Monorail Front-Riding

[darthokeefe]

I think you guys are missing the point that there is NO NEED FOR PASSENGERS to ride up front..."It would be neat" and "I want to" are not NEEDS....Thus no endangering the passengers so people can get photo opps....Why don't you ask to dive with the Ferryboat operators

 

[s8film40]

I think you guys are missing the point that there is NO NEED FOR PASSENGERS to ride up front..."It would be neat" and "I want to" are not NEEDS....Thus no endangering the passengers so people can get photo opps....Why don't you ask to dive with the Ferryboat operators

There is no NEED for anyone to go to WDW, there is no NEED for anyone to ride the monorail at all whether it be the front or the cars. The place was built for fun and entertainment, for many one of the more enjoyable things is riding in the front of the monorail. Disney World is really just a large collection of completely unnecessary fun things to do, riding in the front of the monorail was at the top of the list for some. If they take everything away that people don't have a need for they'd be left with vacant land.

 

[unkadug]

I think you guys are missing the point that there is NO NEED FOR PASSENGERS to ride up front..."It would be neat" and "I want to" are not NEEDS....Thus no endangering the passengers so people can get photo opps....Why don't you ask to dive with the Ferryboat operators

There is no need for anyone to go to WDW but the opportunity has been given to us.

 

[wdwfan22]

I believe the main reason Guests are not allowed up front is so that the Cast don't have to relive and answer 100 questions regarding the crash.

 

[captainkidd]

I don't mean this sarcastically at all, so sorry if it comes out that way:

If God forbid a guest was ever killed on one of the Disney buses involved in an accident, would they stop the use of the buses?

I find it very ironic that they will allow so many guests to stand on the buses, yet not let anyone sit up front on the monorail. The odds of a bus getting into an accident are probably thousands, if not millions times greater than another monorail accident.

 

[Brian Noble]

It's as simple as "the lawyers will never allow it.". And rightly, IMO. But drawing comparisons to buses, cars, etc. is pointless.

 

[s8film40]

It's as simple as "the lawyers will never allow it.". And rightly, IMO. But drawing comparisons to buses, cars, etc. is pointless.

It's not quite that simple. I'm sure when they suspended the front cab riding at Disneyland it was the lawyers not allowing it, but that was later reevaluated and the policy was changed back. They can always reevaluate it and change policy.

 

[Phonedave]

I don't mean this sarcastically at all, so sorry if it comes out that way:

If God forbid a guest was ever killed on one of the Disney buses involved in an accident, would they stop the use of the buses?

I find it very ironic that they will allow so many guests to stand on the buses, yet not let anyone sit up front on the monorail. The odds of a bus getting into an accident are probably thousands, if not millions times greater than another monorail accident.

They didn't stop the use of the monorails, they stopped the riding in the cab.

The front of the monorail is basicly a bunch of plywood (take a look at the OSHA pics of the accident). Riding in the front is less safe than riding in a car in the case of an accident.

It is the same reason you have to be behind the white line on a bus. There are levels of risk. An employee presumably knows the risks of being in the front, but a passenger does not.

-dave

 

[captainkidd]

They didn't stop the use of the monorails, they stopped the riding in the cab.

The front of the monorail is basicly a bunch of plywood (take a look at the OSHA pics of the accident). Riding in the front is less safe than riding in a car in the case of an accident.

It is the same reason you have to be behind the white line on a bus. There are levels of risk. An employee presumably knows the risks of being in the front, but a passenger does not.

-dave

I understand that. My point was, the odds of a bus crash are significantly higher than the odds of another monorail crash. Anyone who has been on a fully loaded bus with guests standing knows that if that bus is ever involved in an accident, there are going to be serious injuries.

 

[s8film40]

They didn't stop the use of the monorails, they stopped the riding in the cab.

The front of the monorail is basicly a bunch of plywood (take a look at the OSHA pics of the accident). Riding in the front is less safe than riding in a car in the case of an accident.

It is the same reason you have to be behind the white line on a bus. There are levels of risk. An employee presumably knows the risks of being in the front, but a passenger does not.

-dave

If there is a risk of an accident with the knowledge of the level of crash protection in the front then it is extremely negligent on Disney's part to allow employees to ride in the front. They have addressed these issues and this is why the employees are allowed to continue to drive the monorails. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why guests are not allowed to ride in the front aside from it just being a policy decision on Disney's part.

 

[Master Yoda]

I understand that. My point was, the odds of a bus crash are significantly higher than the odds of another monorail crash. Anyone who has been on a fully loaded bus with guests standing knows that if that bus is ever involved in an accident, there are going to be serious injuries.

The problem is that you are thinking logically and rationally. An ambulance chaser and an opportunistic client will do neither if another incident was to happen again and guests were allowed up front.

 

[s8film40]

The problem is that you are thinking logically and rationally. An ambulance chaser and an opportunistic client will do neither if another incident was to happen again and guests were allowed up front.

