Disney, Family Settle Death Lawsuit

Iakona

Iakona

Member
Ralphlaw said:
I still stand by my opinion on the 6 year old rule for those attractions that truly cause appreciable physical stress to the body. For me, Mission Space and Rock & Roller Coaster are the only two that fit this category. (Never been on Body Wars, but maybe there too.) And I seriously doubt that implementing this rule on these few attractions would lead to the absurd slippery slope of such rules on every attraction; only for those that reach a certain level of physical stress.
Click to expand...

Problem with this is that, if I remember correctly, pediatric experts that were interviewed at the time said that a "healthy" child is better able to handle these stresses than an adult. Key word here is healthy. Disney already has the sign that warns about pre-existing conditions. Maybe they just need to warn about unknown pre-existing conditions.
 
hokielutz

hokielutz

Well-Known Member
bladerunner said:
I strongly believe Disney should build more attractions and rides that are safe for everyone at any age. I have 3 children all under 9 years old who are Disney fanatics their favorite ride at Epcot is the Rio del Tiempo in the Mexico pavillion. The reality is that as a PAP holder the only park we go on most of the rides is at MK. Many other rides at other parks are skipped or my wife and I end up having to go alone. Regardless of the height requirements there is some parental logic and responsibility that has to go into what ride you let you children go on. It is a shame that several of Disney's newest rides can't be enjoyed by all - this doesn't go with original concept of the place.
Click to expand...


Change is inevitable. Theme parks, all across the world have changed because of the demand for more thrilling attractions. First it was the super wooden coaster, then its the loopy steel coaster, then its the tallest, the fastest, the freefall drops, the standing cars, the flying coaster, etc etc etc....

Change is really inevitable, but Disney has not lost sight of its original conception. But it knows that for its parks to remain relevant... they have to have some appeal to those thrill seekers. In turn by luring the thrill seekers to the parks... they are likely to enjoy the other attractions and stay longer than it would to ride the thrills. You still see the original attractions... and some older attractions are replaced with similar slow moving dark rides like Nemo & the Seas.

Now if Disney did not make some of these adaptations, their park appeal would likely drop and so would their share of the total customer base. I'm sorry that it seems to upset you that probably not every guest can enjoy all of the rides in any-one park. But diversity of their offerings allows them to draw in more people and it enhances their future by securing repeat customers.
 
aj_steig

aj_steig

Member
DisneyMusician2 said:
Not enough warnings? There were SO MANY warnings that by the time I got to the preshow, I thought I actually WAS claustrophobic!
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. I am a healthy 24 yr old and even I was scared off with how many warning signs there were (this was before the green version was available)!! I didn't even make it into the queue before turning around. They have a warning sign every couple of feet.
 
M

MickeyBodyguard

New Member
Ralphlaw said:
A sign that instead reads, "This attraction may be too intense for children under _____" would be helpful and probably not as scary for parents.
Click to expand...

That's a better idea but, correct me if I'm wrong, they have signs for many rides that say stuff such as "there are times of complete darkness, may be too intense for small children, etc." So, I believe they have a sign like that already.

You say there should be a definate age minimum on Rockin' Rollercoaster and Mission:Space. These two rides have the highest height requirements of any rides so the kids should be older unless they're fast growers. The deaths between these two rides comes to two. I'm not trying to weigh the value of human life mind you. Out of those two deaths, one was a 4 year old boy with a unnoticed heart condition. So, out of the millions of people who have ridden these rides, and out of all the 6 year olds and under only one has died and it was because of a heart condition. That proves that the stress level is not too much for kids under 6 to handle, that is they won't die from it. Unless they have an unnoticed heart condition.

Disney's attractions are some of the safest rides in the world. The amount of care they take with each one and the maintence of each one is phenominal. I'm never worried when I ride one like I am when I take a spin on the ferris wheel at a local fair or even worse, a roller coaster at Six Flags:p But in all seriousness, if a ride stress factor on healthy kids 6 and under would kill them, I think disney would have a sign that said that, and even better, they wouldn't build it.
 
PKD

PKD

Active Member
hokielutz said:
Speaking of which... they really need to have a green pod on Body Wars. I almost lost my lunch on that thing in December because of the violent movements of the ride. :hurl: :hurl: :hurl:
Click to expand...

I don't think a Green Version would help Body Wars....unless the Green didn't move at all :lol: BW makes even the thrill seekers sick at times from my understanding. Old Technology that can't compare to todays standards.
 
