News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[VicariousCorpse]

***Assuming it true***


did girlfriend encourage him to ride knowing there’s an inherent danger compared to other riders; is there something she knew or felt should have known that plays into this????

did girlfriend promise Mom that she would discourage him from riding Stardust or any other aggressive attractions????

did girlfriend do something that she shouldn’t have done????



***again, assuming story is true and accurate***

None of these questions matter and are only posited to cast blame. Kevin wasn't mentally impaired. He had the bodily autonomy to make his own choices.

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

***Assuming it true***


did girlfriend encourage him to ride knowing there’s an inherent danger compared to other riders; is there something she knew or felt should have known that plays into this????

did girlfriend promise Mom that she would discourage him from riding Stardust or any other aggressive attractions????

did girlfriend do something that she shouldn’t have done????



***again, assuming story is true and accurate***

Exactly the questions that came up for me when I read it.

None of these questions matter and are only posited to cast blame. Kevin wasn't mentally impaired. He had the bodily autonomy to make his own choices.

I for one am not trying to place any blame on the girlfriend, or even the family for that matter. And I don't feel the Reddit poster was trying to do that either. The only reason I pointed it out is that it makes me curious if that kind of detail could potentially hurt the family's legal case (whatever case they may or may not have...I honestly haven't been following the legal aspect of this story that closely. And obviously that statement would have to be backed up in some way in court). But I am absolutely not pointing any fingers at anyone.

 

[mergatroid]

For me one of the more interesting details was apparently the girlfriend screaming "his mom is going to kill me". Which to me would indicate maybe the mom wasn't in favor of him riding? But also could mean a number of things, so who knows.

If this story is true it could mean any number of things.

On the one hand it could mean that his mum had warned Kevin not to ride it, perhaps made his girlfriend promise her that she wouldn't let him go on that ride.

If the above were the case, why would she not want him to ride? He was supposedly (from what I've read, I didn't know him) an avid coaster fan and big theme park person. Unless Stardust Racers was widely known to be the most 'challenging' coaster out there with a lot of people talking about how 'bad' it was, it would seem odd that Kevin's mum would have any knowledge of this making her advising him to not ride it seem odd? You could argue legitimately that mums worry about everything but if that were the case, she probably said similar every time he went anywhere.

On the other hand if his girlfriend noticed Kevin being severely banged about on the ride, you could equally argue that it would seem odd that her major concern would be what Kevin's mum was going to say over the current health and wellbeing of her boyfriend next to her?

I mean kids might think the above about the 'trouble' they were in rather than the safety of another human being but a grown adult would probably be more concerned with Kevin than anything like what his mum would say.

We can only guess what that meant (if said at all) and it only really adds to the confusion and lack of explanation that we currently have. Another explanation that might fit was his mum was worried about him doing any big coasters and told him and his girlfriend to promise her that they wouldn't ride. They did and rode it anyway and maybe Kevin lost consciousness and that's when his girlfriend noticed and said that, thinking he'd just passed out and it wasn't serious.

Again if it is true it can be twisted into any scenario so doesn't really help and we're left with the question "Why would she say that" with only guesses for answers.

 

[mergatroid]

If this story is true it could mean any number of things.

On the one hand it could mean that his mum had warned Kevin not to ride it, perhaps made his girlfriend promise her that she wouldn't let him go on that ride.

If the above were the case, why would she not want him to ride? He was supposedly (from what I've read, I didn't know him) an avid coaster fan and big theme park person. Unless Stardust Racers was widely known to be the most 'challenging' coaster out there with a lot of people talking about how 'bad' it was, it would seem odd that Kevin's mum would have any knowledge of this making her advising him to not ride it seem odd? You could argue legitimately that mums worry about everything but if that were the case, she probably said similar every time he went anywhere.

On the other hand if his girlfriend noticed Kevin being severely banged about on the ride, you could equally argue that it would seem odd that her major concern would be what Kevin's mum was going to say over the current health and wellbeing of her boyfriend next to her?

I mean kids might think the above about the 'trouble' they were in rather than the safety of another human being but a grown adult would probably be more concerned with Kevin than anything like what his mum would say.

We can only guess what that meant (if said at all) and it only really adds to the confusion and lack of explanation that we currently have. Another explanation that might fit was his mum was worried about him doing any big coasters and told him and his girlfriend to promise her that they wouldn't ride. They did and rode it anyway and maybe Kevin lost consciousness and that's when his girlfriend noticed and said that, thinking he'd just passed out and it wasn't serious.

Again if it is true it can be twisted into any scenario so doesn't really help and we're left with the question "Why would she say that" with only guesses for answers.

