News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[lazyboy97o]

Someone died is what changed. We don't know what any company (ride manufacturer, insurer or operator) is concerned about. But rules on the operation of rides does vary by country and region, both from government guidance and what risks the operators insurer is willing to take on.
In the UK there was a death on a rapids ride and the health & safety executive gave some guidance, but many parks are now very risk-averse with these rides now, going slightly further than the guidance, potentially due to the risks that insurers are comfortable with.

As in the entire theme of this discussion we don't know why all the decisions have been made, but there may well be a large number of companies, people and agencies involved. Or just specific people are risk-averse.

We don’t know if other companies are concerned about people dying? Really? That’s not some small, acceptable difference in the approach to rider safety.

 

[Jon81uk]

We don’t know if other companies are concerned about people dying? Really? That’s not some small, acceptable difference in the approach to rider safety.

Of course they are concerned about people dying, don't be flippant. But the risks each insurer and operator are willing to take will vary and following the incident recently Universal and/or their insurer have got more risk-averse, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. They would have looked at the liklihood of an incident and been happy with the risk factor, but now an incident has happened Universal and/or their insurer has decided they don't like the risk and have increased the rider requirements meaning less chance of incidents.

 

[Rich Brownn]

Of course they are concerned about people dying, don't be flippant. But the risks each insurer and operator are willing to take will vary and following the incident recently Universal and/or their insurer have got more risk-averse, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. They would have looked at the liklihood of an incident and been happy with the risk factor, but now an incident has happened Universal and/or their insurer has decided they don't like the risk and have increased the rider requirements meaning less chance of incidents.

As someone pointed out to me, Universal is self-insured

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Of course they are concerned about people dying, don't be flippant. But the risks each insurer and operator are willing to take will vary and following the incident recently Universal and/or their insurer have got more risk-averse, especially for those with pre-existing conditions. They would have looked at the liklihood of an incident and been happy with the risk factor, but now an incident has happened Universal and/or their insurer has decided they don't like the risk and have increased the rider requirements meaning less chance of incidents.

Wouldn't that be quite shocking? That insurers/operators/manufacturers might know there is even a slight risk of someone dying on the ride because of its design and just waived it away as an acceptable risk? It would seem even more startling if someone then did die in such a horrible way and all the people involved at the manufacturer and other parks kept going as normal as they assumed it wasn't likely enough to happen again.

 

[TalkToEthan]

That insurers/operators/manufacturers might know there is even a slight risk of someone dying on the ride because of its design and just waived it away as an acceptable risk?

I don’t know why you wrote that.
But because you did I will state the beyond obvious:
Everything has risk; mathematical 100% guaranteed safety does not exist, for anything.

 

[flynnibus]

People he will kick down a door if Disney doesn't give them their AP magnet... but people die on a coaster without acknowledging how it will be stopped? Leaping to defend.. the internet is amazing at times.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wouldn't that be quite shocking? That insurers/operators/manufacturers might know there is even a slight risk of someone dying on the ride because of its design and just waived it away as an acceptable risk? It would seem even more startling if someone then did die in such a horrible way and all the people involved at the manufacturer and other parks kept going as normal as they assumed it wasn't likely enough to happen again.

This. The current situation is one of three possibilities:

1. Universal realized that they and several manufacturers made incorrect assessments of various rides and restraints, but Universal has not shared these findings with other operators and manufacturers.

2. Universal realized that they and several manufacturers made incorrect assessments of various rides and restraints, Universal has shared these findings with other operators and manufacturers, but other operators and manufacturers have chosen not to respond.

3. Universal’s changes are not actually based on actual findings and they have excluded a group of riders because they can and it makes them look like they did something.

All of these are bad. Right now there isn’t a good explanation for Universal’s changes to rider requirements. All of the claims that paraplegics should not have been riding in the first place are not true, and are just after the fact gaslighting to validate these changes.

