Poll: Roatan Zip-Line Tragedy

[bthorn1108]

I will wait until the investigation is done, do decide if I will do this trip again. We have done it in the past and felt very safe. If it is found to be human error, which is what I suspect, than I will go with the same company I did last time, who had the utmost regard for safety, and enjoy it.

[mbardsley]

I was on that ship last year, and posted a review of that cruise. In it i did complain about the lack of safety on the zip-lines. I was a trained climber in my younger days, so know alot about the equipment, the harness is very secure, with proper safety. The problem is the tour operators not folowing basic safety protocols. I had about 30% of my zip stations that I was not hooked to the safety line, but my safety gear was hooked to the main line, WOW, does that make sense. If the main line had failed, i would be lost, just like this poor lady.

 

But all this is operated outside of the US, with who knows what kind of safety, and inspection laws, if any. But i sure would believe, the main line snapped, and she had her safety line hooked to the main line.

[sidari]

It is unlikely that the Line Cable if made from Steel Rope snapped! after all a 3 Ton weight limit is not going to be exceeded by even the Heaviest of Humans...but if the Steel Rope had begun to Needle it would have been seen by not just the riders but also anyone carrying out safety work.

 

The chance of it coming loose from either end is the stronger possibility depending on how the cable was secured.

 

It is however very very sad that this lady has died on her holiday/vaction doing what she enjoyed .ie Cruising / Zip lining.

 

For those that feel that it is no longer for them maybe ask yourself if her death would have been reported had she been killed crossing the street at home and would it stop you crossing the street?

 

Sadly accidents do happen even on Holiday / Vacations and in every part of the world from road accidents to people falling from Hotel balconies etc the list is endless. This is just another of those statistics that sadly the family will remember for the rest of their lives.

[anaslile]

I agree with the previous posters. My heart goes out to the family as well as everyone involved in and touched by this tragedy. Unfortunately, tragedies do happen in public places. Roller coasters, zip-lines, hot-air balloons, swimming pools and even highway overpasses have become deadly for various reasons. I would never downplay the loss of life in any tragic accident, but we should remember that they are accidents. I will still trust Cruise Line recommended adventure providers.

 

 

I agree. I don't stop driving because somebody got killed in a car crash. I don't stop flying because a plane crashed. I don't not swim in the ocean because somebody died from a jelly fish sting. If I did, I'd never live my life. It's a tragic event and my heart goes out to the woman and her family and everybody else.

 

If cruise ships were to stop offering anything risky for shore excursions, then they'd lose a large amount of customers, or find more customers taking their business to independent providers. However, I do think it is up to them to make sure passengers are familiar with the risks that could happen. I've had to sign waivers for shore excursions and I would do it again.

 

That being said, I'm planning to do the Palmetto/Jungle Canopy in Roatan in late April, and the only thing that will change for me, is that I will make sure before I go down *any* line that I completely understand all safety procedures and make sure all safety lines are fully attached to the proper cables.

[Preds]

The question seems to me to be fundamentally flawed. Why is a zip line tour labelled as "potentially risky" just because an accident happened? Cruise ship passengers have also died in bus crashes, but nobody seems to regard them as "potentially risky" just because an accident has happened.

 

And why is an "adrenaline junky" activity regarded as the opposite of "safe"? The fact that something is scary and/or exciting has got nothing to do with whether there's any risk or danger in it at all.

 

So before attaching labels as a knee-jerk tabloid-newspaper reaction, why don't we first see if there's any evidence of risk or danger before stirring up hysteria?

:good posting:

 

I felt the article was a bit sensational and over the top as well.

[betsifur]

For those that feel that it is no longer for them maybe ask yourself if her death would have been reported had she been killed crossing the street at home and would it stop you crossing the street?

 

These repetitive comparisons of riding on a zipline to driving your car or crossing the street are completely missing the point. If an average US citizen decides that driving a car or crossing the street are no longer safe activities and declines to participate in them, their quality of life will be severely curtailed. If they decide that ziplining in a third world country is no longer safe - they choose another vacation activity. It's not the same thing. I don't expect or want the cruiselines to drop "dangerous" activities from their excursion list. Before my family went to the Gumbalimba zipline, we signed a page full of waivers. I was aware of the dangers and don't feel like we were misled by NCL about them. However, seeing the death of a fellow passenger made me rethink my willingness to take those risks - for our family the reward of zipping down a steel cable for a few minutes is not worth the risk. Everyone is going to have a different personal view of what risks are worth what rewards - there's not one correct answer.

