Man without legs dies from fall on Darien Lake's Ride of Steel roller coaster

Sigh...

I'm sure there are more than two or three in the park looking for a room but whatever.

And just exactly how many times HAS Texas Giant jumped it's tracks??

Just an FYI. I read in an article in my local paper 

that this man suffered some brain damage from a stroke 

due to the injuries he received while fighting in IRAQ. 

If that's the case perhaps that also contributed to his 

impaired judgement on whether or not it was safe to ride 

this particular ride. 

We've all read the articles. What does this have to do with anything?

Exactly. It does not change the fact that it probably should have not been the man's judgement call to make.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Im sorry he died but at least he was having fun instead of being pushed around the theme park watching everyone else have fun. When it is your time, its your time, so enjoy the best you can.

You're right. I am sure that if he had a choice, he would much rather have been flung to his death from the ride in front of his family rather than be told he cannot ride and experience a brief 5-10 minutes of embarrassment.

Definitely worth it.

I have been reading all the responses to this man's death. I am sorry for the man as being a fellow veteran of the USAF.

When are we going to put the responsibility back on the person not the ride in this case. The man should have known that he wasn't able to ride the ride due to his legs missing. The ride op should have seen this and asked him not to ride but then that brings up the disabilities act if he was refused. I can imagine the new signs telling people if you don't have legs then don't ride. It's obvious that a person without any legs shouldn't be riding a rollercoaster as extreme as Superman. He should have been on one that had both seatbelts and a restraint device capable of handling his condition.

Majorcut...thank you for your service. With that, I have to respectfully and vehemently disagree. A guest should not be expected to have comprehension about the dynamics and forces associated with an amusement park ride. I've been employed in the business and been around this website for ages and I still don't have the level of professional knowledge that others (notably RideMan above) might have.

If a ride operator, who has presumably been trained extensively about the ride, read operating manuals, etc gives someone the go ahead to get on an attraction and tells that person they will be safe...who is that rider to question it? Now, I will again reiterate that I don't think that "final decision" should necessarily be left with an 18 year old ride operator who is working 70 hours a week. I think there needs to be a more organized and consistent approach to this and I think it should be done on an industry wide scale.

All things being equal, you are safer on a roller coaster than you are in a car (or in a bathtub as noted earlier in the thread). But, when it comes to a rider with disabilities, all things are NOT equal. I think it is a safe generalization to say that all riders with lower body disabilities...particularly amputated or otherwise injured legs...have a significantly greater risk of injury on an attraction that requires lower body restraint just as children under 48" (or whatever the standard) have a greater risk and thus are not permitted to ride.

Come to think of it...should an individual under 48" (child or "short" person) be allowed to take a look at the ride and determine that they can ride it safely? Of course not.

Yeah. Letting him on was definitely the wrong call. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if the man has no lap, for the most part, how can it be expected that a lap restraint would hold him in.

It's like trying to wear flip flops when you don't have any toes. Sure, your foot fits in there, but the second you put any force on it by moving, it doesn't stay on.

That's a perfect analogy.

I am new here, that doesnt change my opinion. I have never worked in a theme park so I dont know as much as people who have. I do know that there are rides where you have a lap belt and bars that come down over your shoulders. I just dont get why more rides arent like that instead of just one or the other. I think if he would have had the bars on his shoulders this wouldnt have happened. No one wants to die especially that way and in front of your family, but no one wants to be bubble wrapped to keep something from happening to them either. I believe there is fault on both sides, but rather than keeping people that have prosthetics off the rides try to improve it first. I never fully understood how people with disabilities felt until my husband became one of them. I would have felt the same way alot of others do, "keep them off the ride." But now that I have someone in my life that is affected by this, I dont want to hold him back from things if it CAN be prevented.

wahoo skipper said:
A guest should not be expected to have comprehension about the dynamics and forces associated with an amusement park ride.

No, but it's not unreasonable to think a guest should have comprehesion of their own abilities (or lack thereof) either.

