Ride Safety Discussion

Please....this is a simple discussion about ride safety.

Please do not turn this into a memorial for the tragedy that occured at Epcot, nor a discussion of that event. If you wish to do that, please post here.

"All theme park rides, by there very nature, can create forces that can be harmful to people with certain medical conditions, including some unknown conditions"

I have heard that statement hundreds of times. I have seen variations of it on almost every ride I have ever been on. But how does it relate to the average guest?

First, mechanical safety. Rides are machines, and machines can break down, especially if not properly maintained. This was reportedly the situation on BTM at DL a few years ago. I am not aware of this occuring in such a tragic way at WDW.

Mechanical safety is important. Every guest should be able to ride an attraction and not even have the faintest thought that the attraction could break down in a way that could harm the guest. It happens at parks, sometimes due to poor maintenence, sometimes due to poor construction, and sometimes, it is just a freak accident.....but it does happen. The park or ride manufactuer should be held fully accountable for such an occurance.

What about injuries caused by the fault of the guest? A few years back, a lady fell out of a junior rollercoaster at Michigan's Adventure Amusement Park. It was not a fault of the ride, the lady had turned to check on her children (seated behind her) and became loose from the safety harness. Is the park responsible in this case? If the lady had followed the directions (face forward, keep hand and arms inside car) it would not have occured.

California has or is trying to change amusement parks to be responsible for "the utmost care and diligence" in operating attractions, the current, or old law, required "reasonable care" be taken. The difference.....a lot of lawsuits. California is arguing that an amusement ride is a "common carrier", similar to a bus, as the rider does not have control over the actions of the ride. The parks are claiming that the attractions are entertainment, not transportation. This is something to watch, as a change in the law could prevent attractions from being what most people consider "fun".

An article about a case in California

Walt Disney Co., the world's largest theme-park operator, is seeking to overturn a court ruling that the company says would regulate roller coasters, such as the Matterhorn Bobsleds and Space Mountain, the way buses are regulated.

California's Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments on whether Disney and other theme- park companies should be held to the same heightened safety standards as train and bus operators. The case stems from the death of a 23-year-old woman after riding on the Indiana Jones Adventure at Disneyland in Anaheim.

California is home to some of the nation's most visited amusement parks including Universal Studios Hollywood and Disney's California Adventure and Disneyland. If Disney loses, lawyers for injured riders may have an easier time getting their cases before a jury or negotiating settlements.

"Disney doesn't like to settle these things," said Greg Keating, a professor at the University of Southern California's law school. "It might make it easier to get a settlement because there will be more liability on behalf of Disney."

Richard Derevan, a lawyer for Disney, told the justices that under the higher standard of care, "something could always be safer. The ride could be slower, the curves less sharp, the hills less steep. The ride may lose its purpose for being."

The case involves a claim filed by the estate of Cristina Moreno, a tourist from Spain who visited Disneyland in Anaheim on her honeymoon in 2000. Her family says she suffered a brain hemorrhage after riding the Indiana Jones Adventure, which simulates an off-road jeep ride. She died a few months later.

Barry Novack, a lawyer for Moreno's family, says passengers lack control over the rides, just as they would on public transportation, and they rely on operators to ensure their safety.

California law requires that a "common carrier" operator "use the utmost care and diligence" rather than "reasonable care," the standard that previously applied to Disneyland.

A Los Angeles trial judge dismissed the Moreno family's claim, ruling that the Legislature did not intend the common-carrier standard to apply to amusement parks. A state appeals court in 2003 overturned that ruling.

During the hearing, several justices asked whether it would be better for the Legislature, instead of the court, to decide what types of rides should be considered common carriers. Justice Marvin Baxter asked whether the higher standard would put county fairs and other operators that cannot afford higher insurance bills out of business.

"The issue before us is extremely difficult" because previous cases fall on both sides, said Justice Joyce Kennard. "Ultimately, this is going to be a policy call of the Legislature."

Last year, Disney reported revenue of $7.8 billion from theme parks, a 21 percent increase from 2003. Disneyland had attendance of 13.4 million last year, a 5 percent increase from 2003.

