Death at Chimney Rock

[StarLyte]

I can't even picture this.

I also can't picture what was the mother/parents thinking? They need their damn heads examined.

I feel sorry for the child who suffered before his death. I hope he is in a beautiful place.

I'm so sad. How awful. I'm terribly bothered by this, yet very mad.

God bless all little innocent children and animals.

[4eyedbuzzard]

While I feel the state should leave child rearing to parents in most cases, when it comes to genuine safety issues I'm supportive of such legislation (child restraint seats in cars, restricting children from dangerous hiking trails, setting a minimum age at which a child can be left without supervision, etc.)

I suspect the mother who lost her 2 yo son in this tragedy was not aware of the conditions on the Upper Skyline trail and would have opted not to take him had she known. The warning signs at the trailhead are similar to those I've seen at the trailheads of far less dangerous trails. A sign saying children under 5 are not allowed on the trail would be more effective IMO.

The problem with a sign saying "children under 5 are not allowed" is that you then imply it's safe for 6 year olds, with all the resultant implications. You have kids and grandkids, Dino. Some 5 year olds would be fine around dangerous cliffs. Some 10 year olds wouldn't be - heck, some 18 year olds wouldn't...

Cliffs aren't "safe" for anybody, including adults.

EDIT: The mother according to what's being reported spoke/understood very limited English. Wouldn't effect the visible hazard factor - see cliff, be cautious - but certainly may have effected any written warnings not being followed.

[envirodiver]

It would seem to me that the best you could do with signage would be to declare the danger associated with the trail and maybe even a photo like the one posted earlier to illustrate the danger. I've seen signs that say something like "falls could result in severe injury including death". But, many people ignore signs and refuse to accept that their child is not capable of having a problem with it.

Don't know what else could be done unless there is one of those you must be this tall to hike this trail signs like at the amusment park.

I've not hiked this trail, but it looks very dangerous and is it as treacherous when wet as it appears that it would be?

[twosticks]

I can't even picture this.

I also can't picture what was the mother/parents thinking? They need their damn heads examined.

Heads examined for starting off their children on the right foot? This is a tragedy yes, but if the child wouldn't have fallen she would have had one hell of a trip to talk about. I've taken my young ones on some "dangerous" trails at that age and now they've got a deep rooted love for the outdoors. I guess that's what the parents were thinking.

[emerald]

With the addition of the last post added to the broth, it won't require much stirring or heat under it to be another WhiteBlaze thread in need of a lock.

[RITBlake]

I also can't picture what was the mother/parents thinking? They need their damn heads examined.

Must be nice to be perfect and never make mistakes, even grave ones such as this.

[Mrs Baggins]

Friends of ours took their son, maybe 4 at the time, up that trail and almost lost him to big wind gust up there. He actually slipped to the edge before they caught him. They blamed the trail conditions when it was clear that they should never have taken him up there.

I remember back in the late 60's a young mom took her in-arms infant to an area somewhere above Niagara Falls. She had the baby resting on the railing as she looked down, grew faint from seeing the height and the power of the water, and as she started to pass out her arms opened and she dropped her infant over the rail. I've never forgotten that news story.

[4eyedbuzzard]

With the addition of the last post added to the broth, it won't require much stirring or heat under it to be another WhiteBlaze thread in need of a lock.

Threads don't ever really need to be locked down, just certain people do.

I don't think the discussion has to go beyond civility. Neither the parent nor the state was mailiciously reckless. Some might judge the parent's decision a poor or even uninformed choice, but there was no malice involved. It was an accident. That's why we call them that. Otherwise we'd call them on-puposes.

There are definitely a few issues raised. My thought are:

1) Unfortunately, accidents do happen. Life is simply not without risk. As Ben said, death and taxes are the only certainties. A child ran off, fell and died. Isn't the first time and won't be the last. He could just as easily have run out into traffic on a highway.

2) Within legal bounds, it is the parent's responsibility to assess and determine the level of risk their children are exposed to. Do I think hiking this trail increases the level of risk? Yes. But so would going out on a friends boat, going to an amusement park, the beach, and countless other activities.

3) The state should not be a nanny striving to insulate people from every risk out there. Nor should it be liable when people choose to subject themselves(or their children) to higher levels of risk that some might find too high. Assessing the risk involved in hiking, swimming, or whatever activity we freely choose to participate in is not the duty of the government, but of the person or their parent.

A few weeks ago a woman hiker was killed by a falling rock in Franconia State Park here in NH http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/News...th_050908.html
It was a freak accident. But, given enough time, someone else will likely be killed by another falling rock here in NH. Should we prohibit hiking in these areas as a result?

A 19 year old hiker was killed in a fall in CO yesterday http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...s=den&psp=news
He was sliding on the snow and went off a cliff. Should the state mandate ice axes and certification of self-arrest techniques before allowing people to hike near snowfields?

[emerald]

There's no need for a lock with an occasional post like someone just took the time to write. Avoiding a lock does require someone to write such a post, however.

[twosticks]

There's no need for a lock with an occasional post like someone just took the time to write. Avoiding a lock does require someone to write such a post, however.

