News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[lazyboy97o]

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.

The restrictions on non-ambulatory guests are brand new and a response to this incident.

 

[mkt]

I read the reddit thread from several days ago... holy woah.

 

[JT3000]

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.

They "adjusted their language?" Well that's the understatement of the century. And he was allowed to board for the same reasons that most other disabled guests were allowed to board. Again, he wasn't an anomaly that slipped through the cracks.

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.

Dwarfs also don't shrink overnight.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying theme park attractions should or even could be engineered such that no-one ever died on them. For a start, people die in all sorts of places. I also don't think anyone would suggest that you could or should ban any activity that might trigger a possibly undiagnosed underlying condition. Someone having a heart attack on Space Mountain, however, is very different to someone coming back to the station dead from blunt force trauma. Even if it had been operating for a long time, you would think you would want to be certain of how such a thing could happen before letting people back onto the attraction.

None of this is to say that I think Universal has been negligent here as I really don't know. What surprises me, though, is how quick people are to wave this away as the result of someone who never should have been allowed to ride in the first place when it doesn't seem obvious there would have been a reason to exclude him from riding. All I can think is that people are getting protective of something they enjoy, assuming that whatever happened won't affect them, and just wanting to will this away lest it impact their ability to enjoy the attraction or parks.

 

[Jon81uk]

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

and pools are a good example really, two children drowned in unattended swimming pools, so the state now requires a 4 foot fence around swimming pools to prevent children accessing it.
In a similar way, a guest with access needs died on a ride and now Universal have decided to prevent access to individuals with similar needs to certain rides. I understand the debate is whether Universal is right in their judgement, but it is the decision they have currently reached and until someone challenges them under ADA they don't have to tell anyone why they made the decisions, although it seems obvious the changes were made following the death.

 

[lazyboy97o]

and pools are a good example really, two children drowned in unattended swimming pools, so the state now requires a 4 foot fence around swimming pools to prevent children accessing it.
In a similar way, a guest with access needs died on a ride and now Universal have decided to prevent access to individuals with similar needs to certain rides. I understand the debate is whether Universal is right in their judgement, but it is the decision they have currently reached and until someone challenges them under ADA they don't have to tell anyone why they made the decisions, although it seems obvious the changes were made following the death.

Once again, this is not really an ADA issue.

If Universal has actual evidence that not being ambulatory was a contributing factor, then they absolutely should not be keeping that information to themselves.

 

[Jon81uk]

Once again, this is not really an ADA issue.

If Universal has actual evidence that not being ambulatory was a contributing factor, then they absolutely should not be keeping that information to themselves.

As there is a lawsuit I would assume relevant information is being shared with relevant parties.
The general public is not a relevant party.

and the mention of ADA is because it keeps being brought up that certain groups of people with needs are now unable to ride certain rides and the ADA would be the only real mechanism to challenge that. Unless there is another suggestion on how someone who feels there are now excluded from riding should challenge Universals decision on the requirements to ride?

 

[lazyboy97o]

As there is a lawsuit I would assume relevant information is being shared with relevant parties.
The general public is not a relevant party.

and the mention of ADA is because it keeps being brought up that certain groups of people with needs are now unable to ride certain rides and the ADA would be the only real mechanism to challenge that. Unless there is another suggestion on how someone who feels there are now excluded from riding should challenge Universals decision on the requirements to ride?

A lawsuit has not yet been filed.

The public is often considered a relevant party when it comes to matters of public safety. And the medical examiner’s final report will be published. Seriously, why is this so hard to remember?

The ADA allows Universal to restrict ridership. Not everything has an established legal remedy. It’s astonishing that people think there is no ethical obligation to share or act on information that can prevent people from being seriously injured or killed.

 

[Jon81uk]

A lawsuit has not yet been filed.

The public is often considered a relevant party when it comes to matters of public safety. And the medical examiner’s final report will be published. Seriously, why is this so hard to remember?

