Slashdot Mirror
The Biggest and Baddest Backyard Roller Coaster
BoomZilla writes "Following on the heels of previously reported backyard roller coasters (here
and
here), I'd like to add Jeremy Reid's
wondrous beast to the list. This behemoth certainly takes the award for the
largest, fastest (and most likely the most expensive) labor of coaster love.
Located in Newcastle, Oklahoma, it has an initial drop of 20ft, pulls max
positive G's of 3.5 and max negative G's of -0.2. Overall it's a stunning 444
feet in length. Total cost is estimated at $5.5k. Jeremy is, clearly, a man with
too much time and money on his hands!"
Real Estate in Oklahoma is cheap. Try building this in a backyard in California. It is gonna cost 2 million + 5.5 K :)
:)
The point I trying to make you need lot of free space to this kinda stuff
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Technical Info: Style: Out and Back Height: 17 feet First Drop: 20 feet Top Speed: 20 mph Track Length: 444 feet Max Positive G's: 3.5 Max Negative G's: -0.2 Material: Pressure Treated Southern Yellow Pine Number of Drops: 4 Lift hill angle: 26.6 degrees 1st Drop: 54 degrees 2nd Drop: 43 degrees Curve banking: 50 degrees Duration: About 1 minute Cart: Single Car, Wood and Steel Construction Capacity: Single Rider Chain Lift: 1HP Motor, 3/4" Pitch Roller Chain/Sprockets Overall: 9,500 lbs (4.75 Tons) Lumber 7,000 Screws/Nails 2,900 board feet of lumber Investment: $5.5k Started Construction: September 1997
old wood means nothing, as long as its not rotten, wood can easily stand up to the elements for many many years. trees are designed that way, to survive against rain and tornadoes and whatnot. altho i doubt a high quality wood was used in the production, i also doubt that its 'fragile' i mean its a roller coaster for cmndrtaco's sake. fragile is not a term to be used lightly.
consolevision roxors
It's already been done (And covered on /.)
See...
TODO: Something witty here...
If the poster read his resume, he'd see:
"Oklahoma EPSCoR Stipend Recipient - Personal roller coaster project - 1999"
So, he doesn't necessarily have too much of his own money on his hands...
Actually, the wood is specified as pressure-treated southern yellow pine, which turns that color after a year or two of exposure to the elements.
Actually, in at least several states in the U.S. you are liable even if the injured party is "uninvited".
Sometimes my pride in being American tastes like shit.
Two words:
n ce -doctrine.htm
Attractive nuisance. Sorry, user 633962, the courts disagree with your view. Here's a brief definition of the doctrine:
http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/attractive-nuisa
Clearly, a parent who fails to supervise would be likely be brought in as a codefendant, but that's not to say that a person or entity that maintains an attractive nuisance is without responsibility for the harms that can befall children (who do not know better).
Here's the problem:
The tort system is used to try to compensate for damages. A very young child just doesn't know better, and the law has developed in a way that basically says "society should hold someone other than the child responsible for making the world safe for children because the child (1) doesn't know and better and (2) leaving the child exposed to danger is harmful. Better to look to a way to prevent these injuries from happening. Someone maintaining an attractive nuisance presumably has the benefits of it, so it is only fair that they should bear the costs of it as well.
Your issue is not necessarily with attractive nuisance, but with a separate tortfeasor, namely the negligent parent. While I do not disagree with you, you must remember that the harmed party is the child and limiting the child (who, remember, does not know better because he/she is very young) from recovering. Saying "blame te parents" doesn't screw the parents, it screws the kid more often than not, since it limits the ability of the totally without blame child from recovering for his injuries from either (1) the negligent parent (who may, and usually is, insolvent) or (2) the maintainer of an inherently dangerous object.
