Posted
Investigators say the victim who was tossed from the Perilous Plunge giant flume at Knott's Berry Farm may have been beyond the ideal weight to ride safely. One expert described for The LA Times the manner in which an over-weight rider's tissue can shift during the ride.
Read more from The LA Times.
-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
"From the global village... in the age of communication!"
Watch the grass grow!
-----------------
Jay and Silent Bob have left the building ~Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
If Intamin knows it's an issue(Darien Lake), wouldn't rethinking the restraint system to prevent people who may be at risk from even getting on the ride be better than telling the parks to restrict riders? I'm not trying to point the finger at the manufacturer, because I obviously don't know all the facts. It just seems odd that given the DL incident and the "shifting tissue" theory in the article that the problem wasn't accounted for.
Then again, height limits could be discriminatory against tall people.
But if the lap bar and seat belt were still locked, it sounds like a DESIGN FLAW.
Did the woman's weight have something to do with it? Possibly. It sounds plausable that while the restraints may have locked upon loading, she was not in a position (or changed position) that would keep her secure. Therefore, IMHO, the ride should have been designed so that the restraints could not have been locked on a person who is too large, thus preventing that person from riding.
If it was a case of the restraints not being secured properly, this either points to ride op error (should have made sure the person was secured properly) or design flaw (should not have been able to be secured if the person did not fit properly).
I know that there are those out there who say that rides are safe, and most of the time they are... but there very rare times when the design of a ride may be at fault... and the more that I read on this one, the more that sounds like this may be the case. I have a hard time attributing this one to "rider error".
-------------
"I wasn't always this cynical, but then I started kindergarden..."
*** This post was edited by chris on 9/26/2001. ***
As a "big guy," I'd rather be embarrassed than physically endangered.
*** This post was edited by chris on 9/26/2001. ***
Its best to restrict people that cannot be secured properly.. the airlines make extremely large people buy two seats so they are safely secured...there should be no reason to fear lawsuits over size when one's life is at issue.
Since these parks are privately owned they can set any rules they would like.. and I hope they address this soon.
However, on other rides, I do not think a weight restriction would do much good. For instance... if you are 6'7", chances are that you are not going to be able to ride very many rides because you are just too darned tall, regardless of body build. However, someone who is 6' tall and all muscle and weighs 275 is going to fit into a ride a heck of a lot differently than someone who is 5'2" and is "fat" and weighs 275!
Restricting based on Height is one thing... that is easy. Based on weight is different... a taller , average built person could weight more and fit a ride better than a shorter but "rounder" person who actually weighs less.
-------------
"I wasn't always this cynical, but then I started kindergarden..."
http://www.mouseplanet.com/mp/news.htm
They say the ride-ops only checked a few seats.... doesn't sound good but we should wait for the truth before we jump to any conclusions.
-djansi
Evidently that ride WAS NOT perfectly safe... else someone who was secured by a lap bar and a seat belt (both of which remained locked after the person was ejected from the ride) would have held them in.
-------------
"I wasn't always this cynical, but then I started kindergarden..."
Personally, I think in this case and in the Darien Lake case we're probably dealing with riders who were not only oversize, but who were probably also standing up or partially standing at the time of ejection. But that is only an opinion.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
I know I stated early the problems with the bar itself. For people like myself (who are not really that fat at all), the bar hits the crotch/abdoman before it comes over the legs. Rideman posted a simple solution for this. If Intamin is any sort of a good company, they will notice and make these simple changes instead of creating a weight limit, which as stated above really would not accomplish anything (i.e., a 6'5" 250 pound person and a 5'5" 250 pound person will have totally different bodies).
As for the belt, I have a speculation on what happened. For larger men, it is east o slide the belt safely underneath the gut if the belt is to short. For large women though they are more solid through that area and therefore if the belt fits at all, it just may be resting above the stomach. Now with the belt were have to been larger, it could have been attached then tighten in the proper position instead of just sort of laid on the stomach which would accomplish nothing (like the article said). Still this is just speculation.
I just think a simple bar design change would solve the problem.
-----------------
Save Cheese on a stick!
*** This post was edited by Joe E. on 9/26/2001. ***
You must be logged in to post