PKD

PKD

Active Member
bladerunner said:
I strongly believe Disney should build more attractions and rides that are safe for everyone at any age. I have 3 children all under 9 years old who are Disney fanatics their favorite ride at Epcot is the Rio del Tiempo in the Mexico pavillion. The reality is that as a PAP holder the only park we go on most of the rides is at MK. Many other rides at other parks are skipped or my wife and I end up having to go alone. Regardless of the height requirements there is some parental logic and responsibility that has to go into what ride you let you children go on. It is a shame that several of Disney's newest rides can't be enjoyed by all - this doesn't go with original concept of the place.
Click to expand...

Some rides are for the little guys, and some rides are for the big guys. They need an even mesh, not just one type of ride for all. If every attraction was "It's a Small World" we would be in big trouble!
 
R

Ralphlaw

Well-Known Member
Excellent points all, MickeyBodyGuard. There is no dispute that the accidents are few and that signage is abundant. But an injury lawyer gets big settlements by finding flaws in the defendant's actions, alleging that omissions in safety are as bad as a full blown flaw, and pounding on the issue. Someone wondered how this four-year-old got past the height requirement, and I also wonder about this. IF the child was less than the height requirement, a CM may have been negligent in letting him in. Perhaps that was the peg that the lawyer hung his hat on. Or perhaps he was tall for his age and other arguments were used.

In any event, I still believe that a height and age requirement for the most physically stressful of attractions is appropriate. I am willing to accept the slings and arrows of outraged kindergarteners on this issue, but that is my opinion.

In general, I also agree that Walt wanted attractions that the entire family could enjoy, and I further agree that Disney has to have thrill rides to keep the turnstiles turning. Balances have to be struck, and the success of the green line at Mission Space seems to prove that a wide range of people want to experience the thrillier attractions without fear of losing breakfast. During my last trip, the green and orange lines, in general, were equally long. That probably is indicative of something.
 
polarboi

polarboi

Member
Ralphlaw said:
When I mentioned green versions, I did not literally mean that alternate rides go side by side on every attraction. That would be absurdly cost-prohibitive. I merely advocated for the less intense areas of existing attractions, such as back rows or less bumpy areas.
Click to expand...

You still didn't answer my earlier question, Ralph. How could sitting in the back row of ToT be considered "less intense"?? Unlike M:S Green, the stresses on the body are equally great no matter where you're sitting in the ToT car.

M:S is a unique attraction in many ways. It was designed to provide an immersive experience that involved stresses on the body. Those clever imagineers designed a way to have that same immersive experience without the G-forces, and they're able to do that without a lot of expense. That's wonderful! But there's really no other attraction that would compare with that. The experience of Big Thunder Mountain, RnRC, ToT, and others simply requires speed. There's not much of an attraction otherwise, beyond what you experience by standing in line. Even if it were possible to provide "green" (i.e. less physical stress) versions of these attractions, they wouldn't be much fun, and they would pretty much spoil the effect of the attraction in the first place.

And I think, from a purely legal standpoint, it would be a HUGE mistake for Disney to offer "green" versions of attractions based on scariness or perception, such as suggesting that riding in the back row of ToT is somehow less intense. Can you imagine if someone was hurt while riding on ToT and later claimed, "But they said it was the less intense version! I didn't know we would be dropping over and over!" That would be far worse than how it is now.

-p.b. :cool:
 
R

Ralphlaw

Well-Known Member
Obviously if you are further from the precipice and open window, the ride is psychologically less intense. Fear, in addition to physical duress, can cause bodily stress. Almost everyone would agree that the back row is less scary, and therefore overall less stressful, than the front row.
 
M

magicMLV

New Member
Speaking of designing rides with green versions in mind, I remember Disney considering two tracks for Disneyland Resort Paris Space Mountain : a green one and an orange one. At that time, Space Mountain (opened in 1995) was the most intense coaster in all Disney parks. The final version was scaled down with only one single intense track and observation decks as the green version.
 
PSU_Princess

PSU_Princess

Member
Ralphlaw said:
Obviously if you are further from the precipice and open window, the ride is psychologically less intense. Fear, in addition to physical duress, can cause bodily stress. Almost everyone would agree that the back row is less scary, and therefore overall less stressful, than the front row.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am understanding this wrong. Are you saying that the back row in a ToT car is less intense than the front row? The entire car drops at the same rate and the same number of time.
 
A

ag2000

New Member
PSU_Princess said:
Maybe I am understanding this wrong. Are you saying that the back row in a ToT car is less intense than the front row? The entire car drops at the same rate and the same number of time.
Click to expand...


i think what he means is that when you sit in the front row you see the wall right in front of you and your right there when the doors open up, when your in the back row i guess i could see how it might not be as "intense" because of all the people in front of you screaming and flailing their arms around. With rides like RnRC or any rollercoaster its best to sit furthest back in the last car.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom