News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Andrew C]

From reddit:



If this is the case, the ride either no longer becomes ADA compliant, or they retrofit one ride vehicle with OTSR.

These restraints are not a new design. So how to other coasters handle it today?

 

[mkt]

Wifettorney chimed in on my ADA thought - She pointed out that under the ADA, the parks don’t have to make accommodations if doing so would put a rider’s safety at risk. The law allows “safety-based eligibility criteria” as long as it’s legit and not based on a stereotype. In other words, equal access doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed a seat if the restraint system can’t actually keep you safe.

 

[ToTBellHop]

No one should be slipping out if they meet the height requirement. These restraints are used on Velocicoaster and if someone could slip out, they'd never have installed that zero-g stall. You need to be stapled into the seat to go with a lap bar on an inverting coaster. Only caveat would be if, in addition to be wheelchair-bound (which shouldn't really impact this as long as the person has legs), if there were a serious cognitive deficit, a person could forcibly move into a dangerous position. I presume that's one of the few cases where Universal isn't liable here. But, there are no details suggesting this is the case.

Surprised this didn't happen on one of those RMC wooden-to-steel retrofits (i.e. Iron Gwazi) first. Those invert, have lap bar restraints, and include zero-g stalls. And they really beat the trap out of you. I find them to be much more aggressive thrill rides than this.

 

[JT3000]

Wifettorney chimed in on my ADA thought - She pointed out that under the ADA, the parks don’t have to make accommodations if doing so would put a rider’s safety at risk. The law allows “safety-based eligibility criteria” as long as it’s legit and not based on a stereotype. In other words, equal access doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed a seat if the restraint system can’t actually keep you safe.

That just means they can't make unreasonable alterations to the ride system, putting one's safety into jeopardy in the process, in order to allow a person to ride (a certain defunct Orlando area ride immediately comes to mind.) Seeing as how this person was physically capable of getting on the ride as designed, ADA accommodations are a bit of a moot point. The ride needs to be able to safely accommodate anyone capable of boarding (and allowed to do so, ie they aren't missing a limb or some such.)

There is one thing that you didn't consider. It is possible for a person have existing medical issue without it being diagnosed. I am saying that because a family member was born with a heart defect, but wasn't diagnosed with it before being in their 40s despite a test didn't defect anything as a teenager.

That's why it's important to stay on top of your health status when participating in any strenuous activities. Obviously they won't catch everything, but if we're being honest, some of these attractions are intense enough that they should probably require some sort of prerequisite medical testing in order to ride. The "Do not ride" signs aren't enough and merely absolve the park of any legal wrongdoing.

 

[Tom Morrow]

This is rather horrific.

And if nothing failed or hit the guest, then an awful lot of coasters over the last decade may need to reconsider their restraint system.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Could be a far wider issue than just ADA. Could have happened to anyone, the fact that he slipped slightly out of the harness doesn't have a true relation to his disability, it's correlation at best.

This would not be the first time someone with a unique body type has died on a ride, if that does turn out to be a factor.

Wifettorney chimed in on my ADA thought - She pointed out that under the ADA, the parks don’t have to make accommodations if doing so would put a rider’s safety at risk. The law allows “safety-based eligibility criteria” as long as it’s legit and not based on a stereotype. In other words, equal access doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed a seat if the restraint system can’t actually keep you safe.

New rides are only required to provide either a wheelchair space or the ability to transfer from a wheelchair.

That just means they can't make unreasonable alterations to the ride system, putting one's safety into jeopardy in the process, in order to allow a person to ride (a certain defunct Orlando area ride immediately comes to mind.) Seeing as how this person was physically capable of getting on the ride as designed, ADA accommodations are a bit of a moot point. The ride needs to be able to safely accommodate anyone capable of boarding (and allowed to do so, ie they aren't missing a limb or some such.)

Many roller coasters are not capable of safely accommodating everyone who is capable of boarding. Persons with missing limbs would be a major example.

 

[mkt]

That just means they can't make unreasonable alterations to the ride system, putting one's safety into jeopardy in the process, in order to allow a person to ride (a certain defunct Orlando area ride immediately comes to mind.) Seeing as how this person was physically capable of getting on the ride as designed, ADA accommodations are a bit of a moot point. The ride needs to be able to safely accommodate anyone capable of boarding (and allowed to do so, ie they aren't missing a limb or some such.)

The ADA standard isn’t just “if you can board, you can ride.” It’s “reasonable accommodation unless it creates a direct safety risk.” Being able to transfer in doesn’t automatically mean the restraint can hold you safely through the ride forces. That’s the line the law draws.

New rides are only required to provide either a wheelchair space or the ability to transfer from a wheelchair.

Accessibility doesn’t override safety. Under the ADA, parks can use safety-based eligibility rules. If you can’t safely maintain posture and withstand the forces with the restraint - even if there’s a transfer option or wheelchair space - you don’t ride. Same standard for everyone. Reasonable accommodations are required; risky ones aren’t.

 

[JT3000]

Many roller coasters are not capable of safely accommodating everyone who is capable of boarding. Persons with missing limbs would be a major example.