Six Flags, which operates Magic Mountain and Marine World in California, and industry groups filed court papers supporting Disney's position, arguing that the rides provide entertainment rather than transportation. They say it is unfair to subject amusement parks to a law passed in 1872, when the public needed assurances to ride new technologies such as railroads.

The justices also questioned lawyers for both sides on whether the common-carrier standard should apply to Disneyland's Monorail, which carries visitors around the park, and rides such as the Back to the Future Ride at Universal Studios, which simulates movement.

Kennard said Disneyland's parsing of the entertainment and transportation functions could create a legal distinction between a tourist who travels the entire circuit of San Francisco's cable cars and a resident who uses the trolley for transportation.

"I don't agree because the cable car has a legitimate transportation function," Derevan replied. The Indiana Jones ride "doesn't operate on the streets of Anaheim."

"I don't know anyone who sticks their hands up in the air and whoops in great delight when riding a bus or an elevator," said Wayne Pierce, a lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of the industry groups.

The Moreno suit seeks unspecified damages, claiming the ride was improperly designed with only a lap belt rather than a shoulder restraint that could have minimized the jostling.

The suit also seeks to force Disneyland to post warnings about risks such as brain damage and death. Moreno had an undiagnosed pre-existing aneurysm, Novack said. He argued that high-speed roller coasters could cause abnormal blood vessels to burst.

"Even if you're in good health or think you're in good health, these rides are not innocuous," Novack said.

Pierce, who represents the theme-park industry, said medical studies have shown no link between thrill rides and brain aneurysms. Two University of Pennsylvania researchers found in 2002 that roller coasters do not produce G-forces large enough to harm riders' brains. The industry also cites a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that said the chance of dying in aroller coaster accident is 1 in 70 million.

No one keeps a tally of how many personal-injury suits have been filed against amusement parks, said Pierce, who has defended theme parks for about 20 years. The operators are not under federal oversight. California in 1999 passed a law that subjects theme parks to regular inspections and requires reporting of accidents.

In 2002, Disney agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to settle a suit by the family of a 4-year-old who suffered brain damage after falling out of Disneyland's Roger Rabbit Car Toon Spin ride. Two years earlier, Disney settled with the family of a man killed in 1998 on the sailing ship Columbia. The settlement also covered injuries to the man's wife, whose face was shattered by a 9-pound metal cleat that ripped from the ship's deck.

A new bill was introduced on 5/19/05 by Congressman Markey for federal regulation of ride safety

See attachements

speck76 said:

"All theme park rides, by there very nature, can create forces that can be harmful to people with certain medical conditions, including some unknown conditions"

I have heard that statement hundreds of times. I have seen variations of it on almost every ride I have ever been on. But how does it relate to the average guest?

First, mechanical safety. Rides are machines, and machines can break down, especially if not properly maintained. This was reportedly the situation on BTM at DL a few years ago. I am not aware of this occuring in such a tragic way at WDW.

Mechanical safety is important. Every guest should be able to ride an attraction and not even have the faintest thought that the attraction could break down in a way that could harm the guest. It happens at parks, sometimes due to poor maintenence, sometimes due to poor construction, and sometimes, it is just a freak accident.....but it does happen. The park or ride manufactuer should be held fully accountable for such an occurance.

What about injuries caused by the fault of the guest? A few years back, a lady fell out of a junior rollercoaster at Michigan's Adventure Amusement Park. It was not a fault of the ride, the lady had turned to check on her children (seated behind her) and became loose from the safety harness. Is the park responsible in this case? If the lady had followed the directions (face forward, keep hand and arms inside car) it would not have occured.

Click to expand...

Completely agree.

speck76 said:

California has or is trying to change amusement parks to be responsible for "the utmost care and diligence" in operating attractions, the current, or old law, required "reasonable care" be taken. The difference.....a lot of lawsuits. California is arguing that an amusement ride is a "common carrier", similar to a bus, as the rider does not have control over the actions of the ride. The parks are claiming that the attractions are entertainment, not transportation.

