What do y'all think?
*** This post was edited by du8die on 8/24/2001. ***
-------------
1)Raging Bull 2)V2 3)Alpengeist
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0108240305aug24.story
-----------------
"It's Deja Vu all over again." - Yogi Berra
The "riders injured on amusement rides" figure is a statistical estimate made by sampling 100 hospital emergency rooms across the country, then applying a statistical factor to estimate a total for the entire country. If you are trying to estimate the number of people injured doing something actively dangerous, that kind of an estimate can be moderately useful. On the other hand, when you are talking about activities in which people are not injured very often, the numbers get terribly skewed when you start applying statistical multipliers.
It's very much like the study earlier this season that identified tea cosies as particularly dangerous in the UK.
The bottom line is that the trending data may be reasonable, and the order of magnitude might be about right ("thousands of people"), but the actual number is almost certainly wrong.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
The figure is not surprising. Working at a park for a few years exposed me to several accidents. I was injured twice, once by a ride, and once by a balloon (long story, but involved a trip to the hospital). Also watched my mother attend to a woman who was severely injured when an iron gate fell off the second level of the Columbia Carrousel and landed on her head.
But, as an operator, safety was pounded into our heads (no pun intended). I really think Parks do all they can to keep everyone safe. They know the media would love nothing more than for something to feed off of.
-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww!
*** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 8/24/2001. ***
As was very apparent after my college stat class, even with decent sampling techniques, numbers are easily tweaked. But even if only one hospital was sampled, the data would have been much more meaningful if compared to other reasons for visits to the same hospital.
-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww!
*** This post was edited by janfrederick on 8/24/2001. ***
"From 1993 through 2000, the estimated number of inflatable attraction-related injuries increased from 850 to 1,918, a statistically significant increase."
Inflatable attraction...those moon bouncers, accounted for almost 20% of the total injuries that they claim occurred last year.
Also, as someone stated above, their margin of error is insane. See this quote (p. 7)
"An estimated total of 10,580 +/- 5,260 hospital emergency room-treated injuries occurred in 2000. The statistical margin of error is about 5,260 for a 95% confidence level."
So, in other words, their guess of 10,580 injuries has an error range spanning 10,520. I am not saying that there was only 60, but the range of injuries, to give a result that could be considered 95% accurate is between 5,320 and 15,840. Sheesh! I could estimate that without spending millions of dollars to do this study!
Here is another interesting statistic found in page 13. (Compiled by me.) Women are 2.5 times more likely to injure their foot, ankle or knee than men are.
And, here's a reason not to wear earrings on ride, but women are 15.29 times more likely to injure their ears! (Both of these are based on estimated totals from 1993-2000.)
On page 14, it states that 27.31% of the injuries that occurred from 1993-2000 were abrasion contusions. (i.e. scraped knees, etc.)
In Appendix A, it lists the fatalities from 1993-2000. From what I can see of the 51 fatalities in those years, cases 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, 33, 37, 39, 51 were caused by rider error. That accounts for almost 20% of the fatalities. There were three other cases where the fatalities had nothing to do with a malfunction of the ride (heart attack, asthma, etc.).
-----------------
"It's Deja Vu all over again." - Yogi Berra
*** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 8/24/2001. ***
janfrederick said:
.... the data would have been much more meaningful if compared to other reasons for visits to the same hospital.
There are tables available on the CPSC site that list the numbers of injuries and deaths for many causes. As you can probably guess, amusement rides are nearly the least likely causes of death and injury.
*** This post was edited by ACE15 on 8/24/2001. ***
Why doesn't anyone mention you're more likely to get hurt walking across the street, getting in a car wreck, and getting struck by lightning and actually sound confident about it? One show did mention this but then came up with, "...but how can they be sure?" Trust the freaking CPSC's reports!
I swear these TV channels are out to scare people away from coasters.
You must be logged in to post