Wego Kite Tube of Death Accident
 

*********** WARNING *********** I'm so sorry to report this but all of you who care about your body (specifically your spinal area ) need to read this story that happened to my brother in law June 2nd at Lake Powell.

He was on this kite tube that incidentally I had ordered last week , and was going along fine approx 15' in the air when a gust of wind took him for the ride of his life (literally). He spiraled downward hitting the water neck first.

Bottomline it is a miracle (doctors words) that he is alive. He BROKE his C2 (remember Christopher Reeve)in his neck and currently has a cage around his head called a halo to prevent movement that he will have to wear for at least 3 months. His mobility will never be the same and all of you dummys that think your too tough to have this happen to him think about how it will feel to have the Doctor standing over you with a Cordless Drill and a 1/4" drill bit that you would normally use to fix the house up but instead he is drilling into your all important skull. (huh makes you think about it a little more..........) THIS IS REAL PEOPLE AND THIS COMPANY WILL GO DOWN FOR THIS. WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT LITAGATION PROVIDES NEGATIVE RESULTS FOR COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTUR ITEMS THAT HURT PEOPLE.

If you have been injured on this tube of death please call me at 801-548-6309 as I am putting a very compalling national news story together.

Dave

What a great typo...

Dave, I'm sorry to hear about your brother in law. Thanks for coming here and posting about this. These tubes sound very dangerous. Good luck.

Okay...let me just start out by saying that I am truly sorry to hear about this gentleman's injury. I have a head-injured son, and I know how difficult the life of a post-CNS injury victim can be, believe me.

However...I am very much curious as to how a person wouldn't just look at something like a kite tube, knowing full well that they would be tens of feet in the air, moving at speeds for which the human body is not normally designed to move without protection, and not know that there was a serious possibility of injury or death.

It doesn't take an aeronautical physics major to be able to see that a kite tube is not controllable while in the air, and therefore potentially dangerous.

Of course, I must disclaim being completely judgemental about this as I've never seen the packaging or product in person. Does the box say anything like "Use at your own risk" or "Caution: Kite Tube may be unstable while airborne?"

If the device is being portrayed as being inherently safe, then I say sue. However, if it is glaringly obvious that one might be taking one's life into their own hands while using it, then should such a case have merit?

There is a serious lack of personal responsibility in the world today. I'd like to be real clear on whether or not the people selling this thing are truly and grossly negligent, or whether the purchasers and users are just not paying attention before I make any quantum judgements about this issue.

I want to believe that your story is real, Dave, rather than just another attempt by a liability attorney to generate sufficient interest for a class action suit. We've gone from none to three posts about these rafts in a short period of time.

Heck, this is the internet ... I don't think there is an adquately large-sized grain of salt to take all the sad stories with.

The fact that you've responded to these folks after your initial identical posting is encouraging.

I saw ads for these things, and I admit that my first thought was "wow, that's got to cool - flying behind a boat", not "I bet somebody's gonna get hurt real bad". :blush: I'm not an aeronautical physics major, and I haven't seen the packaging - it just looked like fun.

Manta Ray Kite Tube
 

This one might be more stable:

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/a...s/MantaRay.jpg

I'm sure we should all be grateful tha't you're doing your best to protect us from these evil devices that hurt people. Heaven forfend that people should be responsible for their own actions as long as there's somebody else around to sue who still has money left.

If a device, when used as intended, results in the death or severe disability of a significant percentage of its users, we have every right to shut that company down.

This isn't like a ladder that's being set up improperly. This isn't like someone slipping while mowing wet grass on a hill, and chopping their foot off. Users of this device are using it exactly as intended, and they are being killed. Go to the website. The only indication that it may have some danger is the warning on the kite itself that you shouldn't go higher than you are willing to fall. They make it sound like jumping off a high diving board. There is no mention that people have died using this product as intended because they slam into the concrete-hard water at high speed.

There's a place for personal responsibility. There's also a place for banning unreasonably dangerous products.

Sorry about your BIL dave, I hope he recovers quickly, and thanks for the warning.

A couple of thoughts popped into my head after reading your post, and Wolf's link to another discussion of this kite thing.
- Was this your BIL's first ride?
- Did he actually see 2 other people get hurt on it before he decided to give it a try? Coughing up blood etc???
- 30-35mph and 15ft in the air? Holy shit. And again, was this his first try? What about learning how to do it first? At slow speeds etc...? 35mph could fuck someone up on any kind of tube.

