Coaster article in The New Yorker

Sunday, August 29, 2004 11:56 AM
Yeah, the most high-falutin' magazine in North America has a piece in their August 30th issue entitled "How high can you go?: The roller coaster's new golden age." Starts off looking at TTD, comparing it to other coasters at CP, etc. Has some coaster history, looks at issues of "safety", and where things may go from here.

Also worth noting is a peek at the construction of Expedition Everest, the new $100 million dollar coaster at DW's Animal Kingdom. The issue may still be on the stands - its the one with the "Dick Cheney" cartoon cover ...

+0
Sunday, August 29, 2004 12:13 PM
dont mean to be rude, but, is there a link to this article? thanks :-)
+0
Sunday, August 29, 2004 1:22 PM
I guarantee that an online article to the New Yorker won't be free to look at anyway.
+0
Sunday, August 29, 2004 1:25 PM
quick check of the new yorker mag site has no link to that article but does list it on the in the current issue section

+0
Sunday, August 29, 2004 1:52 PM
I would have put a link if there was one. They do put a selection of articles on their site (newyorker.com) but not this one. So you may have to actually buy a copy. Money well spent, in my opinion, as it is the best general interest publication in the known world ...
+0
Monday, August 30, 2004 10:32 AM
The New Yorker does indeed have some interesting articles at times, but frequently I find myself feeling it's a bit pretentious.

I guess I can ask one of my college professor friends to loan me their copy, seeing as how they ALL seem to subscribe to it ;)

+0
Monday, August 30, 2004 1:23 PM
The article's pretty longwinded, but there were a few "highlights";

For once, someone recognizes the fact that Disney does not have "roller coasters" they have "experiences" which might happen to run on rails with wheels. I'm so tired of when someone says "hey Brett likes Roller Coasters", I hear "oh, so how many times have you been to Disney?".

There's a decent recap of the early history of the wooden coaster boom in the 20s, although in their list of "feared" creations, they never once mention Crystal Beach Cyclone.

I found it interesting that the maintenance crew for the Coney Island Cyclone is afraid to ride the thing.

The article states that at Great Adventure last week 12 riders were stranded upside down and 8 sideways on the Chiller - if I'm not mistaken, wasn't the train just stopped in the brakes at the top of the spike, therefore if anyone was even sideways, it would have been the 4 people in the back car? Gotta love hyped up incidents to scare people away ...

The article questions the validity of the IAAPA's claims about the G-force impacts of sneezing, being hit by a pillow etc. etc. and seems to support Markey in his quest. There's a few quotes from him where he insists that this is a major issue and its just a matter of time before the rest of Congress "sees the light" and comes to support his bill (so by stating that, it shows that most of Congress thinks that his bill is not worth their time ... wahoo!). It seemed that the reporter was really trying hard to come up with the concrete evidence of an industry coverup, pointing to someone who's trying to "out" Disney with their accident history and telling of the many settled cases with Six Flags, Cedar Fair and Disney and pointing out that the 7 major Florida parks all are outside real "control" of the government. But, as we all know, he found nothing more than that the people who were most vocal about the "dangers" of roller coasters and amusement parks were the ones with the most to gain financially and legally (i.e. - lawyers, someone who was being sued for malpractice because he screwed up a case with an amusement park injury, another guy was in there too who had a definite vested interest in "proving" the dangers of parks/rides).

It's worth the read if you have to take an extra-long poop, but other than that, I don't know if it's worth buying the whole magazine, although the picture of Dragster is interesting - first time I've seen the by-now classic shot of the tower with the train mid-descent, except from the twist-side (probably taken from Padlewheel Excursions) rather than the midway side.

+0
Monday, August 30, 2004 7:57 PM

college professor friends to loan me their copy, seeing as how they ALL seem to subscribe to it

Sadly, I don't. Now that I have tenure, perhaps I should subscribe. :)

+0
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:37 AM
Whaaaaat? Am academic who doesn't subscribe to the holiest of holies? For shame!!

You know, perspective is an interesting thing. Me - as opposed to Impulse-ive - took the article as being anti-alarmist in general, and supportive of the industry and its safety record. For example: It didn't question, but merely stated, that there are many things that exert greater g-forces than coasters, including sneezing and pillow fights. Those were treated as the facts they are. And Ed Markey, he came off as a bit of a blowhard, although admittedly not the frothing maniac he's often portrayed.

As for the rest of the rag, well if you don't care for superb writing, incisive criticism, and in-depth analyses of important issues (such as the ongoing horror in The Sudan, regarding which they actually afford some praise over the Bush administration's efforts), then by all means do not pick it up ... *** Edited 8/31/2004 4:38:11 AM UTC by spewey***

+0
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:42 AM

Impulse-ive said:
It's worth the read if you have to take an extra-long poop, but other than that, I don't know if it's worth buying the whole magazine...

The only to judge a magazine! :-)

+0
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 5:32 PM
I find the glossy magazines tend to chafe, while the local newspaper is quite a bit smoother.
Now if they would only print a magazine with quilted, 3-ply, lightly scented pages with just a hint of lotion, THAT'S a magazine worth purchasing.
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...