News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[lewisc]

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.

Didn't Universal just settle a Stardust case?

 

[mkt]

Didn't Universal just settle a Stardust case?

Yep. No death. Suit was settled within 48 hours of suit being filed, and without a public relations tour against them.

 

[WolverineInMichigan]

Please do not take this in any way but gently. Are you an attorney? Even a paralegal? If you are, then you are working for the family or know the family and are looking to increase the payout.

Why do I say this? Because every and any attorney reading your comments is simply shaking their head at you. (as I am...) No one except those who are most concerned of their obvious guilt (and thus afraid of massive payout) would do what you suggest. (Negotiate before a suit is filed or even before discovery begins). No attorney would suggest exchanging words with a plaintiff other than... "see you in court". Unless as above they are massively guilty of malfeasance and know it and are looking to get out ahead of it---- or they are getting destroyed business wise (the public/customers or clients staying away in total droves bringing them to bankruptcy.)

As a last note; the law is a sh*t show; and lawyers are about manipulation. Both plaintiff'sand defendant's representation are paid for it.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I don’t know why people have turned their brains off over this case but some of the stuff you all are suggesting Universal do has no basis in logic or reality

 

[JT3000]

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.

Of course a death in their park doesn't sound good, it's literally the worst thing that can happen on their property, but that hasn't stopped many from already hearing about it. We're on a 63-page thread talking about it. They can't sweep it under the rug completely, no matter how much they'd like to. Whether it's good for the company or not, I hold the position that their customers deserve some honesty if they're going to start quietly denying access to their full product like this. If they're not willing to offer a proper explanation, because god forbid more people hear about the tragic incident they were involved in, then it just looks like an archaic, discriminatory business practice.

‘large chunk’……….’?!?!

Are you really going with that?

 

[lewisc]

Of course a death in their park doesn't sound good, it's literally the worst thing that can happen on their property, but that hasn't stopped many from already hearing about it. We're on a 63-page thread talking about it. They can't sweep it under the rug completely, no matter how much they'd like to. Whether it's good for the company or not, I hold the position that their customers deserve some honesty if they're going to start quietly denying access to their full product like this. If they're not willing to offer a proper explanation then it just looks like an archaic, discriminatory business practice.

A person died. The ride was closed for a few weeks. Criteria necessary to ride was updated.

Thats clear. We're not entitled to anything else.

A law suit, if it goes to trial, may offer details. Eventually government reports such as the autopsy report may be released.

For now that's all you're getting. Don't ride. Don't go to the park. Those are your choices.

 

[JT3000]

A person died. The ride was closed for a few weeks. Criteria necessary to ride was updated.

Thats clear. We're not entitled to anything else.

A law suit, if it goes to trial, may offer details. Eventually government reports such as the autopsy report may be released.

For now that's all you're getting. Don't ride. Don't go to the park. Those are your choices.

Those are some mighty interesting "choices" you've got there. Would you be so dismissive if those were your available "choices?"

Also, what is his autopsy supposed to tell me about rides he wasn't even on at the time of his death?

 

[flynnibus]

Why do I say this? Because every and any attorney reading your comments is simply shaking their head at you. (as I am...) No one except those who are most concerned of their obvious guilt (and thus afraid of massive payout) would do what you suggest. (Negotiate before a suit is filed or even before discovery begins). No attorney would suggest exchanging words with a plaintiff other than... "see you in court". Unless as above they are massively guilty of malfeasance and know it and are looking to get out ahead of it---- or they are getting destroyed business wise (the public/customers or clients staying away in total droves bringing them to bankruptcy.)

Don’t talk generically and focus on this case. Crump is a known quantity. UNI absolutely knows a suit is real and forthcoming. There is no avoiding it, only a matter of navigating to the best exit outcome for themselves. Out of court they get to play by their own rules… and you don’t disclose stuff that would not come to light in court anyway. They don’t lose anything because the typical concerns about door openings was smashed down the evening the guy died.

They aren’t going to string out and choke this family into tapping out. They know they need to limit damage - and a courtroom doesn’t do that for them here. I don’t see anything UNI can force out of the plantiff that would improve their position.

 

[lewisc]

Those are some mighty interesting "choices" you've got there. Would you be so dismissive if those were your available "choices?"

Also, what is his autopsy supposed to tell me about rides he wasn't even on at the time of his death?

You feel the new criteria is discriminatory and excessive. When the government reopens file an ADA complaint.

I doubt you'll get very far.

Universal, with the new policies, may not be a fit for some.

 

[Disstevefan1]

When I was a kid, I realized that since I will never grow to 6 feet 2 inches I could never be a professional Baseball player.

There are many things I cant do simply because of my below average, 5 feet 7 inch height.

I have a hard time getting a good spot for the fireworks; someone taller than me always stands in front of me.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You feel the new criteria is discriminatory and excessive. When the government reopens file an ADA complaint.

I doubt you'll get very far.

Universal, with the new policies, may not be a fit for some.

Something can be a jerk move and still legal.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

Of course a death in their park doesn't sound good, it's literally the worst thing that can happen on their property, but that hasn't stopped many from already hearing about it. We're on a 63-page thread talking about it. They can't sweep it under the rug completely, no matter how much they'd like to. Whether it's good for the company or not, I hold the position that their customers deserve some honesty if they're going to start quietly denying access to their full product like this. If they're not willing to offer a proper explanation, because god forbid more people hear about the tragic incident they were involved in, then it just looks like an archaic, discriminatory business practice.

