Darwin Awards 2003

[Ron 10]

Quote

The bonfire and it's traditions were not ill concieved.
The engineering of the structure was flawed, and there was a chain reaction of events that led up to it's collapse.

The tradition, however, was strong, and promoted pride, and self esteem to those that participated in it. Insulting the principle and the ideas behind the bonfire and what it stood for is childish and immature, as well as having all the ear markings of a troll.

I have to back Kallend here.

While it may have been done for almost 100 years, and while it may have a rich tradition....It still was not a good idea, and everyone know it was getting out of hand.

He is right, and while I can understand the pain of those close to it. It is a very good example of a Darwin canidate.

Everyone that loses someone feels pain...Even the guy that tried to rob the store, and his gun didn't fire so he looked down the barrel had a family. Was that story funny to you? I bet his family and friends cried while you laughed.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Nightingale 0]

Freak accidents or incidents where bystanders are killed are not eligible for darwin awards. Period. The Aggie bonfire wouldn't have won a Darwin whether Aggies wrote letters or not. It simply didn't qualify.

[kallend 1,923]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have always considered your thinking as warped - thank you for proving me right.
.

The outcome proved Bonfire to be ill conceived and poorly executed. The number of years it had been a tradition is immaterial.

The bonfire and it's traditions were not ill concieved.
The engineering of the structure was flawed, and there was a chain reaction of events that led up to it's collapse.

.

The engineering was flawed BECAUSE of the tradition and Aggie culture. The official report is very clear about how this allowed Bonfire to get way out of hand.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,923]

Quote

Freak accidents or incidents where bystanders are killed are not eligible for darwin awards. Period. The Aggie bonfire wouldn't have won a Darwin whether Aggies wrote letters or not. It simply didn't qualify.

It was not a freak accident, it was an inevitable accident.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

It was not a freak accident, it was an inevitable accident.

Irrelevant.

According to the report, no evidence was found that any single error by an individual led to the collapse of the Bonfire. From reading the report completely, it seems as though the fault lies with University officials, who failed to ensure a solid design and proper safety protocol. The fault did not lie with the students who were killed, therefore disqualifying them from receiving a Darwin award. Period.

[falxori 0]

i don't think you can define it as "stupid".

the tradition itse;f could be seen as foolish but its not "stupid" in that context.

doing such a thing without taking care of the engineering and safety aspects is not stupid, its criminal.
and i'm sure those who neglected to do so were charged.

i don't think its a good example for Darwin awards, for court, maybe.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kallend 1,923]

Quote

Quote

It was not a freak accident, it was an inevitable accident.

Irrelevant.

According to the report, no evidence was found that any single error by an individual led to the collapse of the Bonfire. From reading the report completely, it seems as though the fault lies with University officials, who failed to ensure a solid design and proper safety protocol. The fault did not lie with the students who were killed, therefore disqualifying them from receiving a Darwin award. Period.

The report on the Aggie bonfire indicts the student culture and leadership as much as the A&M administration. Not to mention the drunkenness and horseplay, which are mentioned as a "barrier" to safety but had no direct responsibility for the accident itself. It's all about institutional culture, and A&M's culture was not one of safety. I stand by my original comment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[elfanie 0]

The difference between the Darwin awards and normal accidents...

Something that qualifies for the Darwin awards is something that makes 99% us shake our heads and and think, "WHAT was he thinking? WAS he thinking ANYTHING??"

Normal accidents, like the bonfire, make most of us shake our heads and think, "But for the grace of God go I.....that could have been me.."

big big difference. The bonfire may have been poor engineering, it may have had any number of factors involved...but it wasn't a "duh" moment, many people were involved, and many more would have been except we don't live there.

But maybe Kallend is so smart that he would have been the sole voice of reason and would have stayed back while picketting with signs that read, "Dumb idea!! It is going to collapse and kill you...dumb idea! Stop the madness!!"

but that begs the question...why did you not take any measures to stop it from being built? And are you going around the country stopping people from doing all of the things we do every day that cause accidents? If not...why not? Just so you can sit back after the fact and point fingers??

