New Texas Giant reopens as lawsuit is filed after fatal accident

Well, sure, there's always the chance a person could be ejected from a coaster. There's also always the chance that a person could survive a fall from the top of a six story building. It's possible. But unlikely.

When I ride a coaster, or any ride at a park I do so because I am confident the ride is well-designed and able to keep me safe. If for some reason I didn't feel confident, I wouldn't ride.

Of course, I don't know anything beyond what I've read online, but this sad incident seems to be the 1 in 300,000,000 chance where the factors came together that would allow this tragedy to happen.

I have to agree with sirloindude on this one. The seat belt isn't so much to provide an extra level of protection (although it does), but rather a guideline of who can ride and who can't. Think of how many people who rejected from Millennium Force, not because of the lapbar, but because of the seat belt. Folks who are rejected from Raptor or Gatekeeper because the belt that attaches the OTSR to the seat itself. Could the OTSR lock in without the seat belt? Yes. But the seat belt gives the ultimate yes or no.

Can we protect everyone on these rides, no. But can we do a good job at protecting the vast majority? Absolutely. A combination of mechanical and human checks and do this just fine.

Tekwardo said:

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that an amusement ride could potentially eject you.

Was there a comment you meant to leave or you just quoted this for effect?

I think most parks, insurance companies, and state governments disagree with you egieszl, the consumer should not expect to be potentially mortally wounded as a result of improper safety standards.

Yeah, my comment didn't come thru apparently.

Operator error is more likely than failure of the restraints. Only on rare occasions have I ridden coasters on which ride ops pushed the lap bars as far down as they would go before the ride was dispatched. I didn't even know that the lap bars on Nitro could be pushed down all the way until recently. Had ridden it for two years before any ride op took it upon herself to push it down to the point at which it was a snug fit. On inverted coasters I always have to ask the ride ops to tighten the restraints, as they don't do it of their own accord. As long as the restraints are locked, they figure that they've done their job, whereas I'm a nervous wreck if there is too much space between me and the restraints.

There's a legal doctrine called "assumption of the risk" that applies to activities that inherently carry some degree of danger, and which cannot be made safer without fundamentally changing the activity. Classic examples are the risk of a baseball being hit into the stands and the risk of falling while skiing.

Roller coasters and thrill rides don't fall under this doctrine, because there's no plausible argument that they somehow cannot be made safer.* You can always build a better restraint, and the entire point of a thrill ride is to simulate a danger without actual exposure to it.

I'm really not getting why some of you seem to brush this off as "something that happens" or "something you should expect." There's almost certainly negligence of some party here; it just remains to be seen where the failure was, exactly.

*I could maybe see this doctrine applying to bumper cars, which seem to carry a small risk of soft tissue injury from a collision, and one that cannot be eliminated without changing the very nature of bumper cars. That would be an interesting test case.

Couldn't they make watching baseball "inherently safer" by putting up a net/Plexiglas? I see your point...but there is always a legal argument...

No doubt somebody is at fault in this case...

Not sure how the new configuration compares to Iron Rattler's, but on Iron Rattler, the seat belt is not attached to restraint and is very long and easy to buckle for very large riders. It does not work as a go or no go device as far as I can tell. The lap bar is far less forgiving. I had no trouble buckling the belt. And I had no trouble lowering the bar onto my thighs (never even touched my stomach). Unfortunately other than my first "miracle" ride, I couldn't get the bar to lower enough to appease the ride operator's panel beyond that, even in the same seat on the same train that magically worked for me 15 minutes prior.

Not complaining about my situation; just wanted to point out how the belt works. There are several other rides where I can buckle the belt, but then my long legs keep the bar up too high. Maybe I'm just a fringe body type, but the whole go / no go thing enthusiasts often say about the seat belts on a lot of rides doesn't seem to be true to me.

And not to mention that NTG already had a go/no-go device (the computer and the pretty lights). If the seat belt is *only* a measurement, then it's doing something that was already done and failed to actually keep the rider in. (Unless the go/no-go computer system was the point of failure).

May be the same thing you said, but people have been saying (mistakenly, I guess) the seat belt will limit the size of riders more than before it's use. If true, why couldn't the first ratchet of the lap bar just have been set to that point?

OMG, how many times does it have to said. NTG restraints DO NOT ratchet. SMH

So, what you're saying Lori, is that the hydraulic restraints don't click when you close them...? ;~)

Bakeman31092 said:

I honestly don't feel like I'm assuming any risk that the restraint won't function properly, leading to my death, when I ride a coaster. Yes, I might get hit in the face with something, or an unexpected force or vibration might hurt my back or neck, so I am assuming that risk, but there is basically zero chance that I'm going to fall out. If a train can dispatch without a rider being properly secured by the lap bar (assuming the ride op did his/her job and made sure the bar was down as far as it could go), then that is a design flaw in the restraint and how it interfaces with the seat and rider.

This is what I think - since the ride dispatched, it would infer that the safety system interlocks showed that the restraints were in the minimum proper angle/location as defined by the ride's manufacturer.

If there is an issue with a person passing the one 'test' that the computer relies on, the responsibility passes from the park/ride op to the manufacturer for improperly designing their test parameters unless the manufacturer could somehow blame the park for improper maintenance.

Break Trims said:

There's a legal doctrine called "assumption of the risk" that applies to activities that inherently carry some degree of danger, and which cannot be made safer without fundamentally changing the activity. Classic examples are the risk of a baseball being hit into the stands and the risk of falling while skiing.

Roller coasters and thrill rides don't fall under this doctrine, because there's no plausible argument that they somehow cannot be made safer.* You can always build a better restraint, and the entire point of a thrill ride is to simulate a danger without actual exposure to it.

I'm really not getting why some of you seem to brush this off as "something that happens" or "something you should expect." There's almost certainly negligence of some party here; it just remains to be seen where the failure was, exactly.

*I could maybe see this doctrine applying to bumper cars, which seem to carry a small risk of soft tissue injury from a collision, and one that cannot be eliminated without changing the very nature of bumper cars. That would be an interesting test case.

Done - The California Supreme Court sided with CGA regarding a lawsuit about an injury (broken wrist) on their bumper cars. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/01/local/la-me-amusement-park-...s-20130101

I rode the reopeneded Texas Giant a few times this weekend. The seatbelt was alright for me. I was a little worried about the lap bar. There's signage in the queue that states the lap bar has to rest "on the top of the thigh" and not on the stomach. There's even a nice little graphic. I could pull down the lap bar and it rested right ontop of my waist. Not really "top of thigh" but not really on my stomach. I was relieved when I was allowed to ride. Note; There is a "test seat" at the coaster's entrance.

Also note that I waited an hour even though the line wasn't too long. There was two- train operating with dispatch at about 5- 6 minutes intervals. The ride ops were being careful with checking seatbelts (they have a orange tab) and lap bars.

loriu said:

OMG, how many times does it have to said. NTG restraints DO NOT ratchet. SMH

Regardless, why couldn't the lock location be set to that point.