I would agree with Glatt that, if all you did was read the web page (which appears to be a distributor's site, and not the manufacturer, BTW), it would indeed seem as though there's no danger at all in using the product.

I still think that any sane person would look at it, consider the speeds and altitudes involved, and immediately decide to rent a pontoon boat instead.

The owner's manual says not to tow the thing faster than 20mph for an adult, 15mph for a child. There are also specific instructions for the length of the tow rope (shorter rope for beginners) based on the experience of the rider of the device. It also says something like "don't fly higher than you are willing to fall."

Based on david's statement, the product was used improperly.

This picture on the distributors site would indicate flying high is part of the normal use.

But, anyone that's jumped/dove into the water from that height knows it's easy to get hurt. Plus anyone who owns/uses a boat regularly knows you don't want to hit the water at high speed from any height.

IMO people have to use their heads, are the primary source of their own safety, and are at least partly to blame when injured with sports equipment.
Actually that applies to tools and appliances too.:smack:

It is indeed quite a bit like jumping off a high-diving board: if you do it wrong you can kill yourself. Noticed how many public pools don't have diving boards anymore? That's exactly why; some Darwin award-winner's survivors decided to take their grief out on the pool owner.

I'm sick and tired of paying a stupidity tax every time I do something aviation-related because somebody wanted to be indemnified for their own (or a relative's) lack of sense. If you can't figure out that flying in a kite is dangerous if done wrong, or under conditions that are too windy, then whose fault is that?

Obviously if you crash an aircraft (yes, a kite is an aircraft) into water at high speed, you are clearly not "using it as intended".

_

Maggie, you know as well as I that that 'release of liability' isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I know no such thing.

You seem to have a problem with contracts. How about instructions?

There's eleven more pages of instructions. If you choose to ignore them, what excuse do you have for blaming the manufacturer? The device isn't defective.

I really would like to get to select my own risks, rather than have everything but the lowest common denominator unavailable because somebody too dumb to live needs to be protected from themselves.

We have lost a lot of majorly cool things to the stupidity of the lowest common denominator.

*sigh* Like children's toys with small, easy to swallow parts. I loved my real Mr. Potato Head.

Hey, if they didn't want us to eat the Mr. Potato Head pieces, then they shouldn't have made them so damned tasty! I still remember that little hat...

Delicious!

whatever.

I have to side with Maggie on this one; the government/judicial system is not there to protect me from MYSELF. If I'm going to ride a big ol' piece of goddamned plastic twenty feet in the air, without safety equipment, then that's my problem, not the maker's.

Do they shut down gun companies because people shoot themselves with the guns sometimes?

Quote -
"Never kite higher that you are willing to fall."

In my line of work, I've seen people die from a three foot fall (footfootfoot).

"But I read the instructions and ignored them. Doesn't that still make the manufacturer liable? After all, you can't expect *me* to be responsible."

Later, the same person would consume lighted cigarettes for breakfast, chase it with five quarts of bourbon, and take 12 sleeping pills...because they were really tired and needed lots of sleep, then sue RJ Reynolds, Jim Beam and Squibb.

OK, so if you dig around on the website and find the owner's manual and hunt and poke around you can find other warnings about the thing. You had to go past all the descriptions about how wonderful the thing is in order to find those warnings. Most shoppers probably aren't going to poke around for that stuff, and the company knows it. The tube/kite is marketed as safe. There is no hint that it can kill you. What would motivate a potential buyer to look for warnings about it if there is no hint that it's dangerous?


Also, the manual may say that the product is to be used at a lower speed. At the link wolf posted, there are a few people who say the kite won't become airborne at those lower speeds. So you have a company that is marketing a kite tube that won't fly unless you are going around 30 MPH, but the liability lawyers are saying that you should only use it at 15-20 MPH. The company knows full well that people will go 30, and their lower speed recommendation is not sincere. It's simply an insincere attempt to CYA.

Since you're not in the US, you probably aren't aware of this ... they've been trying.

Lawsuits have been attempted against several gun manufacturers because criminals use their products in the commission of crimes.

I've never been clear on the logic of this one, because nobody has tried to sue Ford as being responsible for drunk driving accidents because they make the cars.

They try, but they can't cause it's damn stupid.

Ah, to be young and think the world works based on logic (Don't get me wrong, I love your idealism).