Click to expand...

Well, this part is much more complex. In a way, I'd expect there to be MORE of a responsibility on the operator of an attraction than one of, say, a bus - on a bus you cannot control a tractor trailer truck smashing into the side of the bus stopped safely at a stoplight. A theme park attraction is a highly controlled enviornment, unlike virtually all other forms of "common carriers".

Now, does that make Disney libel for someone who negligently acts (climbing out of the boat on Splash, for instance) or has an existing condition that is warned against (say heart failure on a roller coaster like RnR) riding an attraction? No, those are the "freak accidents", especially if the rider does not know of their condition.

The details of the law would be of interest, beyond what we'd know here. Of course holding the operator responsible for "freak" accidents would be foolish, especially when the rider failed to obey instructions, but I have no problem with a law that would define it past "reasonable". To me, it IS reasonable to expect Disney to take "uttmost care and dilligence" - too often reasonable is a code-word for "financially" reasonable. I'd rather have less rides than more rides without the uttmost care taken for our safety.

In fact, I'd assume Disney would champion such a bill - otherwise, isn't Disney saying they don't take the "uttmost care" and isn't "dilligent" in our safety? I'd always assumed they already did, so I'd expect them not to mind being held to those standards. I'm sure lesser parks would disagree, but I can't see Disney not agreeing.

speck76 said:

This is something to watch, as a change in the law could prevent attractions from being what most people consider "fun".

Click to expand...

That is an interesting conclusion. I don't think it's anything Disney has to worry about, as the most "intense" attraction at WDW pales in physical thrills to mid-size thrills in other venues. Those that build fastest-highest-most inversion roller coasters (like this year's new crop of intense additions at many of the reigonal parks) may have additional concerns.

Then again I'd also be perfectly happy if Disney added nothing but Fantasyland/PotC/GMR type rides ever again, hehe. So I may be biased.

AEfx

No matter how many laws you put into effect about any kind of safety there are going to be those that try to be "different" and end up getting hurt. The example that you gave about the mohter falling out was her fault. Why would she look behind her to see if her kids are ok, the ironic thing is that as she was looking she was the one that got hurt.. The law could strap you into seatbelts and over the shoulder supports and people will still find a way to get hurt. A person with a bad back might get twisted the wrong way, then their back is hurt and they start sueing. Theme parks can not ge to know every guest up close and personal to find out everything that is wrong with them. Parents should let their kids decide if they want to go onto a ride. There have been plenty of times I have stood in line with a screaming child near me not wanting to go on the ride and their parents are making them. No matter what the law says people will find a way to mess it up. If the law starts mandating policies for theme parks they should take a step back and look at the traffic problem that is around everyone. Every other person is talking on their cell phone while driving, they are putting on their make up, or fumbling around looking for something on the car floor. Or what about parents that neglect their children, or are popping kids out that they cant afford. Just last week I was at a hot dog stand and there was a mother and daughter there as well. The mother was on her phone talking to her brother? about a tv show from the week previous and other little stories that could have waited. The girl just wanted her moms attention. She tried talking and was told to shut up, she went outside to play in a parking lot as her mom sat inside talking. Finally after 20 more minutes the mom got up and left.
1 person gets killed in a theme park and the news jumps all over it. They are like locust that no matter how hard you swat they dont go away. My experience with them this past weekend almost turned ugly.
I was running the sound for Chicago's Blues Fest and all these camera people kept getting closer and closer to me. I already had a ton to do and watching my back was not one of them. A microphone fell on stage and I had to run and get it. Behind me, basically breathing down my neck, was someone that I smashed into and their camera broke because it hit the ground. They were yelling and walked onto the stage, so I had them escorted out by the police.
I think that the people that run our lives, in this free country, should worry about the big issues rather than a story that the media is going to force down our throats,
but I could be wrong

Disney's Wild about Safety Website....also has a link to their Saftey Report (too big to post)

http://disney.go.com/safety/

I never did get to my point.....So when does a perent stop being a parent and just let their kid do whatever they want, and WHEN something happens to them they sue.
Just because you are in Disney doesnt mean that you give up perental control, manners, and the fact that your kid is just as important and everyone else's; not more important.

