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
... as I am putting a very compalling national news story together.
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.
This one might be more stable:
WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT LITAGATION PROVIDES NEGATIVE RESULTS FOR COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTUR ITEMS THAT HURT PEOPLE.
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.
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:
. 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.
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.
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!
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).
Do they shut down gun companies because people shoot themselves with the guns sometimes?
They certainly try."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.
Do they shut down gun companies because people shoot themselves with the guns sometimes?
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 pageWhoa, 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.
OK, so if you dig around on the website and find the owner's manual...
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.
Most shoppers probably aren't going to poke around for that stuff, and the company knows it.
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?
The tube/kite is marketed as safe.
It is? Where?
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?
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?
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.
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.
So you have a company that is marketing a kite tube that won't fly unless you are going around 30 MPH
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What if I fell off and landed on a shark?
Ma'am, that's a rare freshwater dolphin.
Why are you so opposed to outside regulation of dangerous products?
Because you and I disagree on what "dangerous" is.
Do you wish we still lived in a world where industrial machinery had no guards?
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.
Where certain death awaited you if you got in a car crash?
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.
Tell me. Do you think these kite tubes are safe?
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".
Would you ride one...
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.
...or let a loved one ride one?
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.
It requires outside pushing to get the company to do what's right.
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.
They're probably safer than cigarettes or lawn darts.
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?
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?
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.
OK. Is there any situation where you would approve of regulation of a consumer product for safety reasons?
meet Mr. Darwin
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.
OK. Is there any situation where you would approve of regulation of a consumer product for safety reasons?
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.
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 did his tortose go? :-)
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.
That was awesome! Thanks man!:p
OK. Is there any situation where you would approve of regulation of a consumer product for safety reasons?
Define regulation.
...regulation of a consumer product for safety reasons...
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 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.
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 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.
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.
[SIZE="3"]
This should tell us that "dangerous" is not a property of the device. It's a property of the use. [/SIZE]
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".
I was just curious.
[SIZE="3"]bi[/SIZE]-curiousa bottle of nitroglycerine with a mercury fulminate cap
*drools*
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.
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.
[SIZE="3"]bi[/SIZE]-curious
(Yellow).
Actually, there's only one cure for bicuriosity. :-)
The marketing seems to contradict the owners manual.
Duh.
The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.
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.
[SIZE="1"]"Professional driver on closed road. Shown with available equipment. Your milage may vary. Just part of a nutritous breakfast"[/SIZE]This one might be more stable:
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. :)
I'm wondering what a lot of you weenies would do with a unicycle. Talk about danger...
Hahahaha, my sister knows how to juggle and unicycle at the same time.
Nice... for some reason that is hot.
More wonderful things CPSC is doing to protect you.
That's too bad. They should stick to things that are actually a danger, like kite tubes.
Their charter is not to eliminate danger. Fortunately.
It is to restrict the sales of things that are "unreasonably" dangerous...a term that doesn't have a precice meaning. But when a bureaucrat needs to justify his existance, definitions suddenly becomes*very* stretchy.
That string there...it is unreasonably dangerous. You could choke on it, or trip over it. There's no warnings on the packaging at all...a death trap for the unwary consumer.
Edit to repair typo: "string" for "sting"[SIZE="2"][/SIZE]
I think Bin Laden is using trial lawyers to lower America's IQ.
Their charter is not to eliminate danger. Fortunately.
It is to restrict the sales of things that are "unreasonably" dangerous...
I can't figure out
wtf their charter is really... there was no product at all in this instance.
All of you have a valid point, but honestly, it's not like swallowing 5 tons of molten steel and then taking a dip in the smelter. I'm not saying it's the kitemaker's fault this guy got hurt, but it's the kind of thing that could happen to anyone who isn't careful. This isn't a case of idiocy, it's a case of carelessness.
A lot of those advocating this crap sound a lot like Tipper Gore's music rant from the 80's... same lunacy.
I must say that, as a young male in the 80s, I was irrevocably damaged by the pernicious lyrics of rock music. It colored my perception of the world to the point where I acted out every death metal command I heard. Me and my like-minded friends burnt down houses, murdered, raped, and pillaged entire communities, and brought a hail of death and destruction upon all people who got in our way. That is the power of music and lyrics.
