The Interpreter Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 If parks were qualified to make safety decisions for coasters, they would also be qualified to build them. Anyone remember the last time KI used their own resources to build a coaster? Yes. When Paramount Parks was upset with the performance of their selected contractor for Son of Beast, it took over as general contractor. What was your point again? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 ^ I don't remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveTheSmurfRide Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Regardless, I still blame the girl for A) not asking questions about what she would be/would not be able to ride. Except that at least one of the rides (according to the article) she had been allowed to ride in the past. So it's not up to her to ask questions if the precedent has been set by the park already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 ^ Due to the business I am in, I cannot agree. When it comes to safety, just because something happened once does not mean it will always repeat. (Assumption is the mother of all screwups) It also does not mean since a mistake was made the first time, the same mistake will be allowed to continue to happen. As stated in the article, she was not allowed on a ride at another park- so the situation is not new to her or her family. Given her unfortunate (and unique) situation, she needs take the less embarrassing path (it was stated the feeling was an issue) and be sure (until the park/ ride ops know her) to always inquire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CedarPointer Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 She "said" she rode before? Is that like the parents of kids who don't meet height requirements: "But he rode this morning!"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 She "said" she rode before? Is that like the parents of kids who don't meet height requirements: "But he rode this morning!"? I really cannot believe her parents would blatently lie about a subject and then go on camera about it. They appear to be too caring for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CedarPointer Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm just saying that just because they say it doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 ^ I get that. A family that is willing to blatently lie, would be looking for some type of payoff. Her parents are not suing the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Not to mention that at least SOME of the parents who claim Junior rode this morning are not lying. Doesn't mean that Junior should be allowed to ride now if he is too short, but to assume that all or even most guests are liars is to be jaded and cynical and perhaps a warning that perhaps one is in a job to which one is not well suited. Not all guests are truthful. Most, however, are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faeriewench Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 And here we go... US Teen with no Hands Sues SeaWorld over Ride Ban http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/295823/20120209/teen-hands-sue-being-banned-seaworld-rides.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsrattler Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I really hope the court dismisses this. If it is not, this sets a precedent that could change the face of thrill rides, for better or worse, but either way with a lot more expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 ^ This would change the face of everything. Can she paddle a canoe? Can she use ski poles? Can she zip line? Can she hitch-hike? Can she use foam fingers? Can she make a snowball? Can she mountain climb? Can she fish using an actual pole? My ultimate (and serious) question: can she drive a car? This will ultimately get dismissed because the park did not say she could not enjoy the whole park, just one particular ride. There is a big difference between the two. Due to financial constraints, the is NO WAY all park/ ride manufacturer can accomodate every disability. I have issues with this type of lawsuit. While I feel for her, she is (in a round about way) saying: "Since I cannot ride, nobody can." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRickster Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 In its statement, SeaWorld said a guest without hands cannot ride Kraken, "because the manufacturers guidelines require that a guest be able to grasp the pull-down harness with at least one hand." If this is an issue the blame goes to b&m. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 ^ That brings up a good question. Does B & M offer a design/ restraint that those without hands can enjoy? Or did Sea World take the "cheap" (I'm sure the suing attorney will spin it this way) way out? Let's not forget that it probably is not necessarily a "holding the restraint" issue, but a "if you can grasp the restraint effectively and buckle yourself in, you can hold onto evacuation stairs effectively" issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRickster Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It wouldn't be that or people in wheelchairs would also be in question. It just has to do with being able to support yourself while riding and injuries. Look at the people who complain about things being to rough. They do not know how to properly support themselves with all their appendiges. (This brings up a debate of should they have to but that doesn't help once the ride is already built). Not that anyone would fly out but the small injuries are where parks and builders have to watch out for the most. It's easy to make something to hold