Which in turn is exactly what the signs in front of the rides are for - to detail what conditions will inhibit you from riding.

Do people really blindly put their well being in the hands of amusement park employees? Am I naive in thinking this is an unbelieveable approach?

Now, I will again reiterate that I don't think that "final decision" should necessarily be left with an 18 year old ride operator who is working 70 hours a week. I think there needs to be a more organized and consistent approach to this and I think it should be done on an industry wide scale.

It is. In the form of countless warning signs and information available to park visitors. Flat out - there is a sign posted at this ride that says you have to have two legs to ride. The first line of defense failed when the man attempted to ride.

The second line failed when the ops let him.

Are you suggesting some other third line of defense?

The system works overwhelmingly well. These accidents are few and far between.

Come to think of it...should an individual under 48" (child or "short" person) be allowed to take a look at the ride and determine that they can ride it safely? Of course not.

Of course not. That's why posted height requirements exist and are enforced.

In fact, it'd really be no different than this situation. If someone is 44 inches and gets on a ride with a minimum requirement of 48 inches - fault lies with both sides. The guest for ignoring the condition that prevents them from riding and the ops for doing the same.

Blame goes to all sides on this one. Guests have to know their limitations and respect the ride. Park employees need to know the ride limitations and respect the guests.

^^There is a difference (we've spent pages here discussing how significant) in the ride quality between a ride with Over The Shoulder Restraints (often abbreviated OTSR's) and lap bars. Most people have some preference for lap bars, when possible. In fact, Mr. Freeze at Six Flags Over Texas (as well as many other similar rides) removed the originally installed OTSR's and put on lap bars because of the head bashing the OTSR's were inflicting on riders. I'm not saying whether they should or should not use OTSR's. I am saying there is a downside to them.

^
I remember seeing a video of a presentation by RideMan about rider safety and one of the biggest problems with the first line of defense (i.e. rider responsibility) is that some of those bullet points are almost ludicrous and thus render the entire sign, including the important parts, ludicrous. "Keep hands on grab bar at all times?" Nobody even comes close to remotely considering enforcing that for a minute and yet there's no indication from the sign that it's any more or less important to rider safety than having 2 legs which is a life or death safety concern.

To answer your most insightful question Gonch...yes, I do think people by and large blindly put their safety at the hands of young amusement park employees.

As to this particular incident...it isn't as if at 47 1/4" kid snuck on to the ride. This guy clearly should not have been riding. And, I would say that disabled guests DO know their limitations...but if they are told that they can safely experience an attraction then they are likely going to give it a go.

Again, we don't know yet what the interactions with the ride operators were but at the very least the operator should have refused him and then, if challenged, called for a manager to address it.

I think Andy's points have some validity too.

Moments! I can appreciate the fact that you would like to see amputees, people with prosthetics, and disabilities ride roller coasters. It would undoubtedly be great if they could enjoy them in the same way as people who do not.

You must first ask yourself this question though. What percentage of people visiting, lets say Darien Lake, in a single year are amputees?? Im going to assume the percentage is very very low. You have to respect the fact that in order to make a major change to a roller coaster, like over the shoulder restraints as your suggesting would cost piles and piles of money, not to mention the testing and fabrication. It would be unreasonable, and a very big mistake for the park to make a change such as this just to satisfy a very small percentage of people.

It isn't unreasonable for the public sector. I spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in my industry for a relatively small percentage of people with disabilities. And, I am compelled to by law in accordance with the American's with Disabilities Act.

moments said:
I am new here, that doesnt change my opinion. I have never worked in a theme park so I dont know as much as people who have.

*Sigh*. It's one thing to have an opinion, but you need an informed opinion. I'm not going to delve into what is fair or unfair because there is no such thing as 'fair' in this life and anyone with common sense should have learned that. Having said that...

I do know that there are rides where you have a lap belt and bars that come down over your shoulders. I just dont get why more rides arent like that instead of just one or the other. I think if he would have had the bars on his shoulders this wouldnt have happened.

