WCPO Story - KI may have violated Federal Law regarding disabilities

[The Interpreter]

Life, liberty and the pursuit...?

Not the Constitution.

That's the Declaration of Independence.

Sigh.

[Outdoor Man]

I know they are from two different documents, Terpy...

I actually wrote that the constitution allows for... not written therein. Declaration of Independence doesn't detail our rights; the constitution does.

But I digress.

[OleShawn]

It all comes down to what the federal law says. I would think Cedar Fair would have their own lawyers or legal advisors that know excatly what it says.

[BloodBlade21]

^{I've been a member on here for a while. I mostly just like reading all your post and enjoying the personal opinions of all you of on the various topics. I just had to chime on this one as I thought of a partial solution to all parks. I understand that it is unfortunate that there are people that physically limited in what they can do. I do not however think that the ride operators should be the ones determining who can ride or not ride. I think parks should consider treating disabilities like they do with height requirements. People with disabilities can check into a centrally located spot where one or two people, medically trained personal, that can determine what they can and cannot ride. Assign then some sort of wrist band so that ride ops can determine if they are eligible. This takes pressure off of the rides ops and eliminates them from making any kind of medical judgment. We live in such a sue happy world days that every precaution has to be taken. Which is truly sad in my opinion.}

^{edited: Changed font size. Not use to posting.}

I don't believe that ride ops determine disability. I am pretty sure that a guest with disabilities goes to Guest Services or speaks with a supervisor who then provides said guest with the sheet documenting which rides are safe for that guest to enjoy. The ride ops just look to see if the ride the guest is waiting for is approved on the ride sheet.

[APE]

I think this became a story more so because they tried to say the mom was lying even though she had proof of him rising in previous years.

I think every one needs to understand and most here especially do that it is a safety issue. That though doesn't excuse poor treatment if what this lady is saying is true about the situation.

[Outdoor Man]

Agreed. I think most know also that as bright as some tend to be (no sarcasm intended), the ride opp's are by no means "Rhodes Scholars" (sarcasm implied). They are likely to make errors in judgment when it comes to safety concerns. They are mostly HS and College age students on a summer job not a career.

[disco2000]

I think it's different when someone claims they have rode it before and then when there is actual visual evidence.

Also, you didn't even read the section of my post which you quoted mentioning the policy changing. You only commented on what you had in bold print. It starts immediately after the sentence in which you highlighted to make your point.

We do not know the facts with certainty whether it was a policy change or a policy being more strictly enforced, but policy change or not, it doesn't matter whether someone rode it in the past or not and now is being told they cannot ride.

Just because someone has visual evidence that they rode the ride doesn't mean they should have been allowed to in the first place and should thus be allowed this time - they could have been able to sneak on. I have seen parents at Woodstock Express get mad when an employee tells them their child is too small to ride and have watched said parent then pull out their cell phone showing photo proof that their little child had rode it - the employee still will not let them ride. That kid was unfortunately able to be overlooked last time and rode in error and like I said before, parent should just be glad that nothing happened to their kid (and KI should be as well if such child was hurt and was found to be below the height requirement we know the parent would file a lawsuit). The height requirement for that coaster hasn't changed since before such kid was even born (if the height requirement has even changed since its existence), so it isn't like it was a change in policy that doesn't allow them to now not ride.

If you get pulled over on I-71 for speeding and tell the police officer "Well I speed everyday on this stretch of highway and here is a selfie proof of my speedometer" that doesn't make it right and doesn't mean the speed limit policy changed the day you got pulled over. You simply got caught. And if you said that to a police officer, you are probably getting a ticket instead of a warning!

^{. Assign then some sort of wrist band so that ride ops can determine if they are eligible. This takes pressure off of the rides ops and eliminates them from making any kind of medical judgment.}

I don't know... That's another can of worms. If the rider was ejected from the ride or even had a heart attack during the course of the ride then they would have been, "checked out and deemed healthy or in good enough shape to ride" by the park's medical staff. That's just waiting for a legal or PR nightmare.

