Opinion: We need perspective when it comes to accidents
Posted
Yes, when it comes to things such as the annual one to eight deaths each year on amusement park rides, it's easy to feel uneasy. In news stories, three items make a trend. Because all ride accidents make headlines — for instance, the recent death of an 8-year-old boy who had just ridden the Fireball at the annual Ionia Free Fair in Michigan on July 22 — we start to wonder: Are we safe? Should the government do something about deadly rides?
Well, in a word, no. Or at least not until governments address the really dangerous things in our lives, such as furniture or bathtubs. Indeed, despite the approximately 175 million visits we paid to North America's most popular parks last year, park rides kill fewer people than such freak things as igniting or melting nightwear, hot tap water and venomous spiders.
Read more from USA Today.
Give this lady a Pulitzer.
I also like that Baruch Fischoff was interviewed. I work for CMU computing, and I fixed his computer last week. :)
When poorly maintained county rides got media attention I think it served a purpose. The fair would pack up and move to another location leaving the public concern behind them, while still running unsafe rides.
Parks that can't pack up and leave I think do work very hard to prevent accidents because they cannot escape negative media attention. So when they do happen, its rare and its news. Unfortunately what is not reported is how many millions safety experience the ride before the freak accident. Freak accidents always get media attention; like "Man hit by lightening!"
I think another reason the media focuses on this is the constant question of: "are these rides safe?" Most people looking at thrill rides these days have that question running through their heads. A reporter visiting a park asks the same question. All they need is a reason to make it into a story.
When heart attacks or strokes happen on these rides, they make it into this big deal. As if we could not have predicted some fraction of a percent of people would have been adversely effected by extreme thrills. Or that increased heart rates for those who are not typically active may lead to a stroke or heart attack. Thrill rides provide everyone the opportunity to experience extreme thrills, even for those who rarely experience heart pumping activities.
Its like if a guy who has never ran a step in his life runs a mile around as fast as he can, then suddenly has a heart attack; what newspaper would even bother with that story?
Responsible reporting should focus more on questions like, "Is a healthy heart a prerequisite for heart pounding activities?" or "Do some people need to be conditioned before experiencing extreme thrills? Instead the media suggests thrill rides cause poor health or heart attacks.
I think articles like this one are important. Many more are needed to balance out the media coverage. The article I'll be waiting for is the one on the media's obsession with injuries that occur at amusement parks.*** This post was edited by rc-madness 8/1/2006 12:27:32 PM ***
That being said, I'm glad they published this. It's about time.
Regardless whether we all think the jobs of news organizations should be simply to report the news, there is a more important job that drives every story you see, read, or hear - the job of keeping the organization alive and making some money.
People want to hear about amusement rides failing. Stories don't get more sensational than, say, the Son of Beast incident. Every time a guest hops onto a coaster, he or she is overwhelmed with fear. While this may be a selling point of the ride, it also happens to be a large cause of why accidents get so much national attention. When a rider is terrified, he or she honestly believes the ride is a life-or-death, extreme sport, living on the edge experience. When a news outlet reports this, riders will jump to the news because of the simple fact that the story will prove the rider's suspicions correct.
Now, this isn't to say that the injuries or deaths of some riders are trivial. This also isn't saying that all news coverage simply uses the stories for a attention-pulling (and, therefore, cash-pulling) headline, but let's face it: more often than not, that's exactly what these stories are used for.
That said, there are certain places where accidents like this should be covered so extensively. One example is right here on CoasterBuzz. Another more important example would be a site like SaferParks.org, mentioned in last weeks podcast. My point is that these reports shouldn't disappear, but they certainly should retire their headline status at organizations such as MSNBC, CNN, or NY Times.
A friend of mine who is scared of rollercoasters is always reminding me of these accident reports and news stories. She thinks I am suicidal for going to parks all the time. She actually believes what the media shows and tells her. I keep telling her that she is 1000 times more likely to die in a car accident than on a rollercoaster. Hell, I am 1000 times more likely to get struck by a car crossing the road to my mailbox! I am 1000 times more likely to slip in the bathtub while taking a shower!
She doesn't believe me. Anyway, that is a very truthful article and I am glad it was published.
-Tina
*** This post was edited by coasterqueenTRN 8/1/2006 2:23:07 PM ***
It would be interesting to see how many more people get hurt in public parks. I bet it is statistically safer to play at amusement parks.
And amusement parks can't show how ticked off they are on the bad press because that just draws more negative attention. They just have to take the hits regardless of how unjustified the attention is. At least it helps keep parks a little less crowded.
Truth be told my one manager is at Islands of Adventure this week, with his wife and son riding rides, so go figure.
You must be logged in to post
