News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[DisneyHead123]

It appears as of this evening (in UK)there has been some changes to the Ride Accessibility for Disabled guests riding Hyperia (A Mack Coaster) at Thorpe Park. Instagram @emilyaccessallareas posted:

“Hello all just an update for those have additional needs unfortunately due to the incident on stardust racers Mack rides & Thorpe park have introduced new accessibility rules those who cannot evacuate via the lift hill (non ambulant) are currently not permitted to ride Hyperia this has been made compulsory from today staff and people on park have confirmed this so this is correct information”

I wonder if this is essentially confirmation that the rider died from being tossed around on the ride (vs from a projectile or the rumor about a loose piece of metal).

 

[DisneyHead123]

Shoulder vs. Lap bar restraints seems to be the most productive thing we can discuss right now about this incident until more info is released on how/what caused the blunt force trauma. To those thinking that shoulder restraints are "safer" and "protect" the head better than lap- this is simply untrue. If a person were to become unconius and their head drops on a shoulder restraint ride- they could definatley do a ton of damage- especially on suspended coasters.

I’m not versed in physics, but clearly there is a big difference between hitting a shoulder restraint an inch or so away from your head, and flying forward a couple of feet to hit the seat in front of you. A rider is going to build up so much more velocity in the latter situation.

 

[Gusey]

This is the Thorpe Park visual update BTW

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Shoulder vs. Lap bar restraints seems to be the most productive thing we can discuss right now about this incident until more info is released on how/what caused the blunt force trauma.

But we don't know if the restraints had anything to do with this incident.

I'm not saying people should be stopped from talking about it, but discussing the difference between shoulder and lap bar restraints is surely just as speculative as discussing other issues that could have caused this accident.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is the Thorpe Park visual update BTW

According to this PDF that is still on the Thorpe Park website, the covered up limb differences are related to missing both hands.

“G) One missing arm below elbow and one full missing arm with shoulder.

H) One missing arm below elbow and one missing shoulder.”

https://www.thorpepark.com/media/fkahegyw/hyperia-ride-restriction-combined_outlined_lizzie-tuohy.pdf

 

[JT3000]

They could've saved a lot of time by just typing "You can ride if missing one arm or foot." The rest of that section is completely redundant. I have no idea how someone is supposed to evacuate from a lift hill without a foot though.

 

[mergatroid]

You can say that with multiple WDW theme parks also if a ride goes down. DHS has 9 rides, AK right now has even less rides than DHS. Also Epcot also has 11 rides. There is no excuse for those three WDW theme parks having low ride totals unlike Epic Universe considering new theme parks usually have expansion plots.

The fact is DHS only had 6 rides before Toy Story Land and Galaxy's Edge despite DHS being around since 1989. I know DHS will have 10 rides when door coaster is completed, but it shouldn't have taken that park that amount of time to get 10 rides.

Epcot for ride totals is hurt by not using Wonders of Life Building. AK needs to be called out because Pandora had a chance to have 3 rides instead of 2.

Ah I see, you think I'm explaining what a post another poster meant as a way of having a go at Universal because I'm a Disney fan? Nope I'm just explaining what was said without Disney coming into the equation. DHS will be short of rides during construction of Monsters and R 'N' R etc, that being out of the way can we revert back to the discussion about Epic and the attraction?

It's not a Universal vs Disney discussion, when Disney were responsible for deaths on Big Thunder Mountain my first thought wasn't to look at deaths at Universal as some type of comparison. My wife and I visit Universal often and love it, especially HHN and I've posted for years on the HHN thread as others will testify. What a strange response

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It appears as of this evening (in UK)there has been some changes to the Ride Accessibility for Disabled guests riding Hyperia (A Mack Coaster) at Thorpe Park. Instagram @emilyaccessallareas posted:

“Hello all just an update for those have additional needs unfortunately due to the incident on stardust racers Mack rides & Thorpe park have introduced new accessibility rules those who cannot evacuate via the lift hill (non ambulant) are currently not permitted to ride Hyperia this has been made compulsory from today staff and people on park have confirmed this so this is correct information”

Kind of a bizarre reaction to this incident, not sure what being able to evacuate via the lift hill has to do with the Epic incident, unless it’s just a less controversial way of saying you must have use of your legs to ride this ride.

Which leads me speculate similar to Disneyhead above that perhaps the inability to use his legs resulted in more flopping around at the waist than they accounted for, even in the event of an unconscious person.

It will be extremely sad if this results in more disabled people being denied access, maybe we will be seeing a new car with disability seats similar to Hagrids, Tron, etc.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Kind of a bizarre reaction to this incident, not sure what being able to evacuate via the lift hill has to do with the Epic incident, unless it’s just a less controversial way of saying you must have use of your legs to ride this ride.

