A Net to Catch Falling Sports Fans

Excellent Idea

I can only speculate but IMHO probably not being done mainly due to cost and liability.

What if someone went over the edge trying to catch a ball, landed on the safety net and got sever rope burns because of the safety net = LAWSUIT!

It is tragic and sad. But realistically, how many people have died attempting to catch a baseball at a game?

Unfortunate accident................yes. Redesign the spectator stands............no.

This is how wacko nanny laws are born.

I can practically assure you though, that things in the stands will change. The lawyers, which will be followed by the politicians, will be on this like white on rice.

Once again, they will be trumpeting, ' If we can save just one life, it will be worth it'.

Sometimes bad $hit just happens.

How many? 2 this year actually.

What's the big deal about putting up nets? In the grand scheme of things it's not that drastic of a redesign. Or relatively speaking, that expensive. There is a billion dollar video screen at the Dallas stadium. Safety features are built into all kinds of things. Accidents happen. Why not do something to help prevent them? If it was your son or dad that this happened to, I'm sure you would wish there were nets.

I think his point is a wider "net" if you will. This "accident" was completely avoidable by the individual himself. What "net" should we deploy to catch the stupid?

I think we have long arrived (and probably passed the town limits on the other side) at the point where people have an expectation that someone else is going to be responsible for their safety.

If you don't believe this we have the attorneys to prove it!

I am also of the opinion that people need to be sternly taught that they should not be expecting "safety nets" for their lives. Cause and effect. This means that each individual needs to step up to "the plate" and take responsibility for their own actions - good or bad.

The alternative is the slow, but steady, ride to the nanny state that we can neither afford economically nor the loss of our liberty to protect those that refuse to act responsibly.

I still think Kramarat did an excellent job making that point.

I don't think kramarat made an excellent point at all. Perhaps we should get rid of seat belts in autos, to protect our individual liberty also? Or get rid of railings of all sorts, everywhere? Then we could really be free! We don't really need side rails on any bridges. We could save money, have individual liberty... and all we have to do is stay within the lines painted on the road. Let the stupid people drive off the bridge. Don't need The Man to infringe on our rights with safety regulations by making side rails mandatory. Don't need double doors in elevators either. The stupid should just keep their hands away from the floors speeding by.

Come on AH. What kind of reasoning is that?

No offense to kramarat. I just don't agree with his reasoning.

I completely understand your reasoning.................and would tend to agree if had not spent a lifetime watching things like this get blown completely out of proportion..................at a cost of countless billions in taxpayer dollars.

If the stadium owners are forced to retrofit, the costs will all be reflected in the ticket prices.

I certainly don't think this man deserved to die. But look at it like this. People pay a premium for those seats for two reasons.

1) A great view of the game.

2) A better chance to possibly catch a baseball.

This man, in his excitement over catching a game ball, made a snap decision and it was a bad one. I suspect that had he not fallen and died, he would have been a very vocal opponent of any kind of retrofit that would have lessened his game experience.

Hell, I'm not even a baseball fan and I've seen footage of people almost murdering each other over a little white ball. How do we prevent that? Put individual enclosures around each seat?

If I was that kid, I'd rather grow up and say, ' My Dad was a baseball nut and died trying to get me a game ball. ' Than say, ' My Dad died trying to get me a game ball, and his death is the reason behind all of these new fences and nets that have everyone so pi$$ed off.'

"Put individual enclosures around each seat?

Why not. It would be like that game at the fair where you throw red rubber balls into a grid of boxes to get five in a row!

I think those boxes would be more useful at European "football" games. Keep those geezers separated. Or at least the opposing fans.

No, I can't agree with ya. I think I made my point in post #19. I can add nothing more.

I just undid your OT. I don't know who these people are that are so quick on the OT button, I don't know if I've ever used it.

Anyway, I've got a good response brewing, but, the wife is home, we're on our second cocktail, and I'm taking a dip in our kiddie pool.

The walls of which are not very tall. If I get in there after a couple of drinks, slip, fall outside, hit my head on a rock and die, it's nice to know there are guys like you out there to insure that my widow will be very, very rich.

And a government that will make sure that it never happens again.

I'll do my best to take care of ya. Accidents do happen. Happy dipping

You wrote, "Perhaps we should get rid of seat belts in autos..."

Now you are being silly. If you are a responsible person you will not only drive that way, but act that way by employing safety measures to protect you.

The problem I have is legislating safety because people refuse to take accountability for their actions.

So, your arguments:

Remove railings, lines painted on the road, doors in elevators are all safety measures that prevent accidents from unintentional acts. They may help fools, too, but their design intent was not to save fools.

For example, railings are a good mechanism to help people who may accidentally get pushed or slip on ice.

Lines are a good mechanism to aid the driver in adverse driving conditions when the road may not be clearly visible. You don't drive at night with the headlights off - rather you employ them because they give you a tactical advantage.

Doors help prevent accidents in crowded elevators or a stroller from rolling out the opening.

There are reasonable measures that make engineering and social sense to do. However, should we place nets along bridges because some teenagers decide it would be cool to dance on the parapet? Should we add more lifeguards on the water to rescue boaters that refuse to wear life vests?

My position is that we should not be spending more time/money trying to build safety nets for fools than we do trying to educate them (in the first place) to be responsible for their own actions and what the consequences are if they don't.

Is you position reversed on this? Is your vision that life should be fool-proof?

Well for one thing, I said get rid of railings on bridges, because we already have lines. And all people have to do is stay between the lines, or at least stay on the pavement.

But regardless... all my examples are safety mechanisms. Someone, somewhere decided on the extent, or existence of these mechanisms. None of them are fool proof. They all give some measure of safety, and no more. All of them could be made more safe, all could be made less safe. It's a judgement call. As Moosie said, most of us have experienced the steep stairs and low railings in stadiums and arenas. Many of us have even experienced vertigo there. Those rails could have been designed 6" taller or shorter. The stairs could be steeper or shallower. Much of this has to do with balancing profit against public safety. I'm sure someone considered safety nets like I mentioned, and it was decided against. Judgement call. I'm not an extremist nanny state supporter. But my judgement is that we could up the safety level in this particular case. Even if we did, some will still find a way to die anyway. But I don't think the status quo is sufficient, when it would be relatively easy to supplement the safety factor.