[Mar-Don]

We did the Zip Lining in Roatan last month. The guides hooked my safety strap to the 2nd parallel cable only twice, and we did 17 lines. I thought about it a few times, but said nothing. In retrospect I should have insisted on my safety strap being attached to the 2nd cable instead of the main cable that I was riding on.

Please if you go zip lining, make sure that your safety strap is hooked to the 2nd or parallel cable, as this is the only thing that will save you if the main cable fails. It is not a 100% guarantee, but it's a nice insurance policy.

[sidari]

there's not one correct answer.

 

Got to agree with you on this one!

 

also you have to consider that regardless of the drop being between 35 to 65 feet, that the fall did not kill this woman! it was what she hit that did the damage, after all people have fallen from Greater heights and lived and sadly this time she was the unlucky one.

 

Before these lines are put back in use im sure the authorities will want to have a complete report on what happened and to know that more stringent safety measures are in place otherwise its not just the cruise lines that will suffer but also the Tour provider and also the island of Roatan.

 

Will it stop people using these thrill rides? NO just like many other things in life.

 

Mar Don.... what you say is correct and if people are NOT using the safety line, ie the 2nd Cable to hook their safety belt onto then they only have themselves to blame if they come to grief!! i would hazard a guess that the Harness safety belt and hook would have a breaking strain of around 1 to 1.5 tons.

 

Now if the guides are not telling people to hook up correctly during the briefing and at the lines then hopefully they will be taken to task and to court over it.

[Garn]

Yes, you can get killed getting out of bed, or crossing the street or ziplining- but the probability for each of these is not equal. Each day, roughly 300 million Americans get out of bed (I figure that the nappers who get out of bed multiple times will make up for the bedridden). That's 100 billion times per year. If 100 people die in bed accidents per year, the chance of dying any time you get out of bed is one in 1 billion.

 

Now, let's say 1,000 Americans zipline per day on average. If there has been one fatality in 5 years (although I think there might have been more) that means your chances of dying in a zipline are 1 in 2 million. Still pretty good odds, but 500 times riskier than getting out of bed.

 

But statistics are even trickier than that. Say the overall chances of someone dying in a car accident are (assuming 44,000 deaths 200,000,000 drivers) about 1 in 4500 per year. But if you only drive in good weather, during times that the drunks aren't out, follow the speed limit, have a safe car, etc, then your chances are much better.

 

The same goes for ziplining- there will always be risks, but they can be reduced, by only using courses with dual lines, making sure the safety cord is always used etc. (Not that I would have thought of this before this terrible tragedy, but at least we can all learn from it).

 

I was planning on ziplining in Roatan this Monday. I still plan on doing so, IF I feel sure that adequate safety measure are in place.

[agabbymama]

I don't flightsee, river raft, parasail, bungi jump or zipline. I like things a little tamer, but my son would do all of the above. He is a daredevil and nothing would be to dangerous for him to attempt. There are always going to be risk-takers and a death won't make any difference.

 

As for myself, I won't even contemplate riding the gondola up the side of the caldera at Santorini. Call me a chicken, but I don't want to be suspended in the air.

 

Not all countries have the strict safety regulations that we find in the U.S.

On a trip to Europe, we visited the Netherlands, and each tour we went on, it soon became a standing joke, that this wouldn't be allowed in the U.S. No guardrails, no safety belts, uneven underground walkways with no lighting, etc.

 

So if someone is going to be a daredevil and take chances on unknown excursions wherever they travel, it is at their own risk. Some you even have to sign waivers to even take the excursion, that would be a big red flag to me, NOT TO DO IT!

