I thought the piece was a lot better than it could have been. Look what they did: They started out by pointing out the relative safety of amusement rides. Then they pointed out that in some states incidents do not need to be reported. They pointed out that there were incidents in California, and those incidents were not being reported or otherwise handled. They talked about the genesis of AB-850, though I notice they focused on Kathy Fackler and her efforts and didn't even mention the incident that really got Torlakson's bill moving.
Finally, they pointed out that the State of Florida exempts the biggest amusement parks from their state regulations. Everything in the story is pretty much true. I don't have much use for the attorney, but consider this:
He has clients who allege injuries on rides while the Florida congressman denies that such injuries ever happened. It seems to me that the congressman's comments simply prove the lawyer's case that state oversight in Florida is inadequate.
Personally, I would have liked to see a few seconds devoted to pointing out that there are effective state programs in place in many states, including but not limited to Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Kentucky, and now California, and perhaps an opposing viewpoint on the subject of Federal oversight from officials in a regulated state (believe me, I know such opinions exist!).
In general, I thought it was a decent piece, and I was very happy to see that it focused on regulatory issues rather than trying to "prove" that rides are dangerous.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