People fall over these things all the time. Sporting events, concerts, etc. Not all of them die so they don't make nat'l news. They fall for all kinds of reasons: slipped, pushed, poor judgement, recklessness, bizarre unavoidable mishap, etc. No I have no facts or figures. I just remember hearing about it many times over the years. Extra safety would be worth it in this case. We have a obligation to provide reasonable safety measures. "First, Do No Harm". As to what exactly is reasonable... that is up to interpretation, and various people will interpret it differently. Clearly, if people are falling and injuring themselves, for whatever reason... stupidity or sheer chance... I feel we are obliged to nudge the safety factor up a bit. Safety devices are being upgraded all the time throughout history. That's why OSHA was formed. The railing are oddly low. I believe it's for visibility reasons. So... to compensate for the added danger from lower than usual railings... why not do something to compensate for that dubious decision? Just because the current state of affairs exists as it is right now in stadiums, does not mean that we got it right the first time. I see no downside to adding nets, that is more important than saving additional people from injury.

So, no. I don't reverse my position at all in this matter. Nothing is fool-proof, and I'm not fool enough to strive for that. But we should do the best we can. And I think we can do better.

How can this be rated off topic?? It's my thread and the subject is exactly ON Topic. It's the same topic as my original question.

Who's on here today??

That probally was me, I thought I was on a different post, I thought I clicked it back. I apologize,

No problem. Thanx.

You wrote, "Extra safety would be worth it in this case."

Having more common sense would have done a far better job and cheaper.

This was completely and 100% preventable and no one else but the victim was required to prevent it. 100%.

We just differ here, specifically on this example. My position is that I am strongly for personal responsibility. Yours is that someone else is supposed to be responsible (at least in part).

Yes, at least in part. Like I said, that's why we have OSHA, and why as Engineers, we try to make things idiot proof. We can leave it at that. This is clearly an issue not of facts, but of opinions and different styles of personal ethical codes.

But to tell you the truth, I didn't anticipate a discussion on philosophical reasons of why we should or shouldn't. I was originally wondering more about the practical reasons why it isn't being done. I believe they play a larger role in the decision, than do ethical reasons. In big business, ethics often take a back seat. And decision making discussions that involve ethics, can easily turn into what we just had in this thread... resulting in no real winner (decision).

I really don't think that it's simply a matter of it costing too much. It wouldn't be particularly expensive, set against the cost of a stadium, or against the types of money that is involved in major league sports. Some decorations and aesthetics cost more than this would. There must be other reasons, neither budgetary, nor philosophical.

I didn't anticipate a discussion on philosophical reasons of why we should or shouldn't.

Tangents are common here. Plus there is a lot of animosity of nobody taking ownership of their actions and the reliance of others do so.

One thing is, when I first heard it, I broke one of my rules that was, In a crisis or tragedy do not make a knee jerk reaction, and make a decision out of emotion.

Cost is a sum of funds, resources, and other factors.

When you consider that this has happened exactly twice in the history of the sport (with only one fatality) it becomes much clearer that this is not a very big problem.

Adding some context, there are far, far more pressing problems in the world and far, far, too few resources to address them. In the triage of these problems there is little or no compelling reason to address an issue that has such a low statistical chance of occurring. Add to that this was not an accident, but a serious lapse in judgement that caused the mishap.

Well. I guess we're not going to just leave it at that, afterall.

AH, you can't POSSIBLY be so naive as to believe only two people have fallen to their deaths from upper level stadium seats, ever. Oh wait, you said only one death. In history. It's bad policy to just pull statistics out of nowhere and claim them as factual. I did about a three minute search and found 6 in last two years, and another in '94. And those are just deaths. And deaths I could find quickly. How many more were horrible injuries from falling a minimum of 20' onto concrete or other seats or railings? And I hardly put effort into that search.

I also found a very interesting site where this exact issue was discussed in 2009:

OSHA injury statistics must be collected and reported by employers as a matter of law and are publicly available. Sports stadium spectator injury statistics, on the other hand, are not so easily obtained.

In the United States, there is apparently no requirement to report them to any agency. And, for liability reasons, there is an incentive for stadium owners to not disclose them except when required. Generally, the only incidents that get public recognition are those that the media become aware of and deem newsworthy - such as the one mentioned in the story and one a few months earlier when a man fell 18 feet over a railing in this same stadium onto a woman sitting below. The public doesn't really have comparable information to OSHA statistics.

Also, you wrote to support that spectator injuries are rare: "Millions of fans attend sporting events every year". That may be true, however, it is only those who have seats in front rows of elevated levels and the employees who service or clean those rows that are actually exposed to the hazard of falling over a low railing - a much smaller number.

In any case, a safety professional would not use injury statistics to make a decision about whether it is necessary to correct a generally recognized hazard (a fall from elevation where protection is not provided or is inadequate to prevent a fall). He or she might use previous injury statistics to support that a novel situation is in fact hazardous or to support that a hazard has or can cause serious injury - in this case that anything over a 4 foot fall would likely result in broken bones, internal injury, permanent disability or death in increasing order of magnitude.

A hazard assessment involves establishing:

1) Is anyone exposed to the potential hazard?
2) What is the likely injury or illness that would result from an incident?
3) What is the probability that an incident will actually happen. On that last point, relevant factors might be:
- How many people are exposed?
- How close are they to the hazard?
- How much time is spent in proximity to the hazard?
- Other relevant conditions in this case might include the potential presence of an excited or intoxicated fan falling over the low railing onto someone below or bumping another person who then falls.

The point is that a safety professional would look at the circumstances of the specific hazard at the specific location and the actual people who are exposed rather than generalize about an industry and leave it at that.

The stadium's safety officer or risk manager usually doesn't have the final say as to what is done when a hazard is identified. Depending on the degree of management commitment to safety beyond a slogan on the wall, the safety officer may have to "sell" a proposed change to management before anything is approved.