I think that’s exactly what it means. It satisfies the legal language while sounding less “discriminatory”.

I think we, on this forum, need to remember that we don’t know legal language more than theme park lawyers just because we like and discuss this stuff a lot.

Which leads me speculate similar to Disneyhead above that perhaps the inability to use his legs resulted in more flopping around at the waist than they accounted for, even in the event of an unconscious person.

If other parks with the same coaster design and manufacturer are responding in this way, I think we can safely assume that this is the culprit of the accident.

It will be extremely sad if this results in more disabled people being denied access, maybe we will be seeing a new car with disability seats similar to Hagrids, Tron, etc.

I believe Hagrid’s has vehicles that allow for easier transfers but not any type of different restraint system.

It is very sad. Someone without leg functionality is already facing so many difficulties and things they can’t do. However, yes - specific modified seats are the answer, not forcing a worse ride experience on literally everyone.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Kind of a bizarre reaction to this incident, not sure what being able to evacuate via the lift hill has to do with the Epic incident, unless it’s just a less controversial way of saying you must have use of your legs to ride this ride.

Which leads me speculate similar to Disneyhead above that perhaps the inability to use his legs resulted in more flopping around at the waist than they accounted for, even in the event of an unconscious person.

It will be extremely sad if this results in more disabled people being denied access, maybe we will be seeing a new car with disability seats similar to Hagrids, Tron, etc.

This new rule just seems like a way to limit ridership? If Universal had this rule in place, the rider who died would still be alive because he was not allowed to ride the coaster.

 

[JT3000]

I believe Hagrid’s has vehicles that allow for easier transfers but not any type of different restraint system.

Hagrid's has a whole convoluted procedure for transferring disabled guests onto the ride, due to its moving nature, but the vehicles themselves aren't any different. The main problem with that ride, in terms of accessibility, is the fact that they don't allow disabled guests to sit on the motorbike, even if they're capable of doing so. You must sit in the side car, which is too cramped for many people and offers an inferior experience.

 

[DCBaker]

WESH 2 News has published a memo to Team Members from Karen Irwin:

More from the article below:

Universal Orlando Resort president says Stardust Racers ride was functioning properly

WESH 2 has obtained a copy of a letter sent to Universal Orlando employees after the death of a guest who rode the Stardust Racers roller coaster.

www.wesh.com

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I agree with most of your views here, except this. Passing out (not graying out) is uncommon. But still happens. This is usually a loss of consciousness caused by g-force. Over all of its Florida rides, Disney sees around 20 riders who are reported unconscious (and usually sent to the hospital) per year. I don't know how many of these are coasters or thrill rides--heat also plays a factor. In terms of Universal, the restraint system is supposed to protect riders who have passed out in a way they are safe inside their seats as the coaster finishes its circuit. This should be true for ADA riders and riders who are amputees (within the defined specs for both categories). It looks like this didn't happen here. If there was some underlying health factor that contributed to his death, we would've heard about it with the initial medical report. And it wasn't in there.

That's kinda the whole point of what I said though. It's supposed to protect riders and that includes riders who have specific ADA needs and specific kinds of amputations. That is what it is designed for. It was cleared and approved by all parties involved because it met these standards. The fact that in this specific instance the rider was not protected suggests that the rider was not fit to ride the attraction and fell outside of the defined rules for rideability, but in such a way that was not easily visible or predictable to the rider or the team members involved.

There are various reasons why someone may be denied the ability to ride an attraction. One of these reasons is if they have a disability or something else with their body that would make it so that the ride's safety parameters would not be as effective on them as it would be another rider.

My point is that I believe, given the information we have as of now, this was probably the case with him and that he should never have been given permission to ride it in the first place, but permission was granted because the parties involved did not have the extent of the information required to make a completely informed decision, and that likely includes the rider himself. He was alright through his first rides because he was conscious and able to exert some control over his body, but when unconscious, that seems to have turned out to not be the case.

Yes, rides are designed with people potentially losing consciousness in mind. They are not however designed for people who do not meet the attraction's rideability criteria in mind. That is why this criteria exists.

Just because someone can board an attraction does not mean they meet the criteria for being able to ride it. Disabilities are complex, and the dangers they present when it comes to attractions may not always be visible. Case in point my father who was allowed to board an attraction at Six Flags because he was able to board and upon visual inspection looked as if he met the criteria. In reality, he did not, and he knew that and was dishonest with the employees about it. Thankfully, nothing catastrophic happened, but he did indeed have some issues with his restraint fitting him properly through the ride.

