Pop line too. I'd expect DHS to be secured too:
blogmickey.com
You're quoting building codes, but EPCOT Standard 5-1.201.3 is for elevators, moving walkways, escalators and other similar devices. This section of code is in place because of state regulations mandating the inspection, reporting and documentation for elevators and similar devices. I did some additional research of Florida state regulations for elevators and "aerial ropeways" are not included in the definitions of devices at the state level, hence why experts of aerial ropeways include Florida as one of the states without inspection regulations.
EPCOT Standard 5-1 includes aerial passenger tramways in its scope and ANSI B77.1 as a reference standard. EPCOT Standard 5-13 defines aerial passenger tramways and references back to 5-1. This was not just a mechanical fault, it included a collision. That is an incident.
Wow that's strange. And here we have been calling all of these instances when one or more cars on the road run into things and cause damage to vehicles and property (but no bodily harm) "accidents". I guess we should have called it "unexpected downtime" during roadway travel.
Funnily enough, there is an ongoing movement to change the nomenclature from "Motor Vehicle Accident" or MVA to "Motor Vehicle Collision" or MVC. The reason is not all collisions are accidents, but all accidents (in this context) are collisions.
Thank you!Pop line too. I'd expect DHS to be secured too:
Disney Skyliner Crews Secure Lines for Hurricane Dorian
Walt Disney World news, photos, and reviews! We provide you with daily news from the Walt Disney World theme parks and beyond
Just another way of wasting time and money for the dumbing down of society. "Accident" has always meant unintentional. Most motor vehicle accidents are not intentional. I would see the point of naming them "intentional collisions" for the few 'accidents' that are done on purpose, but this renaming of something just to redefine it is hokey.
At the expense of going further off-topic, you've hit the point without realizing it. The people who generally use the terms "MVA/MVC" are medical providers treating vehicle occupants, they don't have any idea of how the collision happened, whether it was intentional or not, nor generally speaking, do they know who/what was at fault. All they really know is what they need to know to treat the patient - that the patient was involved in collision with or between motor vehicles, and sometimes they might get some idea as to the severity of the collision. Therefore, rather than implying anything about whether it was intentional or not, you use the all-encompassing term "collision." So it's not hokey, it's meant to convey a fact (two vehicles collided) rather than a conclusion (it was accidental vs. negligent vs. intentional).
To me that just seems like labeling the obvious for medical purposes. To remove the word "accident" just to say it doesn't matter the intent seems in harmony with the permissive movement of society's collective "morality". So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Hoo boy... here's a definition to think about: if a catastrophic event results from culpable negligence, is that an "accident"?
Feature or Bug? You decide
Now, let's discuss culpability and pecuniary liability for "accidents."
We wouldn't have to discuss such nonsense in legalese if people would just honestly own up to their own mistakes instead of trying to lie their way out of accountability.
So to come full circle, this is a perfect illustration for why the change to "motor vehicle collision" - that way there is no appearance of determination of liability - that's for the legal system.
Perhaps, but that's an entirely different issue, IMHO, because it's not just people trying to avoid accountability; some insurance companies are pretty bad at times about creating ways to deny claims so they can get out of paying.
