Ride Safety Discussion

[AEfx]

And hence there would be no liability. You obviously misunderstand the expressed doctrine. The operator of a common carrier is only responsible for those things in his direct control. WDW bus drivers often violate this doctrine, but that is another post. Your assertions are without any merit and based upon flawed logic.

LOL, thanks for the message, Woody.

I was agreeing with what Speck said.

I was simply making the distinction between the two. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

I was not talking about the "common carrier" doctorine, but the fact that the typical FORMS of common carriers are in general operated in a less controlled enviornment than a theme park ride.

It was a seperate point, as in I wouldn't expect any less mechanical "uttmost care" to be taken on a theme park ride, that in fact overall I would expect it to be safer than any vehicle that is typically used as a common carrier.

Sorry if I confused you.

AEfx

 

[AEfx]

Perhaps the difference between reasonable and utmost safety

The object of safety restraints is the latter.

A boy fell from a freefall ride a few years back at a Paramount park....fell 200-300 feet. He was restrained so that the ride would not saude him to fall out, he decided that he wanted off of the ride, and crawled out underneath the restraint.

That's a distinction that could be made depending on how you interpret utmost.

Is someone restrained on a bus or subway from breaking a window (defeating a restraint) because they could jump out, or stick their hands out and get them cut off? Should they be?

To me, "uttmost" safety is in regards to people who follow the instructions for riding. If you follow the instructions for riding, then you should expect to be safe. A kid climbing out of the bottom of a restraint is no different than someone standing up on BTM because it defeats the restraint to do so.

Splash is an interesting beast in this discussion. I've always wondered why there wasn't at least a lap belt and the drowning issue never occured to me. I can't picture how it would be possible for one to turn over, but I am sure it is somehow possible. With the narrow passages, however, I'd be more worried about the mechanisms underneeth.

In the end, the difference between "reasonable" and "uttmost" is going to rely on the individual interpretations of the cases it would be used in. What is "reasonable" to one person may be "uttmost" to one person, and vice versa. As with all legislation, it's difficult to predict unti the precedents occur.

AEfx

 

[Woody13]

LOL, thanks for the message, Woody.

I was agreeing with what Speck said.

I was simply making the distinction between the two. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

I was not talking about the "common carrier" doctorine, but the fact that the typical FORMS of common carriers are in general operated in a less controlled enviornment than a theme park ride.

It was a seperate point, as in I wouldn't expect any less mechanical "uttmost care" to be taken on a theme park ride, that in fact overall I would expect it to be safer than any vehicle that is typically used as a common carrier.

Sorry if I confused you.

AEfx

I wasn't confused at all. I can only respond to the words that you post. So often, I have found, you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about the subject a hand and prefer instead to twist it to your "unusual" way of thinking.

Yes, you were talking about the common carrier doctrine, but you just didn't realize you were talking about it. You were, once again, speaking to an issue about which you have little or no knowledge. This seems to be a common characteristic in your responses on these forums. It seems that common logic is not within your mindset. You always run away from your posts when you're caught!

Your expectations are not at issue.

 

[AEfx]

I wasn't confused at all. I can only respond to the words that you post. So often, I have found, you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about the subject a hand and prefer instead to twist it to your "unusual" way of thinking.

Yes, you were talking about the common carrier doctrine, but you just didn't realize you were talking about it.

LOL, oh Woody. I was talking about THE TYPES of vehicles considered common carriers - like busses.

I was not refering to the laws themselves.

What I said is that I expect a higher standard of safety, in general, in a theme park ride than the TYPES of vehicles covered under "common carrier", not what does or does not make someone liable for fault under such doctrine.

If you want to keep insiting this go ahead, it was a minor thought on my part to begin with.

You were, once again, speaking to an issue about which you have little or no knowledge. This seems to be a common characteristic in your responses on these forums. It seems that common logic is not within your mindset. You always run away from your posts when you're caught!

LOL. When I'm "caught"? No, when a conversations reach a certain point, or when I feel the discussion is getting inappropriate (as in the "other" thread today which we aren't supposed to talk about in this one, per speck's request), and it comes down to "I disagree" and we both understand what we disagree on, I can be satisfied with it.

I'm not going to comment on reputation, Woody, as yours is well known to anyone in these parts. I use a great deal of logic, and I totally agree with virtually everything said in this thread. And you took one tiny comment that I made about this topic, saying my expectation for safety, and created this insultive, combattive crap with me about things I never said.

/shrug

Your expectations are not at issue.

Then why are you arguing them?