One handicap a stadium safety officer would face compared to his counterpart in manufacturing or construction is that printed on the back of the ticket is a disclaimer of liability for injuries. That is, in purchasing a ticket, the fan waives any right to sue the stadium except in cases of gross negligence.

Industry, by law can't shift responsibility for risk to their employees as the sports industry has historically been able to do with their fans. There is a narrow exception for "unpreventable employee misconduct" but it is very difficult to successfully assert. An employer controls the workplace and the workers and is expected to provide a safe workplace. So, increased industrial insurance premiums and possible fines from OSHA would help an industry safety officer make his case.

Holding that the fan assumes all risk of injury at sporting events goes back to court case precedent set in the World War l era. Today, stadium owners assert more control over fans behavior than they did then and have more options available to protect fans from hazards such as falls over low railings or balls, bats or hockey pucks that go flying at high speed into the stands. Hopefully, the courts will recognize this sooner than later.

Also, it is really poor public policy to shift responsibility for injuries from stadium owners who control the venue and its construction to customers who are not safety professionals. In my experience, people (including business people) sometimes don't recognize a hazard even when they are right next to it. And, when they do recognize it, they often underestimate the likelihood of a bad event or how severely it can affect the rest of their lives when it happens. And, like you, they trust stadium management to do the right thing to keep people safe.

But, when liability is shifted from away from the people who can exercise control, the bar may be lowered on people's safety (if you will excuse the pun) as management makes business decisions:

- The safety officer's concerns get sidelined in favor of maximizing the number of available seats, assuring an optimal view and premium prices for those seats.

- Only the bare minimum protections against objects flying into the stands are instituted to preserve the fan's "experience"

- When "accidents" do happen, they are characterized as "freak accidents" even though they were preventable by using standard methods and safeguards.

- Private standards organizations such as the one that updates the UBC may not feel as much pressure to update an obsolete standard.

Mon Jul 6, 2009 12:11 AM EDT

It gets ton the point

such as the one mentioned in the story and one a few months earlier when a man fell 18 feet over a railing in this same stadium onto a woman sitting below.

How? A faulty railing or a stupid act

I did about a three minute search and found 6 in last two years, and another in '94. And those are just deaths.

It great that your going to do research to back your claim, post the reference link.

Get a life. I found that data online for this specific type of incident, but I did not save the link and it may very well be wrong.

The accusation that I am just pulling this stuff out of my butt is flat out wrong and a hostile attack on me rather than the argument.

Does it matter if it is 2, 6 or 30? You have 10s of thousands of people in these stadiums and it is not unrealistic to have people die. Plus, this is a specific type of mishap where the victim was intelligent and used very bad judgement.

Regardless, my whole argument is should we protect smart people from doing overtly stupid things?

Your position and maybe your argument, too, is something else. I think that it is going to be hard, either way, to argue the subjective nature of this argument. It entails a greater social philosophy rather than a simple net for baseball fans.

And look! I did not call you naive. ;-)

Nothing personal, AH. But I stand by the statement that anyone that could possibly even remotely believe that only one person has died in a stadium fall, throughout history, is indeed naive; regardless of what information they found on line. In this particular subject anyway. I can't think of any other word that fits. And with your obvious intelligence, I was just surprised. I hold nothing against you for that.

On the other hand... "Does it matter if it is 2, 6 or 30? You have 10s of thousands of people in these stadiums and it is not unrealistic to have people die."

You've just left me a bit horrified. Sorry man, you're out of line. And I'm ashamed to call you a fellow engineer. Not that you care, but you just completely lost my respect. Beyond that, I'm just speechless. The two of us have nothing else to discuss. We are on completely different planes.

Well, okay, but you may have missed my point.

There are far more problems in this world than resources to solve them.

It may seem cold and cruel to you, but 30 lives lost through self destruction at a sporting event is nothing when you look at the 10s of thousands that die through no fault of their own that we already are not able to save.

An Engineer wanting to design something to save lives is hardly something you can successfully put me down for, kramarat. Nice try.

Oh, and AH, I'm 49 and a grandfather. Not everyone loses their idealism as we grow older. I'm proud to say that I haven't. For me, the pros of that outweigh the cons, and I wouldn't have it any other way. It's unfortunate that many do lose it. As far as "Star Trek NG", I can appreciate that you find you gain something from the show. In a certain sense, it was a very well written show with some deep messages, beyond the sci fi fluff. I have a personal fondness for it, for my own reasons.

I'm not putting you down.

I'm putting down the entire thought process that we Americans have adopted.

On second thought, you're probably right.

I think the President should appoint a panel of highly paid experts to do a 5 year feasibility study on the building of safety nets in stadiums.

Once the proper net design has been established, and since the stadium owners, in their greed, failed to install nets in the first place, this work will be carried out by highly trained and skilled, unionized, government workers.

This will be paid for with either borrowed or printed stimulus dollars. When it's all said and done, it shouldn't cost more than a few billion dollars, including cost overruns..................................a mere pittance in the grand scheme of things.

Once the nets are finished, a permanent department will be created to test and maintain them.

Putting America to work.

Getting this plan in place will be a struggle however, because the evil republicans, who hate all baseball fans, and want all of them to die, will try to stand in the way and prevent it from happening.

Or, another player strike the new stadiums will fall, and the new parks will look like this.

Perfect solution!!!!!

When the fans leap after balls the fall will be about 1 foot. In the end, only some scraped knees and embarrassment.

Darn it. We still need nets. With the stands that close to the field we are running the risk of an outfielder running directly into the crowd. It could possibly lead to a concussion, or even worse, the death of a child.

We should consider going back to wiffle ball.

I caught a blurb on the news today. The fan survived the fall and was awake, responsive and talking. He died of a massive heart attack on the way to the hospital.

Even with this information out, most news organizations are still saying that he plunged to his death.

Even with this information out, most news organizations are still saying that he plunged to his death.

Because "bad new is good news"

Yeah, and heart attacks are boring.

too typical,......

I used to hang around with a guy who worked at a newspaper. The phrase

If It Bleeds, It Leads

seemed to be the way the newspaper business worked.

