Monstrous WDW Observations ...

Originally Posted By TDLFAN

UNSECURED DALMATIANS!!!!

 

Originally Posted By ssWEDguy

>> Like I said, if someone someone wants to do damage badly enough, they'll find a way. <<

Here's my question for you all. Are you saying that "The current bag check procedure is imperfect." (And yes, it is) Therefore "there should be no bag check at all?" Just simply go laissez faire, whatever people want to do? Because the mechanism is imperfect anyway?

I myself feel that the main reason for the security check is simply to deliver the message "We are here and helping keep you safe by watching what's going on."

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

<<I myself feel that the main reason for the security check is simply to deliver the message "We are here and helping keep you safe by watching what's going on.">>

My guess is that Disney also has many more security measures in place that people never see. I'm sure there are many security people in the parks watching what is going on, and I would be very surprised if they don't use the government's "Watch List" when booking hotel rooms or selling park passes. Heck, with the new finger thingie they even have a print of everyone entering the park.

And that is all you really need. The bag search to keep the amateurs out and the Watch List to catch the real terrorists.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"My guess is that Disney also has many more security measures in place that people never see."

Bingo. I'm privy to a little of what Disney does, at least to the extent of both American parks, and anyone who thinks the bag checks are all they do is kidding themselves. There has been considerable time and energy spent in protecting both parks after 9/11.

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

SPP - Disney have always had excellent security in place as a rule, and I am content with the security provision in the main, but the security checks at the gate are an act. Either do it properly or not at all. And to be honest, I vote for the not at all at this stage.

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

**I myself feel that the main reason for the security check is simply to deliver the message "We are here and helping keep you safe by watching what's going on."**

My feeling is that it's rather "We are here and going through these motions to make you feel safe, but in reality it's just as dangerous as it ever was. We just don't want you to think about that. Oh, and if something DOES happen noone can sue us, because we were "trying" to keep things safe.".

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

I agree with Dave in post 105 on all counts.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< My guess is that Disney also has many more security measures in place that people never see. >>>

This is certainly true at DLR. I've noticed a few things regarding physical security of the parks that shows they're definately thinking of worst-case scenarios and taking steps to avoid them.

Security is always a tenuous situation. Given that no matter how much effort you put into it, you can never achieve a 100% solution, you necessarily *have* to make compromises and judgement calls, unless you choose to do absolutely nothing.

Having said all of that, one of the major functions of corporate security these days is risk management, which means lawsuit avoidance and defence as much as it does protection. There are certain things that must be done in order to prevent slam-dunk jury verdicts were someone to get injured, even if those measures aren't very effective overall.

An example would be the building that I live in: they installed onerous speedbumps in the parking structure a few years ago. Everyone complained, but the explanation was that they weren't really there for protection, but to prevent lawsuits: apparently, if someone gets run over in a private parking structure and there are not speedbumps, it's very easy for the landlord to be held civilally liable for the injury. Although putting in speed bumps probably does incrementally reduce injuries to some extent, the real reason is to defend the landlord against lawsuits for those injuries that will occur anyway.

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

<< Oh, and if something DOES happen noone can sue us, because we were "trying" to keep things safe." >>

This is ridiculous. If something does happen, Disney goes into bankruptcy because the vacations will get cancelled and no one will show up again. That's the consequences here for Disney, and they are much worse than a single lawsuit. Lawsuits are not much of a concern when your entire business is at stake.

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

<< Although putting in speed bumps probably does incrementally reduce injuries to some extent, the real reason is to defend the landlord against lawsuits for those injuries that will occur anyway. >>

It only has a little bit to do with lawsuits. The lawsuits will happen and the parties held responsible regardless. The difference is whether or not the landlord can get insurance on the building. The insurance company probably suggested the speedbumps as a risk mitigating item to prevent accidents. It was probably a choice of speedbumps or cancelled insurance policy. Speedbumps don't prevent lawsuits or liability in accidents.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< It only has a little bit to do with lawsuits. The lawsuits will happen and the parties held responsible regardless. The difference is whether or not the landlord can get insurance on the building. The insurance company probably suggested the speedbumps as a risk mitigating item to prevent accidents. It was probably a choice of speedbumps or cancelled insurance policy. Speedbumps don't prevent lawsuits or liability in accidents. >>>

You seem to want to downplay the risk of lawsuits. I think you are understating the effect of lawsuits and in particular what tends to be persuasive to juries.

Using my speedbump example, what you say about the insurance company recommending it is probably true to an extent. I think it has every much to do with preventing successful lawsuits as it does with actually reducing the number of accidents.

Let me give you a more obvious example. The next 10 times you get on an escalator in the US in a place like a shopping center, take careful note of the safety sign nearby. The sign will list obvious things such as not taking children in strollers on the escalator. But you'll also notice another curious item in most cases: "No rubber-soled shoes." Do you think that this is an honest attempt to increase safety? Even if you accept that injuries to escalator riders are more likely if they are wearing rubber-soled shoes, do you think that such a sign is a serious attempt to prevent people with rubber-soled shoes from getting on the escalator, especially considering that probably well over 50% of all people that get on the escalator have such shoes? If it's not a serious attempt to prevent this, then what is it? I submit that it is an attempt to say "Well, we told you not to use the escalator" should someone with rubber-soled shoes be injured.

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

Why would an insurance company insist on speedbumps (or signage or whatever) if the presence of speedbumps neither (a) prevents accidents nor (b) decreases the likelihood of a successful lawsuits when there IS an accident?

It doesn't make sense. Insurance companies would only insist that a client take an action if that action were likely to reduce potential costs.

 

Originally Posted By ssWEDguy

>> It doesn't make sense. Insurance companies would only insist that a client take an action if that action were likely to reduce potential costs. <<

Speedbumps don't eliminate accidents -- they reduce them, at a minimal "cost" -- therefore a sensible thing to do.

Bag checks are the same idea.

 

Originally Posted By SuperDry

<<< Why would an insurance company insist on speedbumps (or signage or whatever) if the presence of speedbumps neither (a) prevents accidents nor (b) decreases the likelihood of a successful lawsuits when there IS an accident? >>>

<<< Speedbumps don't eliminate accidents -- they reduce them, at a minimal "cost" -- therefore a sensible thing to do. >>>

I think they do both. The question is what is the proportion, and how are they presented to the public? I'd wager that to the general public, the purpose of speed bumps is marketed as being 100% for the purpose of preventing accidents when this isn't actually the case.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

<<I agree with Dave in post 105 on all counts.>>

I do too.

I'm getting worried ... maybe I've become an agreeable spirit at this stage of my existence?

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

Now now Spirit, I believe we have seen eye to eye on a number of issues, both back in the day when you first frequented DLP and now.

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

I know, Dave, but it's one thing to agree with you ... someone with intelligence, taste and a good sense of humor.

I'm starting to agree with others ... it scares me ... a lot ...

 

Originally Posted By davewasbaloo

Lol - maybe you are softening!

 

Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

^^Yeah, but that's from eating too much and not exercising ... so whats your point? ;-)

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

Spirit, you can come run on the treadmill with me, and we'll whip you into shape!