MaggieL,
Tell me seriously You work for SportStuff huh?
Dave
MaggieL,
Tell me seriously You work for SportStuff huh?
No. I've been on The Cellar since the mid-1990s... so far you've been here a week and have posted twice.
Will you be back in another week to check on whether you got any bites here?
Which law firm are you shilling for again? You can tell us...
They told you if you sprinkled in some mispellings the astroturfing would look realistic, I see.
I must say that, as a young male in the 80s, I was irrevocably damaged by the pernicious lyrics of rock music. It colored my perception of the world to the point where I acted out every death metal command I heard. Me and my like-minded friends burnt down houses, murdered, raped, and pillaged entire communities, and brought a hail of death and destruction upon all people who got in our way. That is the power of music and lyrics.
I read about that... are you still a preacher? :p
For all that have posted in opposition to the initial thread... Do you think there is any reason why the Army Corps of Engineers has banned these tubes on their lakes in Missouri and Arkansas? Kind of goes back to Daves initial thread eh?
Probably because they AREN'T safe. None of us said they WERE, as far as I know.
Is this just the Kansas City District banning these? I would think that the Corps would make it nationwide, rather than just one district.
I think we've all agreed that the things are dangerous, if not stupid. However, we have some disagreement over whether or not people should be allowed to either do stupid things or sue someone because they've done something stupid.
I'm just surprised the Kite Tube threads generated so much response. Who woulda thunk?
Me. Two types of people, those who believe they are better than others and should be allowed to force their opinions on them and those who believe in freedom.
Issues that touch on the difference between those groups always generate lively discussions.
Same as/for anti-anything, prayer in school and over regulation of any kind.
People have always been able to pray in schools. It's when the teachers or principal recites the prayer aloud where they begin to "force their opinion." I don't know if you would agree or disagree.
I'm a libertarian on some issues, like the freedom to do to yourself what you want (smoke weed, stick a screwdriver in your ear, go to church), but I also think we need to consider the impact of our actions on others and the environment. To be honest, I dislike the motorboats more than the guy breaking his neck with the tube.
"Prayer in school" was a title, I was not trying to be specific.
I am a Libertarian as well... protecting the environment does not contradict that. I grew-up skiing, but also like to canoe, just not on lakes.
I think libertarianism can run into conflicts with environmentalism when it comes to "property rights" arguments. Like any ism, if it's taken too far it can be damaging.
There are a lot of neo-Randian libertarians around these days; they scare me.
I always had a problem with Ski Resorts; then I went skiing for the first time and had a blast! Mt. Okemo, in Vermont. Man that was fun. I suppose there's no good snow skiing in FL.
Water skiing is what I did... lol.
Thing is, as a libertarian, as long as what you are doing on your property ONLY affects you property, ever, I'm ok with not regulating it... outside of that, we need guidelines.
For all that have posted in opposition to the initial thread... Do you think there is any reason why the Army Corps of Engineers has banned these tubes on their lakes in Missouri and Arkansas? Kind of goes back to Daves initial thread eh?
Welcome to the Cellar, champs.:D
The Corps banned them because stupid people will hurt themselves, and maybe others, causing the corps all kinds of headaches they don't want.
Hand grenades are banned too.....for the same reason. Yet thousands of people handle hand grenades every week without hurting themselves. And if they do hurt themselves it's not the manufacturer's fault, but Dave would probably sue anyway.
I think there's a little difference between the Wego and a hand grenade. It's much easier to hurt someone *else* with a grenade; with the Wego you're only hurting yourself.
Personally, I'd been debating getting one (I've already had the Manta for a while) and just recently ordered it while I still can :-)
Welcome to the Cellar velocityboy, :D
So, you're getting one to get in on the class action cash. Just kidding.
Yeah there are lots of differences between these things and hand grenades, but the fact remains they are not inherently dangerous. If you use some brains you probably won't get hurt, but there's no guarantees.
Thanks!