someone in but to do it and say not cause someone to get a bloody nose if they do something dorky is another issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 A. Water dummies don't hold on. B. As I said before, learned counsel aka personal injury/products liability lawyers would have a field day with a ride that required defensive riding. Just as one tiny example, how is any first time rider to know how to ride defensively? "My client had never ridden this...dangerous contraption that both the manufacturer and the park admit cannot be ridden safely without the rider protecting HERSELF!! Why wasn't the park responsible to protect her? The park AND the manufacturer knew that without HER help, the ride is UNSAFE. They could have made a safe restraint system, but that might have cost a few more nickels. They CHOSE to save those nickels. And now my client gets to pay for those savings every second, minute, hour, day, week and year for the rest of her life. All for a few nickels the park CHOSE not to spend." The industry would proudly tell you that no operating US theme park ride requires defensive riding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Another interesting thing comes up, What if the said person HAS hands, but they suffer from paralysis from the neck down, they have hands but just can't use them, I wonder what that would turn into if they were told to get off the ride because of their said condition. I'm actually glad their taking this to court. 1. She has full use of both of her arms, she just doesn't have hands. 2. She has rode the ride before(In court if this gets brought up, the judge could have a field day with this, its kind of like she had the right before and now it got taken away from her) 3. who to say she couldn't grip the harness once it was pulled down. Maybe she couldn't pull it down but hey her parents are right there helping her. 4. Are we 100% sure that she will fall out without hands? Whats really the sudden danger. If something happens unexpected whos to say even with the people with hands won't also be in danger. They have to rule that she without hands is in more danger than the person with hands. Should be a very good case to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOB_TOM Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Actually, you are trained to look for people with paralysis, who cannot grip the bar. So what you are saying is that a "he said/she said" case is going to be good to watch? This should be thrown out immediately (faster than the Seaworld case honestly.) Yes, she IS in more danger than a person who can grip the bar. Like I have said numerous times in this thread, most rides you brace yourself against the forces put upon your body with your arms and hands. Those forces can be to the side, where you need to GRIP the bar in order to brace yourself. Again, you are ignoring the evacuation policies. If the evac is done somewhere where she is required to hold onto a handrail while going down stairs, or over a catwalk, she is in more danger not grabbing the handrail than she would be grabbing it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Bombay Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Again, you are ignoring the evacuation policies. If the evac is done somewhere where she is required to hold onto a handrail while going down stairs, or over a catwalk, she is in more danger not grabbing the handrail than she would be grabbing it. That's a moot point. The lawsuit and argument are not about whether or not she can be properly evacuated. As TheRickster pointed out: people in wheel chairs are allowed to ride rides and often have limited use of their extremities below the waste, they can grip the rail, but could they walk down? What about a child with Cerebral Palsy? He/She may be able to grip things, but would they and if so, how well? This isn't a case over discrimination or hypothetical situations about evacuations. What it is, is a patron questioning whether or not Sea World provides reasonable accommodations (as pointed out by The Interpreter earlier). Depending on how state law in Florida works, Sea World may or may not be legally regarded to follow ALL manufacturer recommendations as parks in Ohio are, however, they were in this case following one from B&M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 ^You don't believe the Sea World attorney will bring up a possible emergency situation? More info: In order to ride, guests must be able to maintainthe proper riding position throughout the ride and brace themselves upright in their seat keeping their head erect and their back against the seatback. Guests must generally be able to use the restraint device properly and be able to hold on tight and keep hands, arms, legs and feet down and inside the ride at all times. Guests must also be able to demonstrate a willingness and ability to comply with verbal and written rider requirements. The rider requirements and health restrictions are listed on a sign at the entrance to each ride. http://seaworldparks...bilityGuide.pdfGuests using wheelchairs who would like to ride Kraken should inform the Team Member at the entrance. He/she will be directed to enter through the exit located to the far left of the entrance and then up the exit ramp to the station. Guests using wheelchairs must transfer from their wheelchair to the ride vehicle. http://seaworldparks...ns/Rides/Kraken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRickster Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Browntggr hit the nail on the head... They do tell you that you have to be able to support yourself. It's listed in the disability guides and on ride signage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.