code doesn't apply.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and I don't hope to change your mind in a stupid internet forum. But that opinion isn't based in anything other than second-guessing and maybe a certain predisposition or two. That's perfectly okay, though, just don't try to convince the members of the stupid internet forum that it's based on anything other than that.

PS - the reason I know so much about a 6' man's physiology is that I'm 6' tall. Not all 6' men are proportioned the same way I am, so it will vary a little, but nothing like a full inch or so. Also for reference, your average desktop is about 30" AFF and your average kitchen countertop is about 36". 40" is about the floor-to-top-of-refrigerator-section height for a freezer-on-top refrigerator.

Paco made this comment in the
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/math/5930-calculus-bet-on-the-line thread.

Quote: pacomartin

Frankly, I think we make trade offs in cost of design and human safety all the time.
...
It's not that uncommon to see a waist high rail separating us from a 20 foot drop. To modify all public places for chest high rails would involve a big change.

The point is, a waist-high railing is normally adequate. However, reaching over the railing for a fly ball, or a ball tossed up by a fielder or ball boy, is hardly a new phenomenon. Therefore, the railing height and/or safety net issue should have been considered before this tradegy occurred.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

The point is, a waist-high railing is normally adequate. However, reaching over the railing for a fly ball, or a ball tossed up by a fielder or ball boy, is hardly a new phenomenon. Therefore, the railing height and/or safety net issue should have been considered before this tradegy occurred.

Turn it around:

Reaching for a fly ball is common. The height of the railing is hardly a new phenomenon, and what's more it's perfectly well known to the people watching the game (they can plainly see the railing, yes?). Therefore they should consider the safety issue before risking their lives for a ball.

I'd imagine that(and I haven't read this whole thread so...) center of gravity comes into play somewhere. Like in a stability analysis of a ship or an offshore rig; you have righting moments(that will keep you right side up) and you have heeling moments(the opposite moments that are trying to capsize you); there are other variables too, but you need to have more righting moments than you do heeling moments to stay upright, in fact, you need to have a surplus of those righting moments to account for wind, damage, etc. Probably a bad analogy, but I gave it a try.

Do most of you feel you are smarter than this guy was and would never be in such a situation?

Hasn't anyone ever been walking along a sidewalk and a really stunningly attractive person comes around the corner, and you trip over the 1/8 inch difference in the sidewalk blocks that you've been negotiating successfully for several minutes making you look totally uncool?

I think this fan could have rationally predicted that yes, he was at a potentially dangerous drop, and that he should be careful, and probably even that he was starstruck and in that respect he was as careful about where he was. Perhaps he never ran the scenario if, given all that, the player would throw the ball just short of his reach. Just in a gray zone where it still looked reachable. His brain blipped off for just a moment, and the he went over. That's all it took.

Quote: rxwine

Hasn't anyone ever been walking along a sidewalk and a really stunningly attractive person comes around the corner, and you trip over the 1/8 inch difference in the sidewalk blocks that you've been negotiating successfully for several minutes making you look totally uncool?

No. but once I kept walking while looking at a store display. I turned around just in time not to bump into a lamp post. So yeah, such things can and do happen. But I'm usually aware of where I am and what I'm doing. meaning i wouldn't have kept walking while looking at a display near the end of the sidewalk where I can run into traffic. That has never happened.

Quote:

I think this fan could have rationally predicted that yes, he was at a potentially dangerous drop, and that he should be careful, and probably even that he was starstruck and in that respect he was as careful about where he was. Perhaps he never ran the scenario if, given all that, the player would throw the ball just short of his reach. Just in a gray zone where it still looked reachable. His brain blipped off for just a moment, and the he went over. That's all it took.

Certainly, But I fail to see how it's the stadium's fault or responsibility.

Take your example above. Suppose you turn to look at an attractive woman and keep walking, right into traffic and get hit by a speeding car. Would you sue the city because it provided no barriers at the curb where you could get hurt for acting carelessly? I hope the answer is no.

Well, while I don't (for instance) think that just because a flying tire sometimes still fly over the barriers at race tracks and kill a fan that we now need barriers 100 ft high (or whatever point the highest tire has gone over), I think raising a rail, or adding a net in the risky areas of a stadium is not that unreasonable an action. If I thought it was unreasonable like the tire situation, I'd say, well whatever.

wrong post (edited out for other thread)

Quote: Nareed

But I fail to see how it's the stadium's fault or responsibility.

