more than 100 incidents in three weeks
accidents including a broken neck, back and other bones.
Last week Ryze said its accident figures were "better than the industry norm"
Ginger Yellow wrote: Assuming that comment about the industry norm is true, why is the industry allowed to exist at all?
Not enough information to form an opinion really.
Okay, so opening without a license isn't very clever, but the recent accidents could just be the result of random clustering and having an unusually high number of trampolines.
Trampoline injuries aren't uncommon though (I know two people who fell off trampolines last year). Though I wouldn't ban them. What are the accident rates for children playing rugby or cricket?
Trampoline injuries aren't uncommon though (I know two people who fell off trampolines last year).
I know that's true, but there's a difference between people harming themselves on their own trampoline and operating a facility that puts the public at extreme risk.
Trampoline injuries aren't uncommon though (I know two people who fell off trampolines last year). Though I wouldn't ban them. What are the accident rates for children playing rugby or cricket?
Rugby in particular has a high injury rate, but I'm willing to bet that football/rugby sports centres don't get a broken back and neck in a typical three week period, among 100 other injuries.
Stumpy Pepys wrote: What are the accident rates for children playing rugby or cricket?
Something about informed consent. Parents are generally aware of the risks in Rugby and Cricket. One can bet few are with trampolining. If those are the risks, these places should be compelled to tell potential customers about them in advance and in clear terms.
Even then we are in to the Boxing argument of whether the activity is too inherently risky to be allowed.
Comment