Georgian Luger Accident!

[KnowItAll]

Goodness me. How many people have taken test runs on that track and that corner without incident?
These are extreme sports people and sometimes accidents happen. If this was such an egregious design then where was the protest before hand? Guess there wasn't one. Is this any different than F1 or Hydro Racing, the Downhill or even Football? There is an element of risk in any of these sports at the levels that they are engaged in such competitions. On rare and tragic occasion, the result is sometimes fatal. Maybe I am silly but I am betting that a lot of experienced sledders had a look and hand in the design of that course and none of them seemed to think it was a problem. Sledders are a select group and a tight knit one and you can bet had their been any wide scale concerns voiced by it, the issue would have been looked at before hand. I don't think much of the suing idea. It won't bring this father's son back and at the end of the day, I don't think there was any negligence. Just a track that maybe exceeded this particular sledders skill level.

difference is and my key point, is this was avoidable without affecting the event. There should have been something to prevent the freak occurance of someone getting flung out like he did. People should anticipate worst case scenerios and act to prevent them whereever doable within reason, and it would have been most reasonable and doable in this situation

[WestCoastJoe]

IMO it is impossible to ensure safety in bobsled, luge, skeleton and any number of other dangerous sports.

If they built walls 20 feet high all the way down, but you fell off your sled on the way down you are still at high risk of dying. This is so at 95 mph, or 80 mph, or even 50 mph. You are just a body flying through the air and crashing around in an ice shute.

And usually they don't know the limits until there is a fatality. In motor racing they could have cars going over 300 mph. They don't. But if they slowed it down to 150 or even 100 people would still die. They would always test the limits and beyond at the allowed speed.

IMO you assume the risk of the injuries when you participate in the sport.

As Sir P said, before the race is the time to raise your concerns. The boy told his father that he was going to win or die in the race. The boy told his dad he was scared to death of that turn. His dad said use your feet to brake the speed. The boy said no, he was going to go for it.

Boxing, mixed martial arts, football, ice hockey, and on and on. If you want the glory of a high risk sport, IMO, you assume the risk that goes with it.

IMO the changes that have been made are mostly cosmetic. The wall at one corner has been raised, and some terribly inadequate padding has been added. Those that continued assumed the risk ... IMO.

People do risky things, then complain, or, even worse, sue when it goes badly.

[Lionheart]

If I was a member of his family, we would be suing VANOC and anyone else connected with the design and approval of the course as it was.

You're an ass.

Joe, just put this thread to rest.

[Lions4ever]

Goodness me. How many people have taken test runs on that track and that corner without incident?
These are extreme sports people and sometimes accidents happen. If this was such an egregious design then where was the protest before hand? Guess there wasn't one. Is this any different than F1 or Hydro Racing, the Downhill or even Football? There is an element of risk in any of these sports at the levels that they are engaged in such competitions. On rare and tragic occasion, the result is sometimes fatal. Maybe I am silly but I am betting that a lot of experienced sledders had a look and hand in the design of that course and none of them seemed to think it was a problem. Sledders are a select group and a tight knit one and you can bet had their been any wide scale concerns voiced by it, the issue would have been looked at before hand. I don't think much of the suing idea. It won't bring this father's son back and at the end of the day, I don't think there was any negligence. Just a track that maybe exceeded this particular sledders skill level.

How do you know what his skill level might have been? And so what if there had been test runs on that track and that corner without incident (which is not true anyway as there had been numerous spills and crashes)? I say it was just a matter of time. The luging federation was fearful of the Whistler track and vowed never to make another one like it. This from ctvoylmpicsdotca:

"But the track's design, and the non-engineering factors that pushed it to such high speeds, continue to worry insiders. An investigation by the Wall Street Journal found that VANOC had been informed of the higher speed and had signed off on it, along with the sporting federations, but that officials in the federations decided last year never to design such a fast track again. The high speed and sharp corners were not considered desirable features for other tracks.

