News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[flynnibus]

It's like fall risks.. If the fall risk is there, you gotta mitigate it. You can't just say "only people not scared of heights and those who can respect the edge can be here".

If the train design can allow people to slam themselves in a way that will result in significant harm in a reasonable situation - they'll have to mitigate that.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Wrong - you path is to assume that combination of factors you have identified is the only way it can happen. Instead of recognizing you don't address WHY but the intention of a safe ride is to make it impossible for the injury to happen regardless of WHY the rider may be out of control. That's the difference between a safe ride and a responsible rider.

So let's say you ban people with neurological or limb issues, so the issue doesn't repeat.
Now, a year later, someone else gets injured in the same way because of a DIFFERENT reason for the body to be moving that way.. you're F'd because you knew someone could be injured in this way, yet you didn't change the design. It doesn't matter that the REASON for the person flopping around is different, the risk is you know a person can be hurt, and it would be argued that it is reasonable to know that given the past occurrences.

Bingo. Perhaps another person with a different condition simply passes out on the ride and their limp body goes flailing. The park is still liable because there was not proper notification of the risk + they knew about the risk.

It's also Florida. People are severely dehydrated, tired, and hot. Passing out is not an uncommon thing in a ride that subjects you to a lot of G-forces (iirc its 3-4Gs?)

Dehydration > Low BP which means that when you have these forces pushing on you, adequate blood flow doesn't get to the brain, forcing you to pass out. They have to be SURE that this cannot happen from just anyone passing out (including a manner of body types that would still be allowed on the ride)

Yes, this guy has unique circumstances but we're really not sure and it's fully possible for this incident to happen to someone else without the exact same conditions.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

'did nothing wrong' is kind of a broad statement though. It would be more accurate to say "they did everything they were expecting to do" in terms of operating the ride. They didn't deviate from their SOP.

The "wrong" or not is loaded because there is an expectation that the ride is safe, in all circumstances. If the design of the ride allows for serious injury within situations that are practically possible and reasonable likely.. then the ride design is flawed, and both Uni and Mack did in fact "do something wrong" with the ride. The problem is with the design, not the operation.

If they find the injury is possible because the guy can't support himself (for whatever reason), I think you will find the ride getting a serious redesign of the trains and others being assessed for similar kinds of risks.

If the problem is 'range of movement and smacking a hard bar' - they can't rely on a guest being the one to avoid the injury.. they gotta deal with the reality that a guest may actually not be in control. Simply limiting who can ride won't fix that. They'd have to eliminate the risky elements on the train.

I don’t think it’s true that the ride is expected to be safe in all circumstances. That’s why there are rider requirements, e.g., height, different conditions, etc.

 

[flynnibus]

I don’t think it’s true that the ride is expected to be safe in all circumstances. That’s why there are rider requirements, e.g., height, different conditions, etc.

That's just setting the operating parameters - It's still expected to be safe within those.

No amusement ride will escape liability with "oh, well, that wasn't expected...". No one is getting on rides signing away a waiver of chance of death or bodily injury.

Nothing I said is counter to them setting operating parameters including who can safely ride. But within those, there is an expectation of riding without injury. Leave it to the lawyers to map out what that exact definition is in legal terms... but this is common knowledge and likely also codified in their state laws for operating amusements.

 

[flynnibus]

Bingo. Perhaps another person with a different condition simply passes out on the ride and their limp body goes flailing. The park is still liable because there was not proper notification of the risk + they knew about the risk.

Ignore notification - if it lead to great physical harm like this it would be deemed unsafe because neither the rider nor operator can realistically control that or avoid injury once it happens.

Rides can get away with the concern you might get dizzy or even at risk of GLOC (because its so marginal in most coasters) - but not "you might die if you pass out".

Yes, this guy has unique circumstances but we're really not sure and it's fully possible for this incident to happen to someone else without the exact same conditions.

Exactly - that's what the investigation really will flush out. If what happened to this victim is a concern for others, and that is what will drive change or not.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Ignore notification - if it lead to great physical harm like this it would be deemed unsafe because neither the rider nor operator can realistically control that or avoid injury once it happens.

