News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[mergatroid]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but these folks are making stuff up for money because someone’s tragic death has given them an opportunity to do so.

There were complaints made before the sad death of the rider.

 

[Jrb1979]

I don't doubt there were complaints. I do wonder how much of the complaints is due to the intensity of the coaster.

RMC coasters get lots of complaints from the ejector air time and bruises it causes to your thighs.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Every. single. roller coaster, outside of maybe kiddie coasters and family coasters, has a log of riders getting off and requesting medical attention because they don't feel right.

 

[donaldtoo]

I’m gonna’ be “old man” here, but…
I remember when Marriott’s Great America opened in Santa Clara, California in 1976.
The “Turn of the Century” coaster was all the rage, with its two airtime hills and a double corkscrew. I loved it.
Things have gotten much more intense since.
We can’t all be astronauts.

 

[lewisc]

Every. single. roller coaster, outside of maybe kiddie coasters and family coasters, has a log of riders getting off and requesting medical attention because they don't feel right.

How many can add a guest death due to blunt force trauma to a list of riders with medical issues?

 

[Tom Morrow]

How many can add a guest death due to blunt force trauma to a list of riders with medical issues?

The point is that all of these previous cases on Stardust Racers are not unique to Stardust Racers in any way.

 

[celluloid]

The point is that all of these previous cases on Stardust Racers are not unique to Stardust Racers in any way.

You can ditch the others, but they should be slightly more investigated (or tabbed)because there was a blunt force trauma death that has unknowns.
Specifically, one, am actual lawsuit being filed being settled in record time seems telling.

This is not the same as a rider returning to station unrespnsive due to aneurysm/stroke or heart attack.

A settlement and a death is a lot for less than five months of operation and worth the throughough investigation and changes.

We can figure there are always ambulance chasers, but to say for sure is not possible. The lady who filed a lawsuit and achieved settlement does not mean we know there was no merit to her reported permanant injuries related to ride.

 

[TalkToEthan]

Which is it? You think they are changing their story?

……..better way to describe it is ‘embellishing’.

This sad event is a perfect animal for the opportunistic and improvising ticks to jump on and start sucking from a cash cow.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

So you said it was them just "making stuff up for money" -- now, it's them not making it up, but jumping on the wagon?

Which is it? You think they are changing their story? Kinda like you?

You know exactly what i meant, but let me rephrase.

I think they, like many folks, did make complaints before this about a rough ride or not feeling good after riding. That is a standard thing that happens in theme parks every single day. These clearly did not result in any actual injuries, and especially nothing severe. Complaints are made against intense coasters each and every day. It does not mean the coaster being complained on has anything wrong with it.

However, now that this has happened and the coaster is coming into the spotlight, they are all to happy to step forward and make out these benign things they experience as early warning signs that something has always been wrong with the coaster. That is indeed making something up. They're helping to create a false narrative on this despite their "cases" being completely unrelated to this man's death because it could be beneficial to them in the long run.

I don't how how you can look at the way Crump is running this whole thing and not see that his aim is to sensationalize this to the highest point possible, and that includes getting a bunch of folks to come in and help him build a story that just really isn't there to prop his circus up.

If he can provide some real proof that something is wrong with the ride, then I am all for that being pointed to as the cause of the issue and Universal and Mack will need to do something about it.

Until then, based off of all the information we've got here, jumping to this being a fault of the ride instead of a simple case of this gentlemen shouldn't have been allowed to ride it due to his disability being incompatible with the attraction is a massive leap.

All of the attention is being placed on the coaster itself when that isn't the only factor at play here. Was this man honest with Universal about what his disability actually was? If the team members on the platform knew he had a spinal injury, would he have been allowed on the ride even if he was able to transfer? Would someone losing consciousness on the ride who did not have his disability endured the same injuries that he did?

These are also important questions that could be just as much of a cause as anything to do with the ride.

But instead, we're gonna be put through a dog and pony show because roller coasters are big and scary and put attention on all the wrong things instead of putting the questions and answers out there that could actually help this industry some.

And whenever there's a dog and pony show in town, you bet the dog and ponies (in this case, anyone who has filed a complaint before on this ride for things that were clearly not an actual threatening issue to them) will show up.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

You can ditch the others, but they should be slightly more investigated (or tabbed)because there was a blunt force trauma death that has unknowns.
Specifically, one, am actual lawsuit being filed being settled in record time seems telling.