There are no guarantees in life. Personally, I like extreme sports (I ride fast motorcycles, too); all you can do is minimize the risk by being as safe as you can. I'm a firm believer that the government's job isn't to protect me from myself - the Declaration of Independence doesn't say "pursuit of happiness, as long as it's not too risky."
I view it as regret minimization. Yeah, I *might* get hurt and regret it. But I *know* I'll be cranky and regret it a lot if I let myself get too old without doing the things that really appeal to me.
And, BTW, I would never sue the manufacturer. With freedom comes personal responsibility.
Fark is all over this, this morning, and somebody had a vid of an accident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H0k9Uvt2os
You can watch any amount of it to see what it's like to fly in this thing, and then the last ten seconds to see what it's like to wipe out.
By the audio of "floor it" and "gun it" one may presume that the manufacturer's instructions were not followed.
Was there any indication of the aftermath (injuries?)?
Clearly, the speeds necessary to get the thing flying, rather than planing, are too high to be safe, considering the virtually zero level of stability. It isn't so bad if the thing rotates left or right if the water is a foot beneath the edge, but if the water is 15 feet beneath the edge, it is going ass over teakettle, and someone is gonna get squished.
Having seen this video, I am starting to at least appreciate a bit more the point of view that the nature of the advertising (showing people zooming through the air at impressive heights) of this product is contributory to its eventual misuse. Dude was fine when he was only coming a couple feet off the water.
He said he got a concussion and a bruised lung, and coughed blood for a week. Or something like that.
You know what I'd do if I were going to get sued for my obscure, dangerous-as-all-hell sporting equipment?
I'd deluge the internet with information about them (come on, how many brand-new users have to start threads about these before you get suspicious that something's up?), and get people to have endless debates over whether anyone could know how dangerous they are. Because then 9 months from now, when the case finally goes to court, it has become "common knowledge" how dangerous they are, and the people who were injured could reasonably be expected to know that and therefore have no case. [/cynic]
Damn, almost 12k tubing videos on there. Mostly regular tubing but more Kite Tubes than just the first page. :eek6:
I guess a lot of people here want off-road cycles banned, parasails, ultralights, parshutes... pretty much anything fun?
Hell, yeah! Because that'll make the world a safe place for kids to grow up in.
Oh, wait...
Because then 9 months from now, when the case finally goes to court, it has become "common knowledge" how dangerous they are, and the people who were injured could reasonably be expected to know that and therefore have no case. [/cynic]
That's already true though. Look at the instructions.
I got injured minus the kite tubes, so my conculsion is that you can get hurt no matter what you're doing...if you're not doing it safely, or just being plain stupid while you're doing it. I don't think people should be able to sue due to their self induced injuries. I wouldn't be able to sue O'brien because I got a concussion while using their super screamer tubes, and I doubt I would be able to sue Sea Doo because I crashed a sea doo at 55mph and got whiplash, bruised bones, and a dislocated knee-cap. Or, would I?
That's already true though. Look at the instructions.
That's the way you think it
should be. But the reality is it just takes one judge or juror who views it as glatt does, and the instructions are irrelevant. But by saturating people with information about it, you are increasing the chances that your jury pool will have all heard about the dangers of these things before. The entire legal system is based on this nebulous concept of what a "reasonable person" should expect. A reasonable person knows that a car can be deadly because the information is out there. Once everyone has heard of these things, the defendants' case is much stronger.
Or less strong... just like Kinky... people know Sea Doos go fast, why doesn't everyone who gets hurt on them get labeled as a victim? Makes no sense.
It says to be careful in the instructions, that you could get injured... this is just sad. "gee I was being towed behind a boat, up in the air, fell off and got hurt... I'm so confused by that"... yeah, right. Just trying to cash in.
People who don't take accountability for their actions confuse me.
I got injured minus the kite tubes,
I get injured trying to get things out of blister packaging. Anyone know a good lawyer?
I don't have a link handy, but I think that may already have happened.
That's the way you think it should be. But the reality is it just takes one judge or juror who views it as glatt does
Just because a judge or juror violates their oath and ignores evidence because a big faceless company will cough up the money doesn't mean the evidence isn't there, it just means the process has been corrupted when we arrive at the point where the "reasonable man" standard doesn't include reading prominent warnings directing you to the instructions.