Rides can get away with the concern you might get dizzy or even at risk of GLOC (because its so marginal in most coasters) - but not "you might die if you pass out".


Exactly - that's what the investigation really will flush out. If what happened to this victim is a concern for others, and that is what will drive change or not.

Universal is going to pay MASSIVE no matter what.

Even if there is technically nothing wrong with the ride but Kevin was allowed to ride (and possibly helped on by Universal team members) and passed out and because of his known condition he got banged to death, its Universal's fault.

The outstanding question in my mind is if a normal able bodied person were to pass out, would they get banged to death?

If that is a possibility then both the ride and universal is at fault.

I wonder if there has been anyone pass out on this ride aside from Kevin?

There are many videos on YouTube of folks passing out in the sling shot on 192.

 

[JT3000]

How is limiting who can ride ignoring the issue? In my speculation the issue is his body type, type of restraint, and conditions that lead to him being unconscious. If this is the case prohibiting people with the same body type completely eliminates something like this from happening again. If you solve the problem, is that ignoring it?

What, exactly, is his "body type?" And how do you propose they spin such a restriction without sounding completely discriminatory? You seem to think riders with similar disabilities are "one-in-a-billion." In actuality, you'd be lucky if they were one-in-a-thousand.

 

[Rich Brownn]

The more information that comes out the more it makes me believe that there is "nothing" wrong with the ride and its restraints and was operating as intended. To me it sounds like a design flaw with the restraints that don't work for people with his condition. It sounds to me like whatever condition he had allowed his upper body a bigger degree of movement which caused him to have his injuries when he became unconscious. If it's true he did nothing wrong and Universal did nothing wrong, then we will see sweeping changes about the accessibility of these types of rides across the world.

Yeah I can't see that happening with normal body. On VC try and hit your head on the seat in front of you. You can't

 

[wdwfan4ver]

We've already talked about this. Big Thunder was open for decades before the tragic fatality. From a brand perspective--and only from a brand perspective--guests already had a set of memories associated with it. Stardust has a branding problem now. It's been officially open since late May (plus some time in preview). What associations do most people have with it? Not much. I'm not sure how this story played out overseas. But in the US, the primary reference point that most people (i.e. potential customers) now have is that this is the coaster where a rider died from multiple blunt force impacts (i.e. getting hit over and over). The audience that Universal is now trying to court (families on vacation, particularly parents who can be protective) is going to remember this in a way that young adults (such as at Six Flags) might move past it in a few months.

Also--since someone else who didn't read the full thread is likely to bring this up--both riders on Mission Space died from pre-existing conditions. That was the cause of death. One was a child whose parents didn't know about his heart condition--a tragedy. But both of those are very different than dying from repeated blunt force impacts while on a ride. These are two very different categories.

There is no reason for you to compare Big Thunder Mountain Railroad death to Star Dust Racers at this time considering inspection is still happening.

Big Thunder Mountain death happened during the infamous Disneyland era of Paul Pressler and Cynthia Harriss and the reason it kept in the news was not due to branding unlike your claim. Big Thunder Mountain death was the end of that infamous era in Disneyland history. I know about that era due to reading about it online.

The Pressler/Harriss era of Disneyland was known for Disney was for negligence even before the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad death. People gotten hurt or even died in that era on attractions to my understanding due to Disney Management in Disneyland was willing to do anything to save money to an extreme.

I guess I have to remind you that those two were willing to do anything to save money including cutting corners that caused guest and cast members deaths. What I am getting at is it seems like what is known at this point that there was no willful negligence by Universal management.

 

[AidenRodriguez731]

Yeah I can't see that happening with normal body. On VC try and hit your head on the seat in front of you. You can't

2 different coasters with 2 different trains with different seats on different tracks may not result in the same results. Not to mention we don't know exactly where he hit himself. I've heard some rumors about the back of the previous seat to me, it would make more sense if these were blows to the more fragile back/side of the head from his own seat.