It is at least partially their fault / responsibility because it's foreseeable that people will reach over the railing to catch a fly ball. This is not the first time a fan fell over the rail trying to catch a ball.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

It is at least partially their fault / responsibility because it's foreseeable that people will reach over the railing to catch a fly ball.

That's why there's a railing.

Quote:

This is not the first time a fan fell over the rail trying to catch a ball.

So the news said. But then news reports also said the railings were increased in height as a consequene of the previous incidents. If that's true, I fail to see how it is the stadium's responsibility.

A better question would be: have there been any incidents where someone nearly fell out of a similar place, or that same palce, and if so how many? Let's say there are ten such incidents, plus the one fatality. Does that mean the railings usually work? If it does, would that mean the man who died failed to be cautious enough?

Quote: Nareed

Let's say there are ten such incidents, plus the one fatality. Does that mean the railings usually work? If it does, would that mean the man who died failed to be cautious enough?

No, that would mean you have a 1 in 11 chance of dieing in a situation that was forseeable. We've all done
risky stuff, ride a motorcycle, have a drink or two and drive the car, EVEN answer the cell phone while we
are driving. But nobody would roll the dice on life and death with a 1 in 11 chance of the downside.

Quote: JohnnyQ

No, that would mean you have a 1 in 11 chance of dieing in a situation that was forseeable.

Foreseeable by whom?

Quote:

We've all done risky stuff, ride a motorcycle, have a drink or two and drive the car, EVEN answer the cell phone while we
are driving.

I have answered the phone while driving. I know I shouldn't.

Quote:

But nobody would roll the dice on life and death with a 1 in 11 chance of the downside.

That would depend on the stakes and/or alternatives, wouldn't it?

Quote: Nareed

Foreseeable by whom?

Foreseeable by any reasonable person who has ever watched a baseball game, and seen someone reaching while trying to catch a fly ball.

I doubt there was ever a game where there wasn't at least one fan who reached over the railing. Certainly it's easy to connect the dots and see that, sooner or later, someone would reach too far.

So it's foreseeable.

Add the fielders and ballboys who occasionally throw a ball to fans, and you've got an accident waiting to happen. Or in this case, the results of too many people with their heads in the sand. Or up their ass.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Foreseeable by any reasonable person who has ever watched a baseball game,

Mutually exclusive terms :P

Quote:

I doubt there was ever a game where there wasn't at least one fan who reached over the railing. Certainly it's easy to connect the dots and see that, sooner or later, someone would reach too far.

So it's foreseeable.

According to news reports, that aprticualr stadium ahd already rised the railings due to simialr incidents in the past. so it's not as if they've done nothing. But if things were so easily foreseeable, then the fan who died going for a ball should ahve foreseen it, too. and he had the choice not to act.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

So it's foreseeable.

Military Analysis thread

We had a thread in January of this year, that is an eerily similar situation. I was making a comment about a fatal accident that happened on a project I was working on in 1992, that left two man dead with young children (roughly ten years old at the time). Surprisingly the son read this thread, joined Wizard of Vegas, and asked about the death of his father 18 years ago. He is understandably very angry, as he grew up without a father.

My experience with accident analysis is that in hindsight, forseeable is almost always crystal clear. I've never seen an analysis that says that nobody could have anticipated the accident.

Quote: Nareed

Foreseeable by whom?

I was just saying that in YOUR scenario, if there were 10 incidents
before the fatality, I would say that those 10 incidents MAKE IT
FORSEEABLE.

That's all. IF you have a Near Miss, I think the folks in the Safety
Field would try to take that as a warninig and an OPPORTUNITY
to try to correct something.

Paco -

While the military incident you talk about was both tragic, and had multiple points of foreseeable problems, I'd venture to say that not only had there been no history of similar problems, but procedures changed as a result.

By contrast, there is a long history of people leaning over the railing to catch a fly ball. It's obvious that, unless changes are made, people will continue to do the same stupid thing.

Here are the changes; they're going to raise the rail and install signs:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sc/chem/7659926.html