This is not the same as a rider returning to station unrespnsive due to aneurysm/stroke or heart attack.

A settlement and a death is a lot for less than five months of operation and worth the throughough investigation and changes.

We can figure there are always ambulance chasers, but to say for sure is not possible. The lady who filed a lawsuit and achieved settlement does not mean we know there was no merit to her reported permanant injuries related to ride.

Universal settling with her does not inherently mean there was an issue on their end. It was likely a (poor) decision based on wanting to not be dealing with two lawsuits over this ride at one time.

I'm gonna repeat, and this is not aimed at you specifically but you are someone who seems very stuck on this path, I really think people need to get off this idea that the only answer can be a fault with the coaster. Is that a possibility? Certainly it is!

But there's a lot of other possibilities that have nothing to do with Stardust Racers too. People seem to keep forgetting, and the lawyer keeps trying to gloss over, that this man had a serious spinal injury. Such an injury very much could change the way in which a person experiences this attraction.

If this gentlemen was using the park's disability access service, then there will be a record of what information Universal was given about his disability. If it turns out they did not know all of the facts because they were not given, I would say that would change the nature of this story dramatically.

It's an awful conversation to have to have, but there needs to be just as much of an investigation being done into what this gentlemen did and did not say and did and did not disclose about his condition to Universal as there is about the state of the attraction itself. It seems many are forgetting that and wanting to jump straight to saying that the problem was with the attraction when there's a whole lot of other things that could've been a cause.

Of course, as I said above, this lawyer is gonna do everything in his power to make sure that line of thinking doesn't crop up in this story. He's doing his damndest to make Stardust Racers out to be this dangerous thing that was an accident waiting to happen. I'm all ears for any proof he would eventually like to show for this, but until he does, I'm sorry but there's way too many different options for a root cause here to jump immediately to the coaster being the problem as a narrative to cling to as truth.

 

[celluloid]

Universal settling with her does not inherently mean there was an issue on their end. It was likely a (poor) decision based on wanting to not be dealing with two lawsuits over this ride at one time.

I'm gonna repeat, and this is not aimed at you specifically but you are someone who seems very stuck on this path, I really think people need to get off this idea that the only answer can be a fault with the coaster. Is that a possibility? Certainly it is!

But there's a lot of other possibilities that have nothing to do with Stardust Racers too. People seem to keep forgetting, and the lawyer keeps trying to gloss over, that this man had a serious spinal injury. Such an injury very much could change the way in which a person experiences this attraction.

If this gentlemen was using the park's disability access service, then there will be a record of what information Universal was given about his disability. If it turns out they did not know all of the facts because they were not given, I would say that would change the nature of this story dramatically.

It's an awful conversation to have to have, but there needs to be just as much of an investigation being done into what this gentlemen did and did not say and did and did not disclose about his condition to Universal as there is about the state of the attraction itself. It seems many are forgetting that and wanting to jump straight to saying that the problem was with the attraction when there's a whole lot of other things that could've been a cause.

Of course, as I said above, this lawyer is gonna do everything in his power to make sure that line of thinking doesn't crop up in this story. He's doing his damndest to make Stardust Racers out to be this dangerous thing that was an accident waiting to happen. I'm all ears for any proof he would eventually like to show for this, but until he does, I'm sorry but there's way too many different options for a root cause here to jump immediately to the coaster being the problem as a narrative to cling to as truth.

Indeed. But either way, the truth can also likely be somewhere in the middle. We can't(shouldn't) automatically discount the lady either. We don't know. 50,000 is pretty lean and the settlement agreed was probably significantly lower. Hardly a rich chase and may have had legitimate permanant treatment injury and condition since.
As enthusiasts we can't jump to think that Uni and Mack are always infallible. Neither are healthy.

The Woman in the lawsuit that was settled was also an annual passholder that was invited to previews, just for some interesting context. Neither lawsuit was from anyone who was a stranger to coasters and theme park rides.

 

[flynnibus]

We don't know. 50,000 is pretty lean and the settlement agreed was probably significantly lower

The suit wasn’t for 50k - that was a threshold value

 

[mergatroid]

Universal settling with her does not inherently mean there was an issue on their end. It was likely a (poor) decision based on wanting to not be dealing with two lawsuits over this ride at one time.

I'm gonna repeat, and this is not aimed at you specifically but you are someone who seems very stuck on this path, I really think people need to get off this idea that the only answer can be a fault with the coaster. Is that a possibility? Certainly it is!