We do still have a long way to go on tort reform--until there's some serious *cost* to spin the judge/juror wheel-of-fortune. By the way it may only take one boneheaded judge, but it takes more than one juror in a civil action.
I just received my Wego in the mail today. The text warning that it can be dangerous or fatal if used improperly can be found:
- on the outside of the box
- on the printed owners manual
- on the instruction DVD
- on the tube itself
The instruction DVD and the printed manual go into great detail telling you what *not* to do.
In addition, the outside of the box contains what is essentially a EULA saying that by assembling the tube, you agree that it is dangerous and that you or your family will not hold the manufacturer responsible.
The only defense I can see that you didn't know this thing could hurt you would be if you were illiterate and had an I.Q. of 12.
And I agree with you on tort reform. It's way too easy to sue in this country, and the settlements are huge, which gives mega incentive for frivolous lawsuits. I've heard lawyers refer to this as "shake the tree and see what falls out."
We bought a Wego Kite Tube. We watched the video & read the warnings. I went first, lost control of the tube & almost dislocated my right shoulder when falling. I am very familiar with water falls from skiing and tubing. My 23 year old daughter went next. She slammed into the water & had the breath knocked out of her. She couldn't breath. I was so frightened for her I couldn't get to her fast enough to get her out of the water. She is a college athlete - in excellent condition and also used to water sports. We followed the manufacturer's instructions exactly regarding speed & use of the tube.
What troubles me is that the manufacturer says not to be used by children under 12 years of age. What 12 year old has sufficient judgement to evaluate the warnings properly and accordingly accept the risk? Almost all products have liability warnings on them (remember McDonald's hot coffee...). It is sometimes impossible to tell if a product is truly dangerous or if the manufacturer is simply issuing warnings to protect against litigation in the event something should happen (even if chances are remote).
I will not permit anyone to use the Wego Kite Tube. I saw first hand for myself that it is extremely, extremely dangerous and I am truly grateful that no one was permanently injured while we learned our lesson. We do not let 12 year olds drive cars, motorcycles, or jet skis for a reason. If someone wants to accept the risk then that person should be 18 or older.
I sincerely hope this product is recalled. I live on a lake and do not look forward to having friends and neighbors seriously injured on this product. From what I saw, it WILL happen, it is only a matter of time.
Welcome to the Cellar, Ollie.:D
What 12 year old has sufficient judgement to evaluate the warnings properly and accordingly accept the risk?
Who's driving the boat?
What 12 year old has sufficient judgement to evaluate the warnings properly and accordingly accept the risk?
What 12 year old has unsupervised access to a Wego Kite Tube and a boat to pull it? Duh.
Another question. If you got zapped on the first ride, why did anyone ever take the second ride?
Next contestant, please...
Almost all products have liability warnings on them (remember McDonald's hot coffee...). It is sometimes impossible to tell if a product is truly dangerous or if the manufacturer is simply issuing warnings to protect against litigation in the event something should happen (even if chances are remote).
The McDonalds hot coffee lady received 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, which required debridement and skin grafts because she was served coffee that was 180-190 degrees. Since most people drink coffee at 140 or so, no one should be expected assume that they'll be disfigured if they spill. I'm glad she got a settlement.
If you hurt yourself hot-dogging around a lake on a flying tube with warnings and skulls all over it, pulled behind a speed boat, I think you should be on your own with that.
Welcome to the Cellar, Ollie.:D
Who's driving the boat?
Exactly. I wouldn't let anyone under 18 use mine; my own kid or anyone else's.
I tore my rotator cuff messing around with a power kite. Does that mean nobody should use them? I still do. If you can't take being beaten up a little, then don't use a toy that can beat you up :-)
Maybe it's different now, but I was driving a speedboat when I was 13. I drove while my brother skied and vice versa.
I think VB totally summed this all up in one sentence.