Nonetheless, just because you can't actively reach a seat by yourself doesn't mean a body of deadweight unconcious can't as you are not longer dealing with your bodies pain and "too much" systems that tell you when you are overextending.

If this ride was dangerous for his body type, he should not have been allowed to ride so either the restraints didn't fit quite right or something else happened.

Either way I would definitely wait to see what the official investigation finds. This is a very very unfortunate tragedy and I do hope that the family gets some level of closure.

 

[mkt]

Universal is going to pay MASSIVE no matter what.

And Mack. Depending on what the investigation uncovers, Mack might be more responsible.

 

[flynnibus]

Big Thunder Mountain death happened during the infamous Disneyland era of Paul Pressler and Cynthia Harriss and the reason it kept in the news was not due to branding unlike your claim. Big Thunder Mountain death was the end of that infamous era in Disneyland history. I know about that era due to reading about it online.

You're misreading the post.

The 'brand' he talks about is the established identity and value BTMRR had as an attraction. That BTMRR was established and something bigger than just a new coaster. SDR hasn't established the same - that's what he's saying.. the SDR identity is less valuable and less worthy of fighting to retain.

It stayed in the news because freaking death at Disneyland is a big deal - especially since right away there was concern about negligence due to the witness reports.

 

[mkt]

What, exactly, is his "body type?" And how do you propose they spin such a restriction without sounding completely discriminatory? You seem to think riders with similar disabilities are "one-in-a-billion." In actuality, you'd be lucky if they were one-in-a-thousand.

For the safety of all guests, riders must demonstrate the following physical capabilities to safely experience this attraction:

• Ability to maintain an upright seated position throughout the ride duration
• Ability to brace and stabilize using upper body strength during dynamic movements
• Sufficient postural control to keep head, neck, and torso stable during sudden directional changes
• Ability to secure legs within the ride restraint system as designed

 

[BrianLo]

For the safety of all guests, riders must demonstrate the following physical capabilities to safely experience this attraction:

• Ability to maintain an upright seated position throughout the ride duration
• Ability to brace and stabilize using upper body strength during dynamic movements
• Sufficient postural control to keep head, neck, and torso stable during sudden directional changes
• Ability to secure legs within the ride restraint system as designed

These conditions do seem to have been largely met based on the circulating photo.

 

[mkt]

These conditions do seem to have been largely met based on the circulating photo.

• Guests must be able to independently walk a short distance under their own power, including on stairs, in the event of an evacuation.

 

[Comped]

Guests must be able to independently walk a short distance under their own power, including on stairs, in the event of an evacuation.

Clearly TMs didn't care about this... If they remembered to think about it at all.

 

[BrianLo]

Guests must be able to independently walk a short distance under their own power, including on stairs, in the event of an evacuation.

Is that from the warning sign? Though irrelevant to the current circumstance.

 

[mkt]

Clearly TMs didn't care about this... If they remembered to think about it at all.

this was in secondary response to this, an not an assumption or statement as to what happened that evening:

how do you propose they spin such a restriction without sounding completely discriminatory?

 

[mkt]

Is that from the warning sign? Though irrelevant to the current circumstance.

a secondary response to this:

how do you propose they spin such a restriction without sounding completely discriminatory?

Although the published restrictions touch on ability to walk

 

[JT3000]

For the safety of all guests, riders must demonstrate the following physical capabilities to safely experience this attraction:

• Ability to maintain an upright seated position throughout the ride duration
• Ability to brace and stabilize using upper body strength during dynamic movements
• Sufficient postural control to keep head, neck, and torso stable during sudden directional changes
• Ability to secure legs within the ride restraint system as designed

And this is all supposed to tell me what again? I don't see how any of this is relevant to my post you quoted. Are you insinuating the victim couldn't do these things under normal circumstances? Because we don't know that. Good luck bracing yourself or maintaining your posture while unconscious.

• Guests must be able to independently walk a short distance under their own power, including on stairs, in the event of an evacuation.

You could make this a requirement for literally any ride if you wanted to. No one would find it acceptable, hence why it's not enforced, but you could do it. Again, I don't see how this relates in any way to the actual circumstances of this event.