As sort of a follow through for this thread, the home run derby (a prelude to the All Star Game) was yesterday. One fan fell into a swim pool diving after a home run ball (not injured) and another (who was standing on a dining table; refer to my previous comment about acting like a jackass!) nearly fell twenty feet, lunging for a ball (someone was able to catch him, and haul him back up).

The most discouraging part of these two articles... both seem to laud the efforts and antics of these two clowns.

We need stronger sports laws and to beef up the NICS (National Instant Clown Services) system. <Sarcasm Funny Face Here>

They say monkeys(chimpaneze) genome are only 98.? percent different from homo sapiens...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-identify-gene

...I think the chimps have not only surpassed but all out trumped some homo sapiens

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Not-again-Fan-almost-falls-from-stands-at-Home-?urn=mlb-wp12376

And people feel we should protect these fools, ^{(from themselves)} no I don't think so.

Its a tough argument to defend to begin with, especially with poster boys like this.

yah doorman, same link.....

OBE. I wish some of you guys would stop thinking that an opinion or perspective that is completely different than yours, is a put down or personal attack, it's not.

Trying to put you down never entered my mind. I'm pretty sure it's the same case with AH.

It comes to the reality, when are people going to take responsibility for their stupid actions.

Tragic yes, but this guy died doing something stupid. And the cry is " Somebody should do something to keep this from happening."

No, $hit like this we need. To eliminate the stupid gene.

Misjudging something is a far cry from doing something stupid. I get the impression he wasn't a stupid man.

A lot of very cold harsh inflexible judgments on this topic. It was simply a mistake and an accident. Going after a ball is hardly high risk. Have none of you ever fallen off a rock in a river cause you misjudged where your foot would land? Your head could have hit a rock. Or missed a rung on a ladder and had a near fall while climbing to your roof? Could have broke your neck. Or done anything at all, where you said "Oops! That could have been bad!" while you were doing something routine? Or something exciting?

Jeeze. So many perfectly coordinated gymnasts on here today.

It was simply a mistake and an accident.

So spend an exuberant amount of money for something that was a freak accident, that may never happen again.

Going after a ball is hardly high risk.

he died.

Have none of you ever fallen off a rock in a river cause you misjudged where your foot would land? Your head could have hit a rock. Or missed a rung on a ladder and had a near fall while climbing to your roof?

Yes but never have I said........"Someone should do something about that."

Jeeze. So many perfectly coordinated gymnasts on here today.

Oh Please......Lets not over react just because it was tragic.

It wasn't a freak accident. It happens all the time. But not everyone dies and makes national news.

Sorry, I'm not up to using BOLD to accentuate how cold I am. As far as it happening again... perhaps you'll realize a painful irony when someone you know falls over a railing sometime in the years to come. Or maybe if not someone you know... someone you don't know. In that case, then it will be okay.

Sorry, I'm not up to using BOLD to accentuate how cold I am.

Don't be so sensitive, I actually did that to differential your comments from mine.

As far as it happening again... perhaps you'll realize a painful irony when someone you know falls over a railing sometime in the years to come. Or maybe if not someone you know... someone you don't know. In that case, then it will be okay.

Actually I did, Neighbor of ours fall through a hay hole, broke his neck.

But call me old fashioned. It was an accident. The widow knew it, the neighbors knew it. I knew it. We grieved with her and went on with our lives. No one expected anyone or the government to step in and say....."Someone should do something about that."

We learned from it and did it ourselves.

Irrelevant example. A hay hole isn't normally considered a public venue.

Have none of you ever fallen off a rock in a river cause you misjudged where your foot would land? Your head could have hit a rock. Or missed a rung on a ladder and had a near fall while climbing to your roof?

Irrelevant. these are you words. #23 Forums a two way street.

Fact is, it happened. Accidents happen whether it's public or private property. We treated it the same.....a few of us do.

Irrelevancy seem to be the topic are. And from your rules. #28

As far as it happening again... perhaps you'll realize a painful irony when someone you know falls over a railing sometime in the years to come. Or maybe if not someone you know... someone you don't know. In that case, then it will be okay.

Falls over a railing, so how high is that railing to be. high enough so he tires or falls before getting to the top. Then are people to over react and say, they build the rail that goes up 10' and then have the go horizontal.

I'm not even splitting hairs here, your all over the board to try to defend your position.

You said in one post:

Going after a ball is hardly high risk.

and then this:

It wasn't a freak accident. It happens all the time. But not everyone dies and makes national news.

I think that would be considered high risk, but I didn't see the statistics.

I lived through the swim. I'm so glad that there was both a picture and a warning on the side of the pool that indicated that diving was a bad idea.

Build the fences and nets. I've spent a good portion of my life on top of ladders, roofs, and otherwise in the air. I have never felt compelled to jump after a ball, butterfly, or anything else. In fact, I've had big spiders drop on my head, wasps sting me in my face, etc. Jumping, or anything else that would have resulted in me making a fast meeting with the ground was never a viable option.

BTW I know it's not a book, but one of my favorite movies of all time was the original Matrix.

That was most likely a bad judgement call, not a mistake!

Any normal human being would realize that leaning over a railing where there is a long drop below you entails a significant risk.

If the reporting is true, then this guy simply did the wrong thing and should have known better.

He may not have been a stupid man, but that does not stop someone from doing something stupid.

Stupid gene...maybe off topic but interesting.

http://brainandlearning.blogspot.com/

In lieu of these nets, how about if fans don't act like jackasses. How about if we, as members of a well ordered society, behave as if we had some restraint; this may well be a good example to our children.

Your posts are usually pretty rational Doorman, but this one...

Well evidently you didn't read the story. But to assume he was acting like a jackass is a bit harsh. A player threw him a ball and he tried to catch it. He was a lieutenant at a fire station. He went to the game with his young boy and was only doing what people do at a game. But he slipped. He wasn't acting like a jackass. I don't see any good example that was sent o his kid as he watched his dad die trying to catch a ball for him that a player threw into the stands.

That's what people do. They try to catch balls.

Well, I am a little grumpy today, and my comment is a little out of character.