Sorry dude, you misread what I said. I'm sorry I didn't expand upon it further at the time enough to satisfy you. I clearly said the "forms" of common carriers, I simply was making a general statement that you are trying to make specific.

Seriously, if you've got a problem with me why don't you continue it in PM instead of running out here and attacking what I'm writing when it's clear you misunderstood what I said, either because of my bad writing or your...whatever.

It's just...silly, since we disagree on nothing and you just seem to wish to pick a fight over semantics.

AEfx

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Why dont they just pass a law that bans people from being born stupid. I mean it is California so it must be pretty straight forward. :lookaroun


May be I expect to much of others, but why do we now have warnings on hairdryer's advising against their use in a shower? If your still in the shower its going to take a bloody long time to dry hairdryer or not.

Anyway back to the issue, I agree in essence that maintenance and operation must be regulated issue. The rest surely, provided warnings are given, is down to the discretion of the individual. having read the warnings you are then liable for your being on it.

Another story based on greedy people and greedier lawyers.

 

[lawyergirl77]

I'm not sure about whether or not enhanced safety mechanisms are really going to be that effective. As we've seen in the past, determined people can get around them rather well. Short of duct taping every guest into their seat, I can't see increased safety on rides being the main solution.

I still stand by my "information is power" idea in the other thread. Give a suggested rating for the ride based on age. Height only goes to the technical aspect of the experience and is therefore only one component of the information that should go towards an individual's discretion with respect to whether or not they (or their loved ones) should experience a given ride.

An age suggestion would be a good idea, but I'm not sure what other information could get put out there. I agree with some of the posters in the other thread who have said that there is a bit of a "warning overload" tendency at WDW, and the insurers and lawyers are to blame for that. Unfortunately, given recent events, I think that the warnings are only going to get more severe.

I just hope it doesn't lead to duct tape!

 

[speck76]

The case involves a claim filed by the estate of Cristina Moreno, a tourist from Spain who visited Disneyland in Anaheim on her honeymoon in 2000. Her family says she suffered a brain hemorrhage after riding the Indiana Jones Adventure, which simulates an off-road jeep ride. She died a few months later.

The Moreno suit seeks unspecified damages, claiming the ride was improperly designed with only a lap belt rather than a shoulder restraint that could have minimized the jostling.

The suit also seeks to force Disneyland to post warnings about risks such as brain damage and death. Moreno had an undiagnosed pre-existing aneurysm, Novack said. He argued that high-speed roller coasters could cause abnormal blood vessels to burst.

A few thoughts.....

I have not been on IJA, but I have been on Dinosaur, which, from my understanding, is the same basic ride, and follows the same basic path. Although the ride moves fast, I have never felt a need for a shoulder harness. I have found that by doing something as simple as "holding on to the black bar" one can minimize the movement.

Also, should be burden of medical knowledge be on the park? Should Disney be responsible for researching every potential condition that could be effected, and posting a warning about that condition? What if a new, or very uncommon condition occurs, but is left off of the warning sign?.

Shouldn't the visitors be responsible for their own personal health, and have the knowledge to know what kind of rides they can and can not ride?

Also, this lady had a previously un-diagnosed condition.....even if the warning was there, she would not have known that it was directed at her.

Pierce, who represents the theme-park industry, said medical studies have shown no link between thrill rides and brain aneurysms. Two University of Pennsylvania researchers found in 2002 that roller coasters do not produce G-forces large enough to harm riders' brains. The industry also cites a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that said the chance of dying in aroller coaster accident is 1 in 70 million.

Could it be that people just happen to be on a ride when they die from some of these conditions? (like the lady that died on PotC this year) If one has a pre-existing condition, they are a time-bomb, waiting to go off at any moment. They could be on a rollercoaster, they could be at home on the couch, they could be in the shower.

 

[righttrack]

I have always thought that just because you "can" ride a attraction, does not mean you "should" ride the attraction (an old AE arguement).

This is key. My 6 year old is big enough to ride just about anything WDW has to offer. Still, when presented with M:S I had to think whether or not she could keep her eyes open and not look to the side, even when panicked. In her case, and her grace under pressure, led me to believe it was ok for her, and thus the ride was a good experience. To other children (and some adults), that may not have been possible. Some people always close their eyes when they are scared.

As well, on the coasters, I urge her to "hold on" regardless of the restraints. She does and that helps her stay safe, and me feel more comfortable. Basically kids don't carry around IDs saying how old they are, nor do they wear badges saying how mature they are. Its a parental/child cooperative decision.

As for ride safety, Disney has been doing well with adjustable restraints that fit most everybody. I was a little disheartened though, to see the photos of Everest and there being only a lap-bar restraint on such an intense-looking ride. Certainly seatbelts would be better, IMO. They might add a little time to loading, but they are worth it, IMO.