Somewhat related - I have even seen attentive employees question a child's height, although they had a height bracelet indicating they are tall enough, and do a measurement in the station and if the kid isn't tall enough, they did not ride, even with the bracelet. Parent was ticked, but how does the employee not know that it wasn't a bracelet from an older sibling. If they didn't measure tall enough in the station, they do not ride. Simple. And the ride op should be given that authority as it is part of their responsibility anyway.

[malem]

Amusement park employees enforce long-standing safety requirements. Affected guest receives good customer service. More at 11. Only on WCPO.

(We all feel bad for the kid, but this story is hardly news.)

[silver2005]

Well, knowing the state of WCPO lately...

http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php/topic/29861-larry-handley-calls-cincinnatis-channel-9-a-very-dark-place-in-an-email-sent-to-his-coworkers-during-his-departure/?hl=wcpo

I've actually stopped going to them for news because they've been a bit outlandish in their choice of stories to cover. They're the only station to use a helicopter for crying out loud (those stories are boarder-line asinine).

[Tanna]

As soon as I began to watch the video, I immediately thought of the veteran who died on the Superman roller coaster. If I were a ride operator, I would think the same thing.

We can't always get what we want, too bad, but it's true. I wouldn't want to be the one to carry with me to my grave the fact that I killed someone by 'being nice" and letting them on a ride where they might be ejected from.

Too bad the park has to deal with this.

I'll never climb Everest, due to medical issues. I'm not going to sue the mountain down to sea level.

[BavarianBeatle]

In my opinion, the most troubling allegations are that a patron of the park was falsely accused of forgery by park employees and the "bait and switch" type allegations contained in the media accounts.

[KIBeast]

With due respect to the whole speeding issue, you know that what you are doing is against "policy", or in this case, is against the law. The people trying to ride rides were not breaking any policy that that they were aware of. Not to mention the accusation of forgery of documents which Bavarian Beetle mentioned. I'm not saying that I think that person should ride or not ride, but if you hand some documentation stating so, it should not be a problem. It's different from the wrist band policy because someone could easily give their younger sibling that wrist band. I don't see a group of people attending the park with multiple people in their party having disabilities and are pulling a fast one just to ride something. I also think that there is responsibility on the part of the woman offended to go back to whomever handled this and handed out the itinerary to discuss the issue at hand.

[silver2005]

The alleged forgery has me scratching my head, too. I mean, didn't Kings Island's staff fill it out in the first place? I'm sure it has some sort of proof that its a Kings Island document with certain people having to sign off on it and such. Unless the family is privy about who works at Kings Island (not just Greg and Don), how would they know which names to allegedly forge?

Also, wasn't this sort of policy already in place last year, and probably even before that? The Darien Lake incident happened in 2011, and I'm pretty sure I remember parks across the country were putting those regulations in place and/or enforcing them better. Did someone at Kings Island just drop the ball and sign off on a form they weren't supposed to?

[Browntggrr]

It is very possible the use of "forgery" was used incorrectly & is being taken in the literal sense.

It is possible the document seen was for another park patron & not the handicapped child.

[CoasterKrazy]

I think this reveals a number of holes in Kings Island's operations, and poor public relations. If there was no policy change and the child was previously allowed to ride, the park needs to do a much better job training its employees, especially ride operators. The park is incredibly lucky there wasn't a serious accident during the boy's previous trips to the park. With unclear and legalistic ride admission policies, it's up to the park to ensure that its employees can implement all safety requirements. Based on this case, it doesn't appear this was adequately done in the past.

Regarding public relations, I'll give Kings Island the benefit of the doubt and assume the mother misunderstood when the park allegedly accused her of using a forgery. But this?

When asked about why Logan was allowed to ride The Beast and The Racer last year, Helbig said, "So they say."

This response, if quoted correctly, is completely unacceptable in my opinion. I generally dislike the corporate-speak we normally see in statements regarding accidents (where nothing is really said, and the public is left to their own devices to come up with an interpretation of events) but to accuse a customer of lying, especially one who probably has the benefit of public opinion, is a major misstep.

While this incident should not have happened in the first place, I'm sorry Kings Island has to deal with the Legal Director of Disability Rights Ohio. Here's hoping her initial statements were just a knee-jerk reaction, and she'll do some research on ride safety before making any more misguided comments.

