Man dies on Goliath at Six Flags Over Georgia

Richard Bannister:

Personally, I'd rather see recommendations based on a thorough understanding of what actually went wrong, including whether additional restraints could have prevented it, rather than assuming seatbelts are necessarily the right solution.

Have to agree here. It's totally appropriate to have an emotional response in the immediate aftermath of an event like this, sure. But we've been railing against reactionary Ed Markey-style regulation for decades now. People still ask me how tall rides don't have OTSR's, because the public at large are not experts in human factors, or even enthusiasts who understand a little geometry. I'd like to think we're a little more informed than that. Let's see what the investigation reveals.

I mean Lord Gonchar doesn't even wear seatbelts in his car.

I am not qualified to say whether it should have seatbelts or not, but it's not uninteresting that the same company runs the exact same hardware in other locations where it was deemed desirable or preferable to have seatbelts fitted, albeit under a different exec board.

...and possibly a different insurance underwriter.

Seeing his name and picture is really upsetting to me, for some reason. Sounds like he was a really cool guy. Anyway...

I'd like to understand how a seatbelt wouldn't prevent a rider from falling from their seat after their lap bar failed. I'd be really grateful if anyone can explain it.

Because I need to understand that part of the argument before I can get past the resistance to the cost (time and capacity) of adding seatbelts.

LostKause:

I'd like to understand how a seatbelt wouldn't prevent a rider from falling from their seat after their lap bar failed.

I had the same thought

Risk vs. convenience trade-offs are made all the time. Congress could pass a law mandating that all automobiles be restricted to 40 mph, and that would undoubtedly save many lives, perhaps thousands a year. And the nation would (rightfully) revolt, because we all want to drive faster than that—including some of us without a seatbelt.

Yes, talking about the negative impact seatbelts have on dispatch times seems callous in the context of an incident where someone was tragically and horribly killed, but that emotion doesn’t really change the equation. I mean, for those of you making that argument, why stop at one seatbelt? Why not two? Or three? In fact, how about every roller coaster be outfitted with a 5-point harness, with every rider wearing a helmet and goggles? Shouldn’t we do everything in power to move the odds of dying on a roller coaster from one in 100 million to one in infinity?

Those measures are obviously ridiculous, but they are on the same continuum as the lap bar to lap bar + seatbelt means of restraint, and I think the point being made is that when the odds are already astronomical, every added measure has to earn its way in, when accounting for other factors beyond human life.

Completely agree Chris, but I think two things are conflated here. There is a conversation about probability and risk which should determine what is required - but that feels like an old way of thinking about things.

... there is also a relatively modern phenomenon where our approach to accidents ignores probability/risk because the media cycle and social media change the dynamics of the damage that can be done when things occur. We just had an example locally where a road speed limit was dropped from 70mph to 50mph after the first major incident, since it opened five years ago.

Six Flags operate half of B&M Gigas/Hypers in existence, if something was to happen on one of these rides again - there's a good chance it'll be at a Six Flags park and the question would be asked if everything was done to reduce the risk.

The X2 situation is as much about what has happened vs. the reaction if something happened again.

If reports so far are correct, apparently the odds are not astronomical.

And, that makes sense, because simultaneous mechanical failure might not be the only way one of these restraints fails. The odds of restraint failure could increase if, for example, someone makes one of a few specific errors during routine train maintenance. That is, after all, how the Big Thunder fatality happened. The odds of restraint failure could also increase with some specific defective materials. For example, one potential explanation for the Dragster flag plate is a bad batch of loctite.

I understand as well as anyone that these things are risk-reward calculations. But this is an amusement ride. It is in no way necessary for anyone to live a full and complete life. What's more, I study systems failure as part of my regular day job. One of the lessons of that line of work is that when systems are actually deployed, we learn of ways they can fail that we did not adequately predict during their design and construction.

I don't currently have an opinion about whether or not belts would have saved this man's life. But, if they could have, the proposition that the trains with this restraint design should not be retrofitted tomorrow because it is either too (monetarily) expensive or reduces capacity by some reasonably nominal amount is something I cannot get on board with. There may be other ways to solve it that might still cost money but do not change operations---and if so, that's great too. But saving a few bucks or keeping lines slightly shorter is not a price I am willing to pay in exchange for this guy's life.

There's a really good summary of the situation here. Very well written and thought provoking:

https://www.nationalreview....r-georgia/

Brian Noble:

If reports so far are correct, apparently the odds are not astronomical.

I don't know what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?

Loosely speaking, "astronomical" means "it doesn't happen."

But it did happen.

And I suspect that we will eventually discover that it didn't happen the way I think most of us assume it had to have (meaning: two simultaneous mechanical failures of parts that were as specified, the odds of which are very long) but that there was some other confounding factor. Most likely that factor will be attributable to human error, but possibly instead to a materials defect.

Richard, it's a well-informed and mostly well-written article, but it does make one strange statement:

"Until now, it has always been the case that people who died on roller coasters fell into one of a handful of camps." [He then proceeds to give all the explanations pertaining to medical conditions, people who should not have been allowed to ride, and rider misbehavior.]

The word "always" makes this statement false unless the scope is limited. Clearly, we all know that people have been killed on roller coasters due to maintenance failures, arguably even due to design flaws in rare cases. He needs to say "nearly always" or else limit the scope somehow (maybe he should have said B&M coasters?). Probably he meant to do that but as written it's an obvious overstatement and that doesn't help his case.

Richard Bannister:

But on three-train B&Ms like Silver Star at Europa-Park, operators are working with dispatch intervals of around 60 seconds, within which they have to unload, load, and check restraints. Add seatbelts to that process and even a relatively small delay can have a significant impact on capacity

Again, KI manages to check seatbelts during 3-train operations while consistently maintaining excellent dispatch times. It's a matter of skill, training and motivation. Sacrificing safety to make up for missing any of that is a bad idea.

I'm not sure why you're focused so much on dispatch times, but (I can't believe I'm saying this) there's more to enjoying a park than cramming in rides. KI ops are also very good at making sure riders are situated properly and comfortable (they will release and reset too-tight restraints), they will talk to scared kids, they offer to take hats and such to bins, etc. This also cuts dispatch times but helps keep guests happy. I do get irritated with slow ops, but only if it's laziness or incompetence; not if it's taking care of guests.

I for one, will be very interested in knowing how this restraint failed. I question if the jerk forward to grab his phone was actually the ratchet slipping a spot.