AEfx said:

That is an interesting conclusion. I don't think it's anything Disney has to worry about, as the most "intense" attraction at WDW pales in physical thrills to mid-size thrills in other venues. Those that build fastest-highest-most inversion roller coasters (like this year's new crop of intense additions at many of the reigonal parks) may have additional concerns.

Then again I'd also be perfectly happy if Disney added nothing but Fantasyland/PotC/GMR type rides ever again, hehe. So I may be biased.

AEfx

Click to expand...

A lady died after riding PotC this year

Of course, she was 77, diabetic, had previously had several ministrokes, and the medical examiner said the death was "not unexpected".....but even an attraction like that can be too much for an individual.

I agree with your first point. Working at Cedar Point 10 years ago, they were always one to psuh the highest/fastest/steepest angle....and one design company had stated that "the only thing that limits us are the limits of the human body".

But which body? My body? Your Body? I am a healthy male, late 20's, (former smoker), normal blood pressure, low cholesterol and my weight is about average. Is the ride designed so that I can ride it, or the average American can ride it (perhaps overweight, perhaps high blood-pressure).....

Will parks one day have to force people to sign medical waivers to ride the attractions, or proof of good health?

No ride is entirely safe, and reasonable versus the other, whatever it is, i dont recall, is just semantics.

People should try to build safe rides. They should be held accountable for preventable problems - neglience. The unforeseen? The unforeseeable? Those should be their responsibility - because a company is equipped to handle such an occurance, but blame should not be placed.

AEfx said:

Completely agree.



Well, this part is much more complex. In a way, I'd expect there to be MORE of a responsibility on the operator of an attraction than one of, say, a bus - on a bus you cannot control a tractor trailer truck smashing into the side of the bus stopped safely at a stoplight. A theme park attraction is a highly controlled enviornment, unlike virtually all other forms of "common carriers".

Now, does that make Disney libel for someone who negligently acts (climbing out of the boat on Splash, for instance) or has an existing condition that is warned against (say heart failure on a roller coaster like RnR) riding an attraction? No, those are the "freak accidents", especially if the rider does not know of their condition.

The details of the law would be of interest, beyond what we'd know here. Of course holding the operator responsible for "freak" accidents would be foolish, especially when the rider failed to obey instructions, but I have no problem with a law that would define it past "reasonable". To me, it IS reasonable to expect Disney to take "uttmost care and dilligence" - too often reasonable is a code-word for "financially" reasonable. I'd rather have less rides than more rides without the uttmost care taken for our safety.

In fact, I'd assume Disney would champion such a bill - otherwise, isn't Disney saying they don't take the "uttmost care" and isn't "dilligent" in our safety? I'd always assumed they already did, so I'd expect them not to mind being held to those standards. I'm sure lesser parks would disagree, but I can't see Disney not agreeing.

AEfx

Click to expand...

Legal Definition:
The duty to use the utmost care and diligence is equivalent to the "highest degree" of care.

I understand what you mean, but I am not about to go after WDW because their toilet paper made me uncomfortable for the remainder of the day.

Others will, that I my fear, and most likely theirs too.

mousermerf said:

No ride is entirely safe, and reasonable versus the other, whatever it is, i dont recall, is just semantics.

Click to expand...

No, they are different under the law.

mousermerf said:

People should try to build safe rides. They should be held accountable for preventable problems - neglience. The unforeseen? The unforeseeable? Those should be their responsibility - because a company is equipped to handle such an occurance, but blame should not be placed.

Click to expand...

Parks should build safe rides and keep them safe from mechanical or other problems that would not be caused by the rider.

The rider should be safe on the ride, not ride in a way that will cause harm to themself or others, and should take reasonable, or even utmost care and diligence, to know of any medical conditions that could harm them while experiencing the ride.