And what exactly did your two posts add to the discussion?

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

The problem with a sign saying "children under 5 are not allowed" is that you then imply it's safe for 6 year olds, with all the resultant implications. You have kids and grandkids, Dino. Some 5 year olds would be fine around dangerous cliffs. Some 10 year olds wouldn't be - heck, some 18 year olds wouldn't...

Good point. Most 5 yo will listen to their parents warnings and are under voice control. 4 yo's tend to get distracted easily and forget the rules in strange environments. Children under age 4 often require physical restraint to avoid being injured.

[SweetAss03]

I must have missed what was wrong with those two post Shades of Gray. Is it because they have a different point of view then what you have? Well then we can't have that. Ever read Fahrenheit 451?

SweetAss

[Skidsteer]

Children under age 4 often require physical restraint to avoid being injured.

As do some boys in the 14-29 year old range.

[FlimFlam]

This is a sad event, but I'm glad the park will continue without age restrictions. We already have too many restrictions. Let parents decide. Even if they had an age rule, the parents could take their kid on a hike with a fifteen foot drop, the kid falls and dies. What does the rule accomplish?

[4eyedbuzzard]

This is a sad event, but I'm glad the park will continue without age restrictions. We already have too many restrictions. Let parents decide. Even if they had an age rule, the parents could take their kid on a hike with a fifteen foot drop, the kid falls and dies. What does the rule accomplish?

I agree

[FlimFlam]

I think its very appropriate. People taking enough time to participate in a thread about a sad accident, yet to bring that situation into a larger context is inappropriate? I'm not sure what you mean.

[JDCool1]

When a tragedy like this one occurs in our park lands we want to figure out a way to avoid repeats. A number of years ago some children were chasing each other along the wooden walkways surrounding the hot springs in Yellowstone. At the beginning of the walkway signs read "Danger, Do not Run." The parents did nothing. A child fell into one of th springs and was scalded to death. The park service was blamed and sued. I am sure the money did not ease the parents grief nor did it relieve their guilt. The government is not responsible for the lack of judgement, nor are they to hold our hands and instruct us. We could just lock up all the dangerous places, but who will judge what is dangerous and what is not. I grieve for the loss of the child and the guilt of the parent, but responsibility rests with the adult. May they find some peace. Like other have said, accidents will happen. Rules of the trail and limiting who goes where will not change the attitude some have to the obvious dangers.

[Ramble~On]

Here is a photo of one of the many signs at Chimney Rock.
Photo-Sign_at_Chimney_Rock

The park does have rules and the first rule listed on their trail map
states: "An adult must accompany children under 16 at all times."

There have been several deaths this year already at North Carolina waterfalls...one of which was in a state park. Hiking trails near these falls do not always have signs and the majority do not have fences...people should be less concerned with lawsuits and more concerned with their own safety and the safety of their children.

This recent death at Chimney Rock is tragic...however it was avoidable and no one is pointing a finger at the park...people are pointing fingers at the parents...if you are familiar with the area where this fall took place you realize that the circumstances have to at least bring up some serious questions as to how this 2 year old boy was able to get that close to the area where he fell. I don't have any facts and won't offer opinions but I have been to this spot and the incident is horrible..regardless of how it happened.

The park has reviewed this incident and made the decision to not change their current policies...that says something about this incident.

[BlackCloud]

It think it would be very difficult to prevail in a suit based upon an accident like this. There's the assumption of risk that goes along with parent's choice to take a child into an area with cliffs and waterfalls, and likely the hazards are reasonably apparent, and not just implied but expessed as well. I don't know the area personally, but I'm betting that the hazards are both plainly visible and posted at the park itself or on an entrance ticket, information flyer, etc. BTW, my understanding is that the parents spoke/understood very little English. Even so, the readily apparent danger of hiking in areas with cliffs isn't a language issue, and ultimately, the parent has control and is responsible for choosing to take the child into the area and the child's actions, not the state or its contractor operating the park. It's unlikely that a court would rule that a reasonable person wouldn't be knowledgable of the hazards and therefore would be responsible for assuming that risk. There would also be the issue of sovereign immunity to be overcome in suing the state government or its employees. The contractor might be more vulnerable here, but I doubt there's an actionable case.

Unless you're in Hawaii. There's a state park on Oahu that's been closed for years b/c some people were killed when rocks fell on them, well past all the big signs that say WATCH FOR FALLING ROCKS!

So yes, I agree with you, but some state laws are so extreme that they defy all sense...

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I hiked with my kids from before they could walk, but not on trails with cliffs and sheer drop-offs when they were small. My son was jumping from rock to rock on the Chimney Top trail in the GSMNP at age 9 and I wasn't worried because I knew he had the ability to make the decisions about where to jump and not to jump. My foster daughter was the timid sort and didn't want to go up there - a wish I honored. I took her on trails that were equally beautiful, but less scary. The hike you pick for your kids needs to match the child's attributes - their abilities, fears and things they enjoy. Individual children are very different - even children from the same family.