News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[VicariousCorpse]

I am expressing how much of an excellent job Crump is doing and how well Kevin's family will be compensated and it looks like to be Stardust will be shut down watching press conferences like these.

And I assure you, there will be more press conferences like this until Universal settles with Kevin's family.

I wounder if the shutdown/destruction of Stardust will be park of the deal.

Did we watch the same thing?

 

[Disstevefan1]

Did we watch the same thing?

To me there was A LOT of folks saying how they were hurt on Stardust.

I guess its just what folks get out of these press conferences, but to me, this one painted a picture that Stardust hurt folks before Kevin's death and Universal knew it.

Don't get me wrong, I do not want to see Stardust go away, but its not looking good to me.

 

[Disstevefan1]

He's an attorney.

Not an engineer. Not a hospitality industry employee. Not a theme park expert.

He's on a PR tour to convince the public that Universal is guilty before he's even filed suit, so they'll quickly settle to make it go away - regardless of where the actual fault lies.

I know he knows nothing, I thought someone on his staff would notice.

I was just surprised they used a WDW photo. Maybe to say, WDW is safe, Universal is not, so maybe its was intended.

 

[mkt]

To me there was A LOT of folks saying how they were hurt on Stardust.

I've gone through every lawsuit filed against Universal the beginning of 2025.

There's been a single lawsuit filed related to Stardust Racers. The one that was filed and settled last week.

 

[mkt]

I know he knows nothing, I thought someone on his staff would notice.

I was just surprised they used a WDW photo. Maybe to say, WDW is safe, Universal is not, so maybe its was intended.

It was probably a nice recent picture that was intended to show that he was a regular theme park visitor.

 

[Comped]

IF what he's saying is true... Universal and Mack have a lot to answer for.

 

[Disstevefan1]

IF what he's saying is true... Universal and Mack have a lot to answer for.

It doesn't have to be true..... This is a lawsuit remember

Universal and Mack will have a lot to answer to in any event.

Not looking good for Stardust.

 

[Comped]

It doesn't have to be true..... This is a lawsuit remember

Universal and Mack will have a lot to answer to in any event.

Not looking good for Stardust.

I'm speaking from a non-civil perspective, in terms of both modifications to the ride (and the train), or legally. And arguably that may not even be the biggest thing. If Crump uses this case to get Florida to adopt state-led ride inspections, as he wants (and maybe the state does too), which I have argued for since I was in University (even debated the topic with Universal execs), that'd be the biggest regulatory change since about 1998 when the major Orlando parks decided to fingerprint and background check their CMs/TMs/employees...

 

[Tom Morrow]

State inspections do not equal safer, but it's the type of argument that uninformed people fall for. The type of thing you might say to gain sympathy for a case you know is not a rock solid win.

 

[Comped]

State inspections do not equal safer, but it's the type of argument that uninformed people fall for. The type of thing you might say to gain sympathy for a case you know is not a rock solid win.

There are some in the industry (like Fun Spot, who are required to have inspections at all 3 of their locations anyway), who are in favor of state inspections. In fact, I'd argue only the largest operators are against them (and work to try and get states like California, Texas, NY, and PA, all of which have yearly inspection requirements led by a state department, changed o have changed to a similar system to have Florida has currently). I have heard executive brag about their attempts to "influence" state leaders to change their rules and regulations to make it easier for the parks to self regulate (although they've never convinced a state to go full Florida mode yet, at least in states where there's major parks).

It is not cut and dry, and in this case would literally impact the biggest parks because smaller parks are required to be state inspected in Florida anyway!

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

See rollercoaster restraints such as recent B&M coasters that have pull over lap restraints. There is a soft vest underneath that prevent that level where the vests rests on shoulders that would keep you from going forward as well as ears or side of head.

Yes - I brought these vests up several pages ago as an option that may have prevented this tragedy.

If it’s true that the vests were already on site for testing - that is clear evidence that universal knew there was an issue with this coaster and chose to keep it running.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There are some in the industry (like Fun Spot, who are required to have inspections at all 3 of their locations anyway), who are in favor of state inspections. In fact, I'd argue only the largest operators are against them (and work to try and get states like California, Texas, NY, and PA, all of which have yearly inspection requirements led by a state department, changed o have changed to a similar system to have Florida has currently). I have heard executive brag about their attempts to "influence" state leaders to change their rules and regulations to make it easier for the parks to self regulate (although they've never convinced a state to go full Florida mode yet, at least in states where there's major parks).