Knowing what is safe is trickey - they can't put restraints on log flumes, it's not safe. If it capsizes you're gonna drown. But, as we've learned from the past, people can stand up on such a ride and be killed.

mousermerf said:

Knowing what is safe is trickey - they can't put restraints on log flumes, it's not safe. If it capsizes you're gonna drown. But, as we've learned from the past, people can stand up on such a ride and be killed.

Click to expand...

I think part is a lack of respect for the attraction and what it really is.

I worked on a river rapids ride similar to Kali. People would stand up and run around in it all of the time to avoid the waterfalls. MAny would fall, get hurt, hurt other guests....whatever.

It is a boat, it is going over rapids at a decent speed. It is not on a track, so it follows the current, meaning it can slam into the edge of the concrete river sometimes. It is a ride that is safe when you are seated and restrained. It is not safe if you are standing, as you could fall over, fall out, fall on to someone.

speck76 said:

A lady died after riding PotC this year

Of course, she was 77, diabetic, had previously had several ministrokes, and the medical examiner said the death was "not unexpected".....but even an attraction like that can be too much for an individual.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's interesting because that specificly, medically, is identical to how a close relative of mine died. It goes under "freak accident" in the case of PotC as in the moment her body gave out happened to be on a theme park attraction. Even with the brief drop (2 in CA), I wouldn't say PotC is any more physically intense than your average car ride. It's conceivable someone could die on Snow White, or It's A Small World. In my case, getting out of bed was "too much" for my family member. It's doubtful PotC "did" it to her. Regardless, I'll rephrase : I'd be just as happy if they built nothing more than Fantasyland/SmallWorld/Great Movie Rides ever again.

speck76 said:

I agree with your first point. Working at Cedar Point 10 years ago, they were always one to psuh the highest/fastest/steepest angle....and one design company had stated that "the only thing that limits us are the limits of the human body".

Click to expand...

I've heard that before, and it's scary. On one hand I do enjoy those type of rides occasionally, but where is line drawn for safety versus probability of safety? That's something I'll be thinking about next time I look at a new "extreme" coaster.

speck76 said:

But which body? My body? Your Body? I am a healthy male, late 20's, (former smoker), normal blood pressure, low cholesterol and my weight is about average. Is the ride designed so that I can ride it, or the average American can ride it (perhaps overweight, perhaps high blood-pressure).....

Click to expand...

A great point. I feel the same whenever I see government mandated "nutrition" information, like it's some generic human trait that you need x calories per day with certain % from certain groups.

It's one I'm sure ride designers struggle with every day. However, again, this is about super-extreme rides - as we know the vast majority of rides at this point aren't causing repeat deaths. One in millions to have an adverse reaction is probably better than most food products out there.

speck76 said:

Will parks one day have to force people to sign medical waivers to ride the attractions, or proof of good health?

Click to expand...

LOL, well, waviers would be easier. That said, there already is some implicit consent given when you board a ride that has restrictions - which is why all of these signs we talk about exist. We can joke about people not paying attention, but if you have heart problems and get on a ride that says people with heart problems should not ride...it may not be legally binding, but negligence on the part of the operator may not exist.

Like software EULA's, it would be interesting to see where high courts would weigh in on something like this.

AEfx

mousermerf said:

If it capsizes you're gonna drown. But, as we've learned from the past, people can stand up on such a ride and be killed.

Click to expand...

Ah, but they are warned to keep their hands and arms inside the ride and to remain seated.

It's a question of, where do we have to reasonably physically restrain people from being able to get out, or physically restrain them from being dislodged from the ride because of the ride motion?

I would feel someone was negligent from standing up on a log flume ride and trying to get out, but not if someone slipped under the seatbelt at Soarin' while sitting still.

It's a distinct line in terms of intention, but legally blurry.

AEfx

You have to decide which is more important, creating an experience that is reasonably safe, or protecting the world from itself. I think the other extreme is like trying to live in bubble wrap.

And safe for who? As in the log flume, i dont know who is right, but some argue the man was autistic and unable to understand the rules - thus to make the ride safe it would need restraints. Restraints while helping his paritcular situation would make the ride more dangerous for others - however he stood up and died but the boats have not capsized to my knowledge.