Hence why amputees aren't allowed to ride. This person was obviously allowed to ride.

The ADA standard isn’t just “if you can board, you can ride.” It’s “reasonable accommodation unless it creates a direct safety risk.” Being able to transfer in doesn’t automatically mean the restraint can hold you safely through the ride forces. That’s the line the law draws.

No, that is the parks' standard. They are allowed to offer you "reasonable accommodation unless it creates a direct safety risk," meaning they can't go against the ride manufacturer's safety regulations to get you on. But if you can board, and there are no obvious red flags in the eyes of the ride ops, you will ride, and the park will hold you accountable for your own safety.

ADA is basically irrelevant in this case, as I don't believe this ride even has special ADA accommodations. Most rides don't.

 

[mkt]

No, that is the parks' standard. They are allowed to offer you "reasonable accommodation unless it creates a direct safety risk," meaning they can't go against the ride manufacturer's safety regulations to get you on. But if you can board, and there are no obvious red flags in the eyes of the ride ops, you will ride, and the park will hold you accountable for your own safety.

ADA is basically irrelevant in this case, as I don't believe this ride even has special ADA accommodations. Most rides don't.

True, ADA isn’t the cause of what happened - that’s about the incident itself. But it is relevant to this side quest in the thread, because it defines what parks have to provide (not necessarily spelled out in regulations, but definitely spelled out by their counsel to avoid lawsuits) and where safety takes priority.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Accessibility doesn’t override safety. Under the ADA, parks can use safety-based eligibility rules. If you can’t safely maintain posture and withstand the forces with the restraint - even if there’s a transfer option or wheelchair space - you don’t ride. Same standard for everyone. Reasonable accommodations are required; risky ones aren’t.

Which is part of why the only requirement for the roller coaster itself is wheelchair access. It’s not just safety. Rides have significant leeway in what accommodations need to be provided.

 

[wdwmagic]

 

[lazyboy97o]

Dude sounds like a real peach.

 

[JT3000]

True, ADA isn’t the cause of what happened - that’s about the incident itself. But it is relevant to this side quest in the thread, because it defines what parks have to provide (not necessarily spelled out in regulations, but definitely spelled out by their counsel to avoid lawsuits) and where safety takes priority.

Well that's the thing, they don't actually have to provide anything in particular when it comes to ride accessibility, which is what ADA would concern itself with, just a vague notion that you'll be safe while on the ride, which applies to all guests equally. Some rides do provide special accommodations that make it easier for disabled guests to experience the attraction, but most do not, because it's not actually required by anyone. They're only required to operate the ride within manufacturer spec in order to ensure the safety of all guests. So this person's safety being fatally compromised will be looked at in a more general sense, and not through the lense of ADA. Seeing as how this particular ride lacks special accommodations (as far as I'm aware) that could potentially be deemed unsafe, if these circumstances happened to this supposedly disabled guest who was allowed to ride, it can likely happen to anyone.

 

[mkt]

What a d0uche.

 

[alexdisney]

Dude is complaining about not being able to get his stuff and having to walk across the park while a guy was literally dead on the roller coaster.

 

[Gringrinngghost]

For those talking about ADA.

Stardust for the Rider Requirements are one of the stricter ones. When I was attached to the company, they used the acronym "ABLE" for riders. Its basically was 1. Are you able to absorb the sudden movements while supporting of your torso, neck and head. 2. Able to brace your upper body while being able to maintain rider posture. 3. Able to meet the limb requirements. Lastly at 4, Able to experience the attraction by yourself and without the need of a device or third party.

The standard limb requirements are one full natural arm, one full natural leg and their second natural leg terminates below the knee. If you look at the Stardust Racers one, they require that you independently maintain rider posture and are able to support your torso, neck, and head while absorbing the attraction's movements and that you have one natural arm. And on the stricter side, that you both natural legs must terminate below the ankle when amputated.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

‘Help! Help!’ Cause of death revealed for guest who rode Stardust Racers at Epic Universe

In the wake of a guest who died after riding an Epic Universe roller coaster on Wednesday, the Orange-Osceola Medical Examiner has released the cause of death.

www.clickorlando.com

Another eyewitness account that just adds more questions than answers, this guest said his leg looked broken, makes me wonder if the legs were just in an unnatural position since he was unconscious and had lower extremity issues, it also sounds like he was very secure in his seat and bleeding from his chest and not the face.

More speculation but I wonder if the blunt force injuries were chest injuries and not head injuries, if he couldn’t use his legs to stabilize himself he may have been tossed forward and backward breaking ribs in the process. That could lead to vomiting blood on his chest.

 

[disneylandtour]

This is rather horrific.

And if nothing failed or hit the guest, then an awful lot of coasters over the last decade may need to reconsider their restraint system.

Or something about the track configuration produced unexpected stress on the restraint system.

 

[disneylandtour]

What a d0uche.

Seriously. If local authorities would release information, it would end tiktok (what I perceive to be) semi-truths like this.

 

[mkt]

Seriously. If local authorities would release information, it would end tiktok (what I perceive to be) semi-truths like this.

In Florida it's public record.

I'm just not creepy enough to request it.