There are states with strict governmental control (I believe New Jersey is one)! There are states with next to none (I believe FL is one)!
Compare the accident rates between the strict regulatory states versus the minimal to no regulatory states!
Again...I think you will find that there are no glaring differences that could lead anybody fair-minded and objective to conclude that governmental intervention is needed...and furthermore that this governmental intervention will lead to safety improvements! It simply has not been shown to be true!
This is the reason I originally told you to keep governmental oversight out of the paper! There is no evidence to support governmental oversight leads to improved rider safety (in fact last time I checked...there was a small non-significant chance of accidents being higher in regulatory heavy states)! as it relates to the amusement business!
Those calling for further governmental intervention are doing so out of reasons other than data that shows a need...
Take a look at her web site, and remember what happened to her son. The thumbnail version: They were riding Big Thunder Mountain at Disneyland, the ride block-stopped, the kid decided, for whatever reason, to get his foot outside the car, it got caught between the platform and the train. Most of us look at that situation and point out that the incident would not have happened if David had kept his foot inside the car. It just so happens that the incident could also have been prevented by mechanical means involving the affordances and the ride mechanical systems. Kathy's focus now is on taking an engineering approach to improving safety for children on amusement rides. She was instrumental in getting California's state amusement ride safety program implemented, and now she's continuing to bring her message to the amusement industry.
Now, I ask you this: What is it about her that you don't agree with? She is campaigning with the purpose of insuring ride safety? She is doing so from the perspective of a mother whose son was injured on an amusement ride. But she has an engineering background, and she is probably better informed about the realities of amusement ride safety than most people reading this group. She's not a wild wacko who thinks an ineffective Federal regulation is the solution to the world's problems. Her objective is simply ride safety, and I don't think that objective is that much different from what any of us want, although we don't necessarily agree on how to achieve that goal (I certainly don't completely agree with her...).
Getting back to the subject of this thread, it is fairly easy to prove that amusement rides injure and kill people. Looking at just a few incident reports (rideaccidents.com is a good place to look because everything there is pulled directly from news accounts; it is not, for the most part, an editorial site). When you compare the numbers to the total rides given or any other objective measure, the rides are statistically safe. But when you have a 1:1,000,000 chance of being hurt on a ride, what if you are Rider #1,000,000? Is a higher standard called for, given that amusement rides are, quite frankly, an optional activity?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
I think we’ve been through this before. I certainly appreciate your knowledge of the subject at hand! I’ve learned a lot from you in the past. I just do not agree with the need for governmental oversight!
What is it about her that you don't agree with? She is campaigning with the purpose of insuring ride safety?
I do not agree with her/you or anybody who calls for government oversight of an industry that, with the data available to us, seems to be safer than walking. Would you/her/others call for governmental oversight and regulation for walking? She/you need to provide a minimal threshold data that would indicate there is a problem! You/her et al simply cannot do so!
I’ve concluded that either there really is no problem at all or at the very least…we would need a lot more structured studying of the issue before you go calling for tax payer funded intervention!
Looking at just a few incident reports (rideaccidents.com is a good place to look because everything there is pulled directly from news accounts; it is not, for the most part, an editorial site). When you compare the numbers to the total rides given or any other objective measure, the rides are statistically safe.
You yourself seem to understand the rides are statistically safe. That is my point exactly. We do not further regulation based upon the data! You first have to prove there is a statistically significant problem before calling for all sorts of unneeded and apparently unjust expense and regulation! Regulation for the sake of regulation is just silly! You guys are portraying a problem that does not exist…
But when you have a 1:1,000,000 chance of being hurt on a ride, what if you are Rider #1,000,000? Is a higher standard called for, given that amusement rides are, quite frankly, an optional activity?
You can make this argument for almost anything rideman! Should we cut out all sports? I’ve not done the research…but I know that sports are inherently more dangerous than amusement rides! Bike riding, walking, swimming, going up and down stairs, dog walking, and probably bubble blowing too :-) …all more dangerous than getting on a ride!
It is sad when anybody is injured or killed in an accident. However, I believe it is rational to understand that the act of living life has inherent risks. I’ve got a better chance of getting killed by a bee sting while hanging out at KBF than I do the rides! We certainly would not call for government regulation for bee propagation would we?
This is all a matter of perspective. Fackler/Markey et al have their pet cause and they shout to the world to create image of a problem that just is not there! While I grieve her or any loss, this does not mean I have to agree with the cause! I hold them/you accountable for proving there is a statistically significant problem! By your own words…there is not!
If you guys want stricter regulation/oversight…then set up a private organization and have at it! You can take donations and have bake sales to raise the funds! Just do not ask me and other taxpayers to fund your cause when you cannot show us your cause is worthwhile!