If you can't take being beaten up a little, then don't use a toy that can beat you up
The driver read the warnings. Age limit = 12 yrs. Driver assumes okay for 12 yr old to try. Finds out too late (after injury) that 12 year old cannot control the tube. Driver has nothing to do with rider's control if boat is going at prescribed speed. Wind gust can suddenly throw 12 yr old 40 ft into the air. 12 year old does not have sufficient body strength to combat wind gust. Split second incident.
Regarding second rider. It is reasonable to assume that one bad experience does not predict all future experiences. Hence, try again with younger, more athletic rider. It is imperative to understand that two bad experiences in a row, with capable adult riders & boat driver = lesson learned. Third try would be inviting disaster...
Water skiing can be dangerous but typically danger increases with rider's pre-meditated decision to risk maneuvors. Rider does not have ability to make decision regarding maneuvors on kite tube. Rider makes the decision to lift into the air, and wind conditions determine subsequent height in a split second process. Rider can be 2 feet in the air and, with a sudden unexpected wind gust, can suddenly be 40 feet in the air with no balance control & subsequently slammed into the water with the kite tube on top of rider. Trust me, the instructional video does not show this type of occurance. When you watch the video, riders are perfectly balanced and only a few feet in the air. The warnings are there in writing, but one assumes, after watching the video, that they reference possibilities, not every ride probability.
If I were to buy a gun (yeah right), and the label on the gun said "WARNING, THIS WEAPON MAY UNINTENTIONALLY DISCHARGE EXCERSISE CAUTION ETC ETC ETC", and I put it in my mouth, or against my leg, or pointed it at myself or anyone else, and it went off, would "Well I didnt think it really MEANT that it could go off, I thought it was just SAYING that!" be a valid excuse? Sure, all the videos of cops and soldiers and people training with them dont show anyone getting hurt! When they point them where they shouldnt, the guns dont go off all by themselves! That warning is totally bogus!
I dont care if you're going five, fifty, or five hundred miles an hour, if you're riding a big piece of plastic, on the water, behind a boat, that is designed to fly, then it is YOUR decision to get on the big INFLATABLE PLASTIC TOY and ride it. If you cant control it, well, you should have thought of that before you got on.
I've had one outing on the Manta Ray (the Wego's competitor) with a friend. He fell off once, I fell off once. Both times we were fine. We used the tube in low, steady wind (as recommended) and nobody suddenly zoomed 40 feet in the air. If you had that experience, then the wind was too gusty. Constant boat speed + constant wind speed = constant airspeed = constant lift (since you can't really control the angle of attack too much). That's just physics.
If you cant control it, well, you should have thought of that before you got on.
And should have thought about it *twice* before putting a 12 year old on it.
CPSC Warns Consumers about Dangers of Tube Kiting
Two Deaths over the Past 3 Months Attributed to New Water Sport
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In advance of the July 4th holiday weekend, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is warning consumers about the possible dangers associated with a new type of water recreation known as “tube kiting.”
CPSC is concerned about death and injury reports associated with tube kiting. It is currently investigating two versions of these products to determine if there is a significant product hazard.
Tube kiting is a relatively new form of extreme water sport which is fast growing in popularity, but also extremely dangerous. CPSC is aware of at least two deaths associated with tube kiting this year. A 33-year-old Texas man was killed in late April 2006 while tube kiting, and a 42-year-old man died from injuries associated with tube kiting on June 26, 2006 in Wisconsin.
CPSC is also aware of 12 serious injuries associated with tube kiting. The injuries include a broken neck, punctured lung, broken ribs, broken femur, chest and back injuries, and facial injuries, such as jaw fractures. A 14-year-old girl who was tube kiting lost consciousness when it fell about 15 feet and struck the water.
Tube kites are very large, sometimes round, inflatable water devices that can be more than 10 feet in diameter. The tube is hooked to the back of a boat by a tow rope, and the tube rider pulls back on a rope as the boat travels at speeds between 25 and 35 miles per hour. The ride begins when the tube is lifted into the air trailing the boat. Possible reasons for incidents and injuries include: 1) rider’s difficulty in controlling the tube, 2) boat operator inexperience, and 3) how the tube reacts in certain weather conditions. The conditions of highest concern are wind gusts that can cause the tube to spin out of control, or sudden slowing or stopping by the boat operator, which can cause the tube to nose dive into the water. In some cases, the sudden stopping of the boat might cause the tube rider to continue past the boat and hit it or hit other boats or stationary objects, such as a bridge.
