Jump to content

Top Thrill Dragster Incident


Recommended Posts

Quote

Is there an NTSB for roller-coaster issues? I imagine it playing out something like an airline crash investigation.

Yes. The Department of Agriculture. The same team that certifies the rides every year. They have to be inspected 2 times per year. And one news report stated they were already on scene to start an investigation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully there is a database that multiple states can tap into, and see what happens when there are incidents. We could throw various rides under the bus, but my feeling is that if it can happen on one ride at one park, it could happen on another ride, at OUR park. Scary, but anything mechanical can and will break if left to itself. Every piece of a ride could cause an incident, and must be evaluated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bjcolglazier said:

We could throw various rides under the bus, but my feeling is that if it can happen on one ride at one park, it could happen on another ride, at OUR park.

That's sorta what happened with the Superman Drop Tower ride at KK. Our Drop Tower was shut down temporary to ensure we didn't have a similar incident down the road.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Browntggrr said:

I strongly disagree, but to each their own.  I totally respect your opinion.

She stepped up, and could have (hopefully) saved a life.  What she did in the aftermath is overlooking what she did.

That being said, I do not envision TTD making a comeback.

I see what you are saying and respect your viewpoint as well. :)

4 hours ago, coaster sally said:

besides performing BLS on a person what can a nurse do besides hold pressure on a wound?  Also a trauma nurse would be starting IV's etc in a health care setting.

Nurses provide a lot more than that. She's lucky someone trained was near her at the time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Kingda ka was in its first few years It may have been a cable or something else but it was on the launch side flew off during a test run. This prompted the park to no longer use the que that ran close to the track.

 

I don't see TTD reopening in 2021 but I highly doubt this leads to a permanent closure. But There will also have to be some type of modification to the que line whether that be a change in layout or nets added. I also wouldn't be surprised at all to see a metal detector and additional locker system ala Steel Vengeance and Twisted Timbers. While this incident seems to have nothing to do with loose articles it would be a smart move PR wise to show how committed they are to no one getting hit in the future. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna offer some perspective that's not meant to justify or condemn what the nurse did.

My first instinct is that they publicized the report because they see amusement parks as inherently unsafe and in need of accountability. I see that as the product of the cultural bias of amusement parks as being places where people are commonly hurt or killed, which itself is the product of the kinds of GP stories we frequently laugh about here, e.g., "The Bat swung too far and hit a support and killed the riders." The lack of evidence in those situations when Googled can build an idea that parks are in the cover-up business. They aren't, by the way, to anyone who might be reading this and thinking that's an accurate assumption.

At any rate, the only way I see TTD leaving is if:

1. The Department of Agriculture refuses to certify it,

2. Cedar Point does not feel confident in their ability to keep it running safely, or

3. Cedar Point thinks it's going to hurt their brand to keep it open and decides to replace it with something equally or more noteworthy.

CP has built itself a brand of being "the best amusement park in the world with the big coasters." I don't see them easily letting go of one of two major coasters that helped them build that brand, nor do I see them letting go of that brand entirely.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SonofBaconator said:

I never understood how a ride's popularity trumps the fact that it hurt someone. People will naturally be drawn away from it unless changes are made.

People die in car crashes every day--we still haven't sworn off cars. Unlike SOB, which was rough and unpleasant even without major injuries, TTD is an absolute blast the vast majority of the time. It's like nothing else and the visual centerpiece of the park. If it runs again, guests will be more understanding when it goes down. If it doesn't, I'm glad my kids got to ride it this summer. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HandsUp said:

People die in car crashes every day--we still haven't sworn off cars. 

There is an understood risk when operating a car.

There should never be an understood risk when it comes to any amusement ride.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bjcolglazier said:

Is there an NTSB for roller-coaster issues? I imagine it playing out something like an airline crash investigation. Once you find out what went wrong, you fix it. Hoards of people will get back on and fly again another day. As much as the bottom-line can handle the down-time, that is.

No, there is no federal equivalent of the NTSB that oversees amusement rides.  The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) is more of an advisory board that investigates transportation safety concerns.  It has no power in and of itself other than to investigate.  It then provides recommendations to manufacturers and regulators (e.g. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration).  The NTSB has experts on staff who understand how aircraft, vehicles, etc. are built, how they operate, how the software works.  They work with the manufacturer to prevent an incident, such as the Boeing 737 MAX crashes, from happening again, but the manufacturer is not legally obligated to make recommended changes.  In that example, it was up to the FAA, foreign regulators, and/or Boeing to ground the planes, not the NTSB.