 

[Andrew C]

Someone died who was not supposed to be riding in the first place, according to the requirements at that time. Universal adjusted their language to make it even clearer who and who should not be riding. If you want to investigate something, investigate why he was allowed to board in the first place. Determine that root cause.

 

[mergatroid]

I don’t know why you wrote that.
But because you did I will state the beyond obvious:
Everything has risk; mathematical 100% guaranteed safety does not exist, for anything.

That's a bit of a strange comparison though? There's a difference between falling over on a pavement and accidentally dying because your head hits a kerb or choking on a peanut than being strapped into a padded seat and being sadly killed by blunt force trauma. The blunt force trauma is the key here because it's not something you would normally see as a possible outcome as the design of the vehicle is specifically designed not to be able to do that.

Things like being struck by lightening in a McDonalds parking lot, falling on ice, being run over, chocking on a peanut, being electrocuted by a falling cable thrown in the air by a tornado are the types things that we have no control over and in general consider one of those unfortunate aspects of life. Riding any amusement park ride shouldn't really fall into that category as there's designers and engineers in control of certain things and blunt force trauma in a vehicle that's apparently not behaved in anyway other than it was supposed to, isn't something that you'd expect as a possible consequence as it's a controlled environment.

Until we know the facts it's hard to say, but going on a roller coaster shouldn't be a situation where you think "I could die on this even if it works exactly as it was designed to" in my humble opinion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Someone died who was not supposed to be riding in the first place, according to the requirements at that time. Universal adjusted their language to make it even clearer who and who should not be riding. If you want to investigate something, investigate why he was allowed to board in the first place. Determine that root cause.

This is not true and even more so for some of the other attractions that were altered. Mack absolutely intends for this restraint to be used by persons with paraplegia which is why they offer accommodations at their own park.

Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey and Monsters Unchained were both built with separate alternate loading areas. Those areas were not built just for guests who are slow but mobile. Guests who are not ambulatory were a specific consideration and to suddenly claim otherwise a decade later is pathetic gaslighting.

 

[TalkToEthan]

There's a difference between falling over on a pavement and accidentally dying because you're head hits a kerb or choking on a peanut than being strapped into a padded seat and being sadly killed by blunt force trauma.

Of course there is. I agree

I was just wondering why Sir C would question the idea of “acceptable risk”.

Insurers and parks should be looking at acceptable risk, as opposed to 0% risk which is straight up impossible—-for anything

 

[mergatroid]

Of course there is. I agree

I was just wondering why Sir C would question the idea of “acceptable risk”.

Insurers and parks should be looking at acceptable risk, as opposed to 0% risk which is straight up impossible—-for anything

I'm guessing he's questioning the amount of acceptable risk due to the way we've been told nothing by the park on this rather than him asking for an actual number. It's probably the fact that they've not come out an said anything about the risk being eliminated or reduced by action x,y or z. The whole thing is confusing and probably a legal minefield however it just feels like we know nothing about the accident as such and are just being told "Trust us everything is ok"?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Of course there is. I agree

I was just wondering why Sir C would question the idea of “acceptable risk”.

Insurers and parks should be looking at acceptable risk, as opposed to 0% risk which is straight up impossible—-for anything

I didn't question that concept, I questioned the concept of there being an acceptable risk of "of someone dying on the ride because of its design." That is, if I am understanding correctly, what @mergatroid was also implying.

For example, if it was discovered that the design of the logs on Tiana's Bayou Adventure meant that people could potentially fly out of them on the drop but it would only happen in very rare instances, I think we would be shocked if it came out that Disney and the manufacturers knew this was possible but decided the level of risk was acceptable and let people keep riding it.

At any rate, I suspect (but of course don't know) that the reality of this situation is the third option provided by @lazyboy97o

3. Universal’s changes are not actually based on actual findings and they have excluded a group of riders because they can and it makes them look like they did something.