"That was not an engineering decision," Bob Storey, president of the International Federation of Bobsleigh and Tobogganing, told the Wall Street Journal. "That was a commercial decision.""

A commercial decision. This track was originally designed to be located on Grouse but got moved to Whistler for commercial reasons and was made way steeper and faster than its designer, Udo Gurgel, had ever envisioned or intended. Again, from the same article:

"In an interview from his Leipzig lab, Gurgel said that the extremely high speed of the Whistler track was not a function of his design intentions or engineering decisions, but of marketing and investment decisions on behalf of the Vancouver Olympic Committee, VANOC."

A 21 year old is dead. Dead. I've heard all the pontificating about the inherent dangers of luging and all sports and accidents happen and deaths happen blah blah blah. So what? As far as I'm concerned this death is inexcusable and a huge black eye on these games and VANOC...even though it's a very unpopular opinion amidst the current Oly rose-coloured glasses euphoria.

[Sir Purrcival]

Get off your high horse. There have been thousands of runs on that track, and a Luge and Bobsleigh world cup since the basic design was put in place 2007 when testing began. Is it a challenging track? Yes. one of the most challenging in the world. It is the Olympics is it not. Several drivers have said that it is fast but no more difficult than the tracks at Salt Lake and Lake placid.

Here is a little more on one of your quotes
Weather was one factor in locating the run in Whistler, said Terry Gudzowsky, a technical delegate for the bobsled federation who, as a then-member of Canada's bobsled federation, participated in the initial planning. Grouse Mountain often has warmish, wet winters that could lead to mushier, slower ice. Mr. Gudzowsky said he advocated at the time moving it to Whistler, whose higher elevation made it more appealing to the sport.

"That was not an engineering decision," said the bobsled federation's Mr. Storey. "That was a commercial decision."

Commercial in that it would be more useful at Whistler over the long term than at Grouse.

"Throughout the planning, design and construction processes, everything has gone according to plan,” said Terry Gudzowsky, technical delegate for the FIBT (International Bobsleigh Federation). “Indications from the initial descents confirm our expectations that The Whistler Sliding Centre will quickly become one of the finest venues for sliding sports. We are excited about the prospect of having our international bobsleigh and skeleton athletes experience the challenges that this track will offer."

International Olympic Committee director of communications Mark Adams.
"In terms of safety and security we are very happy with the safety record of the track. It's a good track. We have had 5,000 luge runs there with no major incidents"

You say Tomato, I say Tomaato as do many others. For every one of you, there is one with a more stoic perspective on it. I am not happy a man has died but it has happened before in the Olympics (Luge included) and it will happen again in the future. As long as people are willing to test themselves to their limits, there will be accidents and there will be deaths. The people who have the most knowledge about these things (the sledders themselves) have had the better part of 2 years to make their concerns known. The IOC, Luge and Bobsleigh Federations have all played a role in the design of this track. I am not impressed at all with the Post Hoc criticisms of those who were in a position to say something before and didn't. Smacks of the all too common " Covering My A$$" syndrome. As I said, the time for people to express their doubts (if they had them) was "BEFORE" not after the fact.

Show me those quotes and that they represent a common opinion and maybe you will hold my attention longer.

[Lions4ever]

[Sir Purrcival]

OK, you win! I can't top that one.

[TheLionKing]

Just ban the sport. No more injuries or death.

[Dan_Payne_fan!!]

Just ban the sport. No more injuries or death.

[KnowItAll]

If I was a member of his family, we would be suing VANOC and anyone else connected with the design and approval of the course as it was.

You're an ass.

that may very well be, but it don't make me wrong.

[kcin94]

If I was a member of his family, we would be suing VANOC and anyone else connected with the design and approval of the course as it was.

You're an ass.

that may very well be, but it don't make me wrong.

If you skydive or bungee jump and die, should the company be sued?

People do dangerous events. If something happens to them, it's incredibly unfortunate, but suing over it is rediculous.

