California court rules park rides are common carriers

My primary interest is in centralized data collection so that we can in fact answer the question you ask. There is no way under the current regime to get those data, and no way to get those data without investigative authority. That's more or less the extent of the CPSC intervention I support, and, in fact, what I believe the Markey proposal would do -- which is what the CPSC theoretically does in connection with non-fixed-site rides. There are no CPSC inspectors out checking carnival rides.

As for whether there is a problem, there are certainly injuries every year that seem to me to be cost-effectively avoidable (which is my general standard for intervention). Absence of grounding (and no GFCI circuits), improper nuts, insufficient padding below inflatables, etc.

My most basic concern is that the Common Carrier status would increase the parks' level of responsibility to the equivalent of that required of planes, trains, buses, and the like. My *fear*, realistic or not, is that when a civil trial DOES reach a jury (this IS California after all), that the jurors would PUNISH the park for not meeting "unrealistic expectations of safety"...

Although, the parks do exercise an extreme level of care already, IMO...(save for the BTMRR parking attendants' and their fender-benders)...;)

*** This post was edited by rollergator 6/20/2005 5:02:45 PM ***

Disclaimer:

Do not read this post if you have adverse reactions to more than a few lines of material. The following opinion piece is meant for those who are willing and able to participate in the discussion of the topic at hand. It is assumed that reasonable-minded people understand that there are no absolutes and that occasional summation and generalities may indeed be incorporated into the postings in order to allow for reasonable discussion. No all-encompassing prejudices are intended and/or assumed.

I most certainly agree on the central data collection aspect. I find it hard to believe insurance companies whose job is to know the risk versus reward are not already doing this. How could they make any reasonable decision on premium pricing without knowing the accident rate? I’m frustrated that the public cannot find accurate data. Is there a way to require insurance companies to open the books?

I just do not believe a new governmental intervention in our lives for something that may or may not be statistically significant is a high enough threshold to spend the public dollar. If the government were the only way we can get fair and objective data then I would reluctantly agree (fair and objective are the key words). However, my governmental paranoia would have me questioning any data they provide, as I would be concerned that there would be a conflict of interest. As a current and former government employee I see budget decisions made all the time that have nothing to do with truth and reality, but rather protecting and increasing salaries by inflating perceived importance.

Insurance companies should have no real conflict of interest. They have a profit to make and a risk/reward table that should closely resemble reality. This is the type of information that might give us insight to the relative danger involved in riding rides. We should be able to compare risk/reward ratios for comparable activities…scuba diving, walking, bike riding, roller coaster riding, etc…

*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 6/20/2005 5:09:18 PM ***

Stop with the disclaimer. You're wasting my disk space and you don't appear even a little more intellectual.

Well, insurance companies may have a different standard for safety as we might choose through congress. When doing risk/benefit analyses, they're going to consider the actual likely costs to them rather than the costs more generally, and so they'll take into account (for example) the fact that around 10% of workplace injuries result in lawsuits, and will consider costs that are absorbed by other entities (health insurance, etc.) to be irrelevant to their determinations. Put another way, their risk/reward table is specific to insurance companies, just the same as businesses risk/benefit analysis is tied to their specific exposure and opportunities. The theory is that governmental agencies can make a broader analysis. I agree that insurance companies' information would be useful, but scattered and difficult to get.

And I simply cannot believe that anything that's funded to only $500K can count as a significant intervention in anything, or that it will mean anything more than information-gathering.

I'm sorry Jeff. I will comply. My intentions were to stop thread hijacking and personal battles like you and I always seem to do. I was not trying to look smart. I’m tired of defending the length of posts and personal insults thrown my way that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I figured I might cut it off before it began. I'm very sorry that your anger is such that you feel the need to personally attack me again even after I offered my apology for my part in our prior disputes. Saying stuff like “you don't appear even a little more intellectual” really does nothing but flame the situation. I’m doing my best to avoid confrontation with you and your supporters. I would hope you would be man enough to do the same. We ought to be able to co-exist on a message board without every thread becoming a “peeing” match. Truth be told, I appreciate a lot of your opinions, but disagree with others. I again offer a heartfelt apology for all prior flamings that I have participated in at your or anybody’s expense. It was beneath me, and I will do my best to avoid such behaviors in the future no matter how much I’m provoked.

Torgo:

I'm not sure $500k is enough to do the job...I guess it depends on what kind of data they intend to collect. Anyways, as always, thanks for the insight. You always seem to get me thinking in a different direction...even if I'm not ready to accept all of it! :-)

I tend to agree that $500K may well not be enough to even collect the data, but it certainly isn't enough to create a whole new bureaucracy or to create new standards, etc. I tend to think that if Markey were in fact wanting to do that sort of thing, he'd be aiming a tad higher than $500K.

You'd be *amazed* at the amount of data our office collects for considerably LESS THAN 500K/year (app. 40M of services annually to kids with diseases/disabilities are accounted for)....of course, we're contracted directly thru the State of FL, and our state is poor like dirt farmers, LOL. And all of our data analysis is done *gratis* to the State, since we're a RESEARCH institution...can't say FL doesn't know how to get blood from a turnip! ;)

Collecting data only from insurances companies seems a little like "the foxes guarding the henhouse" to me....collecting data from ER visits would likely give a better reflection of the *more serious* injuries/accidents.

*** This post was edited by rollergator 6/21/2005 10:13:41 AM ***

I'm not sure how the CPSC would handle data collection under the Markey plan, but I know that they have done abysmal job in the past with regards to amusement ride accidents. Their statistical methods were flawed such that small changes in the sample sources resulted in significant changes in the results reported. They finally stopped reporting on fixed ride fatalities when a change in their sample resulted in a significant drop in the estimated number of injuries.

In the case of fatalities, it is possible now to track every fatal accident on an amusement ride in the US since there are so few fatalities and they are heavily covered by the media and web sources. (Though it is not possible to track every medical fatality that occurs on a ride.) Comparing my own data to the CPSC's, I've found significant errors in the CPSC data. The CPSC has missed actual accidental fatalities, reported construction accidents as ride fatalities, reported OSHA accidents as consumer accidents, and reported deaths that did not occur on amusement rides as amusement ride accidents.

Jim...are you saying that a governmental agency could be incompetent? I would have never guessed… :-)

This is my concern. You can't trust the parks (they would have something to hide). You can't trust the insurance companies (fox and hen). You can't trust the hospitals (HIPPA). So we are left with a governmental agency as the best option. Do you trust your government?

I'm paranoid...