Least Safe Park Chain

Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:13 PM
I was going through the Safer Parks website and it didn't give any stats on which park chain has the most amount of accidents that have been reported. Does anyone have any clue as to which park chain has the worst safety record?
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:32 PM
What is the web site you got it of of
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:34 PM
I would think that Six Flags would have the largest number of accidents, since they are the largest park chain in the world. However, in terms of numbers of guests, it is possible that a larger chain like Disney or Universal would have the most accidents because of the larger numbers they attract each year. However, if you took all of the numbers into perspective, you would probably find that the chains are equally good in safety record when it comes to accidents per park or accidents per guest. Without a doubt, every chain does its best to prevent accidents and injuries, and this goes a long ways towards having a safe park. However, in the long run, accidents will happen, and one can only hope that they will not be serious.
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:53 PM
I checked Themepark insider and based on the frequency of accidents, the top parks were

Disneyland

Disneyworld

Magic Mountain

Knotts Berry Farm

Kings Island

Canada's Wonderland

Six Flags over Texas

Busch Gardens Williamsburg

Disney's California Adventure

+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:05 PM
Go here and read about accidents that happen. Lake Compounce has like 6 people die there each year. Its not a chain. Its scary. But I don't think they have the biggest problem. Check out the link.

http://members.aol.com/rides911/accidents.htm

+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:22 PM
The number of accidents is irrelevant without first considering the number of guests each year at each park.
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:32 PM
You must definitely consider how many guests there are. I think you would have have to go buy a percentage or a ratio of accidents to safe rides.
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 2:38 PM
It would all depend on how you determined "Least Safe." Would you call the chain with the most accidents the least safe - even though they have more rides and more visitors - or would you call a small park or chain less safe because their ride/ridership count versus number of accidents is lower?

i.e. Large Chain - 150 rides, 75 million guests, 33.750 billion total rides given, 15 accidents, 60 people hurt = 1 injured per every 562.5 million rides

Small chain - 10 rides, 5 million guests, 150 million rides given, 2 accidents, 8 people hurt = 1 injured per every 18.75 million rides

SO which one would be less safe? The one with less injuries or the one with less injuries per 1,000 rides?

+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:14 PM
I was reading my coaster book last night by Robert Coker and he's got stats from 2000 in it. It was something like 300 million people go to parks and 4,000 get injured and your chances of getting injured at a park is 1 in 25 million and the chance of getting hurt where you would need to go to the hospital would be 1 in 500 million. Something like that. I will get the numbers when I get home.
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:16 PM

Crashmando said:
Go here and read about accidents that happen. Lake Compounce has like 6 people die there each year. Its not a chain. Its scary.

Don't be stupid. Lake Compounce has had about 3 or 4 deaths over the past few years, and most (if not all) of them were ruled rider/employee error. You make LC sound like it's a death trap, when in fact it's very well taken care of.

+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:49 PM

Antuan said:
I checked Themepark insider and based on the frequency of accidents, the top parks were

Disneyland

Disneyworld

Magic Mountain

Knotts Berry Farm

Kings Island

Canada's Wonderland

Six Flags over Texas

Busch Gardens Williamsburg

Disney's California Adventure


I Actually believe that some of those deaths, like the ones at Busch Gardens and Kings Island, resulted from freak accidents that the park had no control over. (Like people getting struck by lightning in the parking lot)

Theme Park Insider is not the best place to get stats. While the website does provide helpful travel information, TIP is aimed at bashing parks and park chains, like Disney, Universal, and Busch for small flaws that really don't effect the park's bottom line or overall expierience.

+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 4:54 PM
It also depends on how well ride ops dispatch a train. how well each park trains ride ops. I go to SFGAM and they make sure everyone is buckeled in right and is safe. When I went to Magic Kingdom, saftey seemed to be the least of their worries. They do not check every seat before they dispatch. I almost got injured when my arm got stuck inside the retrain on a coaster, I had to scream to get their attention and when I did get thier attention they did not seem to care, they did not want to stop the ride.
+0
Wednesday, November 19, 2003 11:52 PM
Are we looking at ride related accidents, uncontrollable accidents (from the park's point of view), or both?
+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:41 AM
SFGA doesn't seem to be too safe to me as far as the crowds that go there. Gangs seem to populate there frequently, or any time that I have ever been there (4x).
+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:50 AM
And how, pray tell, do you know that they are in a gang? Like I said before, because someone dresses urban and speaks in slang, does mean they are part of the Bloods or the Crypts.
+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:18 AM
Yo, yo, yo...don't be speakin' ill of my homies, bro.

--Redman...out

LOL!

+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:28 AM

It doesn't matter if they are bloods or crypts, its not even there dress its there demeanor, acting like a bunch of hoodlums, making it a bad day in general for those around them, they don't even have to physically damage anything its people like that whom drive property values down. I got into it with a group of losers dressed like gangstas at CLP, I was in line getting some fries and the language coming out of the gutter trash wasn't even funny (come on there are tons of kids around), then when I was sitting down with my gf and mommy they were sitting behind me smacking each other and swearing up a storm, hitting me in my lower back near my wallet after the second one I turned around and asked them which one wants to bite the curb first, after that the shut up and avoided me the rest of the day. I got into twice this year with gangsters at CP as well, I don't like getting hit with basketballs. But thats not limited to parks, people like that show up everywhere, but from my experience if you get in their face if they are directly threatening you they'll back away and if not well duck and run.
+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:45 AM
so they aren't "gangsters" they are just a bunch of "punks", "jerks" or "#$$holes".

Wearing FUBU or other similar clothes does not make someone a gangsta...The clothes do not make the man, despite what the old adage tries to tell you...

I have seen plenty of "average joe" kids acting like jerks, swearing, goofing around and being generally disruptive at all parks - just because they are part of a group - does that make them a gang?

Where's CO when you need him? Time to get out the emergency beacon....

+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:06 PM
I am wondering what kind of "gangsters" would run away with their tails under their hind legs after you vehemently threatened to make them "bite the curb"....all while you sit with "gf and mommy."

Please, you wanna see a real gangster, come to the Bronx, White Plains Rd and Gun Hill. Then if one of them mistakenly "hit you in the back," proceed to threaten to make them "bite the curb". And one more thing, let me know the date and time, I will make the trip to NYC.

+0
Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:37 PM
red and 'tuan, I was thinking the same thing when I read the little anecdote. "Gangstas" dont back down from one guy getting 'tuff' (even if they are big). A real gangsta would probably have welcomed the opportunity to cause further disruption.

What more than likely he ran across were a bunch of repressed kids who were finally out of earshot of Mom and Pop who were just repeating language that they *think* is 'adult'.

Moral of the story? Rebellious teens does not necessarily equal 'gangbanger'.

lata, jeremy

--a happy present from the earth

+0

You must be logged in to post

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