Having had time to go onto reddit and read the full story, an edit to my reply earlier above.

The guy says that Kevin's girlfriend said "His mum's going to kill me" at the end of the ride where the description states that Kevin was in a terrible physical state with obvious serious injuries. It would seem a very strange thing for a partner to say something like that as opposed to being more concerned about the wellbeing of their loved one.

The guy also claims that despite numerous phone calls to Universal have resulted in nothing and nobody can handle his complaint that "I went home covered in blood" which he claims he was.

The guy also claims that he's rang the Orange County Sheriff’s Office after the news said they were investigating and wanted witness reports and claims he left a voicemail and they never got back in touch with him. Surely he could try ringing them again in case the message didn't record properly?

Considering he reports lots of quite graphic detail about the injuries and claims that he was covered in blood, you would think that either the Sheriff's office or Universal would have handled this with a response but he says not.

Surely you would think that he would have seen the family's lawyer in the news and at least contacted him about this (maybe he has) but you'd think if so that something would have been said.

Sadly we have no way of knowing whether any of the above is true or not. You'd have to be pretty messed up to make something like this up, but sadly it does happen. It's odd that he's claiming that Kevin's girlfriend appeared more worried about what his mum would say whilst her boyfriend was in such a bad state physically (though shock can make you react in strange ways). It's odd that he seems as concerned about his clothes as a person who died. It's odd that the Sheriff's Office didn't contact him as he's an eye witness and odd that Universal are ignoring his complaints more so if his story isn't factual as the stuff he's saying doesn't paint them in a great light.

Again without knowing if it's true we can't take much from it.

 

[My95cobras]

The apparent lack of life experience and insane amounts of unrealistic and entitled expectations in this thread Is insane.

I do want to apologize to @lewisc for reading his original post incorrectly and responding to an error in my reading. Sorry mate.

 

[JT3000]

I'm not sure if whining posters think the new restrictions are too limiting or not enough.

Then you've not read what anyone is "whining" about. Or is it a difficulty in comprehension?

Do they need to explain?

Yes.

Kevin died on Stardust. I think no explanation needed.

That's a very astute observation, however I strongly suspect you've missed the point completely.

If you think this is a business giving you the middle finger, you must be living under a rock.

What does this even mean? That one company's behavior is acceptable just because another has done worse?

They don't owe anyone anything regardless if they are a publicly held company. Outside of places like here, this story is barely talked about. Most have moved on.

IMO a lot of is, many here aren't coaster lovers and want to know it's safe.

They owe a positive customer experience, the same as literally any other company. No one's giving Universal their hard-earned money for giggles. They too have to earn it.

So because you perceive this particular news story as unpopular, that means we should just move on?

The apparent lack of life experience and insane amounts of unrealistic and entitled expectations in this thread Is insane.

Funny, I was about to say something similar.

 

[My95cobras]

Then you've not read what anyone is "whining" about. Or is it a difficulty in comprehension?


Yes.


That's a very astute observation, however I strongly suspect you've missed the point completely.


What does this even mean? That one company's behavior is acceptable just because another has done worse?


They owe a positive customer experience, the same as literally any other company. No one's giving Universal their hard-earned money for giggles. They too have to earn it.

So because you perceive this particular news story as unpopular, that means we should just move on?


Funny, I was about to say something similar.

No it means this company, and any company, owes you nothing. NOTHING. Why this has you spun up into a tizzy temper tantrum is something you probably need to explore. I WANT, I MUST, IM OWED, IM ENTITLED TO everything from a theme park is odd.

Why is this so personal to you? Maybe take a step back and a deep breath.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No it means this company, and any company, owes you nothing. NOTHING. Why this has you spun up into a tizzy temper tantrum is something you probably need to explore. I WANT, I MUST, IM OWED, IM ENTITLED TO everything from a theme park is odd.

Why is this so personal to you? Maybe take a step back and a deep breath.

You’re the one throwing the temper tantrum that someone dare question Universal.

And ignoring the history of how amusement ride regulation often comes about.

 

[My95cobras]

You’re the one throwing the temper tantrum that someone dare question Universal.

And ignoring the history of how amusement ride regulation often comes about.

Ahhhh, there it is. Company bad. Got it.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Then you've not read what anyone is "whining" about. Or is it a difficulty in comprehension?
Yes.
That's a very astute observation, however I strongly suspect you've missed the point completely.
What does this even mean? That one company's behavior is acceptable just because another has done worse?
They owe a positive customer experience, the same as literally any other company. No one's giving Universal their hard-earned money for giggles. They too have to earn it.
So because you perceive this particular news story as unpopular, that means we should just move on?
Funny, I was about to say something similar.