I have read the stories, and seen the news reports. I agree, the loss of life is a needless tragedy. I agree, his son will bear an emotional scar for the rest of his life. I agree, people like to catch balls at the park; who doesn't like to have a memento like that.

"I don't see any good example that was sent o his kid as he watched his dad die trying to catch a ball for him that a player threw into the stands." Where is the restraint I spoke of? As it turns out, an exercise in restraint would have paid dividends that cannot be measured. Take a chance of losing your life over a baseball?

Okay, but I seriously don't think that he consciously made a decision to risk his life to catch a baseball. It's not like he climbed out on a high wire to retrieve a ball. Or climbing somewhere he wasn't supposed to be. Those kinds of things would have been irresponsible and would have showed a lack of restraint.

But I doubt he weighed the risk of losing his life, against catching a ball. Catching a ball is not normally considered a high risk venture. Especially when a player just threw it to you. He had a split second to decide to reach for it, and he miscalculated. So I'm not sure where restraint fits into the situation. He was an experienced professional firefighter. Probably weighs risks to his life every day. This probably wasn't one of them. Rail was too short to keep his center on the proper side. A simple net would have avoided a tragedy.

You wrote, "Okay, but I seriously don't think that he consciously made a decision to risk his life to catch a baseball."

The problem was that he either did not feel there would be a risk or that the risk was worth the prize.

Either way I tend to feel that he made a serious error in judgement.

If someone had suddenly and intentionally pushed him or the balcony collapse we would have a completely different story here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhsWzJo2sN4

I just read that tradgey.

If putting up a net, they should also get fined. After the net.

Or build the parks so the fall is not 20 feet.

Side note.

I was at a Milwaukee Brewers game back in the mid 80's. And a kid in the upper decks would drop a one dollar bill. and which the little kids on the lower deck fight for position to catch that dollar as it fluttered down. He must have spent about 10.00 bucks for this entertainment.

Then was asked to stop when one flutter out into right feild by Milwakee's Dante Bichette.

Yes, this was a very tragic accident. And yes, there is a strong need to install outriggers and safety nets. There is also a strong need to increase the height of the handrails throughout the entire stadium. How many of us have visited a ballpark and seen those short handrails and though "oh man, those are too short to catch me or anyone else from going over the side....and what a fall down from the upper bleacher section that's sloped very steeply"? I have too many times...at the old Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium, but also at minor league ballparks and local indoor arenas! Even at some of the old movie theatres that still exist build back in the 1900's through 1930's...where they have upper balcony sections.

With the billions spent building these sports stadiums, together with the millions spent on ball players salaries, one would think to include these safety features into the designs or retrofit the older parts.

It appears to me that no common sense prevailed again in stadium design or the Architects got away with following the antiquated building code to the letter to keep the construction budget down.

The only ones that will profit from this will be the shyster personal injury attornys......yet again.

I feel for the kid who witnessed his dad fall over that inadequate railing and fall to his death. That kid is scarred for life because of penny-pinching....

GA CaptMoosie, wonder what the cost would be. Maybe less high price seating? That would be a deal killer. Maybe just tie them off?

Did you notice the other one who fell down here was a fireman too? Having just gone through my every few year offshore firefighting training here in Houston it makes me wonder about the kind of training they are given. Having seen/done just a small fraction of what they go through it seems their physical skills are extreme endurance in all kinds of physical limiting (breath, movement, and coordination too maybe?) gear. Does years of that kind of training contribute to judgment and ball catching? Just a thought, know there are a lot of "real" firemen here.

Oh ya, I made it through, even the 2.5" hose team with an Air Pack in the engine room, but let them know that when I have to be on a hose team you better launch the Life Boats then. I practice the Air Pack diligently; have had to fight a Switchgear fire in one (with CO2, not a hose) then operate the controls in the smoke.

I saw the video of this guy fall over the rail. It is a terrible tragedy, no doubt.

It did not appear to me that he should have fallen. He must have slipped on something on the floor.

No, he didn't slip on something. I've seen the video at least a dozen times on our NYC-based TV station.

It's as simple as this: the ball was thrown short and he lounged forward to try to catch it, lest someone else getting it down below......all to catch a baseball for his young son. Total lack of judgement IMO, and too short a handrail.

Hell bells, the minimum standard stair handrail height requirement per ANSI and NYS Building Code is measured 42-inches from the top of the stair thread to the top of the rail vertically. Obviously, the rail he toppled over was far shorter!

According to a MSN news report this morning, this fall over a railing is the 3rd one to occur at the present Ranger's Stadium since it was built. The current building code there stipulates that handrails must be 26-inches high. The owners of the stadium had already raised them once before, but the Ranger's spokesman didn't not state what that height was. He did state, however, than it appears that the railing in question was apparently less than the desired 42-inches. He didn't elaborate further.

This isn't an isolated occurrence with fans falling over upper bleacher handrails. Some notable falls recently at other stadiums, as provided by MSN news, as follows:

Sept. 17, 2003: A fan fell to his death from the right-field wall while attending a Giants game at Pac Bell Park in San Francisco
• June, 26, 2009: A man fell out of the upper deck during a St. Louis Cardinals-Minnesota Twins game at Busch Stadium in St. Louis.
• Nov. 20, 2010: An intoxicated man fell out of the upper deck and injured the fan he fell on during an Auburn home football game at Tiger Stadium; both were hospitalized.
• Nov. 28, 2010: A man died after he fell at least 20 feet during a Philadelphia Eagles-Chicago Bears game at Soldier Field in Chicago.
• May 24, 2011: A 27-year-old man died three days after falling about 20 feet and striking his head on concrete during the seventh inning of a Colorado Rockies game at Coors Field in Denver.

Let us not forget that a whole host of major league stadiums and arenas in the US are owned by the municipalities in which they reside, hence it is incumbent upon those municipalities to upgrade their stadiums lest they be open to civil suits. Where stadiums are owned by municipalities, these costs will not result in higher ticket prices as some would suggest in this thread.

