It's linked directly from the page you're complaining about. So is the instructional video. And having been around this sort of equipment in the past, I can pretty much assure you that there's a placard on the device itself someplace impossible to ignore when using it telling you not to use it unless you've read and understand the instructions and warnings.

If you buy it without reading the information provided on that page, and then discover after reading the instructions that it's not for you, then you should probably retun it unused and ask for a refund.

If you refuse to read the instructions, why should the company indemnify you if you screw up?
It is? Where?
That's bullshit...go back and look at the instructions again. Can you imagine applying the standards you're trying to promote in this case for water skis? Snow skis? Automobiles?
As the instructions state, the tow speed at which it beomes airborne depends on several factors, including the wind speed and direction, how it is inflated, and how much weight it is carrying. You have to learn by careful experimentation how all that works. Again, this is all explained in the instructions.
You don't know what airspeed it flies at because you don't know how heavily it's loaded. You alsodon't know what the airspeed is unless you know what the wind speed is and what angle the tow is to the wind.

Assuming the kite stalls at 30 mph airspeed (which sounds awfully high to me) , the towing speed can be zero in a 26 knot wind. I'm not suggesting you should use it that way (the instructions say not to use it on windy or gusty days), just pointing out the variable factors that make it impossible to claim "it won't fly unless towed at a dangerous speed".

Do you want to have a society where a product can't be sold unless it's complelely safe even when the instructions are ignored? Goodbye, lawnmowers...in fact anything powered with gasoline, including your car. Ditto things that use house current in the kitchen or bathroom. Sayaonara, power tools. Adios, any household chemical or cleaner stronger than bar soap. Boats are obviously too dangerous for "shoppers". You can forget about skis, roller blades and bicycles.

Even if you do want this, I don't think you have a right to impose it on others.

There was a bike lawsuit years ago that had the potential to sink the industry. It seems that if you remove the reflectors and are drunk riding downhill in the dark without a helmet some stupid jury is going to blame the bike company. I forget if it was overturned or they settled out of court but there was a short period of time where the potential lawyer upgrades threatened to send bike prices through the roof.

As long as we are talking about fundamental questions here, do you think the government or individuals through lawsuits should be able to get manufacturers to ever stop manufacturing a product because of safety issues?

You use cars and lawnmowers as examples. They are perfect examples. Both cars and lawnmowers have been regulated from the outside to become much safer. Highway fatalities are way way down because of collapsing steering collumns, crumple zones on cars, seat belts, air bags, etc. etc. You know this. I don't have to lecture you on it. Why are you so opposed to outside regulation of dangerous products? Do you wish we still lived in a world where industrial machinery had no guards? Where certain death awaited you if you got in a car crash? Regulation of some products is a good thing. Do you disagree? Should there be no regulation whatsoever?

Tell me. Do you think these kite tubes are safe? Would you ride one or let a loved one ride one?

I wouldn't ride one. I'm not in good enough shape to begin to think about either controlling it, or surviving a nasty fall to the water. However, there are people who *are* in good enough shape, and they should be able to decide.
I support gun ownership and use, yet I don't have any right now. Why? I have stupid children.

The question is ultimately going to be, "Is the kite tube dangerous *in normal use*"? Well, the parameters of normal use are rather strictly limited by the instructions, and those who buy and use these things need to be aware of those parameters. Anyone planning to kite tube should probably take what they are doing as seriously as learning to fly an ultralight or going BASE jumping, for example.

Someone's gotta do it. Better the government than nobody.

But I see this a bit different. Standards on automobile construction so they offer slightly more protection than tin cans is one thing. Banning the sale of an entertainment item because, if you use it stupidly, it might be dangerous is another. I wouldnt go near the thing, I dont like water and I dont like heights a whole lot myself. I look at it and go, damn, thats stupid and dangerous. But if you or anyone else find risking your life fun, I wont stop you; what's fun without a little risk? Companies shouldn't be punished for stupid things thier consumers do; however, companies shouldn't try to profit of the idiocy of the sheep. They will anyway, thats the point of it, but they shouldnt.

Devil's Advocate: Does this device have any legitimate, safe use?

Shouldn't people who want to do this kind of daredevil shit have the McGyver skills to build their own death-traps?

Some idiot could say the same thing for water skis and, especially, snow skis.
The instructions are clear, if you don't read them, meet Mr. Darwin.