(my sympathies go to AggieDave)

--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings

[Nightingale 0]

if it wasn't directly the fault of the students killed, and ONLY their fault, it doesn't qualify for a Darwin.

There may not have been very intelligent choices made by students, student government, and administration, but since the students building the fire pile can not be considered directly at fault, they don't qualify for a Darwin award.

[kallend 1,923]

Quote

if it wasn't directly the fault of the students killed, and ONLY their fault, it doesn't qualify for a Darwin.

There may not have been very intelligent choices made by students, student government, and administration, but since the students building the fire pile can not be considered directly at fault, they don't qualify for a Darwin award.

Where did I say it did qualify? Aggiedave www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=845922#845922 brought up the subject of the Bonfire's nomination. My comments have concerned the Aggie culture and the resulting inevitability of the accident.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Where did I say it did qualify?

A few posts ago.

Quote

I'm not harsh. Gravity and poor engineering combined with stupidity is harsh.

I really see little difference between this event and many others that have been posted as "Darwin" awards.

Don't you think that statement was a little off. You don't see a difference between a bunch of college kids going to a traditional bon fire and someone using a cigarette lighter to check how full a gas tank is?

[AdD 1]

Where I'm from people are always blowing their eyebrows off with gas trying to light fires and whatnot. It sucks, but why were spectators able to get so close to the fire in the first place? Excluding the fact that it's gotta be pretty damn hot if you're close enough to get crushed by it, the people in charge of the kids' safety were the darwin candidates. The only thing they did wrong was get close to a big fire. We jump out of airplanes for christ sake. It's not like they were climbing the woodpile or something. On top of that if they're anything like my school they were probably drunk anyway, I think it's pretty uncool to even mention that in connection with the darwin awards. That being said those are some of the funniest stories I've read in a long time...

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[Ron 10]

Quote

Freak accidents or incidents where bystanders are killed are not eligible

They knew what was going on...They knew all about it.

Im not slamming them, but they knew they were going to be in a situation that could hurt them. They went of their own free will to be a part of it.

Its not like they were just walking by and something fell. They were there for that event.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Darius11 12]

I could care less about the facts of the event.
All i know is someone i know has lost a friend.
Lets be more sensitive to each other.

Does proving your point really matter that much?


Dave i am sorry for your loss Bro.
RIP

Peace

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Nightingale 0]

and because of the actions of their student leaders and school administrators, they had no reason to believe that event would not be safe.

[ACMESkydiver 0]

Quote

I could care less about the facts of the event.
All i know is someone i know has lost a friend.
Lets be more sensitive to each other.

Does proving your point really matter that much?


Dave i am sorry for your loss Bro.
RIP

Peace

Good call, Darius...

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[bmcd308 0]

>>Excluding the fact that it's gotta be pretty damn hot if you're close enough to get crushed by it,<<

It collapsed while they were stacking the logs.

This bonfire has historically reached a height of 10 stories (the logs, not the flames) and was a feat of engineering itself - the building of the bonfire structure was matter of tremendous pride to the students who worked on it.

In 1999, it became clear that at least a portion of the engineering associated with the bonfire was unsound when the structure collapsed while the students were building it.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[kallend 1,923]

Quote

>>Excluding the fact that it's gotta be pretty damn hot if you're close enough to get crushed by it,<<

It collapsed while they were stacking the logs.

This bonfire has historically reached a height of 10 stories (the logs, not the flames) and was a feat of engineering itself - the building of the bonfire structure was matter of tremendous pride to the students who worked on it.

In 1999, it became clear that at least a portion of the engineering associated with the bonfire was unsound when the structure collapsed while the students were building it.

There had been a previous collapse, but no loss of life was involved. That should have indicated that the engineering was unsound.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jfields 0]

Quote

You don't see a difference between a bunch of college kids going to a traditional bon fire and someone using a cigarette lighter to check how full a gas tank is?