 

[speck76]

Parks set height limits to boost safety

By Christopher Boyd | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted June 15, 2005


For Orlando's famed attractions, finding a balance between excitement and safety is critical.

The death of 4-year-old Daudi Bamuwamye after a ride Monday on Mission: Space at Walt Disney World's Epcot immediately raised questions not just about the ride's safety -- but how to judge what thrills are right for young visitors.

Amusement-industry experts say that Disney, Universal Orlando and other parks spend years developing and testing rides, designing equipment that seldom causes problems.

"Everything they can anticipate, they anticipate," said Bill Coan, a president of ITEC Entertainment Corp. and a former Disney executive. "They consider the emotions and the physical sensations that one might experience. It's involved."

But as safe as rides might be for fit adults, there are people, including young children, who might suffer ill effects. As a safety measure, the parks set height restrictions for would-be passengers, and they post signs advising those with medical conditions to avoid rides that might pose risks.

Theme parks use height restrictions such as the 44-inch minimum imposed on Mission: Space passengers to prevent children from boarding inappropriate rides. Those limits weed out small children. But Coan said parents need to make judgments of their own.

Beth Robertson, spokeswoman for the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, said injury is rare throughout her industry.

"Last year, 300 million guests took 1.5 billion rides," Robertson said. "The chance of being injured seriously enough to require overnight hospitalization is one in 10 million. The chance of being fatally injured is one in 790 million."

Robertson said amusement-park-ride designers adhere to safety standards set by the American Society for Testing and Materials. She said safety standards include passenger-height limits, restraints and gravitational forces created when the ride is in motion.

In addition to those standards, Robertson said 42 states, including Florida, have laws pertaining to amusement-park safety.

"With the big theme parks, safety is the No. 1 concern," said Steve Baker, principal of Baker Leisure Group in Orlando. "Disney rides get daily safety checks, daily maintenance, daily everything. In the area of safety, they are the best in the business."

Jerry Aldrich, president of Amusement Industry Consulting Inc. in Orlando, said passenger-height restrictions are a key safety measure. He said theme-park engineers consult the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Society of Automotive Engineers for data that correlate height with age.

"If you decide that your ride is appropriate for a child of four years and nine months, you look at the data and find a height," Aldrich said. "Height is the best way to screen people. It's something a ride operator can see."

At Universal Studios, for example, the Revenge of the Mummy ride requires that passengers be at least 48 inches tall. Back to the Future The Ride sets a minimum of 40 inches, but demands that those shorter than 48 inches be accompanied by an adult.

"You start with a concept and decide where you want to go," Aldrich said. "You then decide how you want to tell the story. Then you design restraints to protect the people. And then you decide the minimum age of a person who will take the ride."

Aldrich said rides are tested extensively with weighted figures that represent the sizes of people expected to take the ride.

"It can take three or four years to develop a ride," Aldrich said. "Disney can easily take longer."

Christopher Boyd can be reached at cboyd@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5723.

 

[peter11435]

LOL, oh Woody. I was talking about THE TYPES of vehicles considered common carriers - like busses.

I was not refering to the laws themselves.

What I said is that I expect a higher standard of safety, in general, in a theme park ride than the TYPES of vehicles covered under "common carrier", not what does or does not make someone liable for fault under such doctrine.

If you want to keep insiting this go ahead, it was a minor thought on my part to begin with.



LOL. When I'm "caught"? No, when a conversations reach a certain point, or when I feel the discussion is getting inappropriate (as in the "other" thread today which we aren't supposed to talk about in this one, per speck's request), and it comes down to "I disagree" and we both understand what we disagree on, I can be satisfied with it.

I'm not going to comment on reputation, Woody, as yours is well known to anyone in these parts. I use a great deal of logic, and I totally agree with virtually everything said in this thread. And you took one tiny comment that I made about this topic, saying my expectation for safety, and created this insultive, combattive crap with me about things I never said.

/shrug



Then why are you arguing them?

Sorry dude, you misread what I said. I'm sorry I didn't expand upon it further at the time enough to satisfy you. I clearly said the "forms" of common carriers, I simply was making a general statement that you are trying to make specific.

Seriously, if you've got a problem with me why don't you continue it in PM instead of running out here and attacking what I'm writing when it's clear you misunderstood what I said, either because of my bad writing or your...whatever.

It's just...silly, since we disagree on nothing and you just seem to wish to pick a fight over semantics.