The ADA allows Universal to restrict ridership. Not everything has an established legal remedy. It’s astonishing that people think there is no ethical obligation to share or act on information that can prevent people from being seriously injured or killed.

Universal have shared the information that can prevent people from being seriously injured, they updated the rider requirements signage. They shared information stating who they don't think can safely ride.
Why do you think they need to do any more than that? What law forces them to show their working? What answer does anyone actually expect over and above "following an incident on Stardust racers we have updated our rider requirements to ensure the safety of all guests", as I don't see Universal saying more than that and I don't see why they need to?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Universal have shared the information that can prevent people from being seriously injured, they updated the rider requirements signage. They shared information stating who they don't think can safely ride.
Why do you think they need to do any more than that? What law forces them to show their working? What answer does anyone actually expect over and above "following an incident on Stardust racers we have updated our rider requirements to ensure the safety of all guests", as I don't see Universal saying more than that and I don't see why they need to?

Nobody else, except Thorpe Park, has adjusted their rider requirements. So either Universal hasn’t shared their findings with other operators and manufacturers or the other operators and manufacturers have chosen not to act on the information. If these changes are based on actual findings then Europa Park should have been the first to make changes.

 

[Jon81uk]

Nobody else, except Thorpe Park, has adjusted their rider requirements. So either Universal hasn’t shared their findings with other operators and manufacturers or the other operators and manufacturers have chosen not to act on the information. If these changes are based on actual findings then Europa Park should have been the first to make changes.

As mentioned multiple times it is likely based on Universal (or their insurers, but it has been said they are self-insured) and their interpretation of the risk. Europa may well have done their own assessment and feel their existing requirements are OK and they are happy with the risks, Thorpe park (and/or their insurer) obviously thought they needed slightly stricter requirements. Universal have decided the risk is greater than they are comfortable with so made changes. Yes if ride manufacturers made changes all parks will implement them, but it's fairly normal for different theme parks to have different requirements and to be more restrictive than required if they feel it is necessary.

For example, Saw the Ride at Thorpe Park is a Gerstlauer Eurofighter with a height requirement of 1.4m, Mystery Mine at Dollywood is the same ride type but allows those who are 1.21 (48 inches) to ride. Thorpe Park requires people to walk 25m unaided to ride, Dollywood will allow wheelchair transfer aided by a companion with no mention of a requirement to be able to walk.
Does Thorpe Park owe you an explanation as to why they are more restrictive than Dollywood? Its the same as Universal vs Europa, one park can choose to be more restrictive than the manufacturers guidance if they wish.

 

[flynnibus]

Why do you think they need to do any more than that?

Because you are basically saying trust the guilty party to be honest…

And completely ignore why there is regulation to start with. Because as a society we have not trusted companies to always work in the public interest. History has proven regulation is necessary.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As mentioned multiple times it is likely based on Universal (or their insurers, but it has been said they are self-insured) and their interpretation of the risk. Europa may well have done their own assessment and feel their existing requirements are OK and they are happy with the risks, Thorpe park (and/or their insurer) obviously thought they needed slightly stricter requirements. Universal have decided the risk is greater than they are comfortable with so made changes. Yes if ride manufacturers made changes all parks will implement them, but it's fairly normal for different theme parks to have different requirements and to be more restrictive than required if they feel it is necessary.

For example, Saw the Ride at Thorpe Park is a Gerstlauer Eurofighter with a height requirement of 1.4m, Mystery Mine at Dollywood is the same ride type but allows those who are 1.21 (48 inches) to ride. Thorpe Park requires people to walk 25m unaided to ride, Dollywood will allow wheelchair transfer aided by a companion with no mention of a requirement to be able to walk.
Does Thorpe Park owe you an explanation as to why they are more restrictive than Dollywood? It’s the same as Universal vs Europa, one park can choose to be more restrictive than the manufacturers guidance if they wish.