 

[lewisc]

arry Potter and the Forbidden Journey and Monsters Unchained were both built with separate alternate loading areas. Those areas were not built just for guests who are slow but mobile. Guests who are not ambulatory were a specific consideration and to suddenly claim otherwise a decade later is pathetic gaslighting.

Which is why I think a guest affected by the change should request an exception from Universal followed by ADA complaint.

The reason they give might satisfy you. It might be enough to get an ADA change.

It might be corporate double speak.

I don't know if any of the posters are in that category.

I'll continue to speculate emergency unload not at a load unload zone normally used might be a reason.

Posters aren't going to get real information on internet discussion forums.

 

[flynnibus]

Posters aren't going to get real information on internet discussion forums.

No one here is thinking they are talking to Universal on this forum... this is just yet another one of your strawmen you keep making. It's a discussion between members.. no one thinks this is Uni's front door.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

Which is why I think a guest affected by the change should request an exception from Universal followed by ADA complaint.

The reason they give might satisfy you. It might be enough to get an ADA change.

It might be corporate double speak.

I don't know if any of the posters are in that category.

I'll continue to speculate emergency unload not at a load unload zone normally used might be a reason.

Posters aren't going to get real information on internet discussion forumss

I just went to WDW prior to foot surgery and have been to other amusement parks with an ECV and in a boot or knee brace. I also have a couple of non-visible disabilities and have had both work and school accommodations, so I'm fairly well versed in the ADA.

WDW is FANTASTIC with mobility disabilities. At the time, I could walk a few steps, but basically anything I needed, they could accommodate. The only ride I really couldn't do was PeopleMover because you have to be able to walk up the moving ramp*. ToT...if you can't walk, you can get right up to the seating area. RnRC...third row has a car with a door and a handrail. I made use of this because it was MUCH easier in a boot. They have you board from the exit, and it allows extra time. Most of the other rollercoasters have a car with a door as well, as does ROTR. I did not need this, but it was available. The only attraction where they asked specifically if I could do stairs was Tiana's. In an emergency, yes, I could have. I think they would have flagged where you were if you said no and made alternative arrangements, but I am not 100% sure. When I got to the entrances, any attractions where I had to transfer, they made sure that I could before I even got in line.

Now for other parks:

It is VERY common for a park to deny boarding if you are wearing a prosthetic device on a rollercoaster or if you are wearing a hard cast. Some rollercoasters also specify guidelines for if you have a missing limb, such as "you may still ride if the limb is below this point." The ability to grasp with both hands is also a very common rider requirement.

Hersheypark and Busch Gardens Williamsburg, which are the two I've been to while using an ECV/mobility impaired, don't seem to be nearly as mobility friendly as Universal is (Universal overall is a very disability-friendly park IMO, though there are still ways I think they can improve). You can board from the exit, but that's it. They also have restrictions on hard casts and prosthetic limbs. Several of their more intense rollercoasters also have requirements that you be able to fully grasp.

The unfortunate reality of when you are disabled is that you accept that there are some things you flat out will not be doing because there's no reasonable way to make it work for you. Make no mistake: if there is a way to make things accessible, I will always advocate for that because we can always do better. Key word, though: reasonable. If something is unsafe and there's no reasonable way to make it safe for a disabled person, then that disabled person can't do that. For context, dwarfism is a disability under the ADA. I've never heard of anyone with dwarfism making a stink because they can't ride a rollercoaster when they don't meet the height requirement.

Because of my disabilities, there are certain attractions at Universal I know will make me sick. Not in a "this will kill me" type way, but in a "I won't feel good for the rest of the day" type of way. Yeah, it sucks. Those rides also aren't inherently unsafe just because they would make me feel unwell. Same with rollercoasters. People have conditions that would make them not feel well after riding. Doesn't make them not safe.

*Most newer buildings are required to meet requirements set out by the ADA to be mobility accessible. PeopleMover came before the ADA and is not part of this requirement. I hope that some day Disney does a thorough renovation on that ride and makes it accessible, but if that was the only ride I couldn't do? Thrilled.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Which is why I think a guest affected by the change should request an exception from Universal followed by ADA complaint.

