News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Jon81uk]

Someone died on one ride, not six rides that seemingly have nothing in common. They've offered no further explanation, so we needn't create illogical ones for them. If the rides are unsafe? Yes, they should absolutely be closed to everyone, and even just by banning some people who were previously allowed to ride just fine, they are essentially saying, "So yeah, we just now figured out these rides are probably unsafe for people who've been riding them for years. We can't say why, but our bad, you guys."

Right now they can't say why, but it is better to take larger precautions and then once they have worked with the ride manufacturers further to investigate exactly what types of guest it is safe for maybe they can relax the rules again. Seems an entirely sensible precaution in my opinion. They don't need to provide an explanation other than stating that at present their guidance is that people with those access needs cannot ride.

I see no mention of "non-ambulant" guests on that sign. I've also heard nothing from any other parks with similar rides changing their rules.

I linked to the website (https://www.thorpepark.com/hyperia/#is-hyperia-suitable-for-guests-who-are-non-ambulant) where it mentions non-ambulant guests can't ride and that is a change in policy (users on another theme park forum kept screenshots so it is known that Thorpe Park changed the website following Universal's incident).

 

[JT3000]

Right now they can't say why, but it is better to take larger precautions and then once they have worked with the ride manufacturers further to investigate exactly what types of guest it is safe for maybe they can relax the rules again. Seems an entirely sensible precaution in my opinion. They don't need to provide an explanation other than stating that at present their guidance is that people with those access needs cannot ride.

They haven't even said that much. They haven't said anything. I disagree, and I don't think a little transparency would kill them. But I know how these corporations, and they're only looking after their bottom line at the end of the day.

 

[Jon81uk]

They haven't even said that much. They haven't said anything. I disagree, and I don't think a little transparency would kill them. But I know how these corporations, and they're only looking after their bottom line at the end of the day.

They have changed the rider requirements for some attractions, that is what you started this discussion about.
But transparency would not be a good thing for them in this situation, stating "we have changed the rider requirements following a death on Stardust Racers" doesn't sound good. But even if they did state that, or even added in the "following advice from ride manufacturers we have updated rider requirements", what do you gain from that? You already know the restrictions have changed. No company is going to go into significant detail on why they make every little change.

 

[flynnibus]

No company is going to go into significant detail on why they make every little change.

Which is why there should be oversight, regulation and disclosure in the first place. Left to their own, they are motivated to worry only about themselves

 

[Andrew C]

They haven't even said that much. They haven't said anything. I disagree, and I don't think a little transparency would kill them. But I know how these corporations, and they're only looking after their bottom line at the end of the day.

I think you know very well why they are not going to say much at the moment. And any company would hold the same position. You can say bottom line, you can say to protect jobs, obligation to stakeholders...whatever. You're asking for something they can't deliver on given the current circumstances.

 

[TalkToEthan]

…..they’ve banned a large chunk of their paying guests

‘large chunk’……….’?!?!

Are you really going with that?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Has Universal Studios Hollywood changed the rider requirements for their Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey?

 

[lazyboy97o]

While it is not an ADA violation to restrict access, the changes are a step backwards. One that shouldn’t just be accepted and shrugged off.

A few days after this incident, Vekoma and Efteling unveiled their “seat-on-wheels” concept at the IAAPA Expo Europe. The idea is that instead of having to transfer at each ride, the seat is a wheelchair capable of being locked into multiple rides. Notably, the concept features an over-the-shoulder lap bar. These types of restraints have become more and more the industry standard in part because of the greater access they provide.l

Efteling & Vekoma present 'seat-on-wheels' for accessible attractions

The two companies have a joint vision on social sustainability

blooloop.com

 

[Jrb1979]

While it is not an ADA violation to restrict access, the changes are a step backwards. One that shouldn’t just be accepted and shrugged off.

A few days after this incident, Vekoma and Efteling unveiled their “seat-on-wheels” concept at the IAAPA Expo Europe. The idea is that instead of having to transfer at each ride, the seat is a wheelchair capable of being locked into multiple rides. Notably, the concept features an over-the-shoulder lap bar. These types of restraints have become more and more the industry standard in part because of the greater access they provide.l

Efteling & Vekoma present 'seat-on-wheels' for accessible attractions

The two companies have a joint vision on social sustainability

blooloop.com

It's great to see them doing this so everyone has access to attractions. I do welcome change.