P.S. And certainly do not imply that government oversight equals safer rides. This is another area where Markey et al fall way short when you dissect the data! It is a flawed premise…at least as it relates to the amusement industry. States with greter regulation have no better safety record than those without...
*** Edited 1/8/2006 1:16:43 AM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***
If I thought amusement parks were unsafe, I wouldn't go. It's that simple. I've been riding since the early 70's. But I'm a lot smarter than to believe that a multi-ton ride with lots of moving parts and human beings who are in charge of maintaining those rides can't somehow hurt me. I am taking a chance everytime I walk onto a ride.
Jeffrey, you weren't there when a hardcore member of the coaster community had his arm broken backwards due to hitting a support on the Texas Cyclone. (We'll call him Bill) wound up going to the hospital and it ended the trip for him, as well as, the rest of his summer. That was the only ride he wound up riding on what was supposed to be a week-long trip for him. Luckily, he did recover enough to carry on with his coaster outings in the fall.
What? You say this didn't make Coasterbuzz or the nightly news? Exactly. So did the rest of us stop and pack our suitcases and go home? No, we carried on with the trip, but we took the warnings about keeping our hands inside the car a lot more seriously. Sure, you could argue that Bill broke the rules. That's fair enough, but did Six Flags do everything in their power to make sure that a man of his size wouldn't ever be possible to reach a support? That would be a solid no. Why do you think they ran the coffin cars for years, and why hasn't anybody picked up T.C.? Lack of clearance and the potential for lawsuits would scare me away.
All I'm saying is that if you're defining a ride as being safe as the train, boat whatever made it from point A to point B successfully with passengers who didn't die as being safe, while discounting any injuries then I think Gomez has a good paper in the making.
...note IF...I'm not even sure where you are coming from with regards to government regulations...so a lot of this may or may not pertain to you! Most of my opinions are directed toward those who...
1) Think there is really a rider safety problem
2) Believe government interventions will make rides safer
For #1 I argue that, at best, we do not know that there is a problem and most likely we have no problem at all! For #2 I argue that the available data shows government intervention does nothing to improve ride safeties!
I guess if you want to argue the term unsafe…then Gomez could indeed have a good paper using the most liberal of interpretations of the term unsafe. Again…to call amusement rides unsafe, based upon today’s data, would mean we would have to call every single act of living unsafe! We could practically throw out the term safe…because nothing is under the threshold some of you seem to argue! That threshhold seems to be...well somebody got hurt...so therfore it is unsafe! If this is your line of reasoning, then by all means call everything unsafe!
Based upon available data...if you are of the opinion that rides are unsafe AND jump to the conclusion that government intervention is the means to improved safety, then there simply cannot be too many activities, if any, involved in every day life in which you would not call for governmental oversight!
I’m of the opinion that we already have too many government involvements in our lives, and we certainly do not need more, absent sound evidence that shows reasonable benefit. It is the quick response in calling for governmental oversight as the solution that irks me!
Based on the examples from Ms. Fackler and coaster enthusiast with the broken arm...it would seem that maybe you guys would be calling on governmental oversight for rider behaviors...no? I mean...if we get more government involvement, it should stand to reason...that people will quit acting stupid and start supervising their kids, while riding, etc (sarcasm noted)! It does not appear we have a ride safety issue as much as we have a rider safety issue for a lot of these supposed unsafe ride accidents! I might even call it a stupidity issue! Why focus your calls for government intervention on the parks, when it would seem that most agree rider behaviors are a greater problem? It seems silly to make the parks responsible for people who do not follow posted warnings! The parks cannot and should not have to carry burdens for individual stupidity!
I’m not expecting to change any minds. I would like to think that maybe some might think a little about what they are saying and thinking when they blindly call for government solutions to problems that may not even exist! First we need to prove there is a problem THEN we need to find a solution! Government intervention is no better than self-regulation as it pertains to solving the rider accident rates!
In conclusion…I will add that no amount of self-regulation and/or government intervention can prevent all accidents! Just as walking has inherent risks…so too does riding! There has to be a limit of when enough is enough! I would say that rider safety records/accident rates that are less than walking just might mean we are already functioning at safe levels…no?
*** Edited 1/8/2006 5:32:18 AM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***
But what you need to understand, and why "Fackler != Markey", is that additional regulation is not the Saferparks agenda. She sees it as a component of the agenda, but there are other points that are significantly more important:
a) Including child safety considerations in the design of rides and in operational practices
b) Informing parents and children to the hazards of riding heavy machinery
c) Improving information sharing to make sure that parents are better informed as to the nature of rides they put their kids on (i.e. "This ride is intended for adults and children ages 10 and up...")
d) Establishing a national incident reporting database so that patterns can be more readily identified
On point (a), she is partnering with the industry and has some support, although there are a few problems that have to be resolved...notably that I don't want to be treated like a 6-year-old because the ride has a 48" height restriction...although point (c) may alleviate that somewhat.