Hmmmmm......you wouldn't dare go on a bridge superstructure under construction or repair if there were no fall prevention nets installed underneath. Likewise on a high rise build or large Civil Works project in Manhattan, Chicago, Dallas, Vegas, or LA! OSHA would skin the General Contractor alive and fine him/her big-time for such a grievous act. And local government inspectors let this issue slide in regard to handrail height and other fall prevention devices? Call it political expediency for lack of a better term. Something that needs to be changed, seriously. Right now, something stinks in Denmark IMO with lax building code requirements nationwide....

26 inches high, OSHA (though that is a work place) is 42".

At Lambeau Feild (Home the Green Bay Packer Football) in Green Bay, WI. To add seat they actually added rows to the front bringing the seating closer to field level. Making it little tight, but started the Lambeau Leaps.

Well, when American sports fans start acting like European football fans. Then bring in the National Guard. Or control Beer sales.

http://webspace.ship.edu/sblichtman/documents/Just%20Another%20Football%20Accident.pdf

I don't know anything about baseball stadiums, but is there another layer of seats below where the guy fell? If so it's lucky he didn't kill somebody else as well as himself.

And to those you can add:

• Nov 2009 - Staples Court in Los Angeles
• July 2010 - Rangers Ball Park in Arlington
• April 1994 - Rangers Ball Park in Arlington
• March 2009 - Busch Stadium in St. Louis
• Plus the two that happened in the past month

And there's no doubt that that is not a complete list. As has been mentioned, there are no laws stating that all falls must be reported to any official gov't agency. It wouldn't be in a stadium's best interest to publicize it, if it can be avoided. So who knows how many have been kept low profile by offering cash settlements. Particularly if death wasn't involved, but only injury. One can assume that there were many more that resulted in injury than in death.

The point is... people fall. With current designs, it would be miraculous beyond belief if no one ever did. By their very nature, sports arenas are accidents waiting to happen. You mix that many people, with steep stairs, narrow steps, alcohol, people carrying things, , legs sticking out everywhere, excitement, balconies, heights, low railings, major distractions, etc. and so many games in so many sports in so many cities, all throughout the year ... what other outcome could there be? And to sports, let's add thousands of yearly concerts held in these venues, where it is dark (if it's indoor); making it both much more difficult to see, and far less likely to be reported to the media. And measures could be taken to decrease injury, but they aren't.

This is not a new issue. Nor is it a foolhardy and obscure opinion of mine that I just pulled out of my butt, because I'm "oversensitive". It's a real issue that has always been around, and I was wondering why it hasn't been addressed. That was the point of this thread. My idea of a simple net was one suggestion of a way to address it. The professional sports industry is gigantic and powerful. Change does not come easily.

Just saying "people should be more careful" or "only stupid acts cause falls" or if you fall, you deserve it" is in my opinion, extremely and shockingly irresponsible. Or even worse, saying "it's too rare of an incident to worry about" is not only irresponsible, but also deceptive or sadly ill-informed.

So far, all those opposed are saying the same thing over and over (above)... and are ignoring the fact that people are dieing and getting hurt, while there are solutions available. I just really don't see why all the opposition? Are all of you willing to sacrifice the lives of fellow American, fathers, sons, daughters and mothers... innocent of foolishness or not, just to stand by your hardline ideals of non-government intervention? How about something simpler than government intervention? How about conscience intervention?

As engineers, I'm particularly surprised at this attitude here. It is our job to make the physical constructed things of this world, safe for those who use them. The hell with your political beliefs. You are engineers first... that first, do no harm. Isn't that right?

No, I'm sure those that didn't think we should save a few extra lives, still don't believe we should save a few extra lives, despite the things I just pointed out. Whatever, guys.

You said "as engineers, I'm particularly surprised at this attitude here. It is our job to make the physical constructed things of this world, safe for those who use them. The hell with your political beliefs. You are engineers first... that first, do no harm."

You certainly must be kidding! I just looked at my inmmediate office environment, I have 6 30 in. thick-formica-sharp corners on the desks, glass walls, a heavy hard drive and 2 file cabinets with 24 pinch points. Are you telling me, that if get hurt with any of these, the blame lies with the engineers that design them?

Political beliefs have a lot to do with it, since one side seems to think that the solution to any problem is to throw money at it, instead of opting for individual responsibility and practical solutions. If you are for the installations of nets, where do you stop? More workers to retrieve the guy from the net? A cushioned bag at the bottom for those who miss the net? Safety crews in the lower level to assist those who missed the net, to get off the cushioned bag safely? ....

GA,

When I was the engineering manager and needed to hired engineers. There are many critera, Cost, Performance, Schedule,...

and I was always curious of which was more important to them.

I asked them and they respond with answers all over the board, and not one would say what I would say. And I would ask them did you know what I would say. And I Its a combination of many, you have to weight them all out, but every time Safety should and always be on top. A very narrow margin but still a margin.

And stated thats the reason American Society of Mechanical Engineers was established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers

The trick is of a good engineer is, is knowing the balance

I just looked at my inmmediate office environment, I have 6 30 in. thick-formica-sharp corners on the desks, glass walls, a heavy hard drive and 2 file cabinets with 24 pinch points. Are you telling me, that if get hurt with any of these, the blame lies with the engineers that design them?

Are you telling me, that if get hurt with any of these, the blame lies with the engineers that design them?

Yes,

In Offices design of furniture, that term is called ergonomics. There are Ergonomic Engineers.

You should not confuse ergonomics with stupid acts.

Ergonomics as with the office furniture.

Stupid acts as putting yourself at risk like these people at the ball park.

If you are for the installations of nets, where do you stop? More workers to retrieve the guy from the net? A cushioned bag at the bottom for those who miss the net? Safety crews in the lower level to assist those who missed the net, to get off the cushioned bag safely? ....

You could go the other way, and just put spikes or pungee sticks below. This will really separate us as humans and Darwins Awardee's

See, now you are going to extremes. If I go the other way, and just put spikes or pungee sticks below as you suggest, it would be absurd. I though you said a good engineer knows "balance".

first things first, I just notice your recently joined. I like to welcome you to CR4.

No, your wrong. Extremes? that would be a stretch. You see, office furniture you use. And it should be safe.