But there's a lot of other possibilities that have nothing to do with Stardust Racers too. People seem to keep forgetting, and the lawyer keeps trying to gloss over, that this man had a serious spinal injury. Such an injury very much could change the way in which a person experiences this attraction.

If this gentlemen was using the park's disability access service, then there will be a record of what information Universal was given about his disability. If it turns out they did not know all of the facts because they were not given, I would say that would change the nature of this story dramatically.

It's an awful conversation to have to have, but there needs to be just as much of an investigation being done into what this gentlemen did and did not say and did and did not disclose about his condition to Universal as there is about the state of the attraction itself. It seems many are forgetting that and wanting to jump straight to saying that the problem was with the attraction when there's a whole lot of other things that could've been a cause.

Of course, as I said above, this lawyer is gonna do everything in his power to make sure that line of thinking doesn't crop up in this story. He's doing his damndest to make Stardust Racers out to be this dangerous thing that was an accident waiting to happen. I'm all ears for any proof he would eventually like to show for this, but until he does, I'm sorry but there's way too many different options for a root cause here to jump immediately to the coaster being the problem as a narrative to cling to as truth.

You're right in that we don't know for sure what happened yet and who is to blame. You see to be very much of the opinion that it was the pre-existing condition of the gentleman that was the primary reason for the very sad incident and that may be the case but at this stage we don't know.

I mean no disrespect to the American justice system when I say this (I'm from the UK for full transparency and our system has it's faults, believe me) but the way this family lawyer is behaving isn't new. Grandstanding and showboating has long been the way to go in many high profile cases and whether you or I like it or not, he has the right to put forward the fact that there have been registered injuries and complaints on this attraction previously even if they ultimately have nothing to do with this fatality though do remember that we don't know that conclusively yet.

On the flip side of how the lawyer is handling this case, is it not possible that Universal are trying to get their side out to the public also? Imagine if you were a family member of the deceased and a few days following the death of your loved one you read the very carefully worded letter that was 'leaked' that was sent to all the Universal Team Members (that they knew would get out). It was basically saying we did nothing wrong and the ride was perfect, not in those exact words but if we're choosing to discuss it reasonably fairly then we can agree that was their intention. It may not have been as 'in your face' as the family lawyers press conference in ramping up the stakes but at the same time it was a tactic used by Universal to try to get information out publicly that sounds on the surface like "We're so sorry a gentleman died, however it was nothing to do with us". This was done before the family even had a lawyer to defend them so in the mindset they were obviously in at that time following the death, I can also see from their side that they may well have seen that as a little bit underhand by Universal.

Neither Universal or the family lawyer appear on the surface to be doing anything illegal, lawyers on both sides will argue that it's well within the law or even their responsibility to put forward anything they want to help their case or to hep their 'theory' of what happened. Now obviously if they have other information that they're hiding that contradicts or disproves that theory then that's not allowed but that would surely come out during Discovery if this goes to court. Like yourself I find the way the family lawyer is presenting this case to be rather 'circus like' and very 'in your face', however I also can see that the family were probably quite upset by the leaking of the TM letter and how they saw that as a bit of an underhand attack very early on following the sad loss of a loved one.

You seem to be very on the side of the death being the result of a pre-existing condition which is fair enough as you're entitled to that opinion, despite admitting that you don't actually know anymore about the case than anyone else. In fairness you're presenting your argument in a very respectful manner (unlike one or two on here who appear to be treating it like a game show and not the sad loss of life that it is) and there are some who are leaning more into the fact it was Universal or Mack's fault despite not knowing anymore than you do. I personally am somewhere in the middle and ultimately just want the truth and some satisfaction for the family if somebody is to blame. It's very sad that this whole thing happened and ultimately we can agree on that, I do think that big changes will come from it and that hopefully the cause of the incident can be discovered more so that it never happens again rather than so one side 'wins'.

 

[Jrb1979]

You're right in that we don't know for sure what happened yet and who is to blame. You see to be very much of the opinion that it was the pre-existing condition of the gentleman that was the primary reason for the very sad incident and that may be the case but at this stage we don't know.

I mean no disrespect to the American justice system when I say this (I'm from the UK for full transparency and our system has it's faults, believe me) but the way this family lawyer is behaving isn't new. Grandstanding and showboating has long been the way to go in many high profile cases and whether you or I like it or not, he has the right to put forward the fact that there have been registered injuries and complaints on this attraction previously even if they ultimately have nothing to do with this fatality though do remember that we don't know that conclusively yet.

