News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[mkt]

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.

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.

You asked this:

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

So my wife and I poured a shot of bourbon each, and used our combined industry and legal experience to come up with a proposed answer to your question.

 

[JT3000]

You asked this:



So my wife and I poured a shot of bourbon each, and used our combined industry and legal experience to come up with a proposed answer to your question.

And this is why you shouldn't drink & post. Again, you don't know that he didn't meet all those requirements, and they clearly don't enforce riders having the ability to walk in the case of an evacuation. We're here to discuss what actually happened, not play the "Let's find creative ways to keep disabled people off the ride and hope they don't sue" game.

 

[mkt]

And this is why you shouldn't drink & post. Again, you don't know that he didn't meet all those requirements, and they clearly don't enforce riders having the ability to walk in the case of an evacuation. We're here to discuss what actually happened, not play the "Let's find creative ways to keep disabled people off the ride and hope they don't sue" game.

What actually happened?

The only people that know are either dead or have been told by their attorneys to shut up.

So this entire thread is whataboutism and speculation. That's it.

Or I could say you don't know that he met any of the requirements and throw it back to you.

 

[JT3000]

What actually happened?

The only people that know are either dead or have been told by their attorneys to shut up.

Which is why it makes no sense to assume his "body type" had anything to do with it.

 

[mkt]

Which is why it makes no sense to assume his "body type" had anything to do with it.

Just like it makes no sense to assume it didn't.

 

[JT3000]

Just like it makes no sense to assume it didn't.

What does assuming anything solve, given how little information we have? Waiting for more information should be the default position, not militantly insisting it was this or that, as I've seen so many doing.

 

[flynnibus]

And this is why you shouldn't drink & post. Again, you don't know that he didn't meet all those requirements, and they clearly don't enforce riders having the ability to walk in the case of an evacuation.

Dude, you're throwing a wide net about stuff he wasn't even trying to say. You said to the effect of how could you create such restrictions up without being discriminatory - he gave you examples of how they could be done. None of what he was talking about was about specifically preventing this particular incident - which we don't even know what caused it yet.

 

[mkt]

What does assuming anything solve, given how little information we have? Waiting for more information should be the default position, not militantly insisting it was this or that, as I've seen so many doing.

 

[JT3000]

Dude, you're throwing a wide net about stuff he wasn't even trying to say. You said to the effect of how could you create such restrictions up without being discriminatory - he gave you examples of how they could be done. None of what he was talking about was about specifically preventing this particular incident - which we don't even know what caused it yet.

Then he shouldn't have responded to me, as I was talking specifically about this incident. That's what this thread is about, is it not? Someone blamed the victim's "body type" and suggested prohibiting other riders who shared said "body type" from riding. I asked how you would do that without discriminating. When we don't even know that the rider in question failed to meet any of those requirements, posting them as a response is completely nonsensical.

I don't think I'm the one casting a "wide net" here. I'm trying to stay on topic while certain people continue to go on wild tangents that involve stereotyping entire groups of guests based on one incident that we still know so little about. Yes, simply assuming that this rider or anyone similar to him couldn't meet those requirements is stereotyping.

 

[flynnibus]

Then he shouldn't have responded to me, as I was talking specifically about this incident.

You jumped into a conversation about how people could define new restrictions. We can only read what you wrote.

That's what this thread is about, is it not? Someone blamed the victim's "body type" and suggested prohibiting other riders who shared said "body type" from riding. I asked how you would do that without discriminating.

You don't need to worry about discriminating - this is about safety.

When we don't even know that the rider in question failed to meet any of those requirements, posting them as a response is completely nonsensical.

The conversation you jumped into wasn't about this victim, but about what future restrictions could be based on the conversation that was ongoing.

I don't think I'm the one casting a "wide net" here. I'm trying to stay on topic while certain people continue to go on wild tangents that involve stereotyping entire groups of guests based on one incident that we still know so little about. Yes, simply assuming that this rider or anyone similar to him couldn't meet those requirements is stereotyping.

Dude... suggest you sleep on it, because you're white knighting against freaking ghosts.

 

[mkt]

That's what this thread is about, is it not?

Given that i created the thread, I say it's a thread about macrame. It's about macramé because apparently tying knots in rope is cheaper than therapy and slightly less weird than taxidermy. Also, nothing screams personal growth like a lopsided wall hanging that looks like it lost a fight with gravity.

