the eagle backwards

last year when the eagle was only going backwards at sfgam. what happend to a little girl. when the had a segment on the news about coasters they talked about it but never did say what happend. can someone tell me. i already know about the girl who died on raging bull i was their that day.

i dont really remeber hearing about any problems on the backwards blue last year

------------------
TRoy

and i went to SFGA about 20 times last season

------------------
TRoy

Last year, a girl (11 at the time), said that after a ride on the Eagle(backwards), she started to experience head problems. Headaches, memory loss, etc.

I remember the lawyer for the girl even stated that coasters werent designed to run backwards and thats probably what caused her problems. Its amazing what they will say to make a case.

I am hoping that SF is fighting this, but if they settled out of court, it wouldnt surprise me.

------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"

http://www.nbc5.com/news/2198299/detail.html

http://www.rollercoasterfans.com/index.php?topic=July3b

I don't think the Eagle was only going backwards, but ran forwards as well. This case may not be settled yet, but I am not sure.

The point is that the girl claimed to be riding the backwards side of Eagle.

------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"

I say it's all bull. If she did get hurt on the ride it would most likely be because she was riding improperly. One out of the thousands and thousands of people who rode eagle backwards got hurt. If there was a problem with it, then you would hear more about it. But it's only one girl. So I say this is just another sue hungry family.

I agree with you booya. I also think if that girl really got heart, then why is the park running it backwards still? Like you said, that whole thing is bull.

I have a hard time understanding their argument-- how g forces would be any different going backwards. The velocity is the same regardless of the direction you are facing.

It doesn't matter how or even if the girl got injured. Face it, juries and judges tend to give out BIG money if a company loses a case. For that reason many ocmpanies will simply settle out of court if they think the accuser has any chance of winning. It sucks, but that;s how it is these days.

To the park, it's just not worth the risk of a trial.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

No one ever doubted that General Public.

The physics (if I understand them correctly) do indicate that it can matter which direction you are facing. Think af a car accident, a rear ender. This is what happens to you when the car you are in slows down on a hill or in an inversion element. If you are facing forward, your head slams backward, hitting the back of the seat, bounces forward, then comes under control. If you are facing backwards, however, you head slams forward as far as it can, then is snapped backwards by the elasticity of the body and slams into the back of the seat, possibly harder than if you had been facing forwards. This has nothing to do with the design of the cars and trains. If the trains and cars are designed correctly, then the trains running backwards should run as smoothly as if they were running forwards. This only has to do with how the human body reacts to the forces of the ride. To me, none of this is the park's fault. But neither is it the girls's fault. Unfortunately if nobody's at fault, there's nobody to sue.

------------------
I am the TickTockMan

Unfortunately, logic does not always prevail in lawsuits.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

lol! Unfortunately I believe that GP has the truth of the matter.

------------------
I am the TickTockMan

Prabe, what you are saying about the physics of the ride is true. But there are signs saying sit straight up all the way against the seat. You're right, there is no one to sue, because it was another rider not following the rules.

While I agree with you Booya, unfortuantely that is not how it always works. There have been plenty of situations where patron did not follow the instructions on the signage, but yet either win their lawsuits or get the park(s) to settle.

One case in point, the Cajun Cliffhanger accident at GAm. The rules explicitly stated no sandals or bare feet. The girl took off her sandals and rode the ride barefoot, which ultimately led to the "ability" of her toes to get caught between the wall and the floor. She and her family was able to get a settlement from the park....

------------------
--George H
---Superman the ride...coming to a SF park near you soon...
Currency tracking experiment... http://www.wheresgeorge.com (Referring to The "George" on the $1 bill - Not Me)

George. I think what made the case in favor of the girl was that the Rotors were discovered to wear down after a period of time. The manufacturer of these rides stated that the gap between the floor and the wall widens over time and they had a means to correct the problem if the parks opted to install it. Apparently SFGAm didnt , so I believe the judge found the park negligent.

------------------
Arena football has arrived in the Windy City. Go "Chicago Rush"

Again, I was using that as a general explanation. I should have stated that there were additional issues.

But, nonetheless, if she had followed the posted signage which stated sandals, open toed shoes or bare feet were not allowed on the ride, her toes would have been perfectly safe. Not to mention the fact the there was signage stating that you should not place your feet on the walls - which she HAD to do to get her toes pointing downwards to get caught in the opening between the wall and the floor.

------------------
--George H
---Superman the ride...coming to a SF park near you soon...
Currency tracking experiment... http://www.wheresgeorge.com (Referring to The "George" on the $1 bill - Not Me)

As I said (or meant to) I do not know the specifics of the case or of the ride. I was merely trying to point out that the forces do act differently on the human body when the ride is going backwards, if only because of where the forces are coming from and where the support is. One further thing about backwards trains: If she was not familiar with the ride, she would have been unable to see what was coming and therefore unable to ride defensively.

------------------
I am the TickTockMan

If she wasn't familiar with it, why didn't she ride forwards first a couple times then try it backwards? I mean that's what I would do if I was unfamiliar with a ride that had forwards and backwards.