2019 Intamin coaster for Futuroscope ( France )

Monday, November 13, 2017 7:52 PM

2013 Cedar Point - Shoot the Rapids rolled back down the lift hill

Edit:

2001: Cedar Point - Millennium Force cable snaps

Last edited by 0g, Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:25 AM
+0
Monday, November 13, 2017 8:50 PM

You can't possibly place the fault of restraint failures of any kind on the riders. That's insane. Riders are not experts in human factors, and neither are the operators. It should just work.

+2Loading
Monday, November 13, 2017 9:43 PM

... and to an extent, I think ride operators are expecting the same thing "If it closes on the guest, it should just work". That there are degrees of which this is true is what causes restraint failures when well-meaning ride operators put guests on rides that shouldn't have been on them in the first place.

+0
Monday, November 13, 2017 10:02 PM

List of B&M incidents:

.

.

.

.

(Note: I don't actually know if it's a perfectly clean sheet, but the point still stands.)

+2Loading
Monday, November 13, 2017 10:13 PM

Jeff said:
You can't possibly place the fault of restraint failures of any kind on the riders. That's insane. Riders are not experts in human factors, and neither are the operators. It should just work.

Its not a restraint failure when the rider loosens or completely takes a restraint off. Both of which occurred, Perilous Plunge woman loosened her restraint, and the girl on Hydro completely took hers off to adjust a jacket.

+1Loading
Monday, November 13, 2017 10:21 PM

But the person shouldn’t have been able to do that and the ride dispatch. Heck arrow coaster won’t get to the lift hill if the restraints aren’t in the correct position and haven’t since...ever?

Andy, the only death(s) I know of on a B&M weren’t ride related. Heath related and people in lockout tag out areas are all I’m Aware of.

+0
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 10:09 AM

Tbone's chop said:
Its not a restraint failure when the rider loosens or completely takes a restraint off.

That is, by definition, a failure.

+0
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:21 AM

No that’s someone subverting the restraint system. No different than taking your seatbelt off on SFGA Whizzer, or ducking out and under the OS restraint on SFGA Demon. Or for that matter; disregarding the ride height/weight parameters (which I see on a regular basis), it’s not a design flaw when there’s a height minimum posted at the entrance and a rider under that height limit disregards it, no more so than people that choose to drive without a seatbelt.

+1Loading
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:07 PM

It is a design flaw. If something is designed to restrain you correctly, it shouldnt be an option to defeat the restraint. That’s...the entire point of a RESTRAINT by its very definition. Comparing it to a car is irrelevant. A car can safely be operated without wearing a seatbelt and on personal property a seatbelt isn’t required by law. Many if not most rides and coasters cannot...

+0
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 1:18 PM

By that rationale; the guy jumping the fence at Raptor wasn’t at fault. B&M and/or CP should have designed a better loto area to ensure the area couldn’t be entered, the fencing subverted. At some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

+1Loading
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:08 PM

No, if you can "subvert" the restraint, it's already broken and flawed. Try to get out of a locked B&M restraint.

+2Loading
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:28 PM

Tbone's chop said:
By that rationale; the guy jumping the fence at Raptor wasn’t at fault. B&M and/or CP should have designed a better loto area to ensure the area couldn’t be entered, the fencing subverted. At some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

I can’t continue to argue because you’re using factually ignorant and incorrect examples and opinions. As a point of fact, and you can check the standards set in some cases by law if you’d like, but the whole point of designing a restraint is to restrain someone so that they cannot subvert it.

The responsibility of the manufacturer to design a restraint correctly ourweighs any personal responsibility of the rider because the manufacturer is presenting something that has to, by law, meet certain standards to operate, and those standards require reasonable safety provided on behalf of the rider. The guy retrieving his hat was not on the ride, and there is no responsibility on their part to make sure someone can’t get into the path of an oncoming train, that’s going to fall on the park to provide reasonable safety. And guess what happened after that? The fences got taller and harder to subvert while more adequate sinage was posted by the park.

It isn’t reasonable to expect a restraint to be defeated, otherwise you’d be able to find me plenty of examples of other companies restraints that had been defeated. Go ahead and give me examples from each mfg that show they’ve had as many instances as Intamin. I’ll wait.

+1Loading
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:29 PM

Out of curiosity, how much is the rider to blame if they willingly and knowingly ride when they do not meet height or weight requirements? Will any park risk bad PR over not allowing certain riders ride? As in physically disabled people, for example.

I am not in any way advocating for Intamin or their safety record (or lack thereof). I know of people who had their parents pad the inside of their shoes in order for them to meet the height requirements. Luckily, those people are still alive. Had they died or been injured, the parents would have likely sued the park, the manufacturer, or both AND likely would have won, sadly.