Well....

My view of a "traditional bon fire" does not involve something that weighs up to 2,000,000 pounds and stands up to 109 feet tall. Clearly, this bonfire is a bit unusual. With that should come an unusual level of care and planning. From the University's own report, those were substandard. Poor skills, poor oversight, poor planning and a cultural disregard for safety (which Kallend mentioned) were the main factors.

While I feel bad for Dave, and sad about the people that died, this event was avoidable. While on a large scale and sanctioned by the school, it held many elements in common with the more normal "here, hold my beer" type of incidents that are usual Darwin Awards fodder.

I guess my view is that if you laugh at the humor in the tragedy of others, you ought to be at least accepting of those that laugh at yours. Of course, the other simple alternative is to be sensitive to all of them.

[Ron 10]

Quote

and because of the actions of their student leaders and school administrators, they had no reason to believe that event would not be safe.

You build a towering 80 foot wall of wood that weighs two million pounds...what part of that sounds like a GOOD idea?

Quote

Team 2/4 found considerable evidence of irresponsible behavior in Bonfire.
Alcohol use was substantial, although student leaders reportedly prohibited
alcohol. Also, evidence of hazing and harassment by student workers and
student leaders as well as unnecessary horseplay and fighting was significant,
despite University efforts to control it. Team 2/4 documented dozens of
examples of these behaviors, some of which have led directly to accidents in
which students have been hurt or hospitalized.

And to do it while drinking, and horsing around?


And there was a history of it getting more and more dangerous

Quote

Despite good overall safety intentions (both University and student leaders
stated frequently in the interviews that safety was important to them), the
enforcement track record of Bonfire safety programs is poor by any standard.
First, the injury incident rate has been growing in recent years – increasing by
more than 80% from 1996 to 1998.

I don't see how being there was a good idea...And yet they flocked to it, and some drank and played around while there were there.

If I go to Spain to watch the running of the bulls, and I get gored standing there....I went to a high risk event, and paid the price.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,923]

Quote

and because of the actions of their student leaders and school administrators, they had no reason to believe that event would not be safe.

They had every reason to believe it was unsafe - a collapse had occurred previously (1994) and the injury rate over the previous few years exceeded that in "hazardous" industries by a factor of 3.5 - 7 times (Official Report) and had itself increased 80% over a four year period.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

it is reasonable for students to trust university officials that a school sponsored event is safe.

[FrogNog 1]

IMO the Darwin Awards have totally gone downhill. I believe plenty of people are killing themselves fresh and stupid every year, but the DA people can't be bothered to research it, preferring to recycle old jokes.

The Zimbabwe bus driver is so old I remember hearing it in high school.

http://www.gcfl.net/archive/20021017.html, printed 2002-10-17

http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=599, entered 1998-06-06

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JdJ/message/746, sent 2002-04-16

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[jfields 0]

Quote

it is reasonable for students to trust university officials that a school sponsored event is safe.

Depends. How is the track record on the event? How gullible are the students? Are the students willing to suspend their own common sense regarding the things they are seeing with their own eyes because the university says everything is okay?

[wmw999 2,371]

Quote

They had every reason to believe it was unsafe - a collapse had occurred previously (1994) and the injury rate over the previous few years exceeded that in "hazardous" industries by a factor of 3.5 - 7 times (Official Report) and had itself increased 80% over a four year period.

I'm sure they'd convinced themselves that it was OK, because, while it was higher than the usual, they could see the individual cause for many of the failures, and couldn't see themselves making the same mistakes. I'm sure something was changed as a result of the 1994 failure, too.

A large project with a potential for danger needs to have a strong safety culture, and a brutal root-cause evaluation of accidents, even little ones that people have grown used to. And you have to be willing to re-evaluate the things that work, too.

I work for the shuttle program. We're kind of involved in that right now.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)