Yes and if another accident occurs and a pilot is hurt a good lawyer will start asking why guest were not allowed to ride in front and I bet Disney will come up with something other than "it was too risky".

 

[Master Yoda]

If there is a risk of an accident with the knowledge of the level of crash protection in the front then it is extremely negligent on Disney's part to allow employees to ride in the front. They have addressed these issues and this is why the employees are allowed to continue to drive the monorails. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why guests are not allowed to ride in the front aside from it just being a policy decision on Disney's part.

Exactly correct. All we can speculate on is the reason for this policy which would more than likely lie somewhere between guest safety on the PR end and not wanting to have and almost indefensible position in a lawsuit if something were to happen again.

 

[Brian Noble]

It's not quite that simple.

It absolutely is. It is now known, for sure, what happens when two WDW monorails collide. It is also now known, for sure, what happens to any occupants of the cone when that happens. Should that ever happen again, with a guest inside, the nearest surviving relative would surely be able to win a lawsuit big enough to get themselves a seat on the board of directors if they want one. The plaintiff's lawyer pretty much just has to bring in a big, blown-up, high-resolution shot of those monorails sandwiched on top of one another, and the case is signed, sealed, and delivered.

They can always reevaluate it and change policy.

Sure they could. But I don't think they will. That's not a comment on the likelihood of another accident, or the "risk" to any passenger. I agree that the chances that it might happen again are vanishingly small. Indeed, the chances that a meteor comes screaming down through the sky and kills a guest sitting in the nosecone might well be higher. But, this isn't about what "is likely to happen". It's about the liability risk to the company if something *does* happen. The payout if something does happen would be so astronomical that there's just no way that the risk management guys will ever sign off on a guest in the nosecone of a WDW monorail again, especially in light of the fact that the benefits of letting guests ride there are infinitesimal. Indeed, I can't even imagine Operations asking them to reconsider. What's the benefit to them? Next to nothing.

I could be wrong---it wouldn't be the first time---but I don't think so. Time will tell.

 

[Brian Noble]

As for the pilot vs. guest question: again, this is an evaluation of risk/reward. *Someone* has to drive those trains. If two collide again, and another pilot dies, the nearest surviving relative of that pilot also has a decent chance of winning themselves a board-seat-level judgement (unless the company can show negligence on the part of the pilot, and they will do their damnedest to do so). Not running the trains at all is a huge cost to the company---they'd basically need to reconfigure the entire transportation infrastructure around the Lagoon.

 

[s8film40]

It absolutely is. It is now known, for sure, what happens when two WDW monorails collide. It is also now known, for sure, what happens to any occupants of the cone when that happens. Should that ever happen again, with a guest inside, the nearest surviving relative would surely be able to win a lawsuit big enough to get themselves a seat on the board of directors if they want one. The plaintiff's lawyer pretty much just has to bring in a big, blown-up, high-resolution shot of those monorails sandwiched on top of one another, and the case is signed, sealed, and delivered.


Sure they could. But I don't think they will. That's not a comment on the likelihood of another accident, or the "risk" to any passenger. I agree that the chances that it might happen again are vanishingly small. Indeed, the chances that a meteor comes screaming down through the sky and kills a guest sitting in the nosecone might well be higher. But, this isn't about what "is likely to happen". It's about the liability risk to the company if something *does* happen. The payout if something does happen would be so astronomical that there's just no way that the risk management guys will ever sign off on a guest in the nosecone of a WDW monorail again, especially in light of the fact that the benefits of letting guests ride there are infinitesimal. Indeed, I can't even imagine Operations asking them to reconsider. What's the benefit to them? Next to nothing.

I could be wrong---it wouldn't be the first time---but I don't think so. Time will tell.

So from what your saying it sounds like the monorails will be automated soon. With such a high risk of loosing a lawsuit should something happen why on earth would they want to allow employees to ride up front when the trains can easily be modified to run driverless. Your certainly right I could definitely see a lawyer bringing in a blown up picture of this crash should another one occur and another pilot hurt and asking if you knew this why did you allow employees to continue to be up there.

 

[Brian Noble]

I would not be surprised to hear that a dispassionate risk analysis (chance of another accident * amount of expected payout) would find status quo to be less expensive than automating the monorails.

 

[s8film40]

I would not be surprised to hear that a dispassionate risk analysis (chance of another accident * amount of expected payout) would find status quo to be less expensive than automating the monorails.

Automating the monorails would be very inexpensive, in fact Bombardier supposedly ran them automated for their own testing purposes when they installed them. Factor in the labor savings and it seems like it's almost certain to happen. Actually the biggest reason I have always heard for them not automating them was to keep the front cab experience.

 

[trr1]

shouldnt they put in a roll cage for the protection of the monorail pilot?

 

[Brian Noble]

Actually the biggest reason I have always heard for them not automating them was to keep the front cab experience.

Super. Then perhaps they will just do that. Either way, though, I don't anticipate ever seeing a guest in the nose cone again, unless the cones themselves are redesigned to be more resilient in a crash. There is so little benefit to allowing it that it just doesn't make "cents."