The other side of this is adding over the shoulder restraints is also a big step backwards. The industry has come a long way technology wise in terms of restraints. They have kept them safe but also made it so riders can feel the G forces better.

It feels now, especially after this incident, there is a big push for added restraints and lower the intensity of coasters.

 

[Jon81uk]

Notably, the concept features an over-the-shoulder lap bar. These types of restraints have become more and more the industry standard in part because of the greater access they provide.

Stardust Racers has an over-the-shoulder lap bar, as does many other of Mack Rides recent coasters and those from other manufacturers such as Velocicoaster from Intamin.

It doesn't have the full over-the-shoulder chest restraint that Incredible Hulk, Rip Ride Rocket etc use and neither does that moveable chair concept you linked to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Stardust Racers has an over-the-shoulder lap bar, as does many other of Mack Rides recent coasters and those from other manufacturers such as Velocicoaster from Intamin.

It doesn't have the full over-the-shoulder chest restraint that Incredible Hulk, Rip Ride Rocket etc use and neither does that moveable chair concept you linked to.

Huh? I said it has an “over-the-should lap bar” which is also the standard for Vekoma.

 

[Jon81uk]

Huh? I said it has an “over-the-should lap bar” which is also the standard for Vekoma.

What is "it", the movable chair concept or an existing ride?

Both the chair concept you linked to and Stardust racers have pretty much the same style of lap bar, just from different manufacturers.

But the next response from @Jrb1979 talks about more restrictive restraints so I think there is confusion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What is "it", the movable chair concept or an existing ride?

Both the chair concept you linked to and Stardust racers have pretty much the same style of lap bar, just from different manufacturers.

I was pointing out that Vekoma’s chair concept has a similar style restraint.

 

[Jon81uk]

I was pointing out that Vekoma’s chair concept has a similar style restraint.

Okay, that wasn't clear as your first post didn't mention that it is similar, just the fact it was becoming more common.
Wasn't saying anything was wrong or different, I was also pointing out it is basically the same.

 

[lewisc]

Universal queues don't accomodate ECV, even new attractions.

Waits for courtesy wheelchairs can be excessive.

Universal meets ADA requirements but doesn't appear to exceed them.

 

[flynnibus]

I think you know very well why they are not going to say much at the moment. And any company would hold the same position. You can say bottom line, you can say to protect jobs, obligation to stakeholders...whatever. You're asking for something they can't deliver on given the current circumstances.

They most certainly could. But for self-serving reasons they seem to be kicking the can down the road and just insisting to not cooperate with anyone until the actual lawsuits fly.

You all act like by not saying something they are protecting themselves -- No, they are delaying the inevitable facing the family's attorneys.

They are probably hoping by hiding, they can limit the damage to just this one family and avoid the political scrutiny.

 

[lewisc]

They most certainly could. But for self-serving reasons they seem to be kicking the can down the road and just insisting to not cooperate with anyone until the actual lawsuits fly.

You all act like by not saying something they are protecting themselves -- No, they are delaying the inevitable facing the family's attorneys.

They are probably hoping by hiding, they can limit the damage to just this one family and avoid the political scrutiny.

We have no idea if Universal is currently negotiating, is waiting to be served to negotiate or wants to string out a trial and appeal process.

Same with the attorney.

 

[flynnibus]

We have no idea if Universal is currently negotiating, is waiting to be served to negotiate or wants to string out a trial and appeal process.

Except the attorneys saying they aren't during public press conferences....

They could be working out of court - but by all accounts they are not cooperating.

 

[Andrew C]

They most certainly could. But for self-serving reasons they seem to be kicking the can down the road and just insisting to not cooperate with anyone until the actual lawsuits fly.

You all act like by not saying something they are protecting themselves -- No, they are delaying the inevitable facing the family's attorneys.

They are probably hoping by hiding, they can limit the damage to just this one family and avoid the political scrutiny.

Completely disagree.

 

[flynnibus]

Completely disagree.

Out of court settlements exist exactly because they DON'T do what you say... They share and collaborate together to work out something both sides can agree to. That's not to say they lay on their back and say 'take it all' -- but it is an effort to include and answer questions.

This isn't just UNI stonewalling the public - they are doing it to the victim's family too. That is a combative position - not one of reconciliation.