+0
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:57 PM

I don’t know if any park that will allow someone to ride if they don’t meet height. Not sure there’s any numbers to go on there. Because at that point the park is negligent andbparks aren’t in the business of killing people.

As for the weight or body type of a rider, if the person gets to that point and the restraint doesn’t restrain them and dispatches anyways, that would be a design flaw.

+0
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:03 PM

A couple of parks got bad PR for turning away guests because of missing limbs. I assume there's no computer that can diagnose that and it's up to the ops to enforce.

+1Loading
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:11 PM

I was going to come back and comment on that. If someone is too short, too thin, or doesn’t have a lap, that’s on the park to make sure that the person is restrained. That should be easy to spot. And that’s a park issue. Which is why the guy with no lap’s incident can’t be blamed on the ride manufacturer. And it wasn’t from what I recall. Lapbars can’t restrain you if you have no lap.

But when it comes to height, which was specifically mentioned, I’ve seen plenty of ride ops turn kids in line away. Should be the same with anyone unrestrainable due to certain things like height or body shape or missing limbs. The Woman who died on giant was of a body shape that couldn’t be restrained, but was of a body type that said restraint should have been designed to not allow the train to dispatch from what I recall of the findings.

If someone severely skinny perhaps due to anorexia was sitting in a train and the restraint was all the way deployed, yet that person then is still not restrained, that would then be the fault of the park for allowing it (and I know some rides cover certain situations about riders in the operations manual, so if a park has been informed said person shouldn’t ride and let’s them, the park is negligible).

Regardless, if a restraint is otherwise doing its job, but can be defeated, that’s on the designer.

+1Loading
Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:49 PM

Tbone's chop said:

By that rationale; the guy jumping the fence at Raptor wasn’t at fault. B&M and/or CP should have designed a better loto area to ensure the area couldn’t be entered, the fencing subverted. At some point personal responsibility has to come into play.

I think the difference is the intent of the design. A restraint on a roller coaster is designed to be inescapable, whereas a fence comes with no such assurance from the designer.

+2Loading
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 4:19 PM

TheMillenniumRider said:

Glad someone was able to look at it from an objective point of view. :) Let's put this into perspective for a moment.

NSC states that you chances of death in your lifetime are the following:

Car Collision 1:645

Accidental Firearm Discharge 1:6,905

Airplane Incident : 1:9,821

Lightning 1:161,856

Per IAAPA chances of death on amusement ride in a lifetime are 1:750,000,000.

You are more likely to be killed by lightning, than riding a ride. We are arguing over an number which is statistically irrelevant.

Here are some of he problems with your argument:

  1. There is a lot of stat juking and reporting issues with these park injuries and fatalities. Disney is notorious for having guests grabbed by mysterious arms and ushered through a set of tunnels after incidents. Its too difficult to know what actually goes on. Most of the incidents are settled quietly out of court. Did you know that on average, 1-2 serious injuries where fans are brought to the hospital, caused by stray foul balls at MLB occur, but the MLB has immunity from claims, and the incidents are hush hush.
  2. Yes, those stats are impressive, but they're being compared against extremely dangerous occurrences. Its like saying, "Well we're a lot safer than going to the Sedan or Afghanistan in an active battle." Cars are extremely, unnecessarily dangerous, and America has a huge gun population that is being debated at the moment. There is no reason that a transportation device where you are strapped in, going around a circuit, and have wheels on three sides should not be very safe. Any accident should be an embarrassment and unacceptable.
  3. It is inappropriate to compare roller coaster fatalities and injuries to transpiration ones because one is for entertainment and one is serving a logical function. When you strap yourself into a coaster you are giving a park money in exchange for a pleasurable experience. When you travel, you trade-off cost and safety to get somewhere. You are rewarded for the risk that you take. Most people hope not to die while entertaining themselves.
  4. To me, I have rekindled my interest in roller coasters as an adult from an interest that as I have as a kid because of my concern for the world, and my belief in the human spirit and what we're capable of. I believe that roller coasters should inspire. They should inspire the imagination, innovation, problem solving, higher functioning thinking, and logical thinking. Kids and young adults should see technology in action, and it should inspire them to want to make contributions in STEM fields, and to want to push boundaries, create, and improve. One of those areas should be safety. How can we get better, more fun, faster, longer, higher, etc. while also improving safety? How can we get more efficient and safer? With this kind of thinking we may unlock the mystery of how to cart people around this country without man operated vehicles with incredible speed, convenience, comfort, WIFI accessibility, efficiency, and without the risk of accident (death, injury, dismemberment, etc.). And yes, how to keep our people safe without allowing individual ownership of firearms.

+1Loading
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 3:11 PM

Trackmaster said:

"Well we're a lot safer than going to the Sedan or Afghanistan in an active battle."

+5Loading
Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:00 PM

I was waiting for it! I had to let it go just to see when you’d chime in lol.

+1Loading

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...