Studies show no risk from thrill rides

Gotta agree with Jeff 100% on the Clinton had no effect on the economy one way or another. It's concensus people, When people feel good about the way things are going they spend money, When people don't, They tend to hold back.

Chuck, who put his $300 towards his debt.

-----------------
Charles Nungester.
Is it about coasters or friends? I say both!

Taxes: Don't forget that after throwing most of us a $300 bone they want to eliminate income tax on dividends which will be a huge break directed primarily at the wealthy.

Rollercoasters: You can go to the Six Flags media page and download both of the reports. No need to go to the LA times and read another typical rollercoaster hazard article.

I read about half of the AANS paper at lunch. It doesn't seem to be any white wash. The methodology and conclusions that I've read so far seem pretty reasonable. I'll have more to say when I've read more.

Clinton may or may not have had an effect of the economy but he boosted cigar sales.

I do question the decision to fund the study on the part of Six Flags but would the study have been done otherwise? Probably not. It sounds like the company should be taken seriously given their history.

Fox News just ran the story, with a guest appearence by Gary, and 2 other dudes against the study, 1 of the dudes said he was an enthusiasts. Yeah right!

Gary is good looking, I wonder if he would want to be my daddy?

Do you guys make a living for yourselves or are you still living off of your parents? It has nothing to do with getting "richer" (rich people don't drive Toyotas). It has to do with getting a proportionally fair share of what I paid back. It's bad enough I pay more taxes percentage wise than someone who makes less than me, now I'm supposed to get even less back?

I don't disagree that there are a thousand little ways that tax structures benefit those who are better off, but that's not what I'm getting at. I work my ass off for every dime and I expect that if there's something coming back it's proportional to what I paid in, especially since the "refund" came in the middle of six months unemployment.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com Rave Cam 1/18
DELETED!

If I was rich I'd buy a Toyota Avalon. Those are sweet (see my Cedar Point TR of May 2002). :)

-----------------
A day is a drop of water in the ocean of eternity. A week is seven drops.

Here is our favorite congressman's response:

http://www.house.gov/markey/iss_amusement_pr030121.pdf

-----------------
Please visit the small parks. We don't know what's happening behind the scenes
Woodencoaster.com

Of course he's still gonna pursue his interests.

Someone should call Fox News and have Gary and the Senator on O'Riley.. hehehe

I again, my god this is happening alot lately, have to agree with Jeff about the Toyota thing. Do you know a single poor person who ever gave someone a job? If you tax these people to the point where they can't hire more. You're cutting your own throat.

-----------------
June 11th, 2001 - Gemini 100
VertiGo Rides - 82
Technical Services - 2002
Frightzone Screamster - 2002
*** This post was edited by Red Garter Rob on 1/21/2003. ***

BRILLIANT QUOTE OF THE YEAR:

"Meanwhile, of course, thousands of park patrons are injured in non-brain injury accidents every year on roller coasters and other park rides, and some of those patrons actually die on these rides. Broken limbs, cuts, sprains, or death are not experiences that anyone expects when they go to the park for entertainment."

I hate to be so blunt about this, but NO S**T.

Because let's face it, when you go to the supermarket, you expect that you'll get food poisoning from that slightly green banana.

And when you go to get piss-cheap gas at some noname station, you expect to get greater miles per gallon than if you get the ultra premium from a brand name.

And when you jump on a **federally regulated** bicycle, you expect to fall and scrape your knee.

And when you walk down stairs, you expect to tumble and break your arms, legs, neck, or back.

And when you go to a baseball or hockey game, you expect a fly ball or stray puck to bash your face in.

And when you get in the car to go drive somewhere, you expect that the car will find its way into a tree and you'll find yourself in a body bag.

And when you go to the shore to swim in the ocean, you expect the undertow to carry you away under the surf.

And when you buy a toy with small parts for a child younger than the age of complete reason, you expect them to choke on those parts.

And when you talk on a cellular phone, you expect the service to be nonexistent.

But, for some inexplicable reason, the minute you step into an amusement park, you're expected to be immune from all the freak accidents, human/mechanical error, and general s**t-happenings of the rest of the world?

That's a pretty asinine statement to make when you're representing a substantial amount of people in the greatest country in the world. But then again, this is just another example of Markey's trademark style of consistently and selectively choosing the evidence and positions he wishes to support.

With a mindset like that, no wonder his proposal looks so good to a panic-stricken public.

-----------------
[Nitro Dave -- 118 Laps] [Track Record: 64 and counting...]
WALLEY WORLD PARK SECURITY -- The Moose is Loose...at a park near you!
Musha-ring-dum-a-do-dum-a-da-ba-wit-da-ba-da-bang-da-bang-diggy-diggy-hope-diggy-da-diggy-da-ras-ta-dan-teh!