Point (b) goes to responding to the rider behavior problem.
Point (c) is the one where she and I are probably in the most agreement. I don't know if she agrees with me that the Cedar Fair and Six Flags ride safety signs ought to be totally scrapped, but we agree that current information sharaing (signs) is mostly worthless.
Point (d) suggests regulation, but how else do you get reporting? And how do you prevent such a database from becoming lawsuit fodder? Both can be accomplished by fiat, and neither really represents additional regulation. My thought is that the most workable way to create the national reporting system would be to have the States collect data and forward it (probably without certain identifying information) to the national data clearinghouse.
Do I think rides are safe? Yes, I do. I become more convinced of that all the time. Do I think there are things that can be done to improve ride safety? Absolutely. I also think the industry is doing the wrong things about ride safety these days, but then, what do I know? I won't get into those details in this thread; there is too much to it. Do I think more Government regulation is needed? No, I don't. In fact, I think there are some states where the State regulation goes overboard. Do I think industry standards and good design, operational and maintenance practice are important? Absolutely.
Perhaps now you can see why I think saferparks is a little different from the usual targets (ASO, Ed Markey, that @$$#*!% lawyer, etc).
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
We're beating a dead horse here! I too believe there needs to be one big data base for unbiased accident reporting! It would seem most parks could benefit from this themselves...sans the lawsuit issue! I can't help but thinking that the amusment industry has an "Enron" out there that would underreport...thus making the whole system...???
I could possibly be convinced that more strict regulation/enforcement of rider reponsibility laws MAY reduce accident rates...? Again...it comes down to poor data!
a) Viper at Great Adventure
b) Drachen Fire
c) Shockwave at SFGA
d) Hercules
e) Steel Phantom
f) Wind Jammer
While we'll never get 100% agreement on every coaster or ride, you have to admit that the level of complaints in our community was quite high for many of the rides I listed. I can think of several rides (Wildcat at Hershey, Batman & Robin the Chiller, and the Rattler at SFFT) that either carried or still carry what I like to call "lawyer signs." Those would be the "This ride may produce forces that may be unacceptable to some riders" kind of signs.
While I don't believe parks want to kill their customers, I think some would rather not have you know how many people have been injured on a particular coaster/ride. That's not good for business. I'll never forget an episode of Life in the ER which took place in Pittsburgh that week. A young girl is brought in after being roughed up by a coaster at Kennywood. The physician didn't even have to ask which one. He already knew that it was the Steel Phantom and gave that look that indicated "Not again."
Could government involvement be bad? Oh yeah, we could wind up with more coasters like Hydra the Revenge, a coaster I like to call the cure for insomnia. So I lay the burden on the parks and the industry themselves to ensure that the patron has a safer day. Just think (as an example) how many headaches (literally) would've been saved had parks modified the Premiere trains a lot earlier in the game.
As far as regulation, I do not see it really doing anything. A ride injury database that is run by this saferparks could prove beneficial. But what does it really accomplish? Putting fear into people?
Isn't the question people want answered simply, 'how safe is this ride I am going to ride?'
The ride is most likely safer than your walk over there to it…and is most certainly safer than going down the steps of the exit platform! Not to mention there is better chance you will choke on that corn dog before you get to the ride than to actually be hurt by the ride itself! And PLEASE…do not tell me you drove to the park!!!!
…forest through the trees!
*** Edited 1/9/2006 6:11:08 PM UTC by Jeffrey R Smith***
a) There could be uneven pavement that makes you fall
b) There could be snow or ice making your journey slippery
c) Someone might not stop when you're crossing the street, even if you have the right of way
d) You could get mugged in certain parts of town
e) You could trip on something
With rides you know that:
a) Well, all you really know is that there are rides at the park. You weren't there for morning inspection. You didn't see if the mechanics did their jobs correctly. Did the mechanics replace a part with the correct replacement, or did they use a cheaper part?
Read up on the history of The Rattler pre-Six Flags (there was/is a link on rides911.com). The Rattler, due to modifications that were made strictly to beat out Hercules, wound up hurting a lot of people. So what about the Go-Kart tracks? Paging through the Wildwood reports, you see that people get injured left and right on those things. You could argue that it's an upcharge attraction. So what? It's still on the park's property.
Listen, I'm not saying there's an epidemic, but I don't think the parks always have our best interest at heart. Again, I don't think parks want to kill us. But, I'm strongly inclined to believe that after you've spent $15 million dollars on a coaster/ride--only to find out that it beats people up--that you'd rather deal with injuries (however small) than spend milliions more to fix the ride.
You must be logged in to post