On the flip side of how the lawyer is handling this case, is it not possible that Universal are trying to get their side out to the public also? Imagine if you were a family member of the deceased and a few days following the death of your loved one you read the very carefully worded letter that was 'leaked' that was sent to all the Universal Team Members (that they knew would get out). It was basically saying we did nothing wrong and the ride was perfect, not in those exact words but if we're choosing to discuss it reasonably fairly then we can agree that was their intention. It may not have been as 'in your face' as the family lawyers press conference in ramping up the stakes but at the same time it was a tactic used by Universal to try to get information out publicly that sounds on the surface like "We're so sorry a gentleman died, however it was nothing to do with us". This was done before the family even had a lawyer to defend them so in the mindset they were obviously in at that time following the death, I can also see from their side that they may well have seen that as a little bit underhand by Universal.

Neither Universal or the family lawyer appear on the surface to be doing anything illegal, lawyers on both sides will argue that it's well within the law or even their responsibility to put forward anything they want to help their case or to hep their 'theory' of what happened. Now obviously if they have other information that they're hiding that contradicts or disproves that theory then that's not allowed but that would surely come out during Discovery if this goes to court. Like yourself I find the way the family lawyer is presenting this case to be rather 'circus like' and very 'in your face', however I also can see that the family were probably quite upset by the leaking of the TM letter and how they saw that as a bit of an underhand attack very early on following the sad loss of a loved one.

You seem to be very on the side of the death being the result of a pre-existing condition which is fair enough as you're entitled to that opinion, despite admitting that you don't actually know anymore about the case than anyone else. In fairness you're presenting your argument in a very respectful manner (unlike one or two on here who appear to be treating it like a game show and not the sad loss of life that it is) and there are some who are leaning more into the fact it was Universal or Mack's fault despite not knowing anymore than you do. I personally am somewhere in the middle and ultimately just want the truth and some satisfaction for the family if somebody is to blame. It's very sad that this whole thing happened and ultimately we can agree on that, I do think that big changes will come from it and that hopefully the cause of the incident can be discovered more so that it never happens again rather than so one side 'wins'.

I do agree with what you saying. I hope at the end we hear what the actual cause was. The bolded is what I'm very afraid of. It's very sad that someone died and I hope the family gets the closure they deserve.

I hope its something to do with this one coaster and not pushing back the coaster industry decades with redundant restraints and a taming of intensity.

 

[mergatroid]

I do agree with what you saying. I hope at the end we hear what the actual cause was. The bolded is what I'm very afraid of. It's very sad that someone died and I hope the family gets the closure they deserve.

I hope its something to do with this one coaster and not pushing back the coaster industry decades with redundant restraints and a taming of intensity.

Hey I'm a coaster guy too and like yourself I'm hoping that whatever caused it is unique to this attraction and so doesn't diminish the enjoyment people get from other coasters. Living in the UK I've not really experienced coasters like Stardust Racers myself with possibly the closest I've ridden being the VelociCoaster. I regularly do IOA and US along with Disney coasters and went to Busch Gardens quite a bit 20+ years ago but going off POV's of Stardust Racers it does seem fairly unique at least from my catalogue of coaster experiences.

I do think they'll try to tone down SR following this, regardless of the cause of the incident if only to be seen to be doing something. Rather selfishly as I suffer from Dystonia myself I'm hoping that they don't just decide to prohibit anyone with any motor neurone disease from riding all coasters. My Dystonia effects my walking (I can walk miles most days but have a limp) along with slight involuntary movement in my arms but in no way inhibits me from riding any attractions currently and I'm more than capable of holding my body in the same position as any person who doesn't have Dystonia.

Time will tell over what they do but hopefully they'll discover it's one thing which they can alter and not something which means major changes to every coaster etc.

 

[ToTBellHop]

How many can add a guest death due to blunt force trauma to a list of riders with medical issues?

Is Big Thunder still open in DL?

 

[mergatroid]

Is Big Thunder still open in DL?

What has that got to do with his conversation with another poster he was having? His response was quoting

Tom Morrow said:
Every. single. roller coaster, outside of maybe kiddie coasters and family coasters, has a log of riders getting off and requesting medical attention because they don't feel right.

What has whether Big Thunder in DL got shut to do with that interaction?

Big Thunder in DL was closed for 2 months going off google following the sad death of 1 person and several injured where Disney were rightly found liable.