Serious accident on Xcelerator caputerd on Video

Lord Gonchar said:
I absolutely believe I'm taking a risk (no matter how small) every time I get on a ride.

Exactly! That's why these rides are thrilling and that's why we love them.

Although the more I think about it, I am probably only willing to take the risk of a rollercoaster because I believe I can get the feel of a risky thrill without nearly as much of the actual risk (recognizing that things do happen, one would be naive to think anything is risk-free). The industry's stellar safety record and the knowledge that there are inspections and reputations (read: dollars) on the line also make one feel safer. Incidents like these make the calculus here seem a little less favorable, no matter how irrational that may be.

ApolloAndy said:
What bothers me more is that it doesn't seem that risk is minimized all the time. The S:RoS/Perilous Plunge ejections all happened with the same type of restraints and it took what, 3 or 4 ejections and 2 deaths to modify it?

This is the second cable break -> debris in the face. How many more do we have to have before something is modified to prevent a similar accident?

I would generally agree with this statement, except I believe at least 2 of the ejection incidents (notable the one at SFNE) was entirely operator error. The ride ops knew or should have known the man could not be properly restrained by the ride restraints, but let him ride anyway. I'm pretty sure at least one of the remaining three was operator error as well. That leaves two incidents, maybe one or none, as the result of the T-bar restraint.

Another thought is that cables weren't used in these types of instantaneous/short duration stress situations hundreds of times a day like they are in these rides in a public setting (I say public because obviously cables have been used on carriers in their launching mechanisms for some time, but they aren't exactly accessible to the public, and I wouldn't know where to begin to look for information about cable failures in aircraft carrier launch mechanisms). Maybe cables have a naturally shorter life-span under these scenarios and we are just starting to find that out? Probably not a viable argument/discussion point, but it was a thought that I had and figured I would throw out here for discussion.

GoBucks89 said:

And there is a reasonable expectation that you will ride unharmed. But that doesn't mean its a risk free activity or that you cannot at some point get harmed.

I'm not sure who you are talking to anymore. You have addressed my post, but I am not trying to say that riding is a risk-free activity.

Then maybe I should have responded differently. Lets try a different tact. Everyone understands that driving a car has risks. You assume those risks every time you get into a vehicle. But if you are injured because of someone else's mistake/error, you are entitled to compensation. You accepted the risk but the other person will bear the responsibility for their negligence in terms of fixing your car, paying any medical bills, etc.

Same is true for amusement parks. You are accepting the risk of riding the rides (however small it may be). Parks are responsbile for injuries they cause. But the law also pretty much makes them strictly liable for any injuries (as long as the injured person didn't do anything wrong and even then the parks may have some liability). So although people should understand that they are taking some risks riding rides, the park takes responsibility for any injuries. And the incentives for the parks to avoid accidents is avoiding having to pay out money settlements/claims and the negative publicity that goes along with accidents.

Anyone hear ever buy life insurance? Those companies are ALL about risk. If they think your life is "risky" then you won't get it or you will pay high rates.

I've been asked if I parachute, ride motorcycles, bungee jump, or any of a number of extreme sports. I've never been asked if I ride rollercoasters.

You can safely assume you are safe when riding amusement park rides. If something goes wrong of a mechanical nature then there is likely someone to blame and a lawsuit won't upset me. (Now, if someone sues Cedar Point because they jumped out of the skyride I'm going to have to side with the park...but I think we all understand what I'm saying.)

I think shifting a position from these rides are supposed to be incredibly safe to by riding you are accepting some risk, plays into the Markey crowd.

GoBucks89 said:
Then maybe I should have responded differently. Lets try a different tact.

Let me be clear when I say that you are not educating me on anything here. I understand the difference between risk and responsibility. So allow me to try a different tact.

While there are no guarantees that injury won't occur due to ride malfunction, there is a reasonable expectation that they shouldn't occur due to ride malfunction. That's due in part to the extensive testing and inspection the rides go through.

As such, it is a fair observation to say that in the rare occasion when injury occurs due to ride malfunction, that it is a major deviation from the course of normal operation and should be treated as such.

Why is that arguable?

I think that any occasion in which injury occurs (whether rare or not and whether its viewed as a deviation or not) should be investigated. Same is true any time anything unexpected happens in terms of a ride's operations even if no injury occurs. Hopefully, the cause is identified and there can be some type of modification/fix/etc. that reduces the risk of that occurence happening again or at least the chance/severity of injuries that result if it does happen again.

Yes, obviously.

I can see it now. The sign in line for Intamin Rockets at CF parks:

"Occasionally, a launch cable will snap. You should not be concerned; the train will lauch through the shards causing lacerations and will roll back to the launch position dislodging your seat. This is normal."

So now I have a question, and maybe Dave can shed some light on this (and quite honestly, maybe not); why did SFGA re-route the queue if the pull-cables are enclosed and do not pose a risk to spectators?

Are we to assume the KK failure was a different failure then? What caused SF to decide that it was best to move everyone back from the ride, and why didn't CP do that?

Is it just me or did GoBucks89 show up just about the time IntaminHater left?

Its just you. Seems to me that IH left about the time that links to defamation sites were posted. :)

DejaVuNitro said:
I can see it now. The sign in line for Intamin Rockets at CF parks:

"Occasionally, a launch cable will snap. You should not be concerned; the train will lauch through the shards causing lacerations and will roll back to the launch position dislodging your seat. This is normal."

Although this topic is not at all funny, this post is hilarious! I just wanted it to be repeated becasue no one "lol"ed

...And even though IH can be annoying with all his hatred and negativity, I still somewhat agree with him to a small degree,

Was at Hershey yesterday 9/20/09, and Storm Runner was closed the whole day. I am pretty sure it's related to the Knott's accident. That the first time all season that I didn't even see staff at the ride. Look like there wasn't any possibility of it opening. We left around 3 pm.

DejaVuNitro said:
I can see it now. The sign in line for Intamin Rockets at CF parks:

"Occasionally, a launch cable will snap. You should not be concerned; the train will lauch through the shards causing lacerations and will roll back to the launch position dislodging your seat. This is normal."

I know you're being facetious, but yeah, pretty much.

Coasterfantom2 said:
Was at Hershey yesterday 9/20/09, and Storm Runner was closed the whole day. I am pretty sure it's related to the Knott's accident. That the first time all season that I didn't even see staff at the ride. Look like there wasn't any possibility of it opening. We left around 3 pm.

http://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/56481.aspx?page=7#790091

Man, that would be scary. Sorry if this has been discussed already but how can this be prevented from happening again?

I remember hearing someone give a reason for closing the original KK queue that was basically the park didn't want what amounted to like 4-hours of people lined up in a queue if the ride broke down.

Now that doesn't seem to make much sense since the last time I was there, they let people line up through the Golden Kingdom.

Regardless, I can see why they might not want that many people locked into cattle pens. I feel like that way people were more likely to wait in line and be disappointed.

Is that the real reason? Whose to say.

Again: if it's just a cable snap with minor debris---sure, I can live with minor.

But in the video, the front right seat's integrity appears to be compromised. That's not even close to minor in my layman's book.