Doctors warn of thrill ride dangers

jimster:

1) Yes, the riders are often children.  Interestingly enough children seem to injured on amusement rides at a higher rate than teens and adults, but killed at a lower rate.  This may be because they usually ride rides with less energy involved.

2) Unfortunately, there seems to be little evidnece that accident rates are lower on rides in states that have inspection requirements than in states that do not.  I say this even though I think that state inspection may be a good thing.

3) While you may not be a trained inspector, you can look to see if a ride looks properly maintained and if the operators are paying attention to what they are doing.  There is a least one advantage you have over an inspector.  You are looking at the ride when you are going to ride, not when the operators are ready for the inspector.

4)  Parks are reluctant to give out information because of distorted articles just like this one.  Also, they don't want to produce a shopping list for lawyers looking for clients.  A final reason is just plain general image, amusement parks, shopping malls, bowling alleys, and all other businesses don't like to give out certain information because it  can hurt their image.  If you ran a bowling alley how would you like to see headline that reads "Hundreds Die From Heart Attacks While Bowling."

It always bothers me when physicians start blathering on about this kind of thing. Because while physicians are in a good position to see the injuries, they are not in a good position to see how those injuries are caused, and reading newspapers, my impression is that physicians who are darned good doctors know precious little about mechanical engineering and system design. Which is fine if they're giving medical treatment, but dangerous if they are (as in this case) offering engineering advice.

Let me simply concentrate on Jim Fisher's most recent comment...

1) The most dangerous part of the ride comes when the ride stops and people try to get off. Children have some incompatible traits in this regard: First of all, they tend to be energetic and impatient, meaning they are more likely than teens and adults to leap from a ride that is almost but not quite entirely stopped. Second, they tend to be just a little bit clumsy. It would be interesting to see how the nature of the incidents varies within the age groups. My gut feel is that a "typical" ride injury to a teen or adult is more likely to involve an actual equipment failure than a "typical" ride injury to a young child.

There is also the issue of over/under reporting of incidents. Parents tend to be more protective of their children than they are of themselves. A bruised arm or twisted ankle on a child is more likely to result in an incident report than the same injury to an adult.

2) I happen to be an advocate for effective state inspection programs. I haven't investigated the figures in great detail, but if there is indeed little difference in accident rates between states with inspection programs and states without inspection programs, that should tell us two things: First of all, that the industry takes safety seriously regardless of the presence or absence of controlling regulation. This is a good thing. Second, it should tell us that when you give billions of rides to millions of people, no matter how good you are, someone will probably figure out a way to get hurt. The question is, knowing that we can't realistically eliminate accidents, have we actually minimized them?

3) Read my commentary about that here.

4) Indeed, that was a major argument against the reporting requirement in the California legislation: parks don't want to release client lists for crooked lawyers. Funny how it always seems to come back to the lawyers, doesn't it?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I think that Rideman's analysis of children's injuries is probably correct.

I went to the site for the "Annals Of  Emergency Medecine" and read the the abstract of the actual medical article.  I was too cheap to spend the $25 to get a full copy of the article.  The abstract of the medical article reads as much less hysterical than the Reuters article.  It basically says that there are 14 reported cases of neurologic injuries in recent years associated with amusement rides, so emrgency doctors may want to ask about thrill rides when taking histories of patients with neurologic symptoms.

Hey Rideman great points... I agree with most, and disagree with some, but really. The guy who should be answering all of these questions is Steve Elliott, now that guy could answer somethings... I think you know him Rideman... the coversations we could have :)
-----------------
I may have the inside info... but why be known to everyone.. Downplay it and call me, "The Outsider!" ;)

For what it's worth, I'm a biomedical engineer. I do want to tackle a few issues, though.

1. Forces
Force on a hill is v^2/r with a default of 1G down.

So, while velocity is important, so is the r term. An 80mph coaster often has a pullout w/ a radius 3x larger than before, which would be less force than the slower ride. Like Jeff noted -- the Wildcat has the most positive Gs in the park, and I suspect Mantis is second.

BTW, forces are usually +5Gs and -1Gs tops. Much mroe than -1 Gs is decently dangerous and +5Gs is uncomfortable.

2. Increased injuries
More riders than before. It's notable that since the 1996 figure the CPSC changed their criteria for an amusement ride, and I believe started to incorporate water parks, which usually have a higher accident rate than dry parks.

3. State Inspections.
States with inspections will often have higher injury numbers than those without. They usually have more rides!

Montana has had 0 permanent amusement ride injuries in the last 30 years and they have no inspection process. Of course, they don't have any parks, either.

4. Cause of injury
Most minor injuries are caused by a patron ignoring or willfully violating one or more park or ride rules. A decent amount of major injuries are caused by this. Almost all rider ejection injuries are caused by rider misbehavior or action. Catastrophic, multi-passenger injuries tend to be mechanical or operator in nature, but the majority of amusement injuries are passenger-caused.

Interesting that Braksiek (doctor from the article) is a 2002 graduate. (http://www.hcmcem.com/graduate%202002.htm)

Y'know something... that makes great sense... what expertise does he have in the amusement park industry... and what would he know about restraints and the affects they have mechanisms for injuries... kinda fishy if you ask me...
-----------------
I may have the inside info... but why be known to everyone.. Downplay it and call me, "The Outsider!" ;)

I think this guy is just using a controversial issue to get his foot in the door.  He knows that if you say that thrill rides are dangerous, and you are a doctor, you will get noticed.  And being noticed means big-time money.

All of your points bring me back to the point I made early in this thread:  if coasters were really so dangerous wouldn't the injury rate be significatly higher in the coaster enthusiast community?

It's very common for a senior doctor to use a newbie as a coauthor to help give him some prestige.  It also give the experienced doctor someone to do the leg work.  The senior doctor provides the expertise.  The junior doctor does the grunt work and learns.  Nothing wrong with that.

As I said before, if you look at the abstract, the medical article sounds like it wasn't that sensational.  It is the Reuter's article that sensationalizes things.

As to the increase in the number of estimated injuries according that the CPSC.  Water parks have not been added to the NEISS database subset that the CPSC uses, even though the most recent CPSC report includes a water park death as an amusement ride death.  (Shows just how careless the CPSC is in its research.) 

The increase in the number of estimated injuries is due to an increase in the number of injuries reported by just one hospital.  If the sample did not include this one hospital there would be no increase in the injuries estimated.  Unfortunately, I don't know what is going on at that one hospital.  There are several possibilities.  That reports from just one hospital can completely change the results shows just how inappropriate the NEISS sample is for estimating amusement park injuries.

I think some doctors need to get a life and find a cure for serious diseases instead of worrying about the risk of roller coaster injuries that never happen.

Outsider: Yeah, I know Steve, and you're right...he knows more about ride dynamics than most people I know, especially me...
Now my question is: Do I know YOU? :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Rideman: Yeah Steve is good at what he does, there is no doubt about that, but then again Richard Harris is good as well, or even Ken Martin... all good at what they do... hey rideman sit all of us together in a room and we could get some stuff done... It'd be like the RAT pack of amusement park safety :)

Not sure if you know me... :(

-----------------
I may have the inside info... but why be known to everyone.. Downplay it and call me, "The Outsider!" ;)