4 ms·

> Tokyo Disneyland also has beautiful integrated water features that were totally incomprehensible to my American litigious-society self. Wait, there’s no raili

by beachy 3y ago

> Tokyo Disneyland also has beautiful integrated water features that were totally incomprehensible to my American litigious-society self. Wait, there’s no railing here? How is this even possible?! Americans need to be conscious of this when venturing into the wider world. We hosted an American colleague, Vince, here in NZ. One weekend he and his wife visited a local wildlife park. They walked around the perimeter, and came across an apparent hole in the chain link fencing. He recounted "through the hole, I could see a lion just sitting there. It looked like it could have leaped through the hole and eaten us. Of course, I knew it couldn't, or that park would have been sued into oblivion. But I couldn't figure out how they were making it safe". Travel advisory for US people - don't assume that other countries operate the same way as the US and instead assume it's entirely possible you will be eaten by a lion (or fall into a stream as in this story).

dalbasal 3y ago
Kiwis keep lions loose?
- beachy 3y ago
  No, though as a country we're still heavily skewed towards the"adventure" end of the adventure tourism scale, and you can only sue operators for the most egregious violations. (Not that visiting a wildlife park should be considered adventure tourism). For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island_eruption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island...
- albedoa 3y ago
  The story is confusing to Americans because the concept that is depicted as shockingly different to us as a population is actually not. The lion attraction down the street from me also features a ditch as a barrier between humans and lions. Vince would have been just as surprised if he had encountered it here first!
  - beachy 3y ago
    In this case there was no ditch, merely a poorly maintained and hardly lion-resistant fence but interesting point!
    - albedoa 3y ago
      I see now that the "this story" you were referring to was the Tokyo Disneyland one, but now I am confused about why you answered in the negative and without explanation to the obvious followup question about your lions. Are they free to move between that fence or not?
      - beachy 3y ago
        Aha. Poor writing for sure on my part. Specifically (from Vince's account) there was no ditch or anything separating the lion from the visitors - just a chain link fence, alongside a hedge. Looking through the hedge, Vince and his wife could see a ragged hole in the fence, not a big opening but the result of some unrepaired damage, and in theory big enough for the lion to jump through, though perhaps it would have to leap up in the air a bit to achieve it. The fence was certainly there to constrain the lions, but in the true "she'll be right" kiwi modus operandi, the maintenance crew had either not seen the hole, not repaired it, or perhaps decided to leave it due to the presence of the hedge, which acted also as a partial barrier. Here, suing people is not really a thing for physical accidents, as we have an organisation called the accident compensation Commission (ACC) which acts as a state run insurer in case of accidents to NZ -ers or even visitors. So you don't need to worry if someone slips and breaks their leg on your poorly maintained pathway, because ACC will step in and make the victim whole (in theory of course - this is a government department after all), shielding you from legal liability. That's except in some other circumstances, such as health and safety violations, which these days (the events I am writing about were many years ago) would most likely ensnare the reckless wildlife park operators, in the same way the various tourism operators involved in the recent white island eruption tragedy are currently before the courts for (alleged) h&s violations. What I was trying to convey was that assuming a situation must be safe, because otherwise someone would get sued, is not a wise strategy here. Sorry for the confusion! Should have been clearer.
sneak 3y ago
Another way of putting this is that Americans' over-litigious society ruins things in America (except, of course, bicycling, which we somehow universally concluded can and should remain deadly to all). Not everything needs 47 railings. Somehow the other 96% of human beings manages without sippy cups.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Moderation seems to be a problem. I prefer sippy cups to limb maiming traps though. The playground next to be had a swing that was made for wheel chairs. So it was solid and had a ramp. The ramp was like a guillotine if you would get stuck under. Thank fully it was removed, but still it was there for like a year. Hopefully not removed due some accident. It is good to remember that the bureaucrat approving that swing probably still is around and that he is coming for you. Safety optimists are the worst. It probably comes down to lack of empathy. For the record I have nothing against "dangerous" playground things. Just not stupid dangerous.
rightbyte 3y ago
Assuming competence on the behalf of the park could have been his last mistake I guess. When I see something that looks strange, I assume it is going to fall apart any second and that an idiot built it. That have saved me a lot of trouble in construction work. The scary fence is a fence that looks safe but isn't. Like if the lions leans against it, it falls through, or something.