[dragonflymy2000]

It is very sad and tragic when anyone dies in and accident, especially when on vacation. When you take an excursion, you run a risk no different that those we take at home. We all hope that the tour are operated and maintained to the highest safety standards available. Unfortunately accidents happen, hopefully it will turn out to be human error and additional checks can be put in place so this tragedy doesn't occur again. It does not help that poor family get thru this tragic event but perhaps prevent another one from experiencing the same event

[Guest michael@cruisecritic]

The question seems to me to be fundamentally flawed. Why is a zip line tour labelled as "potentially risky" just because an accident happened? Cruise ship passengers have also died in bus crashes, but nobody seems to regard them as "potentially risky" just because an accident has happened.

 

And why is an "adrenaline junky" activity regarded as the opposite of "safe"? The fact that something is scary and/or exciting has got nothing to do with whether there's any risk or danger in it at all.

 

So before attaching labels as a knee-jerk tabloid-newspaper reaction, why don't we first see if there's any evidence of risk or danger before stirring up hysteria?

 

I'm sorry you feel our news story amounted to sensational "tabloid" coverage and was somehow aimed at trying to provoke hysteria among cruisers. I couldn't disagree with you more. The only thing the item was meant to provoke was discussion (which I think it has achieved).

The story was unbiased, taking pains to point out that not only was this the one and only incident of its kind to occur in the six years that this company has been running tours, but also that the cable in question was brand new and more than capable of carrying the weight imposed upon it.

Certainly, it was never suggested that zip-line deaths are commonplace or that excursions like these are death traps for cruise passengers. That's simply ridiculous.

The only section of the story where conjecture is present is under "Moving Forward," and the questions raised here, I believe, are valid. Can tragedy like this be avoided, or are accidents inevitable? Is there responsibility to be assigned in this case and, if so, who must bear it?

And, most importantly, is the thrilling experience of a zip-line excursion worth even the most minute risk IN YOUR EYES? Everyone values life differently. Some would gladly risk their life rather than "waste" their days sitting on a couch watching TV. Others would prefer not to stick their neck out in order to preserve as many sunrises and sunsets as can be squeezed into a single human life. Risk vs. Reward is a very personal concept, and the particulars depend heavily on the individual.

As far as this thread's insinuation that "adenaline junky" activities pose a greater risk to life than more pedestrian activities, that seems to be the very attraction. Do you really believe that a Botanical Garden Walk excursion and a Zip-Line Canopy Tour pose equal levels of risk? "Safe" activities are considered safe for a reason. Unless the plants sprout teeth and become carnivorous, death will likely not stalk you on a stroll through the botanical garden.

There has been a lot of discussion about assigning levels of risk to different activities, from getting out of bed to driving a car to jumping out of a plane. Certainly, the potential for injury in each instance can be lessened to varying degrees by safety precautions and good judgement. But the fundamental reason why "risk takers" enjoy scaling mountains and bungee jumping is because of the increased danger involved. That is the "rush." For many, if that danger were completely eliminated, their enjoyment would disappear along with it. But, again, that's a risk some are willing to take.

For the record, like many of you who have posted here, I'm more than willing to take that risk -- even after this sad reminder of our mortality.

 

----------------------

Michael Potter

Assistant Editor

Cruise Critic

[Cuizer2]

I'm sorry you feel our news story amounted to sensational "tabloid" coverage and was somehow aimed at trying to provoke hysteria among cruisers. I couldn't disagree with you more. The only thing the item was meant to provoke was discussion (which I think it has achieved).

The story was unbiased, taking pains to point out that not only was this the one and only incident of its kind to occur in the six years that this company has been running tours, but also that the cable in question was brand new and more than capable of carrying the weight imposed upon it.

Certainly, it was never suggested that zip-line deaths are commonplace or that excursions like these are death traps for cruise passengers. That's simply ridiculous.

The only section of the story where conjecture is present is under "Moving Forward," and the questions raised here, I believe, are valid. Can tragedy like this be avoided, or are accidents inevitable? Is there responsibility to be assigned in this case and, if so, who must bear it?

And, most importantly, is the thrilling experience of a zip-line excursion worth even the most minute risk IN YOUR EYES? Everyone values life differently. Some would gladly risk their life rather than "waste" their days sitting on a couch watching TV. Others would prefer not to stick their neck out in order to preserve as many sunrises and sunsets as can be squeezed into a single human life. Risk vs. Reward is a very personal concept, and the particulars depend heavily on the individual.