Clinton had a huge effect on the economy. He asked OPEC to cut oil production in 98. That significantly raised fuel prices. Remember that? Most people did not change their driving habits, just paid more for gasoline. And heating oil. Still had to go to work, get the kids, get groceries...etc. This left less money to purchase goods that we really didn't need. That in turn caused people to start loosing jobs.

Don't forget about the railroads, trucking companies and the airlines. They consume huge amounts of fuel. The economy started to fall long before Bush was elected. Then add in 911.

It doesn't mater if you like or dislike Bush or the GOP, they are not responsible for the poor economy.

Back to coasters, I saw the report on CBS tonight. I hope this causes Markey to find another drum to beat.

-----------------
There is a new twist in the Top-Hat. :)

copy and paste this for some of Clevelands local coverage on the subject..

http://www.cleveland.com/wkyc/wkyc_clip.ssf?zzDoNotCount?/wkyc/wkyc/healthcast.frame

Enjoy...

-----------------
June 11th, 2001 - Gemini 100
VertiGo Rides - 82
Technical Services - 2002
Frightzone Screamster - 2002

We also got some Chicago coverage on this subject.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-coaster22.html

-----------------
""To be the man, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!, You got to beat the man""!!!

Heard the basics of the study, along with Markey's response, on the radio this morning. Apparently per million passenger miles, *Mr. Ed* tells us that coasters are more dangerous than planes, trains, and buses.

bill, still living in the land of bankruptcy homestead exemptions...is there really anybody out there with a $20M house in Florida that is *bankrupt*...maybe just morally bankrupt...;)

From the Chicago Sun-Times...

"Markey said he will continue to push the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act, which would protect consumers by investigating serious accidents, ordering that unsafe rides be fixed, and sharing information about a ride with every other operator who owns a similar ride, even if it is not in the same state."

Don't the states with inspection organizations and the manufacturers do that now??

-----------------
Scott W. Short, "A-Lister"
scott@midwestcoastercentral.com
http://www.midwestcoastercentral.com *** This post was edited by ShiveringTim on 1/22/2003. ***

Jeff: Admittedly, I am not 100% sure about what it is the Democrats are currently drafting, and no one can really be sure till the final product comes out, but I feel that you dont fully understand what that $300 dollars from the so-called "Bush Tax Cut" really represented.

First off, it was NOT a rebate. I do not care how anyone tried to explain it. It was NOT giving you back money for taxes paid for 2000. What it WAS was simply that they cut the tax rate on the 2001 taxes, such that, as inverted one said, such that the tax liability on the first $6000 is now $300 less. Now, since the IRS requires that you pay taxes throughout the year (for most people it is withheld via you W-2 form, though some make quarterly estimated payments) and the tax cut was made retoactive to Jan. 1, 2001, the Bush Administration decided that it would simply return that overpayment of taxes in the forms of checks EARLY, rather than after the individuals filed their 2001 returns. So basically, all they did was give the benefits of the lowest rate cut EARLY rather than later. The motivation of this was that they hoped that people would spend that money during the 2001 calendar year rather than in the 2002 calendar year, and thus bolster a slumping economy. (Whether it worked or not is open for debate).

Furthermore, I submitt to you that many people did NOT recieve a "check in the mail" and instead reaped this benefit at the time when they filed their 2001 tax return. If you noticed on the 2001 1040 forms, there was a line that allowed you to claim a $300 tax credit in the case that you did NOT recieve the check. Basically though, the so-called "rebate" had nothing to do with proportionality, nor should it have. It was simply the result of cuting the lowest tax rate from 15% to 10% of the first $6000 of income. Sorry if you expected more.

Wahoo: The cigar thing was funny as hell!

DEN: I *am* the proud owner of a Toyota Avalon. My car drives like a dream. Wasn't too expensive either. My 1999 model (bought in 2001 w/ 76,000miles) was just under 13K. A *steal* IMO.

And one final politcal statement, I dont think that either the Democrats or Republicans can take credit for or blame for the economy. Business goes through cycles. The *real* economists (not RGW ;)) were predicting the *burst* of the so-called internet bubble back in 1998. It was going to happen....PERIOD!

lata, jeremy

--who loves rollercoasters and politics, but doesnt see a need to politicize rollercoasters

Shivering Tim:

Actually, communication of problems with rides is generally handled by the manufacturers who issue notices of problems. This is very similar to how it is done in the aircraft industry.

As near as I can tell, it's also how the communications are usually handled for problems related to mobile rides which the CPSC does have jurisdiction over. These communications usually occur long before there is an incident serious enought to get the CPSC involved. In fact that's how they avoid serious incidents. Funny how Markey didn't mention that.