There are also no federal regulations regarding amusement rides; each state provides its own level of regulation.  In Ohio, the Department of Agriculture does certify rides, but it does not at all perform investigations to the extent that the NTSB does.  Their certification is more along the lines of verifying that the operator has performed and documented any maintenance, repairs, and operational procedures as provided by the manufacturer.  States obviously can collaborate but there is no formal federal agency to facilitate this.

What can happen is that operators will learn of incidents with similar rides, often directly through the manufacturer.  In Ohio, it is my understanding that operators must comply with all manufacturer guidance, thus if, say, INTAMIN were to instruct parks to stop operating all accelerator coasters, then Cedar Fair would be obligated to shut down Top Thrill Dragster until further notice.  It's still generally up to the park and/or manufacturer to work to investigate the cause of the incident.  The DoA inspectors will, however, need to confirm that the issue has been identified and no further safety issues are present before the ride can be re-certified.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HandsUp said:

People die in car crashes every day--we still haven't sworn off cars. 

When a defect in a specific car is identified that is the fault of the manufacturer, I don't know about you, but yes, that makes me less likely to trust my family to their vehicles.

When a maintenance issue that should never have been allowed to cause a serious injury can be traced to a specific repair shop, then I'm definitely never letting them anywhere near my vehicles again.

It's not as black and white as you say.  And the vast majority of injuries/deaths on the road are not accidents, are due to human error/negligence.  No, we shouldn't "accept" that there's a serious risk to our safety every time we're on the road.  That needs to change.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HandsUp said:

People die in car crashes every day--we still haven't sworn off cars. Unlike SOB, which was rough and unpleasant even without major injuries, TTD is an absolute blast the vast majority of the time. It's like nothing else and the visual centerpiece of the park. If it runs again, guests will be more understanding when it goes down. If it doesn't, I'm glad my kids got to ride it this summer. 

I think this is an incomplete analogy.  To complete it, it would be as if a car is driving towards a stoplight/sign from a high speed, a part of the car detaches and hits a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeeastFarmer said:

I think this is an incomplete analogy.  To complete it, it would be as if a car is driving towards a stoplight/sign from a high speed, a part of the car detaches and hits a pedestrian on the sidewalk.  

Which can happen especially with tire treads.   I had a tire disintegrate and the belts come off on me once, beat the hell out of the quarter panel.  See it all the time with truck tires on the interstate.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After watching the video of a first responder:

- the incident is serious 

- the victim is in pain/ screaming

- responder in CP maroon polo directed person with bodycam, later appears to be CP security, to go back to Shores.  Same responder adamantly did not want lady in white shirt around when taking victim out on gurney.

- lady in white shirt adamantly wanted a C-spine collar.  Person with bodycam could not find one.

- Deputy from Lorain in green shirt that saw the object hit her could not find the object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

After watching the video of a first responder:

- the incident is serious 

- the victim is in pain/ screaming

- responder in CP maroon polo directed person with bodycam, later appears to be CP security, to go back to Shores.  Same responder adamantly did not want lady in white shirt around when taking victim out on gurney.

- lady in white shirt adamantly wanted a C-spine collar.  Person with bodycam could not find one.

- Deputy from Lorain in green shirt that saw the object hit her could not find the object.

Person in Maroon polo is head of cp security.  He told the officer to basically get lost.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Browntggrr said:

After watching the video of a first responder:

- the incident is serious 

- the victim is in pain/ screaming

- responder in CP maroon polo directed person with bodycam, later appears to be CP security, to go back to Shores.  Same responder adamantly did not want lady in white shirt around when taking victim out on gurney.

- lady in white shirt adamantly wanted a C-spine collar.  Person with bodycam could not find one.

- Deputy from Lorain in green shirt that saw the object hit her could not find the object.

The lady in the white shirt is the one who violated the patient's privacy by posting the incident report online.  It has been taken down and her Facebook feed scrubbed,  When EMS arrives, the person helping the victim steps aside.  She did not want to do this.

This is the same person who is a nurse practicioner at a family business that does esthitician care.  I am told she put up a Facebook video going into graphic detail and stating she was covered in blood--which obviously is not the case because her white t-shirt certainly does not show it.