As far as this thread's insinuation that "adenaline junky" activities pose a greater risk to life than more pedestrian activities, that seems to be the very attraction. Do you really believe that a Botanical Garden Walk excursion and a Zip-Line Canopy Tour pose equal levels of risk? "Safe" activities are considered safe for a reason. Unless the plants sprout teeth and become carnivorous, death will likely not stalk you on a stroll through the botanical garden.

There has been a lot of discussion about assigning levels of risk to different activities, from getting out of bed to driving a car to jumping out of a plane. Certainly, the potential for injury in each instance can be lessened to varying degrees by safety precautions and good judgement. But the fundamental reason why "risk takers" enjoy scaling mountains and bungee jumping is because of the increased danger involved. That is the "rush." For many, if that danger were completely eliminated, their enjoyment would disappear along with it. But, again, that's a risk some are willing to take.

For the record, like many of you who have posted here, I'm more than willing to take that risk -- even after this sad reminder of our mortality.

 

----------------------

Michael Potter

Assistant Editor

Cruise Critic

Look at his other posts and you will see that Globaliser likes to put people down and be confrontational. Look at Globaliser's reply to you (next post) and you will see what I mean.

[Globaliser]

I'm sorry you feel our news story amounted to sensational "tabloid" coverage and was somehow aimed at trying to provoke hysteria among cruisers. I couldn't disagree with you more. The only thing the item was meant to provoke was discussion (which I think it has achieved).

 

The story was unbiased, taking pains to point out that not only was this the one and only incident of its kind to occur in the six years that this company has been running tours, but also that the cable in question was brand new and more than capable of carrying the weight imposed upon it.

 

Certainly, it was never suggested that zip-line deaths are commonplace or that excursions like these are death traps for cruise passengers. That's simply ridiculous.

My observation was actually directed more at the question posed in the poll: "Are potentially dangerous excursions such as zip-lining worth the risk?", backed by the tenor of two of the suggested answers: "life is more precious than a cheap thrill" and "you have to take chances and go for the gusto", and then rounded up by the either-or dichotomy in your OP of "Are you a devout adrenaline junky or a disciple of safety-consciousness?"

 

I am unrepentant in describing that set of observations, with their underlying premise, as tabloid in style.

 

But FWIW, even if (as you rightly say) the article was neutral about the causes of the accident and did not point fingers of blame in the absence of evidence, it wasn't exactly neutrally expressed:-

When [that sentence] was written, it was just the usual sing-song promotional statement. Reading it today, that promise of safety seems almost profane.

...

a wake-up call for all the adventure-seekers who blindly volunteer for adrenaline-pumping activities

...

Instead, she lost her life. She didn't sign up for that.

But the fundamental reason why "risk takers" enjoy scaling mountains and bungee jumping is because of the increased danger involved. That is the "rush."

I don't agree.

 

An adrenaline rush can come from perceived risk. But that is not the same as actual risk or potential risk. Take a rollercoaster ride, for example: plenty of perceived risk, generated both by the sight and feel of the ride, and therefore lots of adrenaline - but in fact practically zero actual risk. The same goes for bungee jumping, at least in the hands of a competent operator.

 

Events may prove that ziplining is inherently risky. Even if it is not, the perception of risk arising from being suspended high up may always give zipline participants an adrenaline rush. And we can certainly agree that your questions have generated a lot of interesting and useful discussion. But I'm afraid that I still think they're based on a flawed and slightly sensationalist premise.

[ChBoxers800]

We did the Zip Lining in Roatan last month. The guides hooked my safety strap to the 2nd parallel cable only twice, and we did 17 lines. I thought about it a few times, but said nothing. In retrospect I should have insisted on my safety strap being attached to the 2nd cable instead of the main cable that I was riding on.

Please if you go zip lining, make sure that your safety strap is hooked to the 2nd or parallel cable, as this is the only thing that will save you if the main cable fails. It is not a 100% guarantee, but it's a nice insurance policy.

 

 

I'm with you 100%. This horrible accident has taught me one thing. I will never zipline without a 2nd safety cable and will make damned sure it's attached. I loved the zip line at Gumbalimba and felt totally safe due to the double cables. Up until this tragedy, I had no idea that some ziplines are only one cable.