by beachy 3y ago

dalbasal 3y ago

Kiwis keep lions loose?

beachy 3y ago
No, though as a country we're still heavily skewed towards the"adventure" end of the adventure tourism scale, and you can only sue operators for the most egregious violations. (Not that visiting a wildlife park should be considered adventure tourism). For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island_eruption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Whakaari_/_White_Island...
albedoa 3y ago
The story is confusing to Americans because the concept that is depicted as shockingly different to us as a population is actually not. The lion attraction down the street from me also features a ditch as a barrier between humans and lions. Vince would have been just as surprised if he had encountered it here first!
- beachy 3y ago
  In this case there was no ditch, merely a poorly maintained and hardly lion-resistant fence but interesting point!
  - albedoa 3y ago
    I see now that the "this story" you were referring to was the Tokyo Disneyland one, but now I am confused about why you answered in the negative and without explanation to the obvious followup question about your lions. Are they free to move between that fence or not?
    - beachy 3y ago
      Aha. Poor writing for sure on my part. Specifically (from Vince's account) there was no ditch or anything separating the lion from the visitors - just a chain link fence, alongside a hedge. Looking through the hedge, Vince and his wife could see a ragged hole in the fence, not a big opening but the result of some unrepaired damage, and in theory big enough for the lion to jump through, though perhaps it would have to leap up in the air a bit to achieve it. The fence was certainly there to constrain the lions, but in the true "she'll be right" kiwi modus operandi, the maintenance crew had either not seen the hole, not repaired it, or perhaps decided to leave it due to the presence of the hedge, which acted also as a partial barrier. Here, suing people is not really a thing for physical accidents, as we have an organisation called the accident compensation Commission (ACC) which acts as a state run insurer in case of accidents to NZ -ers or even visitors. So you don't need to worry if someone slips and breaks their leg on your poorly maintained pathway, because ACC will step in and make the victim whole (in theory of course - this is a government department after all), shielding you from legal liability. That's except in some other circumstances, such as health and safety violations, which these days (the events I am writing about were many years ago) would most likely ensnare the reckless wildlife park operators, in the same way the various tourism operators involved in the recent white island eruption tragedy are currently before the courts for (alleged) h&s violations. What I was trying to convey was that assuming a situation must be safe, because otherwise someone would get sued, is not a wise strategy here. Sorry for the confusion! Should have been clearer.

sneak 3y ago

Another way of putting this is that Americans' over-litigious society ruins things in America (except, of course, bicycling, which we somehow universally concluded can and should remain deadly to all). Not everything needs 47 railings. Somehow the other 96% of human beings manages without sippy cups.

rightbyte 3y ago
Moderation seems to be a problem. I prefer sippy cups to limb maiming traps though. The playground next to be had a swing that was made for wheel chairs. So it was solid and had a ramp. The ramp was like a guillotine if you would get stuck under. Thank fully it was removed, but still it was there for like a year. Hopefully not removed due some accident. It is good to remember that the bureaucrat approving that swing probably still is around and that he is coming for you. Safety optimists are the worst. It probably comes down to lack of empathy. For the record I have nothing against "dangerous" playground things. Just not stupid dangerous.

rightbyte 3y ago

Assuming competence on the behalf of the park could have been his last mistake I guess. When I see something that looks strange, I assume it is going to fall apart any second and that an idiot built it. That have saved me a lot of trouble in construction work. The scary fence is a fence that looks safe but isn't. Like if the lions leans against it, it falls through, or something.