I asked how you would do that without discriminating.

And I offered a solution, which was guided by my years in the industry and vouched by a licensed attorney in the states of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia.

When we don't even know that the rider in question failed to meet any of those requirements, posting them as a response is completely nonsensical.

We also don't know which - if any - they met.

I'm trying to stay on topic

Same. So let's talk about macrame.

wild tangents

This could be a fun rebrand/theme new name for stardust racers. Wild Tangents Dueling Coasters.

that involve stereotyping entire groups of guests

No stereotyping - same safety standard applies to all guests.

based on one incident that we still know so little about.

So maybe we should all back off.

Yes, simply assuming that this rider or anyone similar to him couldn't meet those requirements is stereotyping.

And assuming they did is naïve.

 

[JT3000]

You jumped into a conversation about how people could define new restrictions. We can only read what you wrote.

I remain unconvinced that you actually read anything I write. I "jumped into" the conversation because that's how message boards work. You've been here long enough to know that.

You don't need to worry about discriminating

Given the wildly ableist slant of this thread thus far, I think I do actually.

The conversation you jumped into wasn't about this victim, but about what future restrictions could be based on the conversation that was ongoing.

The person I responded to was explicitly referring to the victim of this incident and using him as an example, so you're wrong. I don't know how, but you keep missing important details like that.

Dude... suggest you sleep on it, because you're white knighting against freaking ghosts.

I'll pass.

We also don't know which - if any - they met.

We know he rode roller coasters all over the country according to his family. Do you think he accomplished that without being able to support his posture, etc.? It makes a lot more sense to assume he met those requirements than assuming he didn't.

And assuming they did is naïve.

Is his family naive too?

 

[VicariousCorpse]

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.

Have you seen a roller coaster warning sign? Are we discriminating against pregnant people for not allowing them to ride even if they want to? Discriminating based on safety is allowed and legal. The one-in-a-billion was in reference to the unique combination of factors that lead to his death not his disability. I would describe his body type as atypical.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Must admit that I find all the talk about the guest's 'body type' a little distasteful given that we don't know whether his spinal condition had anything to do with what happened. In general, we don't know what happened and all the available information suggests that he could ride rollercoasters and other attractions with no issues before this happened. So, I don't really know why we would jump to him having a 'body type' that was more able to bang against the ride vehicle, bend further forward than other people, etc.

I guess you kind of have to jump to a conclusion like that, though, if you want to suggest there is no need for any substantial changes to the attraction. If what happened to this guest could happen to anyone who even temporarily did not have control of their body or in the right combination of circumstances, then there is an issue that wouldn't be solved by excluding more guests from riding.

 

[lewisc]

Pages of idle speculation.

Does anyone know when the autopsy report is due? When a report is due?

 

[Disstevefan1]

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

I agree. Even if the existing restraints work well for 99 percent of the population, I think over the shoulder restraints would have saved Kevin’s life even when passed out.

And again, I do wonder what happens when an able bodied person happens to pass out on Stardust due to low BP due to dehydration from touring the super hot park all day for example.

I haven’t searched much, but has anyone other than Kevin passed out on Stardust?

I have not ridden Stardust, but have ridden most at Bush Gardens, Seaworld, Universal and never felt close to passing out

I never did that slingshot on 192 but I have seen on YouTube pass out then wake up while riding that thing.

How common is it to pass out on a coaster I wonder?

 

[VicariousCorpse]

Must admit that I find all the talk about the guest's 'body type' a little distasteful given that we don't know whether his spinal condition had anything to do with what happened.

Why do you think it's distasteful to discuss safety measures? This whole thread is just speculation.

So, I don't really know why we would jump to him having a 'body type' that was more able to bang against the ride vehicle, bend further forward than other people, etc.

Because he died from blunt force trauma and the press release saying that the ride was operating as intended, to me it presents what most likely happened. I am not here to disrespect anyone's disability.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This whole thread needs a gummy or something…

 

[mkt]

This whole thread needs a gummy or something…

I had a shot of bourbon and was told to not drink and post.

 

[mkt]

Does anyone know when the autopsy report is due? When a report is due?

As has been stated in this thread already, 90 days from the incident - so at some point around Christmas.