News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[JT3000]

Buzz bars were just one example. What do we do now about every single RMC coaster, for instance, if they have to modify the Stardust Racers restraints?


Yes, Six Flags has had some notable safety failures, but realistically and statistically even they are an overwhelmingly safe operation.


I mean... obviously? We already know, or at least can safely assume based on what information has been released, that his body ragdolling, AKA point B, was what caused point C, the blunt force trauma.

We technically don't know that for certain, we're merely taking his family's word that he was unconscious for most of the ride. But that's beside the point, which is that we don't actually know how A lead to C by way of B, or if it even did. A could have been a complete non-factor for all we know.

YES PLEASE. You make me jealous!

But in the end you will get your way as Disney will destroy the Great and unique Mission Space with some sad trackless, projection based IP themed ride with no story.

Mission: Waste of Space should have closed ages ago IMO, so I wouldn't really be getting my way at this point. But seeing as how I refuse to ride it again, literally anything would be an improvement. I'd even settle for some new benches.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For those who have followed theme parks a long time, know that if this was a design not possibly featuring an oversight versus definitely on the guest and no change needed...would mean this ride would have been opened in 48 hours or less.

We also know that when the suspected cause of an incident is related to a common design that the manufacturers call for a suspension of operations.

 

[mergatroid]

An innocent girl is minding her own business on a bus reading her phone and is KILLED FROM BEHIND by a crazy person who was arrested 14 times prior and sadly life goes on and folks keep riding buses because of course, its not the buses fault.

If one person in a million rider dies on a coaster that was functioning normally and all the other folks rode is just fine, this is DIFFERENT. Massive companies like Disney and Universal have MONEY to LOSE in lawsuits when things go wrong for whatever reason!

They will water down the coasters to make them safer to avoid lawsuits.

Slinky Dog is fun coaster. Folks better get used to it.

That's not really a comparable example though is it? When you travel on a bus there's a realisation that you're not only relying that somebody driving it can drive safely but that also you're relying on thousands of other road users to be also driving safely. Even if that's the case then a tyre could burst on the bus or another vehicle causing a collision. Add in unpredictable factors such as cyclists and pedestrians crossing and there's another way that an accident could happen. Or perhaps there's black ice on the road causing a crash. Maybe the bus driver or another motorist has a heart attack at the wheel and crashes and there's another unavoidable collision. You have to pass a test and get a licence to drive as it's accepted that a high percentage of road safety is down to the ability of humans to make decisions of every second they're driving and must prove that before they can drive themselves. In every trip a person makes there's an understanding that there's many factors that could happen that result in an accident, it's an accepted risk that people make to get from A to B.

We don't ban all road vehicles after an accident as there's so many factors that can create the issue that it's a known accepted risk to travel on a bus or in a car to get to places often too far to walk. A roller coaster is a fun attraction used only for pleasure. There's no reliance on a driver or other vehicles hitting you because of another driver not paying attention. There's an understanding that roller coasters crash or hurt people, but it's usually through human error but has a lot less factors. You're relying on an operator and a computer system to work correctly and that the ride vehicle and track has be maintained correctly. The comparison isn't really a fair one. It's like comparing somebody dying of old age and somebody being murdered, both result in death however the factors and responses to either are different.

 

[celluloid]

Buzz bars were just one example. What do we do now about every single RMC coaster, for instance, if they have to modify the Stardust Racers restraints?


Yes, Six Flags has had some notable safety failures, but realistically and statistically even they are an overwhelmingly safe operation.


I mean... obviously? We already know, or at least can safely assume based on what information has been released, that his body ragdolling, AKA point B, was what caused point C, the blunt force trauma.

Yes. Stastistically coasters are still very safe, but being safer is not something for you to be so angry about.

While again, not a 1:1. Since you insist, it is interesting that you bring up RMC coasters. Their first big endeavor is one of the most famous wrongful amusement death cases involving a rollercoaster involving restraints. It caused lawsuits, blaming culpability and ultimately RMC ever since designing their own coaster restraints.

 

[celluloid]

We also know that when the suspected cause of an incident is related to a common design that the manufacturers call for a suspension of operations.

Two things there.

1. Not always true.

2. There is an operator here that has a say(Universal)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Two things there.

1. Not always true.

2. There is an operator here that has a say(Universal)

If it is a design issue then continued operation is now known negligence. Universal is even at risk of having liability if they’re party to keeping the information restricted.

