Dragster riders upset how CP treated them after coaster mishap

I wasn't referring to their injuries, Gonch ;)

Regardless of the outcome of all this, it couldn't be too bad for CP. From the webcams, trains are now on the track and there are crew members all over the platform. My guess is that it is about to open.

CP may just pay these kids off to shut them up and limit the bad PR. I can't see the kids winning anything in court. They already said that it didn't hurt and that they didn't know it happened untill someone told them that they were bleeding. There will be no scaring from the accident. There is nothing to sue for.

I think they could have done more. As Danny1221 said, I also got front line passes when we got stuck on Iron Dragon last year, however they were not good for TTD. I think they could have at least refunded their entance fee. What would that be $200 vs. a lawsuit and bad publicity? I do not think they should sue.

We try to do the best that we can, under the most up to date technology, past history, and fail safe precautions that we can possibly provide. I just think back about that "big ride" when we lost our shuttle as it traveled toward earth...God speed to all of us.

John Carle- It seems very possible for them to prove negligence on Cedar Point. What defense would CP have? "We didn't know"? "We did a standard check on the ride before it opened?" And especially for a judge who knows nothing about the ride industry, proving negligence would be pretty easy.

Going out on a limb here, but....

How many of those of you who think that "CP really didn't do anything wrong, and these kids are fussing about nothing" ALSO think that CP should put the themeing back on the ride?

After all, no-one was actually injured in any way when that wheel fell off. And it only fell off on the brake-run side of the ride (which may be why Walt can't get in there to take photo's anymore ;) ). So that incident was far less serious than this recent one.

Thought I better add for the benefit of some readers that this is not a serious suggestion....

---

Lord Gonchar said:

The area around Storm Runner is even closer and you can even walk under the launch track... Hershey doesn't seem to think there's a safety issue either. (for whatever reason)

---

Oh, come on now... it seems someone is suffering from selective memory. You blatantly quote your credentials as official Medical Expert, but it seems that Lord "Dr. Boo-Boo" Gonchar has forgotten one thing: Storm Runner's cable is not filled with metal shards, rather it is composed of creamy nougat.

It'd be a pleasure to be sprayed by it.

---

kpjb said:

It'd be a pleasure to be sprayed by it.

---

Eww. ;)

---

panman said:

...think that CP should put the themeing back on the ride?

After all, no-one was actually injured in any way when that wheel fell off. And it only fell off on the brake-run side of the ride (which may be why Walt can't get in there to take photo's anymore ). So that incident was far less serious than this recent one.

---

You're not going to get anyone to say that. Just like no one is saying CP shouldn't make changes involving the cable. In the case of the theming on the trains, the second the problem was realized, it was rectified. I'd expect similar treatment in this case.

No one is saying CP should just put the cable back on and continue as before.

If I was the employee in charge of seeing those who were injured were taken care of, I would have been more than happy to give freebees. Guest service should be as high of a priority as safety.

"We are really sorry that this has happened to you. Here, take these season passes. Are you guys hungry? Where would you like to eat? Can I escort you to a ride and get you on from the exit? Which ride? You want a souvenir T-Shirt or something?"

Maybe this was something like what was offered to them and they refused, but I doubt it. Who would refuse freebees?

I agree with you 100% dexter. Front of line passes for the major rides, heck a couple for each ride. Season pass for this year or next year.

Even if CP didn't offer any freebees, I don't think any compensation is due anyone. There was no pain & suffering + no scaring = no $$$

I would like to see how much different this thread would be if this had happened at a Six Flags park.

Is that the best you can do, Mark?

No use to even go there MarkSFOG. I took off on that tangent a few days ago and... well... it doesn't make a difference to some.

You know how it would be if it would be a SF park. There are many that would attribute it to "Bad Maintenance", "Bad Operations", "Bad Corporate Decisions", etc. that should have been prevented had SF taken the proper steps when the potential problem was first found. However, since CP is involved, the objectivity level has dropped quite low.

I believe Mamoosh put it best when he said: "Perhaps [the injured riders]... see a quick, easy way to make some money. Or perhaps they are being truthful and CP dropped the ball on this one. My point [and I'm not finger pointing at you] is that since NONE OF US witnessed any of what happened it seems a bit premature to immediately jump to that conclusion and side with the park."

Had this occured at a SF park... then I am sure many in the SF crowd would be doing the same jumping to conclusions as well.*** This post was edited by SLFAKE 7/16/2004 11:50:38 AM ***

I like the latest AN&R take on this...

