Ride Safety Discussion

[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.

Thanks for your input, but it seems that you misunderstand me as well. The other poster in question was badgering me over his assumption that I misused a term -not arguing what you have above.

Speck brought up an interesting point and it gave me pause to think about MY expectations when boarding a ride.

So yes, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about when I speak of MY expectations. Since you, and the other poster, seem to have missed the first words in that discussion, it began with "I EXPECT", and "IN A WAY", not "I KNOW" or any other declaration. Could my expectations be "wrong"? Maybe, but arguing that I do not know how I feel about something is silly.

And, interestingly enough, YOU AGREE with me - that a theme park ride is far safer than a bus ride. Yet you decide to nitpick and jump into a conversation that you don't seem to understand.

I never said there was no risk, but let me put it more bluntly - when I get on a city bus, for instance, I expect to be less safe driving around a city with a human operator making decisions every single second as to it's operation, without a track and with the other types of hazzards that cannot be controlled.

This is opposed to a theme park ride which generally takes place on a track in a controlled enviornment - much more controlled than on a city street. Of COURSE with anything there is some risk - but the risk is lesser on a themepark ride as they can anticipate safety concerns and prepare for them much more readily in a controlled enviornment than on a city street.

In short, I would expect to die on a bus before I'd expect to die on a theme park ride. That is the only point I was making in the section of text you and another poster have been questioning.

Now, again, tell me how I don't know what I am talking about? You are assigning arguments to me I never made. Tell me how I do not know my personal expectation of safety (that to be honest I never really thought deeply about until I saw this thread), or where I declared myself an expert on the topic of ride safety? You can't, because I didn't.

Now, next time you jump in to a conversation, please actually read the content instead of making assumptions based on replies. If you can show me where I argued that theme park rides are totally safe, I'd be very interested to see it, as my password/account must have been stolen.

Some people, I swear...

AEfx

 

[donaldduck1967]

I never did get to my point.....So when does a perent stop being a parent and just let their kid do whatever they want, and WHEN something happens to them they sue.
Just because you are in Disney doesnt mean that you give up perental control, manners, and the fact that your kid is just as important and everyone else's; not more important.

I agree with you 100%. I have a 3yr old and even if she met the height reqiurements there is no way I would allow her to go on a ride like MS

 

[donaldduck1967]

Maybe what we need for rides like this is not just height requirements but age requirements as well

 

[speck76]

Age requirements would not work.

First, kids don't carry IDs......and how many parents would say "well, your 5, you need to be 6, so if anyone asks, tell them you are 6"

Also, some kids who are 5 are more developed both physically and emotionally than some that may be 6 or 7.....

Age is just a number, it does not signify a child's ability to handle going on a ride.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I agree....in part

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.

The UK has the Health & Safety executive, whos origins are related to railway accidents. this is a powerful body that can inspect at any time has far reaching powers which include closing down unsafe operations, issuing warnings and fines. They work closely with local goverment bodies like enviromental health.

They are Govt funded but are independant. Whilst not perfect I can asure you that a visit from an inspector is unnerving to say the least. they check records physical inspections and interview staff.

In the event of an accident they investigate and can keep you on a hit list to check your operation subsequently.

 

[speck76]

California court rules on rides
State's theme parks now face a higher standard for ride safety

By Maura Dolan and Kimi Yoshino | Los Angeles Times
Posted June 17, 2005


SAN FRANCISCO -- In a decision that could force amusement parks to redesign or remove some thrill rides, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that operators of roller coasters and similar attractions have the same duty to ensure safety as those who run buses and passenger trains.

The 4-3 decision, which found that thrill rides could be classified as "common carriers," said operators must use "the utmost care and diligence" for the safety of riders rather than mere "reasonable care." Most states require operators of amusement rides to use only "reasonable care," industry lawyers said.

The ruling, which deals only with parks in California, is expected to make it easier for people injured on rides to prevail in lawsuits against amusement parks. In response to the heightened liability, officials of California theme parks said Thursday that they may have to change their operations, although the exact nature of any changes has yet to be decided. Park officials insisted they already adhere to the highest safety standards.

About 20 million people visit amusement parks in California each year, generating $20 billion annually for the state's economy, according to the industry. In Southern California last year, 350 accidents at amusement parks were reported to the state, but none resulted in serious injury or death.

Thursday's ruling came three days after a 4-year-old Pennsylvania boy, Daudi Bamuwamye, died after riding the Mission: Space attraction at Walt Disney World in Orlando.

In its ruling, the California Supreme Court said riders are entitled to safety on thrill rides just as they are on trains and buses.

"Riders of roller coasters and other 'thrill' rides seek the illusion of danger while being assured of their actual safety," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the majority. "The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt."

Theme park industry leaders said the ruling could mean the demise of thrill rides.

"Under an extreme interpretation, it would take the thrill out of thrill rides," said John Robinson, head of the California Attractions and Parks Association, an industry group.

But attorney Barry Novack, who represents the family of a 23-year-old woman whose death in 2000 after riding the Indiana Jones Adventure at Disneyland was the subject of the high court's ruling, said the decision would make rides safer. Theme parks could reduce the threat of lawsuits by posting more explicit warning signs and designing better harnesses, he said.

Thursday's ruling sent the lawsuit back to a lower court for trial. The woman's family is seeking unspecified damages.

The state of Florida regulates and inspects rides at fairs and small attractions. Large attractions with 1,000 or more employees, such as Walt Disney World, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld, are exempt.

In 2001, the major parks agreed to voluntarily report basic details of ride "incidents," or cases severe enough to require someone to be transported and admitted to a hospital. Cases where people are treated on site for scrapes, bumps or bruises are not reported.

Maura Dolan and Kimi Yoshino are reporters for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. Jerry Jackson of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report.