You are looking at outcomes and making erroneous assumptions about how they were derived. Part of the reason the major roller coaster manufacturers have all settled on the lap restraint is because of its ability to accommodate a very wide variety of guests. A manufacturer can offer a family coaster and an extreme thrill coaster and utilise the same or similar restraint. The difference in height requirement thus isn’t merely an issue of fitting the restraint system but also setting it to be appropriate to the ride. The height requirement is able to act as a proxy for age restrictions. The differences in height requirements are sometimes park driven but also very often driven by the manufacturers themselves.

Universal didn’t change the requirements for one or two unique rides. They changed the requirements for multiple rides from multiple manufacturers with various restraint systems, including an off-the-shelf flat ride. The idea that Universal somehow has all but one ride from multiple manufacturers with a risk to persons with paraplegia strains credulity. It’s not like Universal did all of the engineering for these rides and then contracted them out purely for fabrication. The scope of these changes means that there is a pervasive deficiency in how rides are designed across the industry.

 

[BrianLo]

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 has not been established. Perhaps in the litigious legal sense. But in the medical sense there was no clear intention to disclude his condition. Otherwise they would not need to have updated the guidance.

He did not have an active spinal column concern, which medically is whom the warning signs were trying to preclude. Not congenital spinal cord concerns that are stable. Furthermore, there’s no clear indication yet his primary cause of death was his pre-existing condition, for now it remains one that appears to have been wholly acquired by the ride (if that’s correct, which I still remain dubious on).

Until the update guidance, muscular dystrophy teens could have ridden with technically a worse progressive form of non ambulation than this rider.

 

[flynnibus]

And until we know this guy detached himself in some way.. we still don't have an answer on how we don't need to worry about smashing our head on a metal bar on this ride.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

You guys are exhausting. They will issue a full autopsy report sometime in Dec. Until then it is lot of would have, should have, could have...

 

[Andrew C]

This has not been established. Perhaps in the litigious legal sense. But in the medical sense there was no clear intention to disclude his condition. Otherwise they would not need to have updated the guidance.

Of course it has been....why are we playing games here?

This was the symbol on the ride and the original language. Come on....he had spinal cord atrophy. That is a back condition.

And more original language: "You should be able to independently: (1) maintain an upright position, (2) support your torso, neck, and head while absorbing sudden and dramatic movements, and (3) brace your body with at least one natural upper extremity." Why are we pretending that someone with this particular condition meets this requirement? Properly support his torso and absorb sudden and dramatic movements?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Of course it has been....why are we playing games here?

This was the symbol on the ride and the original language. Come on....he had spinal cord atrophy. That is a back condition.
View attachment 889322

And more original language: "You should be able to independently: (1) maintain an upright position, (2) support your torso, neck, and head while absorbing sudden and dramatic movements, and (3) brace your body with at least one natural upper extremity." Why are we pretending that someone with this particular condition meets this requirement? Properly support his torso and absorb sudden and dramatic movements?

What would make Stardust Racers more dangerous than blue fire Megacoaster? Why did Mack build a lift specifically for assisting riders with paraplegia if they should be riding such rides? Why are they still offering it as a service to guests?

Also, I’m guessing the good doctor is aware of the different types of spinal cord issues.

 

[Jon81uk]

What would make Stardust Racers more dangerous than blue fire Megacoaster? Why did Mack build a lift specifically for assisting riders with paraplegia if they should be riding such rides? Why are they still offering it as a service to guests?

Also, I’m guessing the good doctor is aware of the different types of spinal cord issues.

Europa Park does have similar wording
“The upper body must move independently from the level of the lumbar vertebrae in a controlled manner and it must be possible to muster sufficient muscle strength to compensate for the forces of attraction and to be able to assume a stable riding position throughout the journey.”

 

[wdwfan4ver]

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.

The problem is Kevin's doctor gave him the okay to do every coaster known to mankind according to Ben Crump. Crump basically said that in his first conference while representing the family.

I don't know if that is really true, but I am assuming at this point it is true. I brought up Kevin's doctor for a reason.

The fact is if a patient has a serious medical problem or a issue, doctors are supposed to give restrictions. I also would assume Kevin's doctor would know best since he was aware of Kevin's medical condition.