The reason they give might satisfy you. It might be enough to get an ADA change.

It might be corporate double speak.

I don't know if any of the posters are in that category.

I'll continue to speculate emergency unload not at a load unload zone normally used might be a reason.

Posters aren't going to get real information on internet discussion forums.

The ADA does not dictate rider requirements. Amusement rides have significant latitude to limit riders.

This incident had nothing to do with an emergency evacuation. It offers no reasoning for why there is suddenly a problem years after the fact.

All sorts of information is shared here, but it’s also not the only source of information.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

I didn't question that concept, I questioned the concept of there being an acceptable risk of "of someone dying on the ride because of its design."

I pointed this out earlier, but Space Mountain is much less intense and five people have died on it. Has nothing to do with the design as many, many people have safely experienced that ride. Well, aside from some chiropractic adjustments. There have also been instances on FOP of guests losing consciousness; this is a ride I myself don't do. Fortunately, the way you are seated, your head wouldn't bang around, and they can easily stop it if they see you've passed out. I can see that this would have been an issue where a guest lost consciousness and then his head got banged around because he couldn't properly hold on during a rollercoaster.

I mean, if we're questioning things, people have drowned in pools. Should we take them out? Or just take safety precautions?

That's why I have said a reasonable precaution would be more visual monitoring so that if they see a passed out guest, they can do an e-stop and assess, as well as having more training for staff members. It's reasonable in any environment where there's a lot of guests, as was illustrated by the guests who passed on HM at DL and Frozen at HKDL recently.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

The ADA does not dictate rider requirements. Amusement rides have significant latitude to limit riders.

Correct. The ADA has specifications for equal access, but there would be exceptions to that rule, specifically if it's a known safety issue. It's also worth noting a disability would not be the ONLY reason to not allow someone on a ride. You have to fit in the restraints. If you're too short, too tall, the wrong body shape, well...

I'm just perusing through the accessibility guide for Universal, and there's several attractions that specify wheelchair users have to be able to walk independently. I don't know about the case of this guest, but that's very common to have an ambulatory wheelchair user, more common than most people realize.

If you are a non-ambulatory wheelchair user, as someone who has used a mobility device in multiple parks, I highly recommend WDW as the park to go to simply because they are one of the most mobility friendly places I have EVER been to. It's actually refreshing to go there verses...basically anywhere else. Including DL, much as I love DL.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I pointed this out earlier, but Space Mountain is much less intense and five people have died on it. Has nothing to do with the design as many, many people have safely experienced that ride. Well, aside from some chiropractic adjustments. There have also been instances on FOP of guests losing consciousness; this is a ride I myself don't do. Fortunately, the way you are seated, your head wouldn't bang around, and they can easily stop it if they see you've passed out. I can see that this would have been an issue where a guest lost consciousness and then his head got banged around because he couldn't properly hold on during a rollercoaster.

I mean, if we're questioning things, people have drowned in pools. Should we take them out? Or just take safety precautions?

That's why I have said a reasonable precaution would be more visual monitoring so that if they see a passed out guest, they can do an e-stop and assess, as well as having more training for staff members. It's reasonable in any environment where there's a lot of guests, as was illustrated by the guests who passed on HM at DL and Frozen at HKDL recently.

This specific cause of this incident is still unknown. You can’t take reasonable precautions against an unknown.

Active monitoring of a roller coaster would be mostly useless, especially more intense ones because they have large blocks and the coaster would continue for some time. A mid-course brake may also not be the most conducive place for a medical evacuation. In many cases they’re just a simple platform. Even on coaster with multiple and more elaborately themed blocks, they’re not actively attended. Moving about within the perimeter of a coaster is also dangerous. You’d likely have someone waiting for a good bit longer to receive medical attention than if they just returned to the loading station.