News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[JT3000]

And a person in a prosthetic limb would also be asked those questions.

How are you going to do that if you fail to notice they have a prosthetic limb? You're asking for people to be singled out based on a simple visual inspection, when various disqualifying conditions are either difficult to see or invisible.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I would certainly hope someone had noticed he was already injured prior to his final ride. That's why I find this possibility unlikely.

Serious injuries can be internal.

The signs being so vague is ultimately what make them largely useless. The necessity for them to act as a catch-all for all possible conditions and outcomes points to them being more liability protection for the park than proper warning.

What would make them a better warning?

 

[mkt]

How are you going to do that if you fail to notice they have a prosthetic limb? You're asking for people to be singled out based on a simple visual inspection, when various disqualifying conditions are either difficult to see or invisible.

No system is perfect. At some level you’re trusting that people in the queue have read the requirements and are acting in good faith.

 

[JT3000]

What would make them a better warning?

They could start by removing them from tame rides that are extremely unlikely to trigger any health conditions that are listed out of mere routine. Their sheer prevalence is a large part of why they usually go ignored. But in order to be truly effective, at least for those willing to read them, more detail is required. Of course, if you have novel-length signs posted outside every ride, that creates its own problems in terms of the likelihood of guests paying heed to them. But as of now, they only act as protection from litigation, not as a valuable resource to guests.

No system is perfect. At some level you’re trusting that people in the queue have read the requirements and are acting in good faith.

That's exactly what they're doing. And they have to do that for everyone, not just those who are ambulatory. Otherwise you're creating two sets of rules & procedures based on mere assumption.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This isn't HIPAA, but rather ADA regulations.

Thanks for the correction, I just know casinos require us to take classes every year about guest privacy laws and what we are, and aren’t, allowed to ask. We err very much on the side of don’t ask anything that could be interpreted as medical specifics.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Not true. On my last trip to Universal my wife was wearing a back brace and they would not let her ride The High in the Sky Seuss Trolley Train Ride, probably the tamest ride in the park.

Wow! I would not have thought they would do that!
Lets hope the attorney for the plaintiff reads wdwmagic forums and is smart enough to get this type of info.
This says to me there is proper training and some rules may have been bent (or missed) in this case.
Very bad for Universal and for the team members working the loading platform when this happened,

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Nothing really new but interesting to get the perspective of someone who has worked on rides at theme parks…

 

[DisneyHead123]

I can't speak to this coaster but in the last year I've ridden Universal's Velocicoaster and Flying Dinosaur, and all of those big coasters can be rough.

I feel like if they have to close this ride, they have to close a lot of coasters.

I wouldn't characterize any of them as life threatening, but you do need to have the basic strength to keep your head back in place to avoid being jerked around. I'm sure a lot of people would suffer at least minor neck soreness if they didn't.

None of these coasters with inversions have restraints that would prevent all head movement.

I don’t know, although worth noting that “similar” is not “the same”. There could be a small quirk that is very specific to Stardust Racers that meant a person’s body weight could be thrown forward under certain conditions.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

That’s treading dangerously close to Hippa regulations

Hippa has nothing to do with it. Hippa prevents disclosure of health information by covered entities. It has no applicability whatsoever to this situation.

 

[Disney Analyst]

 

[flynnibus]

In actual practice, it's really not the ride ops' responsibility to confirm everyone meets the listed requirements. If it was, they would be asking everyone the same questions, as everyone has the potential to be non-compliant, not just those in wheelchairs, which again, is singling out an entire class of people without just cause.

I think you are getting too hung up and defensive about wheelchairs. The point was an illustrative one, not really a defining a class. It was an example of someone showing visibly what could be a point of concern that needs confirmation.

Same thing could be said if you saw someone who couldn't hold their arm in place, or if you saw someone who couldn't hold their head up, or any other number of things. The point being is there are requirements they should be enforcing, and if something is noticeably a concern it's not being met, intervention is appropriate. Regardless of the origin.

If you want to talk about a messy spot... think something like pregnancy. Where you might not be able to tell the difference between pregnant and just fat... and then you're offensive too.