What if i wanted to build a big scary "bottomless" pit? You'd walk up to and go "oo, scary, i almost stepped in!" and it'd be a long line with a cheap thrill. A blind person may just walk right in and go splat. So who do i build for? I think i'd just not build the pit - but I dont think its catering the special needs of a particular minority, rather a large open pit would be unsafe for everyone, just as restraints holding you under water would be unsafe for everyone.

I think that's how they decide.

8/7/2001
Paramount Kings Island
Son of Beast

Patron's neck broke from forces of ride. Patron suffers from Ankylosingsponditis, a form of arthritis of the spine. His physicians had never told him not to ride coasters. He is an avid roller coaster rider and travels around the US riding coasters. Patron had ridden Vortex, Flight of Fear, and Son of Beast previous to the injury. Patron said that his neck had broken in the area of the ride known as the "double helix".

Broken neck: complete fracture of 6th vertebra and small fracture of the 7th vertebra.

This incident was the second injury of this nature within a 4 week period. Both injured parties had the same pre-existing condition and both parties were injured on the same ride. As a result, it was decided that the park should broadcast a verbal warning about the aggressive nature of this ride to patrons waiting in line. (Note, the verbal warning does not specifically mention broken neck as a potential consequence of riding Son of Beast).

AEfx said:

Well, this part is much more complex. In a way, I'd expect there to be MORE of a responsibility on the operator of an attraction than one of, say, a bus - on a bus you cannot control a tractor trailer truck smashing into the side of the bus stopped safely at a stoplight. A theme park attraction is a highly controlled enviornment, unlike virtually all other forms of "common carriers".

Click to expand...

And hence there would be no liability. You obviously misunderstand the expressed doctrine. The operator of a common carrier is only responsible for those things in his direct control. WDW bus drivers often violate this doctrine, but that is another post. Your assertions are without any merit and based upon flawed logic.

AEfx said:

Ah, but they are warned to keep their hands and arms inside the ride and to remain seated.

It's a question of, where do we have to reasonably physically restrain people from being able to get out, or physically restrain them from being dislodged from the ride because of the ride motion?

I would feel someone was negligent from standing up on a log flume ride and trying to get out, but not if someone slipped under the seatbelt at Soarin' while sitting still.

It's a distinct line in terms of intention, but legally blurry.

AEfx

Click to expand...

Perhaps the difference between reasonable and utmost safety

The object of safety restraints is the latter.

A boy fell from a freefall ride a few years back at a Paramount park....fell 200-300 feet. He was restrained so that the ride would not saude him to fall out, he decided that he wanted off of the ride, and crawled out underneath the restraint.

mousermerf said:

You have to decide which is more important, creating an experience that is reasonably safe, or protecting the world from itself. I think the other extreme is like trying to live in bubble wrap.

And safe for who? As in the log flume, i dont know who is right, but some argue the man was autistic and unable to understand the rules - thus to make the ride safe it would need restraints. Restraints while helping his paritcular situation would make the ride more dangerous for others - however he stood up and died but the boats have not capsized to my knowledge.

What if i wanted to build a big scary "bottomless" pit? You'd walk up to and go "oo, scary, i almost stepped in!" and it'd be a long line with a cheap thrill. A blind person may just walk right in and go splat. So who do i build for? I think i'd just not build the pit - but I dont think its catering the special needs of a particular minority, rather a large open pit would be unsafe for everyone, just as restraints holding you under water would be unsafe for everyone.

I think that's how they decide.

Click to expand...

I have always thought that just because you "can" ride a attraction, does not mean you "should" ride the attraction (an old AE arguement).

As my post above said, a kid that was big enough to ride the attraction decided that he wanted off in the middle of the attraction. He was big enough, but not smart enough, or mature enough, for that attraction.

Unfortunately, some parents do not consider that, or "want to get their money's worth"

As for your first point, where does it end. One will not fall out of Peter Pan at the MK....unless they try to. If the ride was designed in a way that you could not get out at all, except at the station, it would take away a lot of the experience.