That is not at all to suggest this guest was dishonest about his disability, and it is also not to suggest that the team members were not thorough in making sure he fit the criteria as they knew them to be.

It is to suggest however that the nature of his disability meant that in this specific scenario, his loss of consciousness could've become a danger that would not have been present if someone without that disability had lost consciousness on the ride. He had a spinal disability. It is very possible that he was able to power through said injury through his own will and determination, but when he was not conscious and able to control his body, his body could not do the same thing on it's own. That is something that is difficult to pre-plan for, but could also have been something that could've come up in the screenings that get done for disability access in the parks if the right questions get asked.

I don't think anything about this is a result of purposeful negligence or ill intent. I think it was an unfortunate storm of different factors coming together to make this ultra specific scenario happen. I don't think it was an issue with the ride whatsoever, but rather someone who in normal condition could handle it but in an abnormal condition was unable to.

There will indeed likely be changes to Universal's operations overall and Stardust Racer's operations specifically. But I think these changes will be in terms of disability access to the attractions, rather than any sort of modification to the attraction itself.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

It is not “cosmetic” it definitely helps keep you in your seat safely and avoid hitting your head on the shoulder harness.

A vest? A vest is not an actual restraint, no way no how. They are explicitly, as said by the people who make them, intended to make a rider feel more secure but are not functionally able to act as a primary restraint.

You keep saying that they keep a rider in their place in the train. No they don't. That is not their job.

The only thing they can in theory do is slightly reduce the amount of air time that a rider receives on a ride.

If this person died as a result of blunt force trauma, then a vest would not have saved his life like you are implying it would have. Air time would not create that violent of a motion. It would be lateral movement that would.

Vests are not there to act as any serious safety measure. They are purely for comfort and absolutely nothing else, hence why many coasters that opened with them have since removed them.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Thanks. And this is exactly what some posts were suggesting would happen a few days ago, even to the point that changes or even temporary closures would happen first in England and Germany. Thorpe Park is England. So yes, the amusements community is starting to consider if there are design issues here that affect other coasters, especially in terms of who can ride. So we can now put aside objections that the amusements industry didn't consider this a design or guidance flaw as no other Mack coasters were affected. I think there's a pretty good chance that we'll see some similar revised guidance to the Voltron coaster (at Europa Park) in the next few days until the investigation in Orlando is complete.

They are not considering design issues. I'm really not sure where you got that out of this statement.

They are reconsidering ridability criteria. Inappropriate ridability is not a design flaw. It's an operational flaw. It has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the coaster, train, or restraint design and everything to do with the park's operations not having sufficient rules in place to compliment the necessary conditions to ride the attraction.

Design flaws and operational flaws are two completely different areas of discussion.

 

[mlayton144]

They are not considering design issues. I'm really not sure where you got that out of this statement.

They are reconsidering ridability criteria. Inappropriate ridability is not a design flaw. It's an operational flaw. It has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the coaster, train, or restraint design and everything to do with the park's operations not having sufficient rules in place to compliment the necessary conditions to ride the attraction.

Design flaws and operational flaws are two completely different areas of discussion.

Not following , the design is driven by requirements no? They are operationalized based largely on the design

 

[networkpro]

Again grasping at straws inside a closed box with no visibility. It wasn't announced what authority made this call to restrict more guests. Park, vendor that designed the ride, insurers of the park, or regulating authority.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

They are explicitly, as said by the people who make them, intended to make a rider feel more secure but are not functionally able to act as a primary restraint.

I realize they are not the primary restraint - the over the shoulder harness / bar is. But they do seem to hold a rider in place - and I thought that’s why they were added in Paris - to keep you from hitting the restraints.

If this person died as a result of blunt force trauma, then a vest would not have saved his life like you are implying it would have

it’s hard for me to imply anything - I haven’t been on this ride. I was just pointing out that the vest in paris seems like it may have kept a rider in the proper position.

 

[DryerLintFan]

Man,… y’all will argue over anything

 

[Comped]

WESH 2 News has published a memo to Team Members from Karen Irwin:

View attachment 884175


More from the article below:

Universal Orlando Resort president says Stardust Racers ride was functioning properly

WESH 2 has obtained a copy of a letter sent to Universal Orlando employees after the death of a guest who rode the Stardust Racers roller coaster.

www.wesh.com

Given what we know, it's highly likely this language is hedging her bets at best. It doesn't line up with the ME's statement (at least that we know of), and it doesn't line up of what's been said by others either. It implies a guest medical issue that seems to have not been the cause of death, which is my biggest issue with it.