 

I intend to zipline again in the future as it was a fantastic experience, but I will ask questions prior to going and will skip any that doesn't have the double cable for the safety line.

[mbardsley]

Even people like me, trained in climbing safety, fell to even mention the hook up to the safety line(2nd cable). But look at the country you are visiting, there is no OSHA, or other groups like that, they can hardly feed there own people. That tour operator had all the proper equipment, and the 2nd cables, they did it right, the employees of the company did not do it right. The only way that theese tour operators are going bring there safety procedures up to speed, and make sure that all employees follow them is if we, as vacationers, put demands on the cruise lines, thus getting them to put pressure on the local operators. It will happen agian, the odds are low, but it could be me or you. Thoose employees HAVE to follow proper protocal, then this would not happen.

 

Out first cruise on carnival, they told us, not to rent jet skis, not to rent scooters, not to go parasailing, so on. There is just no way to hold the tour operator responsible for an accident like that, even though it is 100% there fault. Different laws, practicly a 3rd world country. I hope that family goes after NCL for this, that might help all of us. My complaints went no were, I even got after the kids about not hooking me up to the second line, a couple of them did, but others played the No-Speak game, and pushed me on my way. A trajic loss of life that COULD have been prevented.

[Cuizer2]

Even people like me, trained in climbing safety, fell to even mention the hook up to the safety line(2nd cable). But look at the country you are visiting, there is no OSHA, or other groups like that, they can hardly feed there own people. That tour operator had all the proper equipment, and the 2nd cables, they did it right, the employees of the company did not do it right. The only way that theese tour operators are going bring there safety procedures up to speed, and make sure that all employees follow them is if we, as vacationers, put demands on the cruise lines, thus getting them to put pressure on the local operators. It will happen agian, the odds are low, but it could be me or you. Thoose employees HAVE to follow proper protocal, then this would not happen.

 

Out first cruise on carnival, they told us, not to rent jet skis, not to rent scooters, not to go parasailing, so on. There is just no way to hold the tour operator responsible for an accident like that, even though it is 100% there fault. Different laws, practicly a 3rd world country. I hope that family goes after NCL for this, that might help all of us. My complaints went no were, I even got after the kids about not hooking me up to the second line, a couple of them did, but others played the No-Speak game, and pushed me on my way. A trajic loss of life that COULD have been prevented.

NCL shields itself from all responsibility (read the contract), and the courts have in the past honored that shield.

 

Besides, you would have to prove NCL was negligent. How would you do that? The tour operator was an independent contractor. That means NCL only contracts with the tour operator, NCL does not supervise the tour operator. So, how would you prove that NCL was negligent?

 

Before the family decides to make a bad situation worse, they should research what happened to the little girl that is now sterile because of what happened on a Carnival ship (the Carnival Ecstasy) ...

 

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2007/02/21/are-cruise-ships-responsible-for-anything-on-the-high-seas-buyer-beware/

 

… the Florida Supreme Court decided Thursday that cruise lines aren’t responsible for the negligent acts of ship physicians who harm passengers during treatment.

 

Now if a cruise line is not responsible for someone they hire and is on their ship, how could they be responsible for someone they only contract with and who is not on their ship?

 

Here is a copy of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the above case ...

 

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2007/sc04-393.pdf

 

Here is Carnival's brief (a brief is basically a paper written by the attorney outlining why (s)he believes the court should rule in his/her client's favor) ...

 

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc04-393/04-393ini.pdf

 

Here is another link regarding this case ...

 

In a long-awaited ruling the Florida Supreme Court has held that the Carnival cruise line was not responsible for the medical negligence of a ship's doctor.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/h/mal/20070223/20070223_carlisle.html

[Cruising Forever!]