 

[flynnibus]

How are you going to do that if you fail to notice they have a prosthetic limb? You're asking for people to be singled out based on a simple visual inspection, when various disqualifying conditions are either difficult to see or invisible.

You are expecting inspection - vs what was really discussed.. which is confirmation. They aren't ever going to do inspections to VERIFY something.. (or find this hidden prosthetic) - but to react to something obvious or visible.. is very different.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They could start by removing them from tame rides that are extremely unlikely to trigger any health conditions that are listed out of mere routine. Their sheer prevalence is a large part of why they usually go ignored. But in order to be truly effective, at least for those willing to read them, more detail is required. Of course, if you have novel-length signs posted outside every ride, that creates its own problems in terms of the likelihood of guests paying heed to them. But as of now, they only act as protection from litigation, not as a valuable resource to guests.

But there have been simple rides that exacerbated something too much for someone.

What kind of detail? Each of those vague warnings represents at least one medical specialty. There are too many variables.

People ignore the signs not just because they’re vague or too long, but Los because fixed amusement rides are incredibly safe. Even when something horrific does happen it is largely understood as an outlier.

 

[JT3000]

I think you are getting too hung up and defensive about wheelchairs. The point was an illustrative one, not really a defining a class. It was an example of someone showing visibly what could be a point of concern that needs confirmation.

Same thing could be said if you saw someone who couldn't hold their arm in place, or if you saw someone who couldn't hold their head up, or any other number of things. The point being is there are requirements they should be enforcing, and if something is noticeably a concern it's not being met, intervention is appropriate. Regardless of the origin.

If you want to talk about a messy spot... think something like pregnancy. Where you might not be able to tell the difference between pregnant and just fat... and then you're offensive too.

It's not "illustrative," it's literally singling out a class of people based on an assumption that they may not meet the rider requirements, as many visibly disabled guests will in fact meet the standards that Universal have set, while many ambulatory guests with invisible health conditions will not. I also don't think I'm the one who's hung up on wheelchairs, which provide you with very little useful information other than the person not being ambulatory. Ever since people first found out he used a wheelchair, even before reports of an actual spinal injury starting coming in, some have been treating it as an "A-ha!" moment. Again, it literally tells you nothing other than that he wasn't ambulatory, which is NOT a disqualifying condition for riding most things. So assuming it's a visible point of concern will net you many false positives, just as if you wen't around asking, "Ma'am, are you pregnant or just fat?"

 

[JT3000]

You are expecting inspection - vs what was really discussed.. which is confirmation. They aren't ever going to do inspections to VERIFY something.. (or find this hidden prosthetic) - but to react to something obvious or visible.. is very different.

Medical conditions aren't always "obvious or visible." The whole point is that you can't start singling out people for inspection, confirmation, or whatever else you wish to call it unless you're going to do the same for all guests, as someone using a wheelchair is surely visible but it tells you nothing obvious of actual relevance to their ridership.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Not true. On my last trip to Universal my wife was wearing a back brace and they would not let her ride The High in the Sky Seuss Trolley Train Ride, probably the tamest ride in the park.

Could the back brace be seen?
Maybe one of Universal's rules is "No one with back braces are allowed to ride" ?
Maybe If this person was wearing a back brace maybe he would have not been allowed to ride?

 

[Comped]

Nothing really new but interesting to get the perspective of someone who has worked on rides at theme parks…

The dude in the video states a lot of speculation that has yet to be confirmed (like the victim allegedly riding a half-dozen times), discussion of personal responsibility (due to warning signs) even after warning to not discuss it. The back half is much more aligned with all of our thoughts, the ongoing question of why the ride hasn't opened yet if the company and the state agree it operated properly... What is the issue to prevent it from opening then?

 

[VicariousCorpse]

Could the back brace be seen?
Maybe one of Universal's rules is "No one with back braces are allowed to ride" ?
Maybe If this person was wearing a back brace maybe he would have not been allowed to ride?

A back brace could interfere with the lap bar restraint.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Has anything been released that said what happened yet? Or is it just a circular spitball firing squad at this point?

 

[Disstevefan1]

A back brace could interfere with the lap bar restraint.

Could be.