News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Disstevefan1]

That was a willful negligence case - the owners had deliberately modified the ride vehicle overriding safety features. It was not operating normally. That is not the case here

To me what happened at the drop tower was criminal.

I was just thinking who has the deeper pockets because MONEY.

 

[flynnibus]

IIRC, the manufacturer paid the lion's share of the settlement.

There were separate suits - the park settled with the family, they then sued the manufacturer claiming the ride was dangerous. The big 310m was from the latter.

 

[flynnibus]

That was a willful negligence case - the owners had deliberately modified the ride vehicle overriding safety features. It was not operating normally. That is not the case here

Complicating the matter though.. was the big settlement was not against the park, but the ride manufacturer.

I don't know if it was ever concluded who made the modifications - but the park was operating the ride outside the design specs for riders, clearly had a policy about the larger riders using the modified seats, and was found not to be training properly for the ride.

They sued the ride manufacturer highlighting the lack of seat belts.. and while I haven't read that complaint myself, the suit was about the ride's design.

 

[Disstevefan1]

It's easy to say after the fact, but in both cases -

The riders should NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO RIDE.
The riders were accommodated in some way to get on the ride.

 

[lewisc]

It's easy to say after the fact, but in both cases -

The riders should NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO RIDE.
The riders were accommodated in some way to get on the ride.

I
haven't read anything definitive regarding Kevin riding qualifications, only internet speculation.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I
haven't read anything definitive regarding Kevin riding qualifications, only internet speculation.

Sadly because we saw what happened, we can say after the fact, Kevin should not been allowed to ride.

There was no defect with the ride and thousands and thousands of folks ride it fine.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sadly because we saw what happened, we can say after the fact, Kevin should not been allowed to ride.

There was no defect with the ride and thousands and thousands of folks ride it fine.

We haven’t seen what happened and that cannot be said.

 

[Disstevefan1]

We haven’t seen what happened and that cannot be said.

Yes, I worded this wrong.

Because Kevin died, its clear after the fact, Kevin should not have been allowed to ride.

Unless everyone is lying, Stardust was operating normally during that ride, but I guess all the folks riding Stardust during that ride could possibly confirm or deny things were operating normally.

We all have seen thousands and thousands ride this ride with no issues.

 

[celluloid]

I googled around and I see what you mean with the vests- but still I don't see how this stops a passed out person's head from "flopping" forward and back (chin to chest then smacking back). Think of everything that goes into a newborn/infant car seat to protect the head- they are rear-facing, tilted, and a 5 point harness because newborns are essential bobble-heads. A passed out person + spinal injury/damage would need this level of support to account for every possibility of injury/death prevention.

That could happen but is not the same as multiple blunt force trauma.

Newborns and this rider are not a 1:1.

The alterations that are coming vest likely are not, are to stop this exact event or very similar from happening again. Not internal concussions.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because Kevin died, its clear after the fact, Kevin should not have been allowed to ride.

This is not clear at this time.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is not clear at this time.

If Kevin was not permitted to ride, he would not have died on the ride. That is clear.

 

[celluloid]

If Kevin was not permitted to ride, he would not have died on the ride. That is clear.

Imagine if there is a moderate somewhere in the middle.

The difference of Kevin dying should not be the difference of ride 6.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Imagine if there is a moderate somewhere in the middle.

The difference of Kevin dying should not be the difference of ride 6.

Unless folks are lying, Kevin died on it first and only ride of Stardust.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If Kevin was not permitted to ride, he would not have died on the ride. That is clear.

That can be said of every individual whose death was associated with an amusement ride.

 

[Disstevefan1]

That can be said of every individual whose death was associated with an amusement ride.

Well I think Universal should add to the warning signs (that no one reads), "No one with spinal cord issues should ride this ride"

 

[yonafunu]

The ride has an excellent safety record. With an hourly capacity of approximately 2,750 riders and operating 130 days this year for 9 hours daily, this attraction has safely accommodated over 3 million guests.

Given this volume, the incident rate is statistically negligible. The one documented serious case involved a guest with a pre-existing spinal condition—a significant factor that likely contributed to the outcome. While some riders do experience temporary light-headedness (as can occur on other intense coasters like Hulk or VelociCoaster), these are common physiological responses to high g-forces and don't constitute safety failures.

The key takeaway: When millions of riders complete the experience without incident, and the single serious case involves a documented pre-existing medical condition, the evidence points to the ride operating within safe parameters. The spinal vulnerability was likely the determining factor, not a systemic safety flaw.

 

[lewisc]

Yes, I worded this wrong.

Because Kevin died, its clear after the fact, Kevin should not have been allowed to ride.

Unless everyone is lying, Stardust was operating normally during that ride, but I guess all the folks riding Stardust during that ride could possibly confirm or deny things were operating normally.

We all have seen thousands and thousands ride this ride with no issues.

If it's that simple the rider requirements would have been updated and the ride would be back in operation.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The ride has an excellent safety record. With an hourly capacity of approximately 2,750 riders and operating 130 days this year for 9 hours daily, this attraction has safely accommodated over 3 million guests.

Given this volume, the incident rate is statistically negligible. The one documented serious case involved a guest with a pre-existing spinal condition—a significant factor that likely contributed to the outcome. While some riders do experience temporary light-headedness (as can occur on other intense coasters like Hulk or VelociCoaster), these are common physiological responses to high g-forces and don't constitute safety failures.

The key takeaway: When millions of riders complete the experience without incident, and the single serious case involves a documented pre-existing medical condition, the evidence points to the ride operating within safe parameters. The spinal vulnerability was likely the determining factor, not a systemic safety flaw.

I totally agree with you.

Crump obviously does not agree with you.

Lets see what happens.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Well I think Universal should add to the warning signs (that no one reads), "No one with spinal cord issues should ride this ride"

This is covered under “back conditions” which is already on the signs.

 

[Disstevefan1]

If it's that simple the rider requirements would have been updated and the ride would be back in operation.

Ha, no its not simple, Kevin died and Crump is suing.

It was apparently simple for the two folks who died on Mission Space.

I cant remember Mission Space being closed for more than a day when these happened?