I think that the IAAPA also makes announcements for members and maintains a list of these communications on their web site.

It generally works well and avoids the overhead and delay of a government agency. *** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 1/22/2003. ***

"Do you guys make a living for yourselves or are you still living off of your parents? "

An unfair, rude question (I guess certain people are not bound by the TOS), but I will oblige. I make a living for myself as I have done for the past 8 years. I have never relied on any income from any source other than my own employment..neither the government, nor my parents fund any aspect of my life.

"It has nothing to do with getting "richer" (rich people don't drive Toyotas). "

Well that's definitely not true...Jonathon Ogden (all-pro NFL player who makes millions of dollars each year) drives a Toyota Sequoia. I only assumed that you were "rich" because you said that you paid in 20 times more than most Americans...If you paid in that much more, you must have made quite a bit more than most Americans.

"It has to do with getting a proportionally fair share of what I paid back. It's bad enough I pay more taxes percentage wise than someone who makes less than me, now I'm supposed to get even less back? "

You didn't get less back, you got the same amount back. If you want to pay less taxes, make less money. If you don't want to make less money, stop complaining and be thankful for what you do have.

-----------------
"Ever hear of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates...Morons!"

Thankful for what I have? I don't need to be thankful... I earned it, and that's the point you're missing. I should be thankful I worked my ass off to earn money? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's not like I sit around crying about what I don't have, because I have exactly what I earned, and for the government to keep more because I made more is immoral.

I understand Jeremy's points in the context of the current system, but the system is wrong. People shouldn't be penalized for their success (which is earned).

I grew up on welfare and government cheese, but not once did I ever feel that those wel-to-do folks in the burbs should be penalized because they had more than me.

(One minor point of clarification: I do believe that welfare, social security, unemployment, etc., do have a place in our functional society, and I don't mind my tax dollars going toward these programs. The problem is with the percentage of what I earn begin paid in taxes only because I make more of it. Maybe it doesn't matter when you're Bill Gates, but for what normal people work for, it just ain't right.)

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
DELETED!

"Thankful for what I have? I don't need to be thankful... I earned it, and that's the point you're missing. I should be thankful I worked my ass off to earn money?"

Yes

"That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."

That's one of the snobbiest things that I have ever heard.

"It's not like I sit around crying about what I don't have,"

That's funny because that's exactly what it sounded like you were doing...You didn't have more than the $300, so you were "crying".

"because I have exactly what I earned,"

It's sounds like you think that someone who makes less money than you, doesn't work as hard as you. I have worked my tail off to get what I have also...Have I worked harder than you?!?! Neither of us can truly answer that question, but one thing is for sure...just because someone makes less than you, doesn't mean that they didn't work just as hard. What you have and what you earn are not necessarily a direct relationship.

"and for the government to keep more because I made more is immoral."

Your entitled to your opinion.

Sean

-----------------
"Ever hear of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates...Morons!"

Oh, I see. You view it as since you are now making more money, it is being taxed at a higher rate and that is fundamentally unfair. I can understand that logic. But what would be the remedy for this "wrong" in the system?

Well, the only solution that would met your idea of "fairness" is that there be a "Flat Tax" imposed in place of the current tax system. You are not alone. Since 1994, several Republicans have offered similar solutions. However, IMO, there is a fundamental flaw with this idea. It seems to stand to reason that if you reduce the tax rates for the wealthier folks one of two things have to happen.

ONE: Poorer people have to make up the difference. For Example, if a flat tax was established at say the twenty percent rate, "poorer" people (Adjusted Gross Income under $27,950) would see a total tax increase of between 55 and 100 percent! While at the same time, "wealthier people" ($307,050 and above) would realize a savings in excess of 53 percent of their current tax liability! Just for completeness, let's look at a "middle income" person ($67,700). They would see a reduction in taxes of a little less than six percent (dont believe me? do the math yourselves. marginal tax brackets can be found here). I'd proffer that this solution puts an undue burden on the poor.

TWO: The other option, is to lock the rate at the lowest rate, in this case 10%. Now this might seem "fair" on the face, but I'd offer that this ALSO unduly saddles the poorer ones in society. Why? Because if the Goverenment is working with a smaller pool of money, there are going to necessarily be cuts in the budget and the services that Government provides. Unfortunately, it is the poorer ones in the society that has the most need for these services. To drastically slash the funding source will utimately hurt those who need gevernmental assistance.

Now, if there is another solution that I have failed to present, I'd gladly take some time and ponder upon it. But as it is, the so-called "progressive" tax plans seem to be the better solution to this complex problem.

lata, jeremy

--who hopes he hasnt strayed too far...
(edit: grammer & spelling) *** This post was edited by 2Hostyl on 1/22/2003. ***