There was a similar discussion about 20 years ago with ATCs. These were three wheeled cycles that crashed pretty regularly. When people started talking about banning them, they stopped making them that way, and added a fourth wheel to presumably make them more safe. Banning/regulating something doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.

These things are kites. Maybe they need a tail to stabilize them. Maybe they need two tow points in front going to two points on the boat. I don't know how to make them safer, but I am certain that modifications can be made to make them safer. Right now they are dangerous. The company doesn't seem to be too concerned about safety. It requires outside pushing to get the company to do what's right.

From what I've been reading about this thing at different sites, it seems that the people who take it slowly and learn how to use it are having a blast. The people that are trying to do it all in one day are fucking themselves up right and left.
Would *I* ride one? - no way. What if I fell off and landed on a shark? No thanks....

Here are some videos.

Ma'am, that's a rare freshwater dolphin.

Because you and I disagree on what "dangerous" is.
I've certainly seen OSHA-mandated crapola that was excessive and/or counterproductive. And that added unnecessarily to cost, actively interfered with real safety; that had severe unintended consequences.

Beleve it or not, there was concern for and action to maintain safety before there was an OSHA or a CPSC. Or one million lawyers.
That's incredible hyperbole.

I do think that some people need to drive cars that they beleive aren't quite as safe as they believe today, because they're driving like retards. Usually in a SUV with a cellphone growing out of one ear. Too often I've seen people who bought a SUV or a Jeep or a minivan or a light truck "because it's safer" do something boneheaded when confronted with hazardous driving conditions, likely because they were leaning a bit too heavliy on that regulatory "safety net".

I drive a Saturn today, in part because it's very crashworthy (but also economical and reliable), but obviously that crashworthness isn't all the result of regulation, or *all* cars subject to that regulation would be just as safe as a Saturn. Volvo has used crash safety as a selling point for as long as I can remeber; certainly long before there were FMVSS.

What does "safe" mean?

Clearly they are not without risk. They're probably safer than cigarettes or lawn darts. They're probably not as safe as candy cigarettes or sitting in a lawn chair. Unless you do it for 15 years in the desert without sunscreen.

If by "safe" you mean "not so inevitatably hazardous that some government clown should prevent them from being sold", then yes, they're "safe".

I might. I'm probably too heavy for one, and I doubt I'm really athletic enough at my age. I do fly airplanes without worrying excessively about them, and that's more because I have faith in my own skill and judgement (after nearly thirty years as a pilot and about 400 hours) than in the intensive regulation that certificated aircraft get.

And it's exactly that kind of judgement that might keep me out of a tube kite, and yet might *not* keep me out of an ultralight aircraft or a sailplane, which is not all that damed different.

What I would *not* do is buy or build an ultralight, ignore the designers/manufacturers instructions, fly it into the ground and then whine that the manufacturer and the government should have protected me from my own stupidity by prohibiting the sale in the first place.

Absolutely I would. My kids didn't get to be smart and strong because I coddled or hovered. I'd encourage them to take it slow and use care. And read and follow the goddamed instructions.

Good lord people... do any of you let your kids play with a toboggan or ski?
I used to ski jump, slalom, rock climb, mountain climb, mountain bike, tube rapids (talk about risk), jump from high rocks into rivers and many other things that were more fun than I can ever describe... could I have gotten hurt? Hell, yeah, and I did.
I lived on the lakes when I was a kid, we all did. When we were not on the lake were were working on the boat and engine that was older than we were and working crappy jobs or doing day labor to pay for oil, parts and gas. We, kids, used to piss-off the international competitors by showing them up... they came here to train.
You may want to look-up Winter Haven, just lakes and groves and I later moved to Southern CA where I learned to love climbing.
Now that I am ill I cannot imaging my life without those memories.... life without risk and responsibility for is is not life, not at all. You are just a permanent child.

There's no shortage of do-gooders in the world who want to tell others what to do because they beleive they are the self-appointed final authority on "what's right" and it gives them a warm fuzzy superior feeling to exercise that authority.

Is there any situation where you would approve of regulation of a product? For example, do you think it was right and good that lawn darts were taken off the market over safety concerns?

No.

Look, if your kids aren't mature enough to appreciate how dangerous a lawn dart is if misused, then you shouldn't let your kids have lawn darts.

Christ, my personal sidearm is gauranteed *deadly* if misused. Are you going to try pass a law confiscating it just to make sure I don't hand it to a five-year old?