News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The warning signs are too vague and too routine to be of any real help to most guests. They're really just there so the park can say "We told you so." If anything actually happens, whether that's on the guest or the park isn't for us to decide. We aren't members of a court.

They really have become cover your a$$ signs, most guests likely never even look at them. Reminds me of the Prop 65 signs that are plastered on every inch of CA, no one pays attention because they are everywhere.

 

[flynnibus]

This is certainly what’s going to happen if the manslaughter investigation results in a manslaughter charge.

Why would you not ‘redesign’ and rebrand?

 

[mkt]

Agree, additional questions.
Do you take them aide for additional questions to allow boarding to continue?
How may different questions do you ask?
In this case, if the rider did not specify a spinal cord injury, would you let them ride?
Lets say the guest convinces you they are OK to ride and the worst happens. Are you responsible?

We already KNOW Universal will be paying out for this tragedy.

They’re not diagnosing anything - they’re confirming whether or not the guest meets the posted requirements. That’s the difference. The rules are in black and white: maintain upright posture, support torso/neck/head, have at least one natural arm, and both natural legs below the ankle.

If a guest doesn’t meet those requirements, they don’t ride. It’s not medical judgment, it’s enforcing the posted standards.

 

[mkt]

Not unless those questions pertain to your ability to transfer into the vehicle. They have no business prying into a guest's medical history just because they see a wheelchair.

And they wouldn’t be prying.

The questions are only to confirm compliance with the posted requirements.

 

[cjkeating]

I’ve seen some people questioning whether the deceased did have a spinal problem as opposed to just being in a wheelchair, just wanted to share this news report to clarify.

 

[mkt]

Why would you not ‘redesign’ and rebrand?

This is fair. A rebrand and retheme would definitely be the easier route.

Old but relevant example: ValuJet bought another airline (AirTran) and used that brand to shake off the stigma from their Everglades crash. It worked - they stayed successful until Southwest acquired them.

 

[JT3000]

And they wouldn’t be prying.

The questions are only to confirm compliance with the posted requirements.

It would be prying. You're also singling out people just because they're in a wheelchair, the potential reasons for which are innumerable. Someone walking around with a prosthetic limb is less likely to meet the posted requirements than someone in a wheelchair.

 

[Disstevefan1]

They’re not diagnosing anything - they’re confirming whether or not the guest meets the posted requirements. That’s the difference. The rules are in black and white: maintain upright posture, support torso/neck/head, have at least one natural arm, and both natural legs below the ankle.

If a guest doesn’t meet those requirements, they don’t ride. It’s not medical judgment, it’s enforcing the posted standards.

It seems a rider can meet the requirements and the worst can still happen.

I have no idea what happened in this case.

It would be terrible for the low paid, untrained CM to go to prison because he missed a point on a checklist.

 

[flynnibus]

It would be prying. You're also singling out people just because they're in a wheelchair, the potential reasons for which are innumerable. Someone walking around with a prosthetic limb is less likely to meet the posted requirements than someone in a wheelchair.

Again, not prying to verbally confirm someone can meet the requirements. It's their responsibility.

Just like they do seat belt checks. If you see something that has the potential to be non-compliant, you need to confirm compliance. The person doesn't need to get into their history, they just need to confirm they can meet the requirement and if sure, the Ops should deny the rider.

 

[flynnibus]

That’s treading dangerously close to Hippa regulations and likely illegal, an employee has no right to ask anyone about their disability beyond asking very general question like if they can transfer and if they feel they meet the rides health requirements. Anything beyond that is likely illegal.

No, because
1 - safety usually trumps 'privacy' and that applies in accessibility too
2 - your trailing thought is really what it is about. No one is going to get into interpretation of personal details, they would check for key points that are non-individualized and either visually check or make the guest verbally confirm.

Asking for any specifics, like why are you in a wheelchair, do you have neck problems, etc is 100% illegal.

Your examples here cross between different things. The first 'why are you in a wheelchair' is problematic. The second, is not if it were related to the safe interaction of the person and the ride.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There have also been reports that he rode the ride six times, the first five with no issue. If we choose to believe every unsubstantiated report that comes out, it paints a more complex picture than some are describing.

That’s why I brought it up response to a definitive statement that he had no health issues that would prohibit riding. Nominally, that isn’t true. Whether or not it was actually a factor is still unknown.

The multiple previous rides could have all been without incident but it’s also possible that they all contributed. Whatever happened could have happened on each ride until it was one too many.

The warning signs are too vague and too routine to be of any real help to most guests. They're really just there so the park can say "We told you so." If anything actually happens, whether that's on the guest or the park isn't for us to decide. We aren't members of a court.

