Your opinion on Vancouver 2010 accident.

[theparanoid]

If it had been safe enough to start with they would not have raise the corner and padded the poles. Funny who people were saying it was dangers before hand. Then a guy dies. After telling his father the day before he felt the track was unsafe. Then the offical blame the drive and change the course. If it was the drivers fault why change the course.

That be like at a traffic intersection with no traffic control, ie no stop sign or red light. People complain about it they do nothing. Then some dies in wreck and they insall a red light.

Same type of sit.

[hunter42]

If it had been safe enough to start with they would not have raise the corner and padded the poles. Funny who people were saying it was dangers before hand. Then a guy dies. After telling his father the day before he felt the track was unsafe. Then the offical blame the drive and change the course. If it was the drivers fault why change the course.

That be like at a traffic intersection with no traffic control, ie no stop sign or red light. People complain about it they do nothing. Then some dies in wreck and they insall a red light.

Same type of sit.

That sounds to me like a complete flaw in your logic.

The local primary school here sits next to a main road. Villagers have always complained to the local MP that people drive way too fast along the main road (50-60mph) and there's never a police patrol, and if nothing was done someone was going to get killed. He always said that we were all talking nonsense and police do patrol along the road.

Well now there's a set of traffic lights, a light controlled crossing and crash barriers next to the school.

Luckily no one was actually killed, and the changes only came about because someone nearly ran over the local MP. But the point is:

If a driver had killed two children by speeding through the village, should the road be changed? Well, yes actually. Because although it was technically "safe", it doesn't mean that it was as safe as possible. And there will always be someone who makes an error and causes an accident. But even if that person is solely to blame, that doesn't mean you should not more safety measures, because it shouldn't have been possible in the first place.

(Just an FYI before anyone points out "you can still speed through traffic lights", they also installed a traffic island thing that means traffic can't go at the same time - that was partly because the bridge over the local burn would collapse if two lorries passed over it at the same time apparently).

[racer123246]

They could've either raised the track or put a fence up along the track like in NASCAR or F1 racing.

[theparanoid]

They could've either raised the track or put a fence up along the track like in NASCAR or F1 racing.

They did. After the guy died.

[Stan]

According to claims, the track was safe. He lost control at Turn 16.

The angles were altered and now it is safe. They've also padded all the poles.

All the luges last night made it through.

Sorry to say that, but even I can see that this can't be told as safe... putting poles for the roof next to the track without at least protecting them is asking for something like this. If the wall behind that turn would have been higher this wouldn't have been avoided since he would have stayed on the track even after falling off. There where other ways to avoid it...

Claims blah here claims blah there, do you really think such claims are correct?

EDIT: Just see the posts above me telling the same