New Jersey G-force limits now enforced

Posted Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:05 AM | Contributed by Viper423

New regulations in New Jersey now prohibit rides from exposing people to more than 5.6 G's for more than one second. The regulations take effect in October. No existing rides in New Jersey are affected by the law.

Read more from the Star-Ledger.

Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:09 AM

Because this law doesn't affect, and won't likely affect, any rides, I'm not that bothered by it. I am however bothered by the limit itself, which seems pretty arbitrary. What data was used to come up with that figure and why?

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"Let's stop saying 'don't quote me,' because if no one quotes you, you probably haven't said a thing worth saying." - Dogma, KMFDM

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:18 AM
New Jersey's new law is based on the draft ASTM standard, which I have not yet had a chance to read through, and supposedly when the ASTM ballot passes, New Jersey's law will be repealed and replaced with a reference to the ASTM standard which includes the acceleration standard.

I don't know where the data came from either, but ASTM is a set of industry concensus standards. Like it or not.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:21 AM
But a full second of sustained 5.6 Gs? No ride pulls that ... so what exactly is the point? Shut up Markey and friends?

-----------------
Steel - #1 Kumba, #2 Millie, #3 Mantis ||| Wood - #1 Thunderbolt, #2 Villain, #3 Gwazi
"The key to a happy life is moderation" -- Jon Stewart

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:41 AM
A question for the lawyers out there. How do you sue someone in a court in Hawaii for an injury that occurred in California when there is no prior agreement?
+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:45 AM
As a resident of New Jersey this is pretty disappointing. I've been going to amusement parks here and I have yet to see one ride create 5 Gs for a split second. What is the point of this limit? Its pretty sad for a state to create a safety limit most parks and ride makers avoid anyway.

-----------------

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:51 AM

Has anyone considered that perhaps this goofy legislation--coupled with the lingering perception that people need legislation and protection from dangerous roller coasters and rides --have a lot to do with SFGA's attendance declines?

-'Playa

-----------------
The CPlaya 100--6 days, 9 parks, 47 coasters, 2037 miles and a winner.....LoCoSuMo.

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:55 AM
Disturbing thought for the day-my mother, who is a MENSA member and has a masters degree, called me upon hearing this legislation and asked me if riding coasters was dangerous. Ouch.

-----------------
Why do you have to have a license to own a dog, but not to have a child?

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:05 AM

Did anyone catch the Imagineer show on the Travel Channel last night? At the end of the show there was someone talking about Mission: Space, the new Epcot attraction. I think he said that part of the "experience" will include holding 5+ Gs for "an extended period."

Now, I don't know how that meshes with any kind of national standard.

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:30 AM
---Shakes head...
+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:32 AM
You know what I find really amusing about this law. How was this data gathered? My understanding was they investigated all the known accidents. Now, if one person is injured out of millions, how does that make the ride unsafe? Maybe the person had a medical condition, who knows. Anyway, you would think that if they wanted to know how the rides affect the body, they would ask enthusiasts or run tests with enthusiasts since they are the ones who ride the most. Their bodies have been put through all types of rides and such. So why not ask them for their opinions on whether a ride is safe or not. Better yet, poll the general public at a park, and see what they say. I bet they never even considered doing that.

My guess is all those scientists just looked at data from the accidents and made judgements on that, and drew conclusions from that without getting the real stories. Keep hearing about pre existing conditions and things of that nature. So if its pre existing, and the person knows it, maybe they shouldn't have ridden, or maybe they didn't know, who knows. My point is that they are getting their facts in the wrong places, and not actually going out there and asking people what they think, or how they feel when riding or after riding.

Forgot to add. In my opinion, and this is just a guess here, but all assumptions which have been brought about are probably from people who have no experience riding a roller coaster, or would never even think of riding one. All speculation, no facts.

-----------------
Take a Virtual Ride:
http://badnitrus.coasterbuzz.com
Mike "Viper" Semtak *** This post was edited by Viper423 on 8/20/2002. ***

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 6:50 AM

Dave, do you know anything about the acceleration standard? Are TA2Ks and Rocket Coasters close to it even though they only pull 2 g's during launch? Is rapid acceleration actually dangerous if you keep your head back?

Maybe this could be good news. With very few rides anywhere reaching these limits (and certainly not for extended periods of time), it demonstrates that there are no designers that are pushing healthy limits. Moreover, even if Markey's legislation is around this and it passes, he can claim his victory and we can keep our rides.

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:00 AM
The limits seem reasonable....the PRECEDENT seems dangerous....;)
+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:02 AM
Everyone should be concerned by this regulation. It maybe too high to affect any existing ride in that area, but it is the principle that is dangerous. As Jeff et al have pointed out, this regulation was seemingly passed in an arbitrary fashion without proper empirical investigation! What is to stop another state imposing a much lower limit?
+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:12 AM

Ok, now instead of just complaining about this on the Coasterbuzz board, we need to band together. We, the enthusiasts, are the only thing that can possibly stop this from going too far. The GP doesn't care enough about it (until it gets really out of hand) to stop things, and the medical profession is obviously in bed with the legal profession on this one to make more money on both sides. I'm just throwing this out here as a suggestion as personally I have no idea even where to start, but why don't we get our own petitions, our own letters to congress, our own medical studies, our own expert testimony and prove to the GP and Congress and whoever else wants it proven to them that these rides are safe and do not pull the kinds of stunts that everyone thinks they do.

And like MWB - my Mom left me an article two days ago about this subject, something about the woman that was killed on Riddler's Revenge and we had an hour long discussion and she just refused to believe that coasters were safe and that speeds and heights of what they're reaching now don't produce any more dangerous conditions than other "safer" things that are not heavily regulated.

-----------------
Steel - #1 Kumba, #2 Millie, #3 Mantis ||| Wood - #1 Thunderbolt, #2 Villain, #3 Gwazi
"The key to a happy life is moderation" -- Jon Stewart

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 7:57 AM
Viper423: I bet if you had asked all the smokers in the 50's if smoking was perfectly safe, they would've all said, "Of course."
+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:08 AM

That's the stupidest analogy I've heard. Do you see millions of people dying of coaster injuries like you do lung cancer?

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"Let's stop saying 'don't quote me,' because if no one quotes you, you probably haven't said a thing worth saying." - Dogma, KMFDM

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:16 AM
More people die in car crashes. Are they going to limit the speed to 5mph on all roads. I hope not.

-----------------
Top Parks (That I Have Been To) 1. Cedar Point 2. Six Flags Magic Mountain 3. Kennywood 4. Busch Gardens Williamsburg 5. Nagashima Spaland

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:32 AM

Sure the law sucks, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. No coaster pulls that much for more than a fraction of a second. If this causes some people to shut up about how "dangerous" coasters are, then fine.

No big deal, I guess

-----------------
- Peabody

+0
Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:40 AM
Being an election year, I think this is just politics. Yes, the fact a regulation has gotten of the ground does bother me, but its not that realistic. This law is completely a waste of time, but few average people will realize this. This makes it seem that the governement is actually doing something to protect its people, and of course the average voter will support that. Politicians should focus on the real problems in this world instead of picking on this pastime that so many of us share and know that it is perfectly safe.
+0

You must be logged in to post

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