The National Park Service has banned the inflatable devices in at least one of its parks, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, which includes Lake Powell where there have been at least four serious injuries.
...And? None of us are saying they arent dangerous. What we ARE saying is that it's not the COMPANY's fault that ANYONE is stupid enough to ride a piece of PLASTIC intended to FLY behind a boat and NOT expect to bail and possibly get hurt, even AFTER all the warnings packaged with the TOY.
And, if you read the thread a little farther back, this very news item was already discussed, in terms of whether or not it's the right of government to protect citizens from themselves. You can guess where I stand.
Everyone knows cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. But we don't let 12 year old's buy tobacco (legally) and we don't actively promote tobacco to minors through TV ads, magazines, etc as a "fun but dangerous" product.
This product is being actively promoted as a "fun but dangerous" toy that can easily lure an inexperienced boat driver or rider into thinking that it just takes practice to master the ride.
I certainly did not completely understand the risk until actually experiencing the ride.
Let's put it this way. Almost all rides at amusement parks have warnings, some very serious. But, I do not assume that I WILL die or be injured if I ride the ride. I understand that there is a possibility that something could go wrong, but the likelyhood of it happening is low. This is how people are viewing the instructional video and manual that comes with the kite tube.
You must not be dead or seriously injured, you're still posting.
I've got nothing against limiting user age to 16 or 18. We have those rules for ATV's and Jet Ski's as well. I'd much rather see that than an outright ban.
Ah, but everyone ALSO knows that car crashes are a leading cause of death in the US, but TV and magazines promote children riding in cars. If you ride a car properly it's still not safe, but you probably wont get TOO roughed up if you know what you're doing. If you crank the thing to one-ten and weave in and out of traffic in the middle of a hailstorm, you're probably gonna get yourself killed.
How is this different?
So you're saying all cars should be banned, too?
If you agree, then why should people be allowed to have cars but not kite tubes?
The McDonalds hot coffee lady received 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, which required debridement and skin grafts because she was served coffee that was 180-190 degrees. Since most people drink coffee at 140 or so, no one should be expected assume that they'll be disfigured if they spill. I'm glad she got a settlement.
140 degrees will also burn you, although not as severely. She held the Styrofoam(?) or paper(?) cup by squeezing it between her legs. That's stupid. I doubt if it's possible to hold a full cup there, while using both hands to do other things, without spilling it? :headshake
just got this cookie:
I like my coffee extremely hot as do a lot of other people. If McDonalds starts serving it at a "safe" temperature (and what might that be?) I will drive through some other joint when I want a cup. What on earth gives anyone the right to tell McDonalds how hot it should serve its products? If they heated it to 500*F, trapped the resulting vapor in a titanium vacuum mug and labeled it "Cool, refreshing beverage. Drink quickly, or maybe bathe your privates with contents" then I would agree with an assessment of wrong-doing.
--Kevin Hemstreet (khemstre@syspac.com)
If you actually drank coffee at 180-190 degrees it would burn the skin off your tongue and throat - don't be an ass and claim you like it that way. Brewing and holding coffee at that temp saved McD's a few cents a pot. As soon as they were sued they dropped down to 158 degrees. The warning they print on cups now is pointless but they could have used one before they reduced the temp below the "causes disfiguring injuries" line. Just a little heads up you know.... warning: this shit is wayyy hotter than you think it is - don't balance it in your lap like you do with coffee from everywhere else.
I believe I read that this particular Mc Donald's kept their coffee hotter than the chain standard because a lot of customers picked up coffee on the way to work and bitched because it was cold when they got to work.
The chain told him to turn it down several times but every time he did the customers complained. But 158 deg will still take burn you pretty good.
I don't understand how keeping it hotter would save pennies....the other way 'round I should think. :confused:
Either way trying to hold a paper/foam cup of anything, between your legs, in a car, is dumb.
Someone should appoint an impartial Council of Idiocy to weed out lawsuits involving blatantly stupid people or decisions.
