http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1250636/Olympic-luger-Nodar-Kumaritashvili-killed-smashing-concrete-pillar-95mph.html

Horrific .. and if anyone has seen the leaked tape of this crash, that's some speed.

R.i.p. .....

How absolutely awful - what a freak-accident!:( the poor chap.

What an awful thing to happen, and so young too r.i.p Nodar x

What a horrible way to go,if the track was so dangerous.why was there all those support beams on show?I mean,,could they not have made it into some sort of wall down that side? tragic really.

There have been some safety concerns about it, but I don't think anyone suspected it was dangerous to the point where competitors could fly off the track altogether. Some people have laid the blame entirely at Kumaritashvili's own door for being inexperienced, not sufficiently skilled, and panicking; the inexperience part is certainly true but I can't comment on the other two factors. Others have said that they've argue all along the track is far too dangerous to be used.

What has been done, is that the men's start - some 200m higher than the women's start - is not now being used, so the top speeds achieved will be significantly lower. Also, the area where he left the track has now been walled off; if it happens again, it will not be fatal.

There have been some safety concerns about it, but I don't think anyone suspected it was dangerous to the point where competitors could fly off the track altogether. Some people have laid the blame entirely at Kumaritashvili's own door for being inexperienced, not sufficiently skilled, and panicking; the inexperience part is certainly true but I can't comment on the other two factors. Others have said that they've argue all along the track is far too dangerous to be used.

What has been done, is that the men's start - some 200m higher than the women's start - is not now being used, so the top speeds achieved will be significantly lower. Also, the area where he left the track has now been walled off; if it happens again, it will not be fatal.

What im saying is though (my bold) looking at the video/pics, it seemed almost silly to not have that part walled off,and now you say that they have walled it off now.so if this could be done now for safety,then why not before?, those pillars wasnt even cushioned(not that I think that would help at 90mph though). I watched it today and at that part they were still reaching 75-80 mph,its crazy to think a man is travelling at that speed with a helmet and lycra for protection lol.
also surely the laws of physics would tell you that a man on a sledge can fly for quite a distance at 90mph? wether he was inexperienced or not ,he was certainly no amature at it,just sems like quite a waste that a young life that has probably been living for this moment in the olympics,should lose his life to it.Im not disagreeing with what you say BTW, I just dont think think this was unpreventable.

Well, to the extent that all accidents are preventable if you go to ridiculous lenghts (10 feet of soft padding along the entire length of the track in all directions?) yes.

Whether the cost of building that wall was justifiable on Friday morning, I do not know. The fact that someone has gone off and been fatally injured proves now that yes, it would have been justified; but hindsight is 20-20.

But it wouldnt take padding all the way down the track to prevent it,if that wall had literally been a couple of feet higher he would have stayed on track.why have padding on the outside of the track? when all you need to do is keep them on the track.I could understand if the track had been around for years, but it hasn't. Interesting article that has some good points about the subject.http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14399527?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Well, to the extent that all accidents are preventable if you go to ridiculous lenghts (10 feet of soft padding along the entire length of the track in all directions?) yes.

Whether the cost of building that wall was justifiable on Friday morning, I do not know. The fact that someone has gone off and been fatally injured proves now that yes, it would have been justified; but hindsight is 20-20.

I guess it's the cost vs risk argument again.

Unfortunately it's a human failing that always repeats itself in that after a tragic death does occur then the risk does seem to justify the cost.

On a larger scale take the Asian Boxing Day Tsunami, before Dec 26 2004 countries around the Indian Ocean knew there was a risk of getting hit by a tsunami, but countries were reluctant to put an early warning system in place due to costs.
Now I believe early warning systems have been put in place.

I guess it's the cost vs risk argument again.


The problem being, most people don't actually consider cost vs. risk; they consider cost vs. what happened. Now that a man has died on the track, people will say the risk is 100%, which is nonsense.