 

[Disstevefan1]

That's not really a comparable example though is it? When you travel on a bus there's a realisation that you're not only relying that somebody driving it can drive safely but that also you're relying on thousands of other road users to be also driving safely. Even if that's the case then a tyre could burst on the bus or another vehicle causing a collision. Add in unpredictable factors such as cyclists and pedestrians crossing and there's another way that an accident could happen. Or perhaps there's black ice on the road causing a crash. Maybe the bus driver or another motorist has a heart attack at the wheel and crashes and there's another unavoidable collision. You have to pass a test and get a licence to drive as it's accepted that a high percentage of road safety is down to the ability of humans to make decisions of every second they're driving and must prove that before they can drive themselves. In every trip a person makes there's an understanding that there's many factors that could happen that result in an accident, it's an accepted risk that people make to get from A to B.

We don't ban all road vehicles after an accident as there's so many factors that can create the issue that it's a known accepted risk to travel on a bus or in a car to get to places often too far to walk. A roller coaster is a fun attraction used only for pleasure. There's no reliance on a driver or other vehicles hitting you because of another driver not paying attention. There's an understanding that roller coasters crash or hurt people, but it's usually through human error but has a lot less factors. You're relying on an operator and a computer system to work correctly and that the ride vehicle and track has be maintained correctly. The comparison isn't really a fair one. It's like comparing somebody dying of old age and somebody being murdered, both result in death however the factors and responses to either are different.

You are correct. Folks die all the time for all different reasons, not the cause of the bus, the road, the gun manufacturer etc.

 

[celluloid]

If it is a design issue then continued operation is now known negligence. Universal is even at risk of having liability if they’re party to keeping the information restricted.

Who said it was a known design issue? It was not known and still not known for sure. This is why changes are coming before the attractions are reopened.

My point was it does not mean Mack has to close them all without information they are confident in, and it means Uni does not HAVE to reopen it unitl they are satisfied that this exact situation can't occur again even if details are unknown.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Who said it was a known design issue? It was not known and still not known for sure. This is why changes are coming before the attractions are reopened.

My point was it does not mean Mack has to close them all without information they are confident in, and it means Uni does not HAVE to reopen it unitl they are satisfied that this exact situation can't occur again even if details are unknown.

You’re claiming it is now a known issue. The moment it is decided the restraints need to be changed to prevent future incidents is the moment it becomes a known issue. “I only knew about the problem for a little bit” isn’t an excuse.

 

[celluloid]

You’re claiming it is now a known issue. The moment it is decided the restraints need to be changed to prevent future incidents is the moment it becomes a known issue. “I only knew about the problem for a little bit” isn’t an excuse.

He got blunt force on something; his body was therefore not restrained to not do so. No signs point to anything foreign, All I said changes are for sure coming. It does not mean anyone knows precisely what happened.

What I am stating is they just found out when a person died, hence why this thing is not open, nor will it reopen until they can guarantee that this particular incident won't occur again, and the only way to do that is to make sure head does not meet blunt force trauma multiple times. It shows good faith and efforts.

No one I see in this recent discussion is claiming they operated this in intentional negligence.
Blunt force trauma and accident were official legal medical examiner's words.

Things will still happen to ensure the accident does not happen same way again.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I guess when its a pre existing health issue its Universal's fault and when its a pre existing coaster design issue its Universal's fault.

 

[celluloid]

I guess when its a pre existing health issue its Universal's fault and when its a pre existing coaster design issue its Universal's fault.

Well if someone fits in a restraint then restraint is designed to safely restrain them.

The cause of death was multiple blunt force trauma. Not a broken spine, neck etc...

This is why Universal and Mack are in such a situation over it.

It is super rare that this would happen, but yet, it can.

Changes happening is the right thing to do. We won't lose the ride. People need to be reasonable and understand the good faith there is on this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

He got blunt force on something; his body was therefore not restrained to not do so. No signs point to anything foreign, All I said changes are for sure coming. It does not mean anyone knows precisely what happened.

What I am stating is they just found out when a person died, hence why this thing is not open, nor will it reopen until they can guarantee that this particular incident won't occur again, and the only way to do that is to make sure head does not meet blunt force trauma multiple times. It shows good faith and efforts.

No one I see in this recent discussion is claiming they operated this in intentional negligence.
Blunt force trauma and accident were official legal medical examiner's words.

Things will still happen to ensure the accident does not happen same way again.

The moment you know something is an issue and continue is the moment it starts to become negligence. If Mack and Universal now know the issue is actually the restraint and they’re not just working on a visual placebo then they are being negligent by not sharing that information. Operating Stardust Racers may not have been negligent, but if the issue is the restraint then continuing to run Blue Fire negligent. Continuing to let United run Manta or Dix Flags run Copperhead Strike is negligent.

