News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Disstevefan1]

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

Apparently was not good enough because Kevin was allowed to ride.

 

[My95cobras]

Apparently was not good enough because Kevin was allowed to ride.

Donnie? Is that you?

 

[Disstevefan1]

Donnie? Is that you?

I have no idea what that means, but Its probably disparaging.

Its OK, I am used to it here.

 

[mkt]

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 tend to agree - but the estimate number of riders is a bit optimistic. It's not accounting for 8 hour days or downtime.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I tend to agree - but the estimate number of riders is a bit optimistic. It's not accounting for 8 hour days or downtime.

Still a LOT of riders in its short time it was open.

 

[celluloid]

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

Still a reasonable thing not to cause blunt force trauma.

 

[celluloid]

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

No warning. Not even ride at own risk at a carnival completely cover death on profiting amusement.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

While you maybe correct - your post is pretty much the poster child of someone jumping to conclusions and failing to wait for the real work to be done.

Why do you think 1 death in 6 months of riding is 'statistically negligible'? Do you know the lifecycle and safety standards this ride is measured against? Or what the expected incident rate should be?

Do you see rollercoasters around the country having 2 riders die a year and people saying "nah, negligible" ?

 

[celluloid]

Still a LOT of riders in its short time it was open.

Not enough to make the odds look clear of culpability(not that would ever be zero anyway) Forces and design are also not equal in every row/seat.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Still a reasonable thing not to cause blunt force trauma.

Blunt force trauma is not a universal constant. The whole reason you are supposed to keep your head back is because your head can/will be whipped back and hitting even a padded seat rest can cause injury. It’s also why rides are not designed to intentionally push the rider forward and then sudden back.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Arguably - it's not. If it's not easily understood on what is included, then the warning is insufficient.

If the sign already excluded the rider for not having control of his legs - then there would be a case that UNI ops didn't follow their own restrictions. Yet, neither side is making that claim.

 

[celluloid]

Blunt force trauma is not a universal constant. The whole reason you are supposed to keep your head back is because your head can/will be whipped back and hitting even a padded seat rest can cause injury.

The other truth is riders and their muscle or awareness/consciousness are not a universal constant either.

It takes a good blunt force to cause a laceration even on someone with spinal cord weakness. Thus was not likely a head slammed against headrest once situation not just a padded seat.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Not enough to make the odds look clear of culpability(not that would ever be zero anyway) Forces and design are also not equal in every row/seat.

3 million to 1 is not enough then what's enough? 4 million to 1, 5 million to 1?

I think culpability will be that Universal allowed Kevin to ride when it was clear he had a preexisting condition, trying to accommodate him.

 

[mergatroid]

3 million to 1 is not enough then what's enough? 4 million to 1, 5 million to 1?

I think culpability will be that Universal allowed Kevin to ride when it was clear he had a preexisting condition, trying to accommodate him.

Why do you talk about somebody's life as meaningless, you show such lack of compassion with your childish attitude on this subject typing in caps to dramatise points as if we're talking about a new movie rather than the loss of life.

 

[celluloid]

3 million to 1 is not enough then what's enough? 4 million to 1, 5 million to 1?

I think culpability will be that Universal allowed Kevin to ride when it was clear he had a preexisting condition, trying to accommodate him.

Your last point is not the road that anyone wants to go down
Shared culpability is the answer.

And Stardust Racers did not even get close get 3 million riders yet. And certainly not in those rows.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Why do you talk about somebody's life as meaningless, you show such lack of compassion with your childish attitude on this subject typing in caps to dramatise points as if we're talking about a new movie rather than the loss of life.

Do you live in reality? Do you leave you home? Life is risk.

My brother took a shower, sat down on his easy chair and died.

DO NOT LECTURE ME ABOUT LOSS!

 

[DisneyHead123]

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.

Two things. One, statistics do not always determine “records”. If a person has encountered millions of people in their life and murders one to wear their skin a la Silence of the Lambs, are they an excellent and safe citizen?

We can’t have coasters operating where “only two people die on this a year” That’s absurd, obviously. For some things, the safety rate has to be 100%, barring circumstances like a rider having a heart attack. We see this anytime there is a product recall for a single injury or death.

Second, how can you confidently say that the rider’s death was caused by a spinal condition? His anatomy may have been a bit atypical, but it’s not like he had superhuman elasticity or something. At most he may have had poor muscle tone and increased flexibility, something potentially present in many people. Atypical, yes, but uncommon in a country of over 300 million, no.