They’re not sweeping it under the rug. They made the appropriate policy amendments in response to the incident, and that is that. They do not owe the public any comment other than the ones they’ve already given. Just because you would like one does not mean you or anyone else are entitled to one.

 

[Tom Morrow]

I don’t know why people have turned their brains off over this case but some of the stuff you all are suggesting Universal do has no basis in logic or reality

It's also very bizarre to see a bunch of theme park enthusiasts who should know better turn on the theme park. Some in this thread are responding to this situation the way I assumed the general public would, but as a coaster lover, I've been highly invested in this situation and read a lot of online discussions. Ironically, this thread is the only place I have seen where 95% of the people are not on Universal's side. Which is actually surprising because the general public tends to take on the position that "theme parks = shady".

 

[Tom Morrow]

Something can be a jerk move and still legal.

What would be a fair move?

Remove the coaster because it's deemed unsafe for a very, very miniscule percentage of people who used to be permitted to ride? This is a jerk move to the 99.9% of people who can still ride, not to mention the 100's of jobs it provides.

Modify the coaster, which would set a precedent that could potentially affect literally thousands of operating roller coasters? Nevermind the fact that adding more restrictive restraints would be a "jerk move" to others, as they would be less accommodating to less body dimensions.

I'm not trying to be insensitive here to those who can no longer ride. As a coaster and ride lover, it's heartbreaking that less people can now experience the joy that these rides provide. But also, I understand that difficult decisions have to be made and lines have to be drawn.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What would be a fair move?

Remove the coaster because it's deemed unsafe for a very, very miniscule percentage of people who used to be permitted to ride? This is a jerk move to the 99.9% of people who can still ride, not to mention the 100's of jobs it provides.

Modify the coaster, which would set a precedent that could potentially affect literally thousands of operating roller coasters? Nevermind the fact that adding more restrictive restraints would be a "jerk move" to others, as they would be less accommodating to less body dimensions.

I'm not trying to be insensitive here to those who can no longer ride. As a coaster and ride lover, it's heartbreaking that less people can now experience the joy that these rides provide. But also, I understand that difficult decisions have to be made and lines have to be drawn.

We can’t really speak to specific actions because so much remains unknown. Universal has just banned people from not just this ride but from several others without explanation.

 

[JT3000]

They’re not sweeping it under the rug. They made the appropriate policy amendments in response to the incident, and that is that. They do not owe the public any comment other than the ones they’ve already given. Just because you would like one does not mean you or anyone else are entitled to one.

You're so convinced these are "appropriate policy amendments" even without any proof provided, or even an explanation to be proven in the first place. Why? Because Universal made it, it must be the correct decision? Is that the logic we're using?

 

[lewisc]

You're so convinced these are "appropriate policy amendments" even without any proof provided. Why? Because Universal made it, it must be the correct decision? Is that the logic we're using?

Universal gave us the same detailed explanation regarding the changes to the criteria to ride as was offered when the criteria was initially established.

The criteria is done with the ride mfg and possibly with a government agency.

The details and reasons aren't shared with the public.

Our opinion is irrelevant.

 

[JT3000]

Universal gave us the same detailed explanation regarding the changes to the criteria to ride as was offered when the criteria was initially established.

The criteria is done with the ride mfg and possibly with a government agency.

The details and reasons aren't shared with the public.

Our opinion is irrelevant.

Why is that "detailed explanation" good enough? Why are you so quick to accept the alleged irrelevance of your opinion at face value? And what's an "mfg?" Manufacturer?

This is a list of Gerstlauer Sky Flies currently in operation, the same ride type and manufacturer as Dragon Racer's Rally at Epic Universe.

https://coasterpedia.net/wiki/Sky_Fly_(Gerstlauer_product)

How many of these rides are now operating under the same new policy as Universal's? And for any that aren't, why not? If it's supposedly the manufacturer's criteria, then it's only logical that it be applied across the board to all of their rides of the same type, yes? If Universal and the manufacturer have made the correct decision, what good reason could any of these other parks possibly have not to comply?

 

[flynnibus]

Why is that "detailed explanation" good enough? Why are you so quick to accept the alleged irrelevance of your opinion at face value?

His comment was pointing out you got NO explanation on the original restrictions... which is the same explanation you got for the new ones. NONE and you are expected to accept it.

How many of these rides are now operating under the same new policy as Universal's? And for any that aren't, why not?

One should start with.. do you know they aren't? Or just assuming for lack of news? It's also relevant that they are in different countries with different regulations and controls. Maybe UNI is moving to be more restrictive than the mfg.. which is possible. Given they applied criteria to multiple different rides at the same time, it's a fair assumption that all those companies didn't update mandatory requirements in unison... but that doesn't mean they were not necessarily consulted.

 

[Prince-1]

When I was a kid, I realized that since I will never grow to 6 feet 2 inches I could never be a professional Baseball player.

There are many things I cant do simply because of my below average, 5 feet 7 inch height.

I have a hard time getting a good spot for the fireworks; someone taller than me always stands in front of me.

Spud Webb is 5’7”. Just sayin’.