They held 7 events on that track. Yes there were crashes. There always is, but no major injuries. It was determined the death was due to driver error. The drivers that crashed in their sports (including Lyndon Rush a Canadian) didn't blame the track. The only people blaming the track for crashes were fans and media looking for an excuse.

That's why you are wrong.

[KnowItAll]

You're an ass.

that may very well be, but it don't make me wrong.

If you skydive or bungee jump and die, should the company be sued?

actually, if neglect can be proven, such as improper packed parachute or improper maintenance of bungee equiptment, then the company should, would, and I am sure has, been sued

They failed to make sure that a body could not be flung out, specially at a dangerous spot where there were posts to be hit. Thats neglect in my opinion.

[Lions4ever]

If you skydive or bungee jump and die, should the company be sued?

People do dangerous events. If something happens to them, it's incredibly unfortunate, but suing over it is rediculous.

They held 7 events on that track. Yes there were crashes. There always is, but no major injuries. It was determined the death was due to driver error. The drivers that crashed in their sports (including Lyndon Rush a Canadian) didn't blame the track. The only people blaming the track for crashes were fans and media looking for an excuse.

That's why you are wrong.

Well, if it's a company it may depend on whether it has sufficient assets or not to warrant a lawsuit - or if there's an insurer out there. But that's why those activities have waivers up the ying yang that must be signed before you can participate. Besides, those are clearly optional recreational activities that you can choose forgo without appearing to disappoint or renege on a commitment to an entire Olympic team or your country. I have said earlier that I am not buying the "driver error" line that the spin artists have put out there and will continue to hold that position from my perch atop my high horse from which I refuse to dismount.

[kcin94]

actually, if neglect can be proven, such as improper packed parachute or improper maintenance of bungee equiptment, then the company should, would, and I am sure has, been sued

They failed to make sure that a body could not be flung out, specially at a dangerous spot where there were posts to be hit. Thats neglect in my opinion.

They checked if the course was neglectful. They shut down the course to check for that. The answer was no.

The dangerous part of the course was not that section. The dangerous part was at the "50/50" turn further up. If the track was dangerous enough for them to believe that more experienced drivers would fly out then they would have cancelled the comptetion. The press after this one death is bad, imagine if they declared it safe and another one happened. They wouldn't have put that as a risk.

I put my faith into what the other drivers said, and they said they found the course challenging, but not dangerous.

I'm not saying that the driver deserved this or anything like that. I relate it more like driving in icy conditions. It doesn't take much before a major accident can happen. If you aren't an experienced enough driver, when something starts to go bad, you can't fix it fast enough to avoid a major accident. It doesn't make it the road's fault.

[Sir Purrcival]

Simply put, you can't protect against everything and you can't call it negligence every time something bad happens that was unforeseen. If people want to call this a result of negligence, that is anybody's right but it doesn't make them right. Negligence must be proved and with all the people who have had a hand in building this course and have run this course, that will be a tough sell even if anyone was willing to try. These tracks are built to be challenging, they are built to be fast and at the end of the day, they are all dangerous. That is why there are the aforementioned waivers. As for the idea that someone who has a commitment to an Olympic team has any less choice to not participate if they feel the risk is too great, that is simply not true. A person may feel that they can't pull out, but the fact is that they can, for any reason at any time. If they are unwilling to do so, then ultimately, they make that choice, just as they made a choice to take up that particular sport in the first place.

Greg Moore decided to be a race car driver. He chose to race the day he died despite having a hand injury sustained a few days previously and the fact is that he could have pulled out at any time, even during the race. Did anybody think that the wall that he finally crashed into was going to be responsible for taking his life. I suspect that most people didn't think about it but it did. Let's call that negligence too. That wall shouldn't have been put there. Lets ignore how many races had been held there or that no one had died in that spot before. It must be negligence otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Let's face facts, sometimes bad crap happens and no amount of planning, safety equipment or anything else is going to completely protect against it happening. Now if someone else dies in the same spot, in the same way, that would be a different matter.