They are also vague out of necessity. There’s no way to list out every possible diagnosis. Not to mention that what may be too much for one person may not be the case for another.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That’s treading dangerously close to Hippa regulations and likely illegal, an employee has no right to ask anyone about their disability beyond asking very general question like if they can transfer and if they feel they meet the rides health requirements. Anything beyond that is likely illegal.

Asking for any specifics, like why are you in a wheelchair, do you have neck problems, etc is 100% illegal.

HIPAA is not a blanket law that applies to every business. It is actually quite focused and only applies to certain entities.

 

[VicariousCorpse]

Exactly what “spinal injury” did he have that disqualified him from riding? Oh, you don’t know because nobody knows yet? Then stop blaming the victim.

The man is in a wheelchair and has his legs strapped to prevent them from moving around. Can you explain how assuming he has neck/back problems is jumping to conclusions?

That’s treading dangerously close to Hippa regulations and likely illegal, an employee has no right to ask anyone about their disability beyond asking very general question like if they can transfer and if they feel they meet the rides health requirements. Anything beyond that is likely illegal.

Asking for any specifics, like why are you in a wheelchair, do you have neck problems, etc is 100% illegal.

This isn't HIPAA, but rather ADA regulations.

 

[mkt]

It would be prying. You're also singling out people just because they're in a wheelchair, the potential reasons for which are innumerable. Someone walking around with a prosthetic limb is less likely to meet the posted requirements than someone in a wheelchair.

And a person in a prosthetic limb would also be asked those questions.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Reflecting on it, it seems likely that this man was probably killed from a head injury. A spinal cord issue would not likely have resulted in him dying so quickly. If that’s the case, I don’t see how this ride continues without an overhaul for all riders. It would be impossible to screen for everyone who had lower than average muscle tone.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Reflecting on it, it seems likely that this man was probably killed from a head injury. A spinal cord issue would not likely have resulted in him dying so quickly. If that’s the case, I don’t see how this ride continues without an overhaul for all riders. It would be impossible to screen for everyone who had lower than average muscle tone.

I can't speak to this coaster but in the last year I've ridden Universal's Velocicoaster and Flying Dinosaur, and all of those big coasters can be rough.

I feel like if they have to close this ride, they have to close a lot of coasters.

I wouldn't characterize any of them as life threatening, but you do need to have the basic strength to keep your head back in place to avoid being jerked around. I'm sure a lot of people would suffer at least minor neck soreness if they didn't.

None of these coasters with inversions have restraints that would prevent all head movement.

 

[JT3000]

That’s why I brought it up response to a definitive statement that he had no health issues that would prohibit riding. Nominally, that isn’t true. Whether or not it was actually a factor is still unknown.

The multiple previous rides could have all been without incident but it’s also possible that they all contributed. Whatever happened could have happened on each ride until it was one too many.


They are also vague out of necessity. There’s no way to list out every possible diagnosis. Not to mention that what may be too much for one person may not be the case for another.

I would certainly hope someone had noticed he was already injured prior to his final ride. That's why I find this possibility unlikely.

The signs being so vague is ultimately what make them largely useless. The necessity for them to act as a catch-all for all possible conditions and outcomes points to them being more liability protection for the park than proper warning.

Again, not prying to verbally confirm someone can meet the requirements. It's their responsibility.

Just like they do seat belt checks. If you see something that has the potential to be non-compliant, you need to confirm compliance. The person doesn't need to get into their history, they just need to confirm they can meet the requirement and if sure, the Ops should deny the rider.

In actual practice, it's really not the ride ops' responsibility to confirm everyone meets the listed requirements. If it was, they would be asking everyone the same questions, as everyone has the potential to be non-compliant, not just those in wheelchairs, which again, is singling out an entire class of people without just cause. Also, if they actually enforced everything listed on those signs, they would be severely limiting who can ride. I'm not sure how many people realize this, but the moment they ask something vague like, "Do you have a heart condition or high blood pressure?" and expect a negative answer, they would immediately disqualify nearly half of all American adults from riding, because that's how many people have heart disease.

 

[danlb_2000]

Universal or Disney does not “clear a person” to ride anything. The person makes up their own mind given the warnings that are clearly posted.

Not true. On my last trip to Universal my wife was wearing a back brace and they would not let her ride The High in the Sky Seuss Trolley Train Ride, probably the tamest ride in the park.

 

[danlb_2000]

HIPAA is not a blanket law that applies to every business. It is actually quite focused and only applies to certain entities.

Yeah, it really only applies to healthcare related entities.

 

[Comped]

WTFV used the term "long term" when discussing how long Stardust would be closed in a report I just saw maybe a an hour ago or so. They would not elaborate.