It is not cut and dry, and in this case would literally impact the biggest parks because smaller parks are required to be state inspected in Florida anyway!

You present this as though the smaller operators are facing a greater regulatory burden, when that isn’t the case. The large parks aren’t exempt from any safety standards established by the state. There’s no state regulation that would have prohibited Stardust Racers from being built or operated.

And of course Florida has had a few serious incidents occur after state inspections.

 

[Comped]

The large parks aren’t exempt from any safety standards established by the state.

They are exempt from state-led inspections, a widely known and reported fact. Instead the large parks inspect themselves, to varying degrees of appropriateness.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

What struck me most about the press conference is that they are very much focussing on restraints and the eyewitness account the problems began with him being thrown forward and hitting his head on the metal in front of him. On the first point, that seems based more on the most logical avenue of investigation than any evidence at this point. On the second, if he really was able to be thrown forward far enough to hit his head on the metal bar at the front of the ride vehicle, that seems like a real issue with the ride. I don't think it can be waved away as the result of him having a spinal issue.

We shall see, however.

 

[flynnibus]

If Crump uses this case to get Florida to adopt state-led ride inspections, as he wants (and maybe the state does too), which I have argued for since I was in University (even debated the topic with Universal execs), that'd be the biggest regulatory change since about 1998 when the major Orlando parks decided to fingerprint and background check their CMs/TMs/employees...

Come on man.. That carve out exists for a reason.. the huge lobbying power of Disney and Uni. Just because Crump wants to make that part of his PR campaign doesn't signal anything about their ability or any shift in the politics around this. This isn't the first or only death in the amusement parks. Absolutely nothing has changed with regards to this existing law except a guy adding it to his list of grievances in a PR campaign.

 

[Comped]

Come on man.. That carve out exists for a reason.. the huge lobbying power of Disney and Uni. Just because Crump wants to make that part of his PR campaign doesn't signal anything about their ability or any shift in the politics around this. This isn't the first or only death in the amusement parks. Absolutely nothing has changed with regards to this existing law except a guy adding it to his list of grievances in a PR campaign.

If DeSantis would be interested, I could see it... Doubt his party is though.

 

[flynnibus]

What struck me most about the press conference is that they are very much focussing on restraints and the eyewitness account the problems began with him being thrown forward and hitting his head on the metal in front of him. On the first point, that seems based more on the most logical avenue of investigation than any evidence at this point. On the second, if he really was able to be thrown forward far enough to hit his head on the metal bar at the front of the ride vehicle, that seems like a real issue with the ride. I don't think it can be waved away as the result of him having a spinal issue.

We shall see, however.

I still want to understand how someone is thrown forward anyway besides in a braking zone. The entire ride experience is about acceleration which should push you back, down, and up. So besides collapsing under the positive G force, the being 'thrown forward' is the part I struggle with to grasp how was part of the ride experience. Maybe on a downhill or drop before the ride starts to accelerate? But again, with enough force to cause harm?

This part I still struggle with to separate the victim's circumstances from the general riders...

 

[flynnibus]

If DeSantis would be interested, I could see it... Doubt his party is though.

Iger just made a deal with the devil... why would he turn and flip on this? nothing to gain for DeSantis.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I still want to understand how someone is thrown forward anyway besides in a braking zone. The entire ride experience is about acceleration which should push you back, down, and up. So besides collapsing under the positive G force, the being 'thrown forward' is the part I struggle with to grasp how was part of the ride experience. Maybe on a downhill or drop before the ride starts to accelerate? But again, with enough force to cause harm?

This part I still struggle with to separate the victim's circumstances from the general riders...

I understand that puzzlement, because that is always why it stands out to me: how is that possible?

What I also struggle to understand, though, is why his spinal condition would make him more able to go so far forward as to hit the metal bar at the front of the vehicle while wearing the restraint. Maybe it did, but it seems like such a dramatic occurrence that I can't see how if he could move that far forward other people couldn't.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They are exempt from state-led inspections, a widely known and reported fact. Instead the large parks inspect themselves, to varying degrees of appropriateness.

That’s not a safety standard. The big parks still have to follow the state’s adopted standards like ASTM F24. State inspections would not have changed the outcome of this incident.