Perilous Plunge restraint news

---

Dutchman said:
Jeff, this is California. People will file a lawsuit at the drop of a hat, if they can't get their way.

---

It's not a matter of if it's California or not. It's America, the sue happy country. Regardless, they just need to make a limit on the size, if the person sues then the park has a resonable case against them because it's for their saftey and not discrimination.

You don't see people suing parks and manufacturers because their kids who aren't 54" can't get on Batman: The Ride or something else, it's all a saftey aspect and the general public accepts that. I think wieght limits should be imposed by manufacturers, well at least body size limits (like on Wicked Twister, Texas Tornado, Serial Thriller, etc.)

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

I am with Jeff on this one.

Many kids rides have height/weight restrictions because the rides mechanics/safety features cannot handle an overload. I stand 6'2" and do not even think of questioning why I cannot ride any attractions that have a maximum height allowance below my size. It is the same thing for weight issues.

Now, granted I do not face weight issues, but honestly I cannot imagine myself challenging the safety recommendations someone may impose on me because of my weight.

I know... I know... I am sure I'll get flack saying people of all shapes and sizes should be allowed to ride whatever and whenever they want since they pay admission. Blah, blah, blah. But I do not agree with that. There are limitations to everything in life. And many factors determine whether we can or cannot do things. When it comes to amusement attractions, size is just one of them.

If people of larger proportions are not aware that their size WILL limit the things they can and cannot do in life, then they are living in a dream world.

Shaggy

-----------------
Shaggy
A.K.A. John K.

To address a comment I made last night...
Seat belts and water rides are a bad combination. The reason is this: When the belts get wet (remember we're talking about a ride where everything gets innundated) the fabric swells, making it virtually impossible to adjust. Furthermore, because the water is chlorinated, the combination of chlorine and sunlight attacks the fabric and when combined with abrasion will cause premature failure. I'm guessing that the reason the Perilous Plunge seat belt was ineffective is because once it has been extended to its full length, it is probably almost impossible to adjust when the fabric is wet. So the belt goes on loose, and slides right over the rider's knees.
Changes may well be needed for Plunge, but this sounds like somebody kicking around a bad idea. The engineering is just all wrong. I say they should be looking at how they guarantee seating position. The real key is that the rider's knees can't come out from under the lap bar. Meet that requirement and the problem is solved.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I think we should wait for an official annoucement before making assumptions. Knott's will do what is best for the park "all around", they have to protect themselves as well as the integrity of the ride, that's a slippery compromise. Remember the Vertigo removal? All the defenders of CF's decision were quick to defend it as a matter of "perceived safety", and that the GP would never ride it. If you apply that same logic and foresight to PP, your looking at far more than government regulations and overreacting parks. Your also looking at the "perceived" danger the GP MAY see in this ride.

You have to make them feel safe as well.

*** This post was edited by OutKast on 5/10/2002. ***

See news section...

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"