AEfx

I have to agree with Woody however that you don't really know what you’re talking about. The fact is the vehicles in a theme park attraction are far safer than the buses etc you describe. However there is a certain understandable level of risk associated with a theme park attraction that can't be taken away. A bus driver is required to follow laws at get you there in a safe way. This includes not doing things that could cause problems such as driving too fast, and driving out of control. The very nature of roller coasters and other thrill rides is to give riders the exact things that bus drivers are not allowed. Thus there is a level of risk that can't be taken away unless you completely get rid of all forms of thrill rides.

 

[CaliSurfer182]

Parks should build safe rides and keep them safe from mechanical or other problems that would not be caused by the rider.

The rider should be safe on the ride, not ride in a way that will cause harm to themself or others, and should take reasonable, or even utmost care and diligence, to know of any medical conditions that could harm them while experiencing the ride.

A company should be responsible for maintaining the ride mechanically sound, and for posting or explaining in some format what the ride is about or what you might experience. It can/may even point out the appropriate physical age level of the riders.

I have always thought that just because you "can" ride a attraction, does not mean you "should" ride the attraction (an old AE arguement).

This is an excellent point that I fully agree with. It can all be chocked up to personal judgement. Only an individual knows their own or their loved ones limits.

This is key. My 6 year old is big enough to ride just about anything WDW has to offer. Still, when presented with M:S I had to think whether or not she could keep her eyes open and not look to the side, even when panicked.

Its a parental/child cooperative decision.

A parent is responsible for allowing their children to do things. Everbody matures and experiences things differently, so people need to be accountable for their own.

 

[Gepettotrevor]

There is one easy way to keep from getting hurt on any ride...DON'T DO ANYTHING STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


oh yea....and fallow safety instructions too!

 

[speck76]

There is one easy way to keep from getting hurt on any ride...DON'T DO ANYTHING STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You know that what you are asking to WAY too much to ask for :lol:

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in people.

 

[Gepettotrevor]

You know that what you are asking to WAY too much to ask for :lol:

Never underestimate the power of stupidity in people.

Yea, your right

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

There is one easy way to keep from getting hurt on any ride...DON'T DO ANYTHING STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


oh yea....and fallow safety instructions too!

If only things were that easy.
The vast majority of peopke who visit thenme parks (WDW included) abide by the parks rules and common sense - These people will have a good time and go home safely. Others - through drink, drugs impairment, stupidity (etc) try to show off, act irrationally or just don't give a ____** for others - these are the idiots that cause the headlines and disrupt the day for others.
Correctly maintained Theme Parks are the safest place on earth UNTIL you allow the public in and let them on the rides

 

[1disneydood]

Doing everything by the rules won't guarantee anything. I won't corrupt this thread with what I mean, but you know what I'm referring to.

 

[Vernonpush]

Maybe medical exams at the entrance of the parks is called for? After the security bag check, you get a full medical exam, then recieve your color coded wrist band that lets you on the rides that are safe for you. lol Each resort could have a medical exam station, allowing you to get your wrist band before going to the parks thus keeping any back-up at the gates for the day visitors and off property guests. :lol:

What ever happed to common sense? :hammer:

 

[Irrawaddy Erik]

After working in the parks for four years, you would not believe the people that just don't use common sence. Take safaris. At least every other safari I will have people that stand up or hold their children up to see or take a picture of the crocodiles. There is nothing stopping you from falling out and over into the water there. While I worked in fantasyland I had a mother try to get out of one tea cup and get in another cup with her children while the it was spinning. The biggest problem is that some people think that "it will never happen to me" and that the rules giving no to stand and remain seated is mearly a suggestion. People think that that it's the Happiest Place on Earth so what could happen to me. I've seen people jump out of logs on Splash Mountain as it approches the last lift hill. There is a reason that there is signage everywhere reminding you to remain seated with your hands, arms, head, feet, and legs inside the vehicle at ALL times.

 

[njblackberry]

This is not what we need - more Federal Regulation:

"The death of this child is a perfect example of why the federal government should be able to investigate," says Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., author of a bill to close a loophole in U.S. law that exempts theme parks from federal oversight.

 

[speck76]

This is not what we need - more Federal Regulation:

"The death of this child is a perfect example of why the federal government should be able to investigate," says Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., author of a bill to close a loophole in U.S. law that exempts theme parks from federal oversight.

I agree....in part

It is not like the federal goverment has done such a wonderful job regulating any other industry.....why would it improve safety in the amuesment industry.

But one area that could use federal regulation are the carnivals and fairs that travel accross state lines. By keeping these under one regulation body, it would keep them from having to conform to various state laws that may not be as strict, or could be more strict.