My buddy Steve and I did the "Original Canopy Tour" (how many of these can be called "original" if every one is labled "original"???) in Jamaica while on our Freedom of the Seas cruise with our wives back in 2006. I'm certainly NOT a jock by any definition - I had to get a slight rum buzz just to consider climbing the rock wall!- but when I read the description, I knew I wanted to give this a try. Steve was definitely up for it- he's the type that loves climbing the rock wall all day! (Note- I also won't go near the surf rider- it looks just too easy to crack a rib on to me... so that should show my "jock factor"!) :)

 

We went into this not having a clue what to expect. A woman at work did one of these "canopy tours" in Costa Rica and she described a single cable that you held onto slung over another cable with no safety backup cable and all sorts of elaborate instructions on moving faster, on braking and what to do if you get stuck. I had to admit that that gave me pause... but the description in the Royal Caribbean pamphlet sounded much safer.

 

When we got to the Canopy Tour, I was immediately impressed with the careful detail paid to each and every one of the multitudes of people doing this. Safety was paramount. After a stringent fitting of the holstering equipment and some instructions, we trekked into the woods and were seated and given further instructions and safety tips. All of the tour guides were dead-serious about everything. We were given instructions about how to slow down or speed up as we traversed, and I think there were instructions about what to do in case you stopped short of the target, but this wasn't a problem for any in our group. (Since all of the lines are mostly "downhill", I think this is where people of size have a slight advantage over skinny people; I do have a memory of one thin young lady stopping about 3' short of the last platform- the guides only had to reach out and pull her in.)

 

From platform to platform, the same routine was followed to the letter with each person's lines being unattached and reattached- both the main and the back up. Not once did the guides allow anything to distract them from the job at hand.

 

I feel terrible for the family of the woman who so tragically lost her life. I can say that having done this sort of excursion before, I would probably have been on there that day, too! I keep wondering how the operation here compares to that in Jamaica? I can't imagine how those lines could "snap" or break at all. On the Jamaican one, we were not only attached to two lines, but we were sliding on two at the same time. Until a full accounting comes out with all the facts (rather then what seems like net-conjecture at this point), I'll withhold a final position on this.

 

Would I do the Jamaican Canopy tour again? Sure, in a heartbeat. Will I do anyone elses? Not unless I can confirm that that port's operation is as safe or safer then what I experienced in Jamaica. I was considering doing the one in Puerto Rico next month- but I think I'm going to consult with Royal Caribbean first. (RCI felt good enough about this operation to include them in their offerings- and they were right about Jamaica)

 

If anyone is interested in pictures of the Jamaican canopy tour, I have links to them from my cruise page; follow the link below, then slide to the bottom of my Freedom of the Seas review and follow the photos link.

 

Cheers,

Paul

[mbardsley]

Well maybee you got lucky, the did not hook us up to the 2nd safety line at all stations when 3 of us did it in november. There was a post by a fellow cruise member, that was a first responder to help her, and the main line was down, no failure on the harness. So she died because someone did not follow safety protocals, simple.

[Got2Cruise]

I do think that as consumers we expect that the cruiselines have researched the operations that they endorse on the ship as excursions. Afterall, they do get a cut of the action. I also think that people are very naive to think that third world countries have the same safety regulations in place as there is in the United States. Consumers are placed in unsafe situations for the mere reason of making a buck. As long as people realize that, then they can make informed decisions for themselves. But to think that everything is "safe" and "inspected" is not always the case. Sometimes there are "accidents waiting to happen". . .

 

NCL shields itself from all responsibility (read the contract), and the courts have in the past honored that shield.

 

Besides, you would have to prove NCL was negligent. How would you do that? The tour operator was an independent contractor. That means NCL only contracts with the tour operator, NCL does not supervise the tour operator. So, how would you prove that NCL was negligent?

 

Before the family decides to make a bad situation worse, they should research what happened to the little girl that is now sterile because of what happened on a Carnival ship (the Carnival Ecstasy) ...

 

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2007/02/21/are-cruise-ships-responsible-for-anything-on-the-high-seas-buyer-beware/

 

… the Florida Supreme Court decided Thursday that cruise lines aren’t responsible for the negligent acts of ship physicians who harm passengers during treatment.

 

Now if a cruise line is not responsible for someone they hire and is on their ship, how could they be responsible for someone they only contract with and who is not on their ship?

 

Here is a copy of the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the above case ...

 

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2007/sc04-393.pdf

 

Here is Carnival's brief (a brief is basically a paper written by the attorney outlining why (s)he believes the court should rule in his/her client's favor) ...

