Teen dies after falling over 594 feet waterfall.

[JTsyo]

It does give the sign a little more punch.

close to 100, just need a few more sacrifices.

 

[dainthomas]

Happens every year. Signs are clearly posted there.

"you will die"

Doesn't get more unambiguous than that.

 

[zinfamous]

happens there every year.

 

[Nintendesert]

If it happens so often we should capitalize on it and setup webcams for a 24/7 death-cam-watch!

 

[Attic]

At 19 I can somewhat understand.

If he was over age 30 I'd be more inclined to be a harsher judge.

Real tragedy is for his family, love to them.

 

[MotionMan]

I've been there and vividl recall the "you will die" part of the sign.

I have walked as close to the falls as I could get, took one look over the edge and confirmed that one would die from that fall.

Nonetheless, whenever we were there, there were always some teenagers in the water near the falls.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Yeah, I got as close as that fence on the left.

MotionMan

 

[thestrangebrew1]

Yeah, I got as close as that fence on the left.

MotionMan

Same here. Didn't go over, and sure as hell wouldn't let me 3 yr old daughter get near it.

Off topic but another death in Yosemite over the weekend:

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2013/06/03/3052414/climber-hit-by-rock-dies-on-yosemites.html

 

[Mark R]

Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background. Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against!

The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.

 

[lxskllr]

Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background.

Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against! The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.

Interesting analysis. I'm more inclined to read wordy signs, but I could see it being a problem for some, especially foreigners.

 

[tynopik]

Yep...another idiot black kid

black kid? This one is too easy...

Not enough pools in the ghetto

Too bad blacks don't realize how badly they suck at swimming

stereotyping is hillarious

 

[Saint Nick]

Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background. Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against!

The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.

What sign are you referring to? The one in the OP has an image of a person about to fall over the waterfalls, trying to hold on to dear life, while I'm guessing the two people that are "happily playing" are actually screaming bloody murder.

 

[Mark R]

What sign are you referring to? The one in the OP has an image of a person about to fall over the waterfalls, holding on to dear life, while I'm guessing the two people that are "happily playing" are actually screaming bloody murder.

LOL. I thought that the person about to die was a rock.

Guess I only "skimmed" the picture.

 

[Saint Nick]

LOL. I thought that the person about to die was a rock.

Guess I only "skimmed" the picture.

Sorry about the massive run-on sentence.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background. Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against!

The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.

Look closer at the picture, it is pretty easy to see that they are rushing to the aid of someone being swept away by the water.

 

[DCal430]

I've been there and vividl recall the "you will die" part of the sign.

I have walked as close to the falls as I could get, took one look over the edge and confirmed that one would die from that fall.

Nonetheless, whenever we were there, there were always some teenagers in the water near the falls.

MotionMan

Did you actually see them in the middle of the pool? So foolish, to many teens think they are invincible.

 

[MotionMan]

Did you actually see them in the middle of the pool? So foolish, to many teens think they are invincible.

Yes, absolutely swimming around like they were in their own backyard.

I could barely watch.

MotionMan

 

[Ns1]

Too bad the Good Lord didn't bless him with basic intelligence or reading comprehension skills.

god works in mysterious ways

Though here is a picture of were he was swimming,

it does look a bit inviting. Seems others may swim here to, looks popular.

is that the "you will die" sign on the upper left?

 

[tynopik]

LOL. I thought that the person about to die was a rock.

Guess I only "skimmed" the picture.

yeah i missed the guy in the river the first time too, doesn't stand out

 

[lxskllr]

god works in mysterious ways

I'm pretty sure this was your fault. God had to supply you with PBR, and to put the luck back in the bank, he made this kid over over the falls. You should be ashamed of yourself, with your frivolous desires.

 

[NutBucket]

ban rivers

Since we can't ban waterfalls, the only sensible thing to do is blast the river with dynamite till it waterfall is changed to a gentle slope.

Its CA, neither would surprise me.

 

[Ns1]

I'm pretty sure this was your fault. God had to supply you with PBR, and to put the luck back in the bank, he made this kid over over the falls. You should be ashamed of yourself, with your frivolous desires.

man I love my god.

 

[DrPizza]

A lot of people don't know how to swim in a current. The fastest way to shore is facing upstream, and towards shore by about 45°. Of course, the best thing is not swimming 150' above a dangerous falls. Shit happens, and it doesn't give you much room for recovery.

You use the water's force to "squirt" you towards shore. It's also easier to maintain attitude. Facing directly towards shore wastes the water's energy, and you more easily tumble, or end up swimming downstream.

Edit:
and of course it keeps you from going downstream as you said. If you're trying to get to shore, you usually want to get to shore *there*, and not a couple hundred feet downstream. Even without danger being involved, drifting downstream requires you to walk to where you really want to be.

This is mostly incorrect. If you swim at a 45 degree angle, it will take you 41% more time to reach the shore, assuming a uniform current in the river from center to the edge of the river. If the current is stronger in the center than it is nearer to the shore, than it'll take you more than 41% more time. If the current is increasing as you go downstream, the hydraulics sometimes set up such that you're not getting out of the center (been there, done that, and forced into a few hundred yards of class III whitewater while hanging on to the outside of my kayak - that sucked).

And, the water's force does not "squirt" you towards shore - take a physics class, please. Imagine a 30 foot wide conveyor belt that you're in the center of. Walking at a 45 degree angle toward the side is not going to use the "conveyor's force to squirt you towards shore."

In situations such as this that was presented, you're not going to be able to swim fast enough to maintain your place along the shoreline anyway.

 

[Saint Nick]

This is mostly incorrect. If you swim at a 45 degree angle, it will take you 41% more time to reach the shore, assuming a uniform current in the river from center to the edge of the river. If the current is stronger in the center than it is nearer to the shore, than it'll take you more than 41% more time. If the current is increasing as you go downstream, the hydraulics sometimes set up such that you're not getting out of the center (been there, done that, and forced into a few hundred yards of class III whitewater while hanging on to the outside of my kayak - that sucked).

And, the water's force does not "squirt" you towards shore - take a physics class, please. Imagine a 30 foot wide conveyor belt that you're in the center of. Walking at a 45 degree angle toward the side is not going to use the "conveyor's force to squirt you towards shore."

In situations such as this that was presented, you're not going to be able to swim fast enough to maintain your place along the shoreline anyway.

If a plane is on a giant treadmill, does it take off?

 

[Farang]

You use the water's force to "squirt" you towards shore. It's also easier to maintain attitude. Facing directly towards shore wastes the water's energy, and you more easily tumble, or end up swimming downstream.

Edit:
and of course it keeps you from going downstream as you said. If you're trying to get to shore, you usually want to get to shore *there*, and not a couple hundred feet downstream. Even without danger being involved, drifting downstream requires you to walk to where you really want to be.

I think the fastest way would be almost directly towards shore, if anything slightly downstream so maybe you're getting pushed with some momentum.