With these theatrics, I can see why she was not wanted at the scene.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BeeastFarmer said:

The lady in the white shirt is the one who violated the patient's privacy by posting the incident report online.  It has been taken down and her Facebook feed scrubbed,  When EMS arrives, the person helping the victim steps aside.  She did not want to do this.

This is the same person who is a nurse practicioner at a family business that does esthitician care.  I am told she put up a Facebook video going into graphic detail and stating she was covered in blood--which obviously is not the case because her white t-shirt certainly does not show it.

With these theatrics, I can see why she was not wanted at the scene.

She didn't violate any patient privacy and she definitely stepped aside, the adjoining queue line to be exact, when the request for a C-Collar was made. 

Her concern and subsequent frustration was obvious as who has been said to be head of security was more concerned of those in the area than concentrating on the victim.  Even more concerning is the lack of a C-collar in the bag, which is assumed to come from Cedar Shores.  A C-collar is as basic of a first responder device as there is.

After watching the bodycam I can see why there is concern of a cover-up which is why the incident report was posted from the start.  Even the off-duty Lorain officer was concerned that the part that hit the victim could not be found after taking the time to search for it.  Bob, as was seen from the name on his shirt and identified as CP maintenance, was not looking for the part.

Ironically, the only person that is not on the handful of YouTube videos is the nurse who has been accused of violating patient privacy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we were taught with hipaa it’s medically identifying information
Name
Date
Soc security
Telephone
Address
Medical record numbers
Photos
Bio metric identifiers
Etc


I have not been able to find the report but if she didn’t give any of this info it does not seem like a hipaa violation…. Maybe over sharing but not hipaa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://sanduskyregister.com/news/337812/cedar-point-wont-break-silence/

What is Cedar Point trying to hide? They won't talk to the media, won't release the name of the victim or any information about her location or condition, which potentially violates Ohio public records laws by continuing to refuse the victim's name. The public at the very least has the right to know if she survived, but the media needs her name in order to find that out.

I smell something fishy going on here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right or wrong, there are lots of articles over the years addressing how the lack of federal oversight of amusement rides means that there is no reporting mechanism for the parks themselves or the ride manufacturers to report injuries or mechanical failures to any organization, so most keep quiet about the number of injuries that happen every year or provide any more details than necessary for any incident.  They are in the business of attracting guests, not scaring them away, so of course they are going to downplay any incident.

I have in read in the past in some of these investigative reports that infer some parks "wash their hands" of the incident once the person is off their property, so if the person dies 12 days later at the hospital, the park does not count it as a death at the park. Usually only the fatalities or serious life altering injuries are heard of because it makes national headlines.  Any injury data about amusement park injuries are simply estimates based on someone doing tracking of hospital visits and logging what brought the person to the hospital.

I am not saying that is what is happening here, just mentioning the various investigative reports that happen by national media outlets and others in the wake of a series injury or death that makes national headlines seems to center around the difficulty of being able to obtain any information other that eyewitness accounts or to get firm numbers on deaths and injuries.  Right or wrong, the law is in the favor of the park for these types of incidents.

Cedar Point as a private entity and not a public agency is exempt from complying with Ohio public open records request laws.  Of course the media will claim that the park has to comply via the relationship they stated in that article, and of course the park will claim they are exempt.  The media outlet will sue and the attorneys will hash it out. 

However, if that agreement the media outlet mentions that Cedar Point has with the Sandusky police is true, then the media outlet needs to be requesting that information from the City of Sandusky in accordance with their Open Records Policy.  Just because the open records policy exists doesn't mean that every employee and department can just hand out that information - it has to be requested and distributed in accordance to the Open Records Request policy that is required to be established and followed.  The name of the injured would have to be obtained by the police report.

So is the media outlet investigative reporting that inept that they do not even know how or where to properly file an open records request, or was the article intentional to try to bring negative light to Cedar Point?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem right that Cedar Point would release her name. That's surely up to the police or somebody else. Did they check her ID before they put her on the gurney or something? Same for her medical condition...that's not for the park to say, but rather her doctors/hospital. And with the investigation into the accident underway, I doubt they're going to give much info on that until the investigation is complete.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bjcolglazier said:

It doesn't seem right that Cedar Point would release her name. That's surely up to the police or somebody else. Did they check her ID before they put her on the gurney or something? Same for her medical condition...that's not for the park to say, but rather her doctors/hospital. And with the investigation into the accident underway, I doubt they're going to give much info on that until the investigation is complete.