You could expect to be handsomely paid by major corporations should you be appointed to such an impartial position.
I believe I read that this particular Mc Donald's kept their coffee hotter than the chain standard because a lot of customers picked up coffee on the way to work and bitched because it was cold when they got to work.
I think they made this claim, but apparently their own research then showed that people do drink their coffee in the car, they don't wait. I don't have a link to said research though, so I dunno...
I don't understand how keeping it hotter would save pennies....the other way 'round I should think. :confused:
Brewing that hot brings more flavor out of the grounds - high end coffee machines brew at higher temperatures. I read that McD's was able to use less coffee per pot, and cheaper quality grounds, and still get a decent cup of coffee if they brewed this hot. I don't know what the advantage to holding it at that temp was ( I guess its about flavor too though) - but they knew it was "unfit for human consumption" and served it up anyway.
Either way trying to hold a paper/foam cup of anything, between your legs, in a car, is dumb.
The jury agreed, believing her to be 20% at fault.
more
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebecks spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.[/SIZE][/FONT]
You can't have that signature in this conversation!
I order them "extra hot" sometimes, if I want to drink them at my destination.
:blush:
Laughing out loud. What happened to our kite tube discussion - did we get bored and move on to hot coffee...?
Laughing out loud. What happened to our kite tube discussion - did we get bored and move on to hot coffee...?
The focus was always on the idea of "product liability"...not drifty at all.
The focus was always on the idea of "product liability"...not drifty at all.
Except I don't think anyone is talking about banning the sale of coffee. Which is a good thing, else my lines of code written per day would go down by about 30% :)
And that's that, here's the recall:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/2006/07/kite_tube_recalled.html
Less than two weeks after the Consumer Product Safety Commission first issued a safety alert about an increasingly popular new water-sport--kite tubing--one of the makers has decided to withdraw its product.
Sportsstuff, having received reports of two deaths in the United States and a variety of serious injuries, is voluntarily recalling about 19,000 Wego Kite Tubes, the CPSC announced this morning, The agency said it is aware of 39 injury incidents with 29 of those resulting in medical treatment. Those injuries include a broken neck, punctured lung, chest and back injuries and facial injuries. According to the CPSC press release: "Sportsstuff has been unable to determine the cause of the incidents. Nevertheless, the company has withdrawn the kite tube from the market and is undertaking this voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution."
Somebody ran the formula from Fight Club, didn't they?
Somebody ran the formula from Fight Club, didn't they?
No doubt :) Let's make up some numbers:
This thing came out last year, was widely advertised and won a boating product of the year award. I'm going to make a conservative estimate and say they sold 5,000 units. They retail for $599, but can be had for about $450 in some places, so let's say after materials, fabrication, shipping, marketing, etc. etc. they net $100 on each unit. That's a profit of $500k. One or two lawsuits, even if SportsStuff won, could eat up most of that in legal fees. And if they lost with any kind of settlement, well, game over Charlie. Not to mention the negative press that could impact their other product sales.
Now let's look at the press release for the recall. They claim 29 injuries requiring medical attention. We know from the press that two of those were deaths. Let's assume that about half of these were from people with excess testosterone (witness the internet video of the guy getting on the tube and telling the boat driver, "Just gun it, dude!"). So 15 injuries and one death affecting users following directions. That means, in a year of average use, you stand a 0.3% chance of being hurt seriously enough to require medical attention, or a 0.02% chance of death. (Given the estimate of number of units is correct).
<sarcasm>The system works.</sarcasm>
A triumph for dimwits everywhere, who will be protected from themselves in yet another way. Yet it's still true that in foolproof systems the fool is always stronger than the proof.
And now we can watch the resale value of used "kites of death" skyrocket.
:dedhorse: Maybe now this kite tube string will end. I'm not trying to claim some kind of honor, but I think I might have started this whole thing with a post about how the National Park Service banned their use at Lake Powell about a month ago (can't remember exactly). I never thought it would go this far; the string became more about law and responsibility than the product, and now the latter is being recalled. What will we talk about next? Lawn Darts went off the shelves years ago.