If you have questions you should call or email guest services. I am sure the will have an answer to all your questions.

 

[lewisc]

If you have questions you should call or email guest services. I am sure the will have an answer to all your questions.

I suspect an ADA inquiry regarding new riding criteria will result in a canned response. Commitment to safety. Respecting guests rights. blah blah blah

Universal doesn't respond to posts on fan sites. Whiners should send an inquiry where they'll get a response.

 

[JT3000]

No it means this company, and any company, owes you nothing. NOTHING. Why this has you spun up into a tizzy temper tantrum is something you probably need to explore. I WANT, I MUST, IM OWED, IM ENTITLED TO everything from a theme park is odd.

Why is this so personal to you? Maybe take a step back and a deep breath.

I'm thinking a more pertinent question would be, "Why is valid criticism of the company so personal to you?" Or, "What makes you think a company owes its paying customers nothing?" I saw this recently and it reminds me of you.

If you have questions you should call or email guest services. I am sure the will have an answer to all your questions.

Yeah, a nice pre-written "answer" that tells me nothing, delivered with all the sincerity of a robot.

 

[My95cobras]

I'm thinking a more pertinent question would be, "Why is valid criticism of the company so personal to you?" Or, "What makes you think a company owes its paying customers nothing?" I saw this recently and it reminds me of you.

Yeah, a nice pre-written "answer" that tells me nothing, delivered with all the sincerity of a robot.

I’m still looking for the validation in your whining.

You don’t have to give any company any of your money. You choose to give it to them.

 

[mergatroid]

Amidst all the disagreeing I think there's a middle ground in all of this whichever 'side' people seem to be on?

Whilst it can be argued that big companies owe nobody anything this isn't really a usual occurrence so in some regards makes it slightly different. Somebody went on a rollercoaster alive and ended up dead and we still don't know why? That's not an everyday thing to happen and on the occasions when things like this happen there's often an explanation of what caused the death in a way that makes future riders aware of what it was and able to make a decision whether to ride based on that.

Of course there are many people who don't really care as they want to ride the new thrill ride and think it's safe and those who are concerned have the right to not ride and to give their money to whomever they like instead. That's a given but it does feel odd that we still have no real idea or explanation of what went wrong and why poor Kevin was seemingly knocked about to the point of sadly dying. I feel more for the family to be honest especially if they're in the dark over this like the rest of us or perhaps they know and the reasons aren't out yet for legal reasons?

I can understand Universal's lawyers possibly not wanting certain things revealing publicly yet with an open litigation ongoing as unfortunately lawyers on both sides of a case often act in ways that seem wrong to most of us non legal types to benefit their clients.

However if other cases of rider fatalities at theme parks that have interested me (sorry to sound morbid but there's only been a few I've heard about and followed) the explanation of what happened seemed to come out a lot quicker. Perhaps those cases were more cut and dry such as the Alton Towers 'Smiler' tragedy where two ride vehicles collided due to safety protocols not being followed and another vehicle being allowed to hit a stationery one in an accident that should never have happened. The Disney monorail fatality seemed to have been figured out very quickly with the reasons released fairly quickly and Disney at fault along with BTM at Disneyland due to bad maintenance and being Disney's fault. Also the sad tale of the young child being dragged into the Seven Seas Lagoon by an alligator which again was explained fairly quickly.

So I kind of see why some posters are openly wondering why there has been nothing released and things are going on as normal (at least seemingly) in the park. There may be other instances where deaths have occurred and the explanations haven't been forthcoming from those parks but from a personal perspective I don't recall that happening. Perhaps the reason is that nobody has any idea why or how this Stardust Racers tragedy actually happened so there's nothing for Universal to release and they choose to just not say anything other than "the attraction performed as it was intended to" or words to that affect?

I think there's a middle ground though where we should really expect an explanation of sorts due to the severity of the incident even if it's a "We genuinely don't know why this happened" whilst understanding that certain aspects are probably being withheld due to ongoing litigation and not wanting to give anything to help the other side. It's not like a sporting event where we should want one side to win, but rather a tragedy where we just want the truth of what happened and how.

 

[Andrew C]

Somebody went on a rollercoaster alive and ended up dead and we still don't know why?

We do. He didn’t have he physical capacity to ride it safely.

 

[mergatroid]

We do. He didn’t have he physical capacity to ride it safely.

Thanks, is there a link to this as I can't find it? Just googled it and it doesn't appear anywhere I can see.

 

[Jrb1979]

Thanks, is there a link to this as I can't find it? Just googled it and it doesn't appear anywhere I can see.