Stupid doesn't mean it won't eventually get past a judge who wants to screw the gun manufacturers.

overlawyered.com's gun page

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I personally think they should all get shut down. But I know they wont. One, maybe two miiiight, possssssibly, somehow, go down. But I know they wont.

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?

OK. Is there any situation where you would approve of regulation of a consumer product for safety reasons?

No sir, you will be meeting Mr. Darwin - in hell, or, wherever monkeys go after they die...because monkeys don't have souls like human beings, so . . . where was I . . . yes, either #1 Darwin is burning in hell for his sins, or #2 God, the Intelligent Designer, has sent him to monkey-purgatory, where monkeys and Evolutionists are punished for either a) not being human in the first place or b) being a "species traitor" . . . and . . . what I'm saying is :::ahem::: . . . you, sir, will be meeting Darwin in one of those two places - not me! Now, I will bid you good day.

I don't think cow's milk offered for sale should contain a lot of arsenic.

Are you really that keen to try to seduce me on to a slippery slope? I wasn't born yesterday.

So where did his tortose go? :-)

That was awesome! Thanks man!:p
Define regulation.

Within that phrase lurks the seed of a lot of these problems. Apparently a "consumer product" is something someone with an IQ of about 85 is supposed to be able to buy and use in any way whatever without anythng bad ever happening.

I do not feel that any product that may be able to harm anyone under any circumstances should be treated as if it were on fire or covered with heroin when sold.
It is out of control... I resent being treated as a child and my child being treated as a moron.

I'm just curious where you stand. You spend a lot of time deflecting questions and dancing around issues. Nitpicking the details. This gets to core beliefs, just like the political compass test.

I'm wondering if you and I have any common ground at all on this.

I think that there should be personal responsibility. You seem to think that too.

I also think that some products are inherently dangerous and should be regulated. I have no idea where you stand on that. You seem to be saying nothing should be regulated, but I can't imagine anyone thinking that. So I'm curious about it.

It really makes no difference to me if you answer or not. I was just curious.

I think prohibiting the sale of something should be an in extremis very last resort. I offered the example of selling arsenic-laden milk.

The routine CPSC classifying of stuff as "unreasonably dangerous" because some nitwit managed to hurt themselves with it is anathema to me. I don't think the world can be made safe for foolish or stupid people to be foolish or stupid in, and resent having rules imposed on me or the companies I may patronize that have that end in mind.

This kite gadget is a case in point. It has ways it's supposed to be used. Used in that way, it's reasonably safe. Used otherwise, it's potentially totally freaking dangerous. This is why the instructions set forward how to use it.

This should tell us that "dangerous" is not a property of the device. It's a property of the use.

Things (with the possibile exception of something like a bottle of nitroglycerine with a mercury fulminate cap) are not inherently dangerous...Actions can be.

The problem with that realization is that it tells us that when something bad happens, it's because of the use, and there's not much money to be made by suing users, nor any particular satifaction in trying to push them around with CPSC regulations. There is, however, piles of money to be made by suing manufacturers, because they have vastly deeper pockets. And being big evil faceless corporations, it's fun (but mistaken) to believe taking money from them and giving it to trial lawyers (with a small split for the aformentioned foolish/stupid or their heirs) harms no one.

Perhaps you've noticed that the spammer who started this thread hasn't been back. I bet if you call the number he posted you'll eventually end up talking with a trial lawyer. Maybe even someone from the practice John Edwards used to work for...wouldn't *that* be a thrill. ;-)

As for "dodging issues", this thread is littered with questions I put to you that you ignored, so we're even on that score, Mr. "Just Curious".

*drools*

I'm not convinced it's reasonably safe when used in accordance with the instructions, but time will tell.

This kite's use is relayed to the public in two conflicting ways. The marketing seems to contradict the owners manual.

(Yellow).

Actually, there's only one cure for bicuriosity. :-)

Duh.
Seriously...RTFM. The marketing tells you what's great about the product. The instructions contain the caveats, emptor.

But geez...the manual is linked right there from that page. The phrase "reasonably safe" is highly relative. But I think it's *un*reasonable for you (using the Federal government as your tool) to step in and prevent a private transaction in which I buy something from a company just because it could possibly injure someone--like me--if misused.

"Professional driver on closed road. Shown with available equipment. Your milage may vary. Just part of a nutritous breakfast"

This is the one we have. I'm still debating on riding or not...I know I shouldn't...this story it pushes me further onto the no side...but... I guess everyone will know if I come back alive or not in a week. I'll give my own personal experience if I do try it. :)