Although the video isn’t bloody, don’t play it unless you are thinking about sources of information for an investigation of this accident.
Note: They took down the ABC footage, and all other sources I could find, but this ABC footage has a couple of pictures…
Watching the video does make one think … shouldn’t there have been more Safeguards in place?
90 miles per hour and fixed steel objects just a few feet way.
It seems the only Safeguard was the “goodness” of the luge driver.
What do you think??? Was this “safe enough”?
See a previous blog post by Dave Janney here:
http://www.taproot.com/wordpress/2010/02/13/probe-completed-in-luge-accident/
By the way, here’s the picture in case the footage above gets taken down again…
The steel post that he hit is about 1 meter to the right of the wall you can see him going over.
This is the last turn and in the video, you can see him drop down from the curve and hit the inside wall, fly off his sled, go over the short wall. and hit a steel post head first.
The fixes to the “safe” course were to raise the wall all along the section where you can see it and to move the start line down the run to reduce speeds (which were higher than in any previous Olympic luge event.)
Here’s an opinion that luge driving is “safe”:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/15/epstein.luge/index.html
Another luge article from the athletes’ point of view:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100215/wl_time/08599196428400
Here’s a great article about the luge accident from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069753617335586.html?mod=rss_Today‘s_Most_Popular
Here’s the video:
Driver in F1 cars are accorded lots of protection including a purpose designed “capsule” to absorb most impact in a high speed (200mph) crash. Luge racing at 90 mph with only what appears to be a glorified Lycra suit as protection and a helmet no better than those worn for novice cycling …?? Suicide I would say, that’s what it is – it’s really a no brainer!!! But then again, no one was forced into competition. We reap what we sow. And remember fools and heroes are merely separated by a line no thicker than dental floss most times.
Goodmorning Mark,
Well, I read the news and was sad to learn that the game led to fatalities.
I would like to make following suggestions to avoid such mishaps in future and make the sports safe for future.
1. There is need to reshape the design of the track by covering it and making it a capsule-like shape while ensuring enough ventilation for the player. If the whole track can’t be covered, at least dangerous areas, like curves, could be covered.
2. It the above suggestion is not feasible then necessary arrangements could be made in the shape stairs so that there is a enough distance between the track and the spectators, say about 30 metres.
3. Safety of the referees should also me ensure by making towers so that the players don’t hit them,
I hope you will find my suggestions attractive.
Unfortunate event. It would seem to me that the probability of riders coming off the track should have been a design consideration and in particular as a result of the pre grame trials and experiences on the track. Obviously covering the track as a tube is impractical and contrary to the spirit of spectator sport. Fundementally the use of NETTING with appropriate fixed support design away from potential impact zones would not have been an engineering problem. To blame the capability of the rider to me was a huge copout by the VANOC/IOC. Needless risk taken. For example if you watched the short track speed skating you saw a HUGE step change in safety from the past by using huge padding and NON fixed walls around the side of the rink. Same in DOWNHILL Skiing. IT CAN BE DONE!
Very unfortunate incident however perhaps something so simple as HAZARD ASSESSMENT could be introduced to the engineers and potential operators of such facilities. I realloy do appreciate Tap Roots coverage of this tragic accident,.
I think it’s obvious that the track was not safe by the results it produced. There had been 30,000 “practice” runs on the track before the event with no severe consequences. I’m wondering if they had a qualified safety engineer look at the physics potential of the track? At 90mph, there is so much energy and momentum that being flung off the course is a real possibility (We know that to be 100% true now). Did anyone ask the question “what if” enough times for every possible outcome? Obviously not. Did the 30,000 practice runs get evaluated for accident potential? With the pressure to have a course in place for a huge event like the Olympics, it’s possible that safety was not their top priority?…that making schedule played a part in the event? I’d like to see the accident scene. I’ll bet that if they had put up a barrier it would have interfeared with the television cameras. Is that why they didn’t put up a barrier there? Did the original design call for a barrier wall there? What descisions were made (if any) to not protect the posts?
Who was it that said “if you put good people in bad systems, you get bad results”. Once again they were proven correct.
The effect of the logic of failure -The safer you make it – the more risk people take. To make it 100% safe limit the risk.
I’ve heard the theory that making things safe makes people more risky.
Think about this …
What about replacing your airbag with a big spike pointed right at your heart. Would fatalities be reduced or increased?
Best Regards,
Mark
Making things safe – Do you really need to conceal the spike? The fatalities would increase because people would feel safe. The point is the even must expose the danger so we can take action.