It's not officially stated but the fact they changed rules on who could ride says it.

 

[JT3000]

I’m still looking for the validation in your whining.

You don’t have to give any company any of your money. You choose to give it to them.

And now I'll choose not to. I'm sure you can make up for it though. Maybe they'll even reward you for your loyalty.

Amidst all the disagreeing I think there's a middle ground in all of this whichever 'side' people seem to be on?

Whilst it can be argued that big companies owe nobody anything this isn't really a usual occurrence so in some regards makes it slightly different. Somebody went on a rollercoaster alive and ended up dead and we still don't know why? That's not an everyday thing to happen and on the occasions when things like this happen there's often an explanation of what caused the death in a way that makes future riders aware of what it was and able to make a decision whether to ride based on that.

Of course there are many people who don't really care as they want to ride the new thrill ride and think it's safe and those who are concerned have the right to not ride and to give their money to whomever they like instead. That's a given but it does feel odd that we still have no real idea or explanation of what went wrong and why poor Kevin was seemingly knocked about to the point of sadly dying. I feel more for the family to be honest especially if they're in the dark over this like the rest of us or perhaps they know and the reasons aren't out yet for legal reasons?

I can understand Universal's lawyers possibly not wanting certain things revealing publicly yet with an open litigation ongoing as unfortunately lawyers on both sides of a case often act in ways that seem wrong to most of us non legal types to benefit their clients.

However if other cases of rider fatalities at theme parks that have interested me (sorry to sound morbid but there's only been a few I've heard about and followed) the explanation of what happened seemed to come out a lot quicker. Perhaps those cases were more cut and dry such as the Alton Towers 'Smiler' tragedy where two ride vehicles collided due to safety protocols not being followed and another vehicle being allowed to hit a stationery one in an accident that should never have happened. The Disney monorail fatality seemed to have been figured out very quickly with the reasons released fairly quickly and Disney at fault along with BTM at Disneyland due to bad maintenance and being Disney's fault. Also the sad tale of the young child being dragged into the Seven Seas Lagoon by an alligator which again was explained fairly quickly.

So I kind of see why some posters are openly wondering why there has been nothing released and things are going on as normal (at least seemingly) in the park. There may be other instances where deaths have occurred and the explanations haven't been forthcoming from those parks but from a personal perspective I don't recall that happening. Perhaps the reason is that nobody has any idea why or how this Stardust Racers tragedy actually happened so there's nothing for Universal to release and they choose to just not say anything other than "the attraction performed as it was intended to" or words to that affect?

I think there's a middle ground though where we should really expect an explanation of sorts due to the severity of the incident even if it's a "We genuinely don't know why this happened" whilst understanding that certain aspects are probably being withheld due to ongoing litigation and not wanting to give anything to help the other side. It's not like a sporting event where we should want one side to win, but rather a tragedy where we just want the truth of what happened and how.

Things aren't actually going on as normal though. It's NOT business as usual, and we STILL don't know anything. That should be concerning to everyone. And if there's even a possibility that they're unsure of what happened, the ride shouldn't be open. Point blank.

Thanks, is there a link to this as I can't find it? Just googled it and it doesn't appear anywhere I can see.

You won't find it anywhere. He's just assuming. The overzealous rule change tells us nothing useful, especially since it mostly affects rides that have had no such incidents and share nothing in common with Stardust Racers. The victim most likely even rode some of them with no issue. This is why an explanation would be most helpful, but everyone would rather play detective and jump to conclusions based on one, very broad & extreme change in policy that most likely exists out of an overabundance in caution and litigation mitigation, rather than any carefully considered reasoning.

 

[Andrew C]

He's just assuming.

It’s called common sense. The ride meets current safety standards, it operated properly. He really didn’t meet previously posted requirements either.

If you want to have a discussion about whether universal team members had an obligation to prevent him from riding, that is fine. If you think current coaster standards needs to be reviewed, that’s a question for the entire industry, and relevant agencies…and not specific to this ride.

Looking for answers about what is obvious is just silly at this point.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It’s called common sense. The ride meets current safety standards, it operated properly. He really didn’t meet previously posted requirements either.

If you want to have a discussion about whether universal team members had an obligation to prevent him from riding, that is fine. If you think current coaster standards needs to be reviewed, that’s a question for the entire industry, and relevant agencies…and not specific to this ride.

Looking for answers about what is obvious is just silly at this point.

It’s only common sense if you want to move on and not actually know what occurred.

These changes would also suggest the rider requirements were not properly established by Universal for multiple rides from a variety of manufacturers. Were they not following the manufacturers’ guidance or do they know thing the guidance of multiple manufacturers is insufficient?