Website: g-force limits

go to the site http://www.saferparks.org/astm_gforce.htm and read the article. i am beginning to side with the g-force limitations. too many g's can injure or kill someone. its completly insane to think that the government is trying to do this just because. there has to more to it than that. They are not trying to get rid of roller coasters all together, it is a safety issue. the new jersey limitation of 6 g's IS good enough. 6 g's is alot since you pass out when you hit 15 g's

Why does government need to regulate any of this anyway? Where is the Constitution does it say that the Government gets to control stuff such as this.

I am american citizen. I have the right to decide wether to get on a ride or not. There is no need for these regulations...

Someone should let Ted Nugent know about this... Just kidding.

-------------
I fool so feelish....

I know, but what about the unsuspecting rider? you may know about the risks, but does the everyday person who doesnt know anything about coasters? it may seem ignorant that they are doing this, but im sure they have a motive. i would suggest instead that they just post warnings.

*** This post was edited by B&M_Lover on 5/23/2002. ***

*** This post was edited by B&M_Lover on 5/23/2002. ***

Unsuspecting rider? Please... people are more scared of the rides than they are their cars. Which one is more dangerous?

On safe parks she talks about testing in a centrifuge. I ask you, how many coasters, no, rides in general, expose you to 4 G's for any more than a fraction of a second?

The bigger picture here is still that the government need not get involved. If parks and manufacturers make rides that kill people, they'll go out of business. I don't need the ridiculous taxes I pay going toward yet another government agency.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

another good point, i just think riders should be informed better. what if your son or daughter got on a roller coaster and the g-force was so much that it damaged there brain and when the ride stopped they were unconcious with blood coming out of their nose. you cant tell me that you wish that the manufacture and park would have taken a little more time to inform you of this risk. the only thing i will be pissed about is if they start taking down the rides we have now. the amusement industry will find a way around these limitations.

-----------------
Raptor Rules The Sky

They cannot take down old rides if limits are passed. I forget the name of the law that allows that.... Facto something. It just means that if a law is passed, and something is against it, it cannot be touched if it existed before the law was passed. Kinda confusing.

Also, there have been no conclusive cases that g-forces cause brain damage... I mean, if I was in politics, I would like to see proof that g-forces are dangerous....

*** This post was edited by Blitzjade on 5/23/2002. ***

THANK GOD!!!! im glad they are not tearing down existing rides because i enjoy most of the ones ive ridden. i think they are trying to get proof from scientists and doctors that g-forces are causing brain damage. im not saying i agree with them butting in, im just saying that g-forces are dangerous if they get out of control. i doubt designers and park operators and ride inspectors will let g-forces get really high anyways.

Amen James K and Jeff!

-----------------
Beer, my soon to be wife, coasters, and the FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Is this a great country or what!!
------------------------
stoogemanmoe

Folks, let's get something straight here.

We are already living in a world where the G-forces exerted by rides are limited. Every ride manufacturer takes into consideration the forces exerted by the ride, and takes steps to keep those forces under control.

It may not always be a scientific limitation. It may be as simple as, "It's too much that way; slow it down an RPM or two" or even "Hey, we could push this just a little further." But out of necessity, the forces on rides are limited.

At issue is how should those limits be determined? Is it reasonable for a governing body to establish numeric force limiting criteria? Hopefully everyone involved is smart enough to realize that it is impractical to set brick-wall "thou shalt not exceed..." limits and have them make any sense.

Part of what is missing from the picture here is any indication of need. Forces exerted by rides are rather strong. They are, however, well tolerated by most riders. When they are not well tolerated, the usual response from the rider is motion sickness. In general, we are not talking about traumatic injury from G forces. Riders are not, as a general rule, passing out or dropping dead on these rides. So the question remains: Is any external regulation actually necessary, or are the manufacturers and parks already self-limiting the rides enough themselves? If rules are enacted, will they be meaningful? It would be simple to pass a G-force regulation in such a way that every ride on the market would pass easily and that any ride that exceeded the limit would be so wild that nobody would want to ride it. But that would not be meaningful. Safety standards exist because there is some agreed-upon case that represents a 'safe' limit. Clearly no such agreed-upon standards exist for G-force exposure.

So what now? Is it time to set limits? Will that accomplish anything? Or is the industry already doing OK?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Wow, in the first sentance of the second paragraph I already found something stupid. Why pass a law where the state can approve designs or reject them, because on another people got killed? It says it was caused by faulty design (probably untrue, just makes the writer sound better,) and substandard parts. Substandard parts will not be prevented by being able to reject designs...

The US government is full of a bunch of greedy control freaks. Why don't they let the people live thier lives, and they worry about public things, like maintaing roads, sewers, water, electricity, and national security... We don't need to be protected from nothingness. These 'Ed Monkeys' are doing just that, riding rides isn't putting us in any more danger than sitting on the crapper. You know, you might fall in, get stuck, and starve to death!

-----------------
Whats more reliable? Deja Vu, or RCT running without a trapper error?

I'm for as little government regulation in my life as possible. This would be an absolute instance of a case that governement regulation does not need to get into. You'll find that in most cases where government does start limitations, it creates almost like a snowball effect, with ammendments, and such always taking the regulations a step further. They may start out by saying, "OK, let's limit G-froces to 6 G's." Well, someone is going to get sick, or hurt on a ride that is at that limit, (due to or not due to the G's, doen;t matter), and then come the ammendments to the regulation. Then the limits will systematically be taken down further and further, until you're left with crap that is so unexciting that no one would want to ride anyway, and all you'll have is the old stand-me-by's to rely on.

I personally don't like the idea of government deciding for me what I should and should not subject myself to.To often times I think that these things start out with the idea that they feel that we have to be protected because we don't know enough to protect ourselves. I find that rather offending. True, ther are some people there is just not enough help for. But whatever happened to good old fashioned commen sense? Sure there is a time and place for regulations like water, air and soil qualities, speed limits, seatbelts, and that such stuff. But back off on what I do with my leisure time.

Brandy, (Who is a proud subscriber to the Limbaugh letter).

-----------------
Enjoy yourself. These are the good old days you're going to miss in the years ahead.