Blunt force trauma is not a single universal criteria. The same impact can have vastly different outcomes for different people.

 

[celluloid]

The moment you know something is an issue and continue is the moment it starts to become negligence. If Mack and Universal now know the issue is actually the restraint and they’re not just working on a visual placebo then they are being negligent by not sharing that information. Operating Stardust Racers may not have been negligent, but if the issue is the restraint then continuing to run Blue Fire negligent. Continuing to let United run Manta or Dix Flags run Copperhead Strike is negligent.

Blunt force trauma is not a single universal criteria. The same impact can have vastly different outcomes for different people.

These things are all true, but Universal did not operate this attraction after the death was discovered. Universal did the right thing here and will do so above and beyond, and obviously no less thoroughly now. Mack and Universal see no definites, but do see the concern, obviously.

Again, his head hit something, even with different outcomes, his head should not hit anything when properly restrained on a ride of this type.
This is why alterations are coming.

Based on no certain findings, changes can still be coming.

You guys are getting mad at the messenger.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Yes. Stastistically coasters are still very safe, but being safer is not something for you to be so angry about.

Who said I'm angry? I am, however, concerned about the (slight) potential of many great roller coasters getting ruined unnecessarily. It probably won't happen, and I hope it doesn't.

While again, not a 1:1. Since you insist, it is interesting that you bring up RMC coasters. Their first big endeavor is one of the most famous wrongful amusement death cases involving a rollercoaster involving restraints. It caused lawsuits, blaming culpability and ultimately RMC ever since designing their own coaster restraints.

This was due to a mechanical failure though. We're discussing coasters that have only a lap bar style restraint functioning as intended.

 

[celluloid]

Who said I'm angry? I am, however, concerned about the (slight) potential of many great roller coasters getting ruined unnecessarily. It probably won't happen, and I hope it doesn't.


This was due to a mechanical failure though. We're discussing coasters that have only a lap bar style restraint functioning as intended.

Six Flags New England if you want to try to compare that sort of thing. Again, nothing is a 1:1. There are things about Stardust that are unique even from other Macks. The point with New Texas Giant because it was a body type issue and you brought up RMC, which of course, has changed since that tragedy to design their own restraints. The blame game began and operator and park shared culpability while filing lawsuits on each other. Yet, all claim they all did things right and it operated as designed, and operated as intended, depending on which side was speaking.

You are unnecessarily aggressive if you think that becoming safer after this death means the ride will be ruined. If it prevents this kind of death from ever happening while remaining accessible for as many to ride as it safely can because they don't have an exact answer of what happened. Why is it ruined?

 

[lazyboy97o]

These things are all true, but Universal did not operate this attraction after the death was discovered. Universal did the right thing here and will do so above and beyond, and obviously no less thoroughly now. Mack and Universal see no definites, but do see the concern, obviously.

This coaster isn’t the only one in the world with this restraint. If there is concern about the restraint then Mack and Universal should be telling their other customers.

Again, his head hit something, even with different outcomes, his head should not hit anything when properly restrained on a ride of this type.

That’s not true. A head rest is something you can hit your head on and not having one would be significantly worse.

You guys are getting mad at the messenger.

Who is mad? You just don’t seem to realize that you’re making Universal look worse.

 

[celluloid]

This coaster isn’t the only one in the world with this restraint. If there is concern about the restraint then Mack and Universal should be telling their other customers.


That’s not true. A head rest is something you can hit your head on and not having one would be significantly worse.


Who is mad? You just don’t seem to realize that you’re making Universal look worse.

The restraints are not exactly the same as the other Mack coasters with ones that look a lot like this restraint. There are nuances.

There are many types of harnesses/vests. Notice why I specifically pointed that kind out and decisions are being made on what the best route is. No one said they were going to put hard B&M or Vekoma style ones of old. As a matter of fact, I specificially said that is not the route that would happen. And even then, proximity counts. Many variables.

Mack is likely going to take the blunt of this one, Universal does not have full culpability either way.

 

[mkt]

I got to ride during cast member previews and it was one of the worst experiences of my life.

Same. I found it more mediocre though.

I think the pics I got during CM previews are still on this page somewhere.

 

[VicariousCorpse]

The restraints are not exactly the same as the other Mack coasters with ones that look a lot like this restraint. There are nuances.

Can you give some examples of these nuances that make them different?