---

Intamin Coaster Comes Alive, Breathes Fire, Eats Limbs of Sixteen Riders; Angry Enthusiasts Claim That "Media is Out of Control," "That's Perfectly Normal," and "Those Riders Were Just P**sies Looking for a Lawsuit"

---

I just want to make one thing clear (and yes, this is directed at you SLFAKE and to a lesser extent, Mark). I am not jumping on the side of the park. I don't think some of the more vocal contributors of this thread are either. We're trying to sort through the facts without sensationalizing things and blowing small matters out of proportion.

You say that I among others are siding with the park just because it's CP, well in my case, you're dead wrong, and you have made an ass out of u and me by assuming. I don't care if this was Wal Mart, CP, SFMM, Bob's General Store, whoever. I unilaterally (I hope that's teh correct usage) do not agree with "damages for injuries" sustained at a business. There's an inherent risk to living in this world, and that's something that a lot of people and mostly every lawyer has forgotten about. Nothing is 100% safe, nothing is 100% certain, that's what makes life variable. If everything was 100% safe and certain, we'd all live to be 100 years old and be happy the entire time, but that's not it. So don't tell me I'm only siding with the park because it's CP, if X had put metal shards into someone's leg due some wild out of the blue freak accident, I would side with SFMM in a second. So get off the freakin' high horse and quit acting like you're better than everyone.

Just as an aside...anyone who tells someone to get off their high horse is usually on one too...

^ What those guys said.

The "if this was SF and not CF" argument is one of the most tired arguments around.

Besides, what does it have to do with any of the debate? We're discussing the injuries, the fault, the incident in general that happened at CP - a CF park.

If it happened at a SF park, you know what I'd say? I'd say the same thing...

...then I'd make a joke about how the people injured were lucky the ride was even operating or about how they were lucky they didn't get injured on the piles of garbage lying around the park or how they're lucky they didn't get beat up by the "thugs" that SF parks attract or something.

There is that what you guys want to hear?

---

I took off on that tangent a few days ago and... well... it doesn't make a difference to some.

---

You know why? Because it's irrelevant. If you want some firepower behind that argument - dig through the posts of us guys and find examples of this 'objectivity'. Prove the hypocrisy and maybe someone will listen.

---

I believe Mamoosh put it best when he said: "Perhaps [the injured riders]... see a quick, easy way to make some money. Or perhaps they are being truthful and CP dropped the ball on this one. My point [and I'm not finger pointing at you] is that since NONE OF US witnessed any of what happened it seems a bit premature to immediately jump to that conclusion and side with the park."

---

I still disagree with that. We have the facts on the injuries and there will be no investigation done. The only info left to trickle out of this is what CP chooses to offer - and no matter what they find, do you really think any info isn't going to have a major PR spin on it? The only way you might get more facts than that is if a lawsuit is filed and actually goes to court without a settlement.

The best part is the ride appears to already be running again. Check the CP site webcams. :)

Impulse,

If you go to McDonald's, your kid eats a Kid's Meal, and he gets Salmonella poisoning...do you think you (or he) should be compensated for the suffering? I mean, everyone knows about salmonella poisoning so you really are taking a risk when you eat out.

Very relevant wahoo! Impressive (if you don't know, there's an outbreak of salmonella from Sheetz food in the Pittsburgh area right now and it's spreading to WV, MD and OH).

But to answer your question, no I don't believe we should be "compensated" for that. Now, I'll also define "compensated" as being funds above and beyond medical bills. I would think that any doctor visits or perscriptions that can be DIRECTLY attributed to the salmonella should be paid for by McDonalds, and not even in lump sum form. I mean that there should be an address set up where I could send medical bills, with a doctor's signed affidavit that this is due to the salmonella and McDonald's would send me a check for the amount I had to pay (not that my insurance had to pay, that I had to pay).

But getting additional money or free meals or anything to "compensate" for mine or my kid's "pain and suffering" or "mental scarring" is absolutely ludicrious and pointless. Everyone knows money can't buy happiness, so I see no reason to make everything more expensive by suing these companies for "damages" (if you don't follow that one: suit = payout, payout = higher insurance and lawyer fees, higher fees = more markup, more markup = increased consumer cost - so basically, you get money, but everything costs more because of you, so it works itself out that you don't get as much).

And yes, you are taking a risk when you eat out. You're taking a risk that the cook has dirty hands, that the green onions came from Mexico in that bad batch, that the server dropped the food and picked it back up, that you're allergic to the food and didn't know it before. There's a multitude of things that could go wrong with jsut going out to eat, but you enjoy the food, it's relatively cheap and convenient for you, so you assume that risk for the anticipated reward. Risk and reward, it's part of everything.

To quote Billbo Baggins (and show how dorky I really am!) "It's a dangerous business, walking out your front door".