Fido Chuckwagon
Well-Known Member
The fact that so few seem to understand this anywhere, including in every day life, is one of the greatest failings of the American educational system.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers
- Thread starter mkt
- Start date
flynnibus
Premium Member
So you’re saying uni is to blame for allowing him to ride…
A significant settlement by Universal would suggest Universal is partially responsible.
I'm not handwaving anything. Paraplegics with or without spinal conditions ride roller coasters all the time. They don't all die either. Many of you keep acting like this was some inevitable, highly predictable outcome of him riding a ride like this, when even his own family will tell you he was an experienced coaster enthusiast (but again, it's not like this happens regularly, regardless of who was riding what.) Even if he technically didn't meet the existing requirements to ride, this is still not a paraplegic riders issue, like Universal wants to paint it as, this is a Stardust Racers killing a person issue.
Blunt force trauma is the preliminary cause. How or even IF his condition contributed in some way is still mere conjecture. Universal adding new restrictions to a seemingly random assortment of rides doesn't actually prove anything.
Last edited:
Agent H
Well-Known Member
Terrible. Absolutely terrible.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Just because they ride them regularly doesn’t mean they should. Or all should. Or that it doesn’t differ from coaster to coaster. And just because the end result isn’t death doesn’t mean there isn’t increased risk. Those warnings are there for a reason.
I didn't say anyone should go out and ignore the warning signs. You're missing the point again, which is that people get on rides they technically aren't supposed to on a regular basis, and they're very much allowed to in most cases. Even Universal, until just now, has traditionally taken measures that only make it easier for people who technically shouldn't be riding to do so. Increased risk or not, statistically, it's not an anomaly where someone is risking certain death by any stretch of the imagination, it's an everyday occurrence. A person dying on a ride from blunt force trauma because they passed out, able-bodied or not, is very much an anomaly, therefore it's NOT consistent with anything.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
When was this determined and by whom? That riders need to be ambulatory was not the standard before this incident. It is still not the standard outside Universal parks and apparently one Merlin park. Nor is it the standard with any of the relevant manufacturers.
Universal designed Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey and Monsters Unchained with alternate loading areas. They are not there just for people who need time to walk. Non-ambulatory guests were a specific consideration. Universal has also spent years working to enact modifications to the model fire and building codes to facilitate easier evacuation of guests, with non-ambulatory guests being of particular concern. Universal made changes because this is not how things have been and to claim otherwise is just gaslighting.
Last edited:
Agent H
Well-Known Member
@Tom Morrow why did you react to my post with the angry emoji?
I also reacted with anger.
The anger isn't to you - it's towards the trash humans pretending to be unresponsive.
Agent H
Well-Known Member
Okay. I understand. My apologies to @Tom Morrow.
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
What you're proposing is happening is: Universal, Mack, the investigations, etc etc have not yet determined the cause of the man receiving blunt force trauma, but have just decided to blame it on body conditions as a scapegoat and reopen the ride anyway, hoping for the best. Think about how absolutely batsh** insane this would be for them to do! They would be risking everything!
Or consider that maybe, just maybe, they know more than you, and made an informed decision based on their information, vs. your assumptions that are based on what has been released publicly.
U r rly smrt.
I'm not particularly interested in trying to nail down blame. That is for the courts to decide as this is a very complex situation. Universal was operating using the restrictions laid out by Mack, the manufacturer. The same applies to all the other rides they modified boarding restrictions to along with Stardust.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The final determination of the cause of death has not been made. Universal and Mack don’t get special secret access to the medical examiner. Even the Department of Agriculture isn’t going to get that. They do not know more than us regarding the specifics of the cause of death and the medical examiner leaking such information to private entities for their financial benefit would be its own serious issue.
Universal (and Mack for that matter) don't determine the victim's cause of death. That isn't their job. They merely determine if the ride was "operating correctly," whatever that means.
But are they scapegoating certain riders in order to establish the facade of being proactive while continuing to operate the ride in the meantime? Absolutely.
I know, right?
Last edited:
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you think a document stating the official cause of death will change? It is already known what happened to him during the ride. Maybe it was actually aliens?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Please tell us exactly what he hit.. and how he managed to do it compared to every other rider... and why he involuntarily did any of it. Then, tell us why it's not going to happen to anyone else.
I mean, you know exactly what happened right? Because UNI changed a sign?
"multiple blunt force trauma" is not the full explanation of what his body went through and why. I can't believe we have to keep breaking out the crayons here to explain that these little bits are NOT the full investigation nor conclusions.
TalkToEthan
Well-Known Member
I’m happy Stardust is open and I’m looking to ride soon.
I’ll take my chances since Stardust has given out 2+ million rides and millions upon millions more with that ride system around the globe with one death.
And the one death was somebody with a pronounced physical disability ——- so keep your correlation vs causation cliche.
I’ll take my chances since Stardust has given out 2+ million rides and millions upon millions more with that ride system around the globe with one death.
And the one death was somebody with a pronounced physical disability ——- so keep your correlation vs causation cliche.
You don't need crayons. You're the one who needs large print. The family, has part of discovery, is entitled to the full report. The state, as part of its investigation is entitled to all, maybe some exceptions, of the report.
The public may be entitled to whatever is presented at trial. Government reports might be available under FOI.
Ride is open with restrictions. Guests who don't feel safe shouldn't Ride.
Guests who feel the restrictions shouldn't apply to them need to contact Universal. File an ADA compliant if the guest has an unresolved issue.
THE POINT. UNIVERSAL DOESN'T HAVE TO RELEASE additional information. Universal doesn't have to respond to poster requests on internet fan forums.
I'm sure some want to see gory autopsy photos.
mergatroid
Well-Known Member
I've not seen anyone saying that they have to respond to requests on fan forums, have you?
I've also not seen anyone wanting or hinting at wanting to see autopsy photos and find it disrespectful to the memory of the person you speaking like that.
People disagreeing with opinions don't need to resort to comments like that when some poor person is dead surely?
Last edited:
rd805
Well-Known Member
Are you truly unable to surmise the situation that arose while he was on board? With a little sleuthing and probable hypothesis, it's a pretty easy conclusion. Yes it is exactly what people thought happened when the image of him surfaced showing he had an under-developed & different lower half of his body.
Some people shouldn't be riding thrill rides -- it sucks, and he shouldn't have been allowed on in the first place.