Why do you think that over the shoulder restraints would have saved this particular man? I'm asking this as an actual, not rhetorical, question. I'd like to hear your explanation of why you think this would have made a difference.

Because when I look at photos of this man, I see someone with a stump on one side, and nothing on the other below the waist. And depending on the dimensions of his torso in relation to the restrain, without legs, whats to say he wouldn't have fallen out under the shoulder restraints? Those restraints still require that you have a lap, for the most part. Realistically speaking, what, in this situation, would have kept him from not falling out from under a restraint? Yes, I know that it would be more 'unlikely', but when given the choice of less dangerous (letting him ride with a should restraint) and totally safe (Not riding at all), anyone should go for the totally safe option.

Opinions are all fine and dandy, but seriously, what about a shoulder restraint would have saved his life 100%, that simply not riding wouldn't have?

No one wants to die especially that way and in front of your family, but no one wants to be bubble wrapped to keep something from happening to them either. I believe there is fault on both sides, but rather than keeping people that have prosthetics off the rides try to improve it first.

Who are you to say that they haven't done the most they could to improve the ride's restraint systems? You can not expect a ride manufacturer (you continue to seem to think it's the parks' fault, but really, it's the ride manufacturer that designs the rides/restraints, and the parks can only purchase rides and restraints offered by the manufacturer) to come up with a restraint that will restrain every single person on the face of this earth, just to make things 'fair'. It's not logical to do that.

I never fully understood how people with disabilities felt until my husband became one of them. I would have felt the same way alot of others do, "keep them off the ride." But now that I have someone in my life that is affected by this, I dont want to hold him back from things if it CAN be prevented.

But you don't know that it CAN be prevented. You say no one wants to be bubble wrapped, but that's exactly what you're suggesting. "Let's just completely restrain them and wrap them up so that everyone can ride". There isn't some fix all "Oh well we'll just design a different restraint" fix to the problem here.

Yes, I understand, this particular restraint setup has now seen no less than 3 accidents, 2 of them fatal. But in at least 2 and most likely 3 of the cases, the real issue was more about rider and/or operator error, not restraint error. I have ridden a similar ride to this with the restraints before they were modified, after they were modified, and have ridden another train on similar coasters that were completely different. And I've never been chucked out of a coaster. Because I've thus far been able to avoid the human error that caused people's deaths.

The sad fact is that once you become disabled, there are things you can't do. Do you think people who have certain disabilities and can't drive think it's fair? But perhaps we should give everyone a driver's license and then just design cars to be more safe?

As much flack as we given Intamin on this board, in all honesty, there aren't a lot of people here saying that the company CAN make the restraints better to take care of this particular case. And the ones here that actually know and have working knowledge of how things work seem to think that the best option is to disallow someone like this to ride. I have to say I agree with them.

^ And what is it that you do wahoo?? In all do respect, this industry is about amusing people with multi million dollar thrill rides, their not exactly in the health sector. I think if they were, they would be offering health insurance with a day pass.

There's also a line to be drawn, and where it should be drawn is very unclear. And that line also will also inevitably involve the height requirement. So, should anyone of any size be allowed to ride, so that there's absolutely no discrimination? Children, midgets, obese, the exceptionally tall?

I'm thinking that if that were even remotely possible, it would be highly impractical...and expensive as hell.

Perhaps I should start complaining because I can't ride the rides my 5 year old can.

moments said:
I think if he would have had the bars on his shoulders this wouldnt have happened.

From my personal experience in developing ride admission policies that are consistent with manufacturer requirements, there wasn't a single coaster a guest with no legs could ride- even the ones with shoulder harnesses. Sgt. Hackemer shouldn't have been allowed on any roller coaster, lap bar or not.

Bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of amusement park rides cannot safely accommodate guests who are missing half of their body. Just looking at Cedar Point's rider safety guide on their website, I count just a handful of rides that would be appropriate, and these are limited to the observation rides like the Ferris Wheel, Sky Ride, and The Train.