Serious accident on Xcelerator caputerd on Video

I think some of you have very unrealistic expectations (especially: Intaminhater) for amusement ride equipment. We want them to build them taller and faster, but along with that comes some additional risk that you must accept. I'm beginning to suspect that I know who is behind the username.

coasterguy3014 said:
I don't think Intamin would ever take him to court over this because of what was already stated however they probably would have a fair case against him.

You need to read up on defamation law (see the link I posted) because it's not even close to having a case, especially as this fits the realm of "public interest."

I dunno, guys. I think it's obvious that the only steps one can take in this circumstance is to pick up the pieces, learn from it, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. There's really no other action to take.

But I'm not so sure it's reasonable to ask people to assume a risk of injury from ride malfunction at amusement parks. And I certainly don't think the majority of the general public even realizes they are taking that kind of risk, let alone are expected to accept it as part of the park experience.

And I also think because these incidents are so rare, that's what makes them leave such an impression. That's human nature.

You accept risk everyday. You have to or you wouldn't be able to function. You drive to work and the store, you eat food prepared by someone else or made at a factory, etc... Risk is unavoidable and no matter what the park, manufacturer, and all other parties involved do there will always be a level of risk. Judging by the low number of ride injuries I would say that overall parks and manufactures have done a good job of minimizing risk of injury.

Carrie M. said:
But I'm not so sure it's reasonable to ask people to assume a risk of injury from ride malfunction at amusement parks. And I certainly don't think the majority of the general public even realizes they are taking that kind of risk, let alone are expected to accept it as part of the park experience.

We need to bring back those old "Ride At Your Own Risk" signs.

Carrie M. said:

It really comes down to your own perception of major/minor. To me, minor is the restraints getting stuck in the locked/open position while the train is in the station.

Carrie, I wouldn't call restraints getting stuck even worthy of calling that an incident. While a cable breaking is not good, only two people on the train were slightly injured. I would say that the ride keeps riders safe enough during that type of failure. I really enjoy the rocket coasters, the thrill factor to me certainly overcomes the very, very minuscule chance of getting cut or bruised by a cable failure on any given ride.

I find it a little strange that anyone would even remotely suggest that there's risk involved on your part. I mean, the industry itself touts this as being one of the safest leisure things you can do, and statistically, that's probably true.

And ultimately, it's irrelevant in terms of whether or not a park and/or manufacturer will be liable if you get hurt.

Just so I don't sound like a know-it-all, I will mention that I am still early in my classes so this is best to my year of classes so far. Now I know what your saying about this being of public interest however that only goes so far. I will ask one of my professors tomorrow to see his point of view on it however imo, any statements that can be seen as detrimental to the company and have the potential to cause negative financial ramifications could apply. Like I said though, I will find out tomorrow and give a clearer answer.

Jeff said:
I find it a little strange that anyone would even remotely suggest that there's risk involved on your part. I mean, the industry itself touts this as being one of the safest leisure things you can do, and statistically, that's probably true.

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

Jeff said:
I find it a little strange that anyone would even remotely suggest that there's risk involved on your part. I mean, the industry itself touts this as being one of the safest leisure things you can do, and statistically, that's probably true.

And ultimately, it's irrelevant in terms of whether or not a park and/or manufacturer will be liable if you get hurt.

That's ultimately my point, as well. I mean, seriously, I rode Storm Runner without even hesitating yesterday. I get there are little chances of a problem and an even slighter chance of injury should a problem occur.

But I don't know what we are debating. If the risk really did fall to the rider, sign or no sign, there would be no cause of liability for the park or manufacturer when problems occur. That's just not the case.

I get nervous when the ride ops are focused more on texting versus watching the ride....thats just me though.

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?

The only place where you can avoid all forms of risk is 6 feet underground in a casket. All of life involves a slew of risks each and every day. Some are perceived; most are not. Doesn't mean they are not there.

If you want to be 100% sure that you will never be involved in any type of amusement park ride accident, the only thing you can do is avoid going to any amusement parks, fairs, etc.

I don't think that people who are talking about folks accepting that riding rides involves risks think that riders should be assuming all risks associated with those rides if something goes wrong. I certainly haven't seen anyone posting anything indicating that parks/manufacturers shouldn't be liable when they do something wrong (ie, they are negligent). And in vast majority of states (if not all states) fault really isn't a defense for the parks so that as long as the person who was hurt wasn't doing something that they shouldn't be doing, the injured person will recover damages. I think some people are just responding to what they read in many of the other posts to the effect that there should be/is no risk whatsoever in riding rides.

I totally agree with Andy on this. This is not a tolerable 'failsafe' mode. I have a lot of concern that the next time this sort of thing happens, the consequences are going to be a good bit deadlier.

Ensign Smith said:
I have a lot of concern that the next time this sort of thing happens, the consequences are going to be a good bit deadlier.

But you understand there will most likely be a 'next time' and that's exactly the risk that we all accept.

Assuming no negligence, you go back to what GoBucks89 originally said:

GoBucks89 said:
The accident is what it is. What is important is looking at exactly what happened (and that will require looking at the ride itself, the train, any pictures/videos of the accident (including the one we have seen on youtube), inspection reports and any other info thats available) and determining what can be done to reduce the risk of it happening again or lessening the damage done if it does happen again.

---

Carrie M. said:
But I don't know what we are debating. If the risk really did fall to the rider, sign or no sign, there would be no cause of liability for the park or manufacturer when problems occur. That's just not the case.

Risk and responsibility are two different things.

If something does happen the park takes responsibility, but you are accepting the risk involved with riding.

One of the news articles quoted that the cable is inspected as part of the daily maintenance check. If said check happened the morning of the incident, what's to stop it from happening at any other time? In other words, how can you create a preventative maintenance schedule for something that was checked the same day at Knotts (and probably CP when it happened)?

It would seem that everything looked ok, but really wasn't.

coasterguy3014 said:
Now I know what your saying about this being of public interest however that only goes so far. I will ask one of my professors tomorrow ill find out tomorrow...

You do that, and remember that there has to be something said that was absolutely false (i.e., not an opinion), and there has to be damage to the company's reputation. Even then, what would they get out of the dude? A grand? That wouldn't pay for the time spent getting a court order for his identity.

And before you start writing legal briefs... your and you're were not created equal.

Can most of us agree that this event is at the least undesirable and most parks would hopefully take steps to prevent more cable breaks? Some are suggesting just let it happen. Crap happens. Between bad publicity and possible damage to the motor room, I think this is something that parks will look at solving.

Speaking with a Cedar Fair mechanic back when Dragster had the same problem, he said that there are better cables on the market that parks are not buying even though it would virtually eliminate the problems. Is that true? Most likely but it does not mean it is worth it to the parks. Do I think it would be worth it? Hell yes.

Lord Gonchar said:

Risk and responsibility are two different things.

If something does happen the park takes responsibility, but you are accepting the risk involved with riding.

Yes. I agree. But what does that really mean?

The park/manufacturer would have no reason to take responsibility for a malfunction if there wasn't a reasonable expectation that a rider should go unharmed on a ride, right?

Who is suggesting just let it [accidents] happen?

Again, no one is saying parks/makers shouldn't be liable for accidents. Folks are just saying you are taking risks when you go to amusement parks (however small that risk may be).

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.