Thing is, Cedar Point Police Department *is* the police.  They have essentially all the legal duties, capabilities, obligations, etc. as Sandusky Police.  The scene was theirs, with Sandusky Police acting as backup, per SPD chief in an article linked above.  Bodycam officer is clearly SPD, others on scene are CPPD/security (they have both).  CP EMS responded with what seems to be a Sandusky Fire ambulance soon behind with the stretcher to rush her to the ambulance, to FRMC.
 

I don’t understand the obsession with needing to know the victim’s identity and medical condition.  It comes across as incredibly disrespectful.  Suffice it to say, the chance of the family not going to the media to put out the word that she has died seems quite telling.  I can’t imagine they wouldn’t make it known.  That makes it seem she’s still alive and they don’t want to talk to anyone right now.  Prayers that she’s getting the treatment she deserves from experts who know way more than we need to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she has a traumatic brain injury---and I'm only guessing she does---they probably put her in a coma immediately at the hospital and began all attempts to reduce brain swelling. She probably is alive. Alive and well?  That's another matter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Browntggrr said:

She didn't violate any patient privacy and she definitely stepped aside, the adjoining queue line to be exact, when the request for a C-Collar was made. 

Her concern and subsequent frustration was obvious as who has been said to be head of security was more concerned of those in the area than concentrating on the victim.  Even more concerning is the lack of a C-collar in the bag, which is assumed to come from Cedar Shores.  A C-collar is as basic of a first responder device as there is.

After watching the bodycam I can see why there is concern of a cover-up which is why the incident report was posted from the start.  Even the off-duty Lorain officer was concerned that the part that hit the victim could not be found after taking the time to search for it.  Bob, as was seen from the name on his shirt and identified as CP maintenance, was not looking for the part.

Ironically, the only person that is not on the handful of YouTube videos is the nurse who has been accused of violating patient privacy.

She absolutely did violate privacy.  She posted  her incident report online.  While the patient's name, DOB etc is not mentioned, it will eventually come to light when she or her family will file a lawsuit.  The incident, which she has since deleted, will be available online in perpetuity.  If she gave the report at a medical facility in the park, it is even more darning.  That report likely is part of the patients medical record that goes to the hospital.  If she filled it out at the security office, a copy may still goes to the medical record.  The law is very clear--any identifying information is a violation.  If, for instance, I had a patient who is a music star and I post online that I took care of a patient who was diagnosed with a meningioma and is very famous, the dots can be connected and I have violated the law.  And its clear from the video that there was an issue before the video that prompted the strong reaction of "I don't want her here."    If she was concerned about a cover up, the appropriate course of action was to fill out the incident report and then write details down or dictate to her phone to transcribe later.  Put this in a safe place and submit as evidence when an investigation begins.  Don't blast it online and further claim that you are covered in the victim's blood.--that is attention seeking behavior.

As far as searching for the part--yes it could have been smuggled away by CP maintenance, but I doubt that was their priority at the time.  They were probably in shock and disbelief.  This happens when emergencies occur and sometimes a concious paralysis happens.  They may have a policy that says to leave pieces in place so an report can be generated without a reconstruction--typical for police investigations.  I would not want to grab a bloody piece of metal.  But then again, maybe there is an attempt to cover up.  We wont know until the report is released.

 

11 hours ago, shark6495 said:

So we were taught with hipaa it’s medically identifying information
Name
Date
Soc security
Telephone
Address
Medical record numbers
Photos
Bio metric identifiers
Etc


I have not been able to find the report but if she didn’t give any of this info it does not seem like a hipaa violation…. Maybe over sharing but not hipaa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's any info that can ID a patient.  She may not ID the patient but graphic info about the patient was shared, and once her condition and fate is made known, it will be connected to her report.  What she did is illegal, immoral and unethical.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's any info that can ID a patient.  She may not ID the patient but graphic info about the patient was shared, and once her condition and fate is made known, it will be connected to her report.  What she did is illegal, immoral and unethical.  

I don’t know how to shorten what I’m quoting on mobile… sorry…

I don’t disagree about it being immoral and unethical…. But I’m not sure it’s illegal. You said you teach this to new med professionals so I’ll pass to your judgment here. But as a practicing clinician I’m not quite sure due to circumstance.