Putting spikes or pungee sticks will or should make people think first. Is this safe for me to do something I should'nt.

As office furniture, which technically is a tool. It should be reaitively safe for every day use. But you can still get hurt by it, and here's the catch that allot of green engineers miss and some seasoned.

It's finding the balance of safety, functionality, cost, ect.....

And balance is a combination of compromises. And to explian further, when a compromise occurs, it takes away attibutes of one to enhance another.

And as I stated before; Safety should and always be on top. A very narrow margin but still a margin.

You see, nothing can be made idiot proof, There comes a time when if there is a problem, try a different approach. And try to make the idiot think.

^{This post only seems passive/aggressive.}

Just when I think you're as far to the extreme one side of this as you can get... along comes someone who's even more extremist in their views on this matter. So I'm just going to ignore Nelson Hozman's remarks, except to say, yes it would be the engineers fault if he designs super sharp corners where rounded corners would be safer. That's just common sense and basic ergonomics.

Now as far as what you just said ... A VERY NARROW MARGIN BUT STILL A MARGIN... Dude, what are you talking about? You're getting caught up in your own preaching, in trying to make a political point. A very narrow margin? Really?? You are an engineer, right? You mean to tell me that you don't use Safety Factors? You mean to tell me that you calculate structures to be juuuusst barrrrely strong enough, because you are balancing cost vs. safety? Are you kidding me?

To use the appropriate Safety Factor is by no means a balancing act. The appropriate Safety Factor for a structure is by no means cheap. If you use a Factor of 1, you would save a ton of money vs. a design that uses a factor of three. Larger beams, more beams, bigger bolts, more concrete... There is nothing delicate about the balance between a proper design with the proper Safety Factor applied, as opposed to a design that is just strong enough, according to calculations. There are no compromises in regards to safety. That's nonsense. Your entire argument is getting distorted by your political views of liberal vs. conservative. "Liberals throw money at something..." etc. Time for a reality check. All I can say is Thank God that the engineering industry has not been as caught up in political partisanship in their reasoning, as you are making out, in this thread. All of your comments and opinions so far have been politically based. And you're being cheered on by your fellow "small government" compatriots. Again, Thank God that cooler and more rational minds, for the most part, still prevail.

The issue here is, as CaptMoosie suggested, a matter of bureaucracy, not political leanings of small government, and avoiding a nanny state. Those political beliefs have no place in the world of engineering. This thread was supposed to be about practical reasons, and bureaucratic reasons and engineering reasons of why nets are not installed. NOT about ideaologies of who deserves to die. This is all a matter of doing what's right. Not doing what is closest to your personal political leanings. It is our responsibility to make things safe for the people who use them... ALL people who use them... despite their level of stupidity, despite chance accidents, despite mob mentality, despite everything we can think of. YOU are NOT the judge of how stupid or foolish does someone have to be, before they deserve my putting forth my full effort to design something that will protect their lives. You really think you have the right to make that decision? YOU are going to tell a 7 year old girl that her father was too stupid in your opinion, to be covered in the level of safety you decided to design around? Or tell a mom... "Sorry, but I judged your 17 year old son to be too ignorant and foolish to live. I decided to not figure his level of stupidity into my engineering. Deal with it". Is that what you're saying? If so, you better turn in your professional engineering license now. In fact all of you who are hootin' and hollerin' about natural selection, and too stupid to live, and government has too many safety rules. All of you... stop being engineers. Because I DO NOT want you deciding who lives or dies based on your political rants. These are REAL PEOPLE... REAL LIVES you're talking about. Not some statistics. You all ought to be ashamed of yourself. You want politics? Then become a freaking mayor!! You want to inject your political judgements into the level of safety that you provide the American people who depend on your good sense and professionalism... then you better hang up your slide rule and stay the hell out of engineering. All of your smugness... from all of you.. really makes me ill. And scared for America. I think I'm done with the ridiculous path this thread has taken. It is now officially absurd, contaminated by politics, and useless.

I thought you people were Engineers. I thought you lived by an oath. I guess not. Clearly your world is consumed by Left side and Right side. That's so sad.

Now proceed with your bashing of me, and my sense of righteousness. I won't hear it. I'm gone.

my comment of using pungee sticks was a tongue in cheek comment taken to the extreme by safety for all. And I just use an extreme example to counter trying to protect bad judgement.

as far as safety factor of course you use safety factors.

as far as slim margins, have you never done a risk analysis , using a weighted analysis. Since it seem you never did. You basiccal analyse you data with formulas and that applys a number to it.

I'm traveling now and doing this on my lunch. And doing this post on my phone. I'll post a simple weighted analyses. It's great tool.

OBE, I give you a GA for that posting as I couldn't have said it any better. I have tied to stay out of the ridiculous political ramblings throw about in here. Politics does not belong in the engineering arena, period. Politicians rarely give solid unequivocal forbearance regarding where engineering safety concerns ad decisions come into play in the large scheme of things....only votes, power, and $$$$ matter to them. Rarely is there a politician who cares what an engineer thinks or proposes. How many US Senators and Representatives are or were engineers prior to holing office? I bet you can count the number on one hand. Right?

I think it would be safe to say, on a general note, that vast majority of those of us who became engineers, especially the Professional Engineers, became engineers because we loved to tinker with and design mechanisms and structures, but also because of our humanitarian concerns and the need to serve civilization in the best way possible and practical....to make living on this Earth as human beings as best as we could....and to serve mankind with our knowledge, experience and wisdom. We are humanists for the most part. Unfortunately, some of us entered into engineering primarily for the "Mulu" first and foremost before everything else...a damn shame and pity.

That may sound idyllic, but I sincerely still believe it after starting out as an engineer 34 year ago rather then becoming an Architect. I chose my life's path purposely to serve man and this planet, and to make life safer and more enjoyable for everyone. I have never allowed politics to enter into the equation during my career when it came to safety issues, even when I served as a City Engineer.....I told the politicians that I worked for the straight poop on many occasions (I didn't sugar coat it), and that I worked for the city's residents first and foremost, and them second. I am very concerned with some of your statements where you allow politics to cloud your engineering judgements. Flabbergasted isn't the correct word that I feel now, but it's close. Tell you what though, I firmly held my ground on a number of issues, and this made me somewhat unpopular with several jerk-off City Aldermen. So be it. I can hold my head high and know I did the right thing and didn't waver in my stance on a number of subjects. Safety concerns always came first, and be damn the rest!