Any parent that sues another because [...]
should have their lawsuit thrown out of court
It is not the parent's lawsuit -- it is the child's lawsuit. And yes, as I mentioned above, it is likely that the negligent parent would be brought into the suit as a codefendant by the maintainer of the attractive nuisance. Unfortunately, the parent is all-too-often insolvent. That leaves us with an extremely young child with poor judgment in an uncompensable situation just because someone likes to maintain a rollercoaster in his yard (something with low social utility). Sorry, but the courts do not agree with you.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
I doubt the use is heavy enough for maintainance to be a big issue.
Weather's a big issue. Even pressure-treated lumber wears in an annoyingly short time. The rails will also corrode.
It's a great achievement, but if its time before a major overhaul is needed is over 10 years, I'll be impressed - and this took years to build.
As long as he puts in the time, kudos to him.
Perhaps I'll find some poisinous berries on a bush on government land, let my daughter eat one then sue for them being an attractive nuisance.
I presume that this is a hypothetical, and that you ouldn't purposefully poison your own child. I definitely hope that this is true because you can't sure the government under most circumstances. Go google "sovereign immunity" and try again.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
That's true in New York including if the person is trespassing (I realize that you were implying thus, but I figured I'd just state it explicitly). You can also be prosecuted for what's called an "attractive nuisance" (which a backyard rollercoaster would probably qualify for).
That leaves us with an extremely young child with poor judgment in an uncompensable situation just because someone likes to maintain a rollercoaster in his yard
This required a separate answer.
World with "good parents", "bad parents", "no roller coaster", "roller coaster", "injury from roller coaster", "no injury from roller coaster"
My matrix develops the following scenarios:
1. If "good parents" and "roller coaster"; no injury from roller coaster.
2. If "bad parents" and "roller coaster"; injury from roller coaster.
3. If "good paretns" and "no roller coaster"; no injury from roller coaster.
4. If "bad parents" and "no roller coaster"; no injury from roller coaster.
Ergo, the roller coaster leads to injuries that would not exist in its absence. It has a social cost. Fairness generally dictates that those creating or causing the costs to society must bear some portion of those costs. In this case, the coaster owner should bear some portion of the cost of the injuries that he is creating. If there were no roller coasters, there would be no roller coaster injuries. It is only fair that the roller coaster owner should pay when his property results in injuries.
You are hung up on this "trespassing" notion. Young kids can't trespass because they lack the requisite intent. Therefore, you folks are seeking a substitute by which the intent can be derived through the child by the parent's actions or inactions. Sorry, but the legal status of the child and the remedies available to the child do not depend upon the parent's actions or inactions. The child (rightly so) has a separate and independent legal status under the law.
Collectively, society has determined that it is a better policy goal to seek to protect young children from dangerous conditions that common sense and experience have told us will attract children. It is simply a pragmatic cost/benefit regulatory function performed through the tort system in the courts.
If this is grossly unfair to you, then tough shit. It's not going to go away just because you don't like it. I didn't like it either when I first started to digest it, but basically, it works. You hear about abuses from time to time, but that's why it's called "news".
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
All I can say is personal rollercoasters are a must-have for all true geeks . Check out www.speedcult.com For those of you who know about it, this will be on the esplanade at The Man this year (we were 2 streets off center camp last year) ((www.burningman.com)). If you're in the Detroit area and want to ride it, we can probably work something out. Oh, Free Spin is by FAR the best.
- Shameless Plug -
Riding Skins Extrodinare [mot
Check his resume and you'll see that he has some experience with Roller Coasters: Not only is he a mechanical engineer, but also once woked for Arrow Dynamics, which is one of the foremost Roller Coaster companies in the world.
Did anyone else click this link to an old coaster article in the story text, and see how michael had added a cute little "sorry buddy" note about slashdotting the guy's server, and even posted links to mirrors? Now the /. effect is positively a marketing tool; we're told that we can "beat the rush" and see the sites before the server is reduced to a smoking husk if we buy a subscription.
Have you ever been on a wood coster? Part of the unique feeling is how the wood gives way in the curves. The steel pipe ones never had the same feel.
There is a reason that disclaimer is on the ticket...
http://stories.about.ticketstubs.org/story.stub/41