 

http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc04-393/04-393ini.pdf

 

Here is another link regarding this case ...

 

In a long-awaited ruling the Florida Supreme Court has held that the Carnival cruise line was not responsible for the medical negligence of a ship's doctor.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/h/mal/20070223/20070223_carlisle.html

[kryos]

If an average US citizen decides that driving a car or crossing the street are no longer safe activities and declines to participate in them, their quality of life will be severely curtailed. If they decide that ziplining in a third world country is no longer safe - they choose another vacation activity. It's not the same thing.

I have no problem with people making the best choices for them. Just don't tell me what my choice should be ... and that's exactly what happens when newspapers sensationalize these stories. Government officials move in and before you know it, the activity is no longer available to me, even though I was willing to take the risk.

 

I see what you are saying about driving, and maybe that's how it would be for the "average" person. But for me, I don't drive ... because I choose not to for my own reasons ... and that fact really doesn't impact my quality of life much. We have an excellent public transportation system here in Philly. But tell me, an adrenaline junkie, that I can no longer do some of the things that I consider thrilling ... occasionally take an aerobatics flight or a tandem skydive (can't skydive on my own anymore) and my quality of life would be very, very much impacted.

 

True, we are in the minority, but there are lots of folks like me who like to live on the edge ... who are willing to step out of their "safe" shell to try something exciting ... something that will get the heart pumping and the blood flowing. And you know why these activities can do that? Precisely because they ARE risky. The risk is what makes it fun.

 

As I said, each one of us has to make our own decisions in regard to what we are willing and not willing to do. When I used to hang out at drop zones a lot when I was an active skydiver, all of the instructors would clearly say that skydiving is not for everyone. But for those who enjoy that thrill, it should be our decision whether or not to partake, and I just get annoyed when some government bureaucrat decides something is unsafe and then regulates it out of existence. That's exactly what happened to bungee jumping in the U.S. There are very, very few places you can do that any longer ... thanks to our U.S. government.

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[kryos]

I feel safer flying my plane then driving... So its a calculated risk that you take. Would I jump out of a plane, probably not. Not because I think its unsafe. I just don't have any interest in jumping from planes.. I fly them not jump out of them.. Plus I don't like the feeling of free falling..

LOL ... you and I could be a match made in heaven.

 

Tell you what. You fly de plane and I'll jump out of it! :)

 

Blue skies ...

 

--rita

[FinelyCruising]

This is so sad. My heart goes out to the families and friends.

 

Many excursions are questionable simple because of standards. Here in the US we know to some extent the regulations that must be met, yet there are amusement parks with tragedies like this anyway. In foreign countries I have no idea how well regulated many of these kinds of events are, and I opt out with as a result of suspecting there may be a less stringent standard applied.

 

While I have no way of knowing, I chose what I beleive to be safer opportunites when I cruise just to keep it simple.

 

Again, my thoughts to those families and friends.

[ChBoxers800]

Well maybee you got lucky, the did not hook us up to the 2nd safety line at all stations when 3 of us did it in november. There was a post by a fellow cruise member, that was a first responder to help her, and the main line was down, no failure on the harness. So she died because someone did not follow safety protocals, simple.

 

I agree with you 100%. This poor lady died because of human error. Had she been properly secured to the safety line, this would not have happened.

 

I do not question when you say that you were not hooked to the safely line at all times. I can only tell you that we were.

 

I believe that this is a tragic lesson to everyone who enjoys activities that may have some risk involved. You may not be experienced at what you are doing but common sense can tell you what may not seem right. In the case of ziplining, refuse to do it if all cables are not properly connected. Your life may well depend on it.

[jbrambach]

First and foremost, my sincere condolences to the family of this woman. It must be a terrible feeling to go on vacation with your wife/mother and have to return home without her, simply a terrible shame.

 

As others have said, somethings in life are riskier than others. I always try to weigh that risk when it comes to things like ziplining, bungie jumping or even eating at a restaurant that doesn't filter their water (yuck). Some things in life are just not worth the risk.

 

Oh, JMO, those of you who said that it is worth the risk (your life) be sure to leave a stipulation in your will, hopefully you made up a will, that your family not sue anyone because you knew the risk and were willing to take it.