This (as you said before) will be an interesting open discussion in medical fields going forward. Like if she was at the hospital and she came out saying the same stuff then I agree about the illegalness of it.

However…. This was such a “public” event. I’m not sure. I mean there’s also the part that this is a big trauma. So part of me thinks she doesn’t know how to handle this and the lime light of it. If she’s not typically a trauma care person and the added stress adrenaline and not knowing how to calm down from it….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Browntggrr said:

She posted a Cedar Point incident report online.

No privacy violated.

Which contained graphic details of an injury to a human being.  This incident report likely (I am conjecturing here, not stating a fact) will likely be part of the patient's medical record.  That is a clear cut case there if this is the case.  If not...her social media posting gives graphic details of a injury to a human being.  Once the identity of this human being is made known and she is not  "woman at CP hit by piece of metal from TTD" the dots are connected.  What she did is reprehensible.

Staff have been terminated for sharing a picture on social media  that a family member posted online with the patient and nurse--that the patient requested.

A medical student was dismissed from school and reported the the board for discussing on social media details of an operation that was participated in and the family saw it and deduced who it was.

A nurses aid was dismissed, had her certification removed and was reported for violating HIPAA  for commenting on a post that a coworker had posted about not liking to give baths.  Something to the effect of "yeah it sucks that we had to bathe that cow who wont even scratch her face and that brown hair falls out whenever you comb it."

I think our conversation is derailing this thread and is kind of stoic with both of us convinced the other is wrong.  I'd be happy to continue in a PM if you want to, but I feel everything that has been said has been said.  I don't say this in a negative way, I just dont want to have this dominate the discussion further.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BeeastFarmer said:

Which contained graphic details of an injury to a human being.  This incident report likely (I am conjecturing here, not stating a fact) will likely be part of the patient's medical record.  That is a clear cut case there if this is the case.  If not...her social media posting gives graphic details of a injury to a human being.  Once the identity of this human being is made known and she is not  "woman at CP hit by piece of metal from TTD" the dots are connected.  What she did is reprehensible.

Staff have been terminated for sharing a picture on social media  that a family member posted online with the patient and nurse--that the patient requested.

A medical student was dismissed from school and reported the the board for discussing on social media details of an operation that was participated in and the family saw it and deduced who it was.

A nurses aid was dismissed, had her certification removed and was reported for violating HIPAA  for commenting on a post that a coworker had posted about not liking to give baths.  Something to the effect of "yeah it sucks that we had to bathe that cow who wont even scratch her face and that brown hair falls out whenever you comb it."

I think our conversation is derailing this thread and is kind of stoic with both of us convinced the other is wrong.  I'd be happy to continue in a PM if you want to, but I feel everything that has been said has been said.  I don't say this in a negative way, I just dont want to have this dominate the discussion further.

 

Given your examples of what you believe to be "privacy", why are your attacks only on the the lady?

The Cedar Point body cam video shows the same details.

That being said, the real concern that is being lost on many is the safety of park guests.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the heart of the issue is who wrote the report.

If she were a stay-home mommy that had no medical background or license and wrote what she saw, even if written verbatim to what was posted, while one may question the human decency factor or morality or something, there really isn't an issue that would impact this stay-home mommy.  Doesn't make it right to post it, but not a violation of someone's license.

Once she made it known she was a nurse, and signed the form with her nurse credentials, this form then changed meaning and posting it has ramifications.  Even if she was off-duty, the oath, pledge, code of ethics, whatever it is called in the medical profession was broken once she made that known.  That oath doesn't stop once quitting time occurs and they live with that oath and responsibility 24/7.  What is even worse is, if it is true, that some said she was pronouncing herself as an ER doctor before anyone arrived.

If she didn't put her credentials down on that report, she could make an argument to the licensing review board that she made that statement as a private citizen and not as a nurse.  I don't think the licensing board would accept that excuse, but it would have been her only defense.   The fact that she has been removing all her posts indicates she realizes she is in trouble.  But too many people have screenshots of it.

And yes that leaked bodycam footage is just as bad and probably violated some oath, code of ethics, or something within that profession and that will probably be investigated as well.  I do not know that software, but one has to wonder if the officer's name at the bottom left was who was reviewing it and leaked it or allowed someone to watch it and record it.

EDIT: If the bodycam footage was obtained lawfully and legally under a public records request as some claim (haven't seen a report confirming that), then it is "acceptable" to be out in the public domain.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...