Thanx for the backup CaptMoosie. It's an unfortunate fact of human nature that the most rational of humans don't always speak up. The point we've both made is beyond reproach, but still there are those that try to justify their opposition to it.

As I said, this thread has been hijacked and corrupted with a political agenda. So it's completely useless at this point. But I wanted to come on one more time to say thanks for speaking up, and for the GA; although it's already been nullified by someone who thinks they have the right to judge who is worthy enough to be safe and who isn't. Clearly not an ethical engineer, if they are an engineer at all. I wonder when he lost his way. He should probably run for office, and be in his element. There's obviously a fringe out there that agrees with him. But he shouldn't be an engineer.

I agree. I don't zap GAs, and I don't give OTs.............unless it's a scam thread to try to make money.

BTW, I think the hard feelings here are completely unnecessary. This man died of a heart attack........................he was a ticking time bomb. His time to go was here. The fall didn't kill him, so the heart attack did.

We have to try to remember. A lot of threads are not quests to save the world, but B.S. sessions..................nothing more.

One more point.

When people get on here and start a thread that is based on their personal opinion, and is cloaked as a science or engineering topic, and then act as if they have been personally assaulted when other people voice very different opinions, it takes away from the nature of this site.

I hope it is a trend that isn't spreading.......................as far as I'm concerned, roger's got the bases loaded.

Get over it!!!

Bashing you, because I point out your inconsistances of you own posts that you have one set of rules for yourself and another for peope that aren't inline with you.

from your own post you can't even defend. #33

Remember a good engineer is also a consistant one.

This tools is used by project engineers, but is also a useful tool.

Hope you can read it, if not PM me with your email and I'll send the spread sheet.

I took the liberty of putting some of the members named such as yourself as a weighted evaluator.

I highlighted it, and by slightly carries more weight there are two ways of looking at it with the safety already factored in.

One compared the blue (safety) against the green (all the rest)

or

yellow (safety) against pink (all the rest)

This should assist you in becoming a more well rounded engineer., It did for me.

this should show better.

and

An example of my meaning of slightly more is (safety) 27% over the next highest of (cost) of 25%

or over all weighted scale of safety of 2.672 over price of 1.962.

Yes, someone should be ashamed here.

A good deal of the posts here were meant to be tongue in cheek, I suspect.

I hope yours is too. You can't seriously think that all things that are engineered, should be engineered to the point that they are absolutely safe for the very dumbest members of society.

Think about what you're saying. We'd have to pull all automobiles off the road.......................we'd have to pull everything that had any degree of danger. For cryin' out loud man........................getting out of bed would become a crime.

When the expense of insurance premiums and attorneys fees outweighs the cost of safety netting, it will be deployed.

Ball chasers, like circus performers, can consider performing without a net. More adventure!

If you put up a barrier, people will find ways to circumvent the barrier. Maybe razor wire would work.

Catch them with industrial butterfly nets, wielded by people in white coats.

NATURAL SELECTION.........THE END!

I agree.

-All humans have varying degrees of mental capacity.

-The instinct of Self-preservation varies from person to person.

-Survival of the fittest and natural selection are laws of nature.

-All humans on earth are affected by gravity and speed.

-When gravity and/or speed come into play, the risk of bodily injury and/or death is directly proportional to the distance between your feet and the ground, for the first, and the amount of it for the latter.

We see people die every day due to collisions with and/or falls. We call them accidents. But in reality many are not, they are the results of irrational or no thought.

Accident: a specific, unpredictable, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and/or deliberate cause but with marked effects.

If you lean against the rail in the upper stand at a stadium, you lose your balance and fall, is an accident. If you were reaching for a ball, is not.

In the case of the baseball fan although sad, the result was general, predictable, not rare and unintended, so it fails the description of an accident for 3 out 4 reasons. Reasonable accommodations for safety are implemented in most situations, but noone can expect all to be fool-proof. The idea of installing nets on the elevated stands of stadiums, in order to protect people without rational thought, is nonsensical, excessive and unreasonable not to mention pricey. But I am glad it was brought up because it has let me know that there is liberal thought in the engineering field, which I always considered to be pragmatic, realistic and cost effective. This reminds me of the following:

Coyote problem; A typical example of liberal thought and the political process

Never spend $1 on an instant cure (a bullet) when you can spend $1,000,000 to leave the problem unresolved.

The Sierra Club and the U.S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the Wyoming ranchers for controlling the coyote population. It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue. What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive. The males would then be castrated and let loose again. This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U. S. Forest Service.

All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes. Finally an old fellow in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said; "Son, I don't think you understand our problem here", "These coyotes ain't trying to "procreate" with our sheep - they're eatin' 'em!"
You should have been there to hear the roar of laughter in that room.
The meeting never really got back on track.

Perhaps we just put every spectator in full body suits the prevent them from being dumb enough to lean over a railing they might fall from...but to protect the poor spectator that gets their skull cracked when they get hit by a fly ball that hit them while the were otherwise predisposed texting some other loser on their cell phones at the moment.

Fact is.....some people are so dumb they should die to weed out the undesirables from the human gene pool. Unfortunately this doesn't happen nearly as much as it should.

Put a net and some fool will make a leap to catch a ball expecting a net to be there to catch them. And miss the net all together.

Perhaps 20 foot tall chain link fences instead of railing might prevent this even more effectively. They use these at Soccer stadiums to control the idiots there from storming the field....it would also contain the idiots that have a tenacious grasp of the law of gravity.

Back in the day, I went to an outdoor rock concert. It was the Black & Blue tour...............Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult.

It was at Lebanon speedway in New York. In the far back there were chain link fences that were well over 20' tall. Four people fell to their deaths. Why? Because they climbed to the top of the fences and fell.

Had the fences not been there, they might have lived.

Some people just can't be saved from themselves.