[homestar92]

We can't always get what we want, too bad, but it's true. I wouldn't want to be the one to carry with me to my grave the fact that I killed someone by 'being nice" and letting them on a ride where they might be ejected from.

Exactly. These ride operators are, for the most part, teenagers working minimum wage (perhaps slightly more, but not much) as a means to have a little extra cash in the summer. These aren't people who are trained in these complex issues. These are not decisions that ride operators should need to make. I think the best approach is to have very thorough and detailed guidelines on who can ride and who can't, with a policy of when in doubt, they don't ride until a supervisor or higher park official gives the OK.

If someone has to tell a young handicapped child that he can't ride this ride, it will be upsetting for sure. Dealing with their parents may be even more so. But ultimately, worst case scenario, such dealings might ruin the employee's day.

I'd be willing to be there are members of the 2011 Ride of Steel crew that are still haunted to this day by the memory of what happened. It may not even have been their fault in the least. But humans are weird like that. If we're involved in a situation like that any way, it's going to haunt even the toughest of us for the rest of our lives. These decisions need to be reserved for professionals who understand the forces of the ride, any laws regulating who can ride, manufacturer guidelines, etc. If someone has a good grasp on the situation, they are less likely to make a bad decision, and when the time comes that someone must be turned away, they will have the knowledge to convey WHY they had to do what they had to do.

[The Interpreter]

A VERY thoughtful, relevant piece:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2014/09/14/are-you-as-bad-as-kanye-heres-how-to-fix-your-customer-service-experience-for-customers-with-disabilities/

[raptor]

This is what happens when you allow attorneys to take over the country. Of course I'm sure these same attorneys wouldn't consider suing Kings Island if they had let him ride and he would've got seriously hurt right?

[The Interpreter]

And I'm sure if they did, the park and Cedar Fair wouldn't have attorneys represent them, right?

Terp, who likes to ask questions.

[shark6495]

Not sure where this convo is going.

It's a very difficult line to walk. We fight for the rights of all people abled and disabled to experience the same events in similar or the same way. At the same time we accept that there are limits about what can or cannot be possible.

Boiling this down to a one liner about lawyers or forged documents or he said / she said does a great disservice to the conversation that needs to be happening.

It's easy to say nope can't ride sorry we can doctor the experience or vice versa if you just change this part.....

[The Interpreter]

It all boils down to a question that seems far simpler than it is...one we as a society have not answered.

What IS a reasonable accommodation?

[shark6495]

A simple question that's not always simple.

If we are talking about sidewalks it's pretty simple. You lower the curb to a ramp so all people are able to safely make it out of the street.

At a restaurant it's so everyone has an opportunity to order and eat food (Braille, picture menus, have someone read it, etc).

AAC devices for the non-verbal, chairs for the non-mobile, etc.

But when it comes to an entertainment company that advertises thrill rides..... What's reasonable to you and I may not be reasonable to someone else.

Heck not all paraplegics are the same so that even muddies the water some more

[HTCO]

^{I've been a member on here for a while. I mostly just like reading all your post and enjoying the personal opinions of all you of on the various topics. I just had to chime on this one as I thought of a partial solution to all parks. I understand that it is unfortunate that there are people that physically limited in what they can do. I do not however think that the ride operators should be the ones determining who can ride or not ride. I think parks should consider treating disabilities like they do with height requirements. People with disabilities can check into a centrally located spot where one or two people, medically trained personal, that can determine what they can and cannot ride. Assign then some sort of wrist band so that ride ops can determine if they are eligible. This takes pressure off of the rides ops and eliminates them from making any kind of medical judgment. We live in such a sue happy world days that every precaution has to be taken. Which is truly sad in my opinion.}

^{edited: Changed font size. Not use to posting.}

The humorous thing about this, is that is exactly how it works.

If ride operators are unsure, they will get someone specifically trained to hand out passes for said guest. They policies in place today work, and about 99% of the time the guest is grateful for it.

[Tanna]

We can't always get what we want, too bad, but it's true. I wouldn't want to be the one to carry with me to my grave the fact that I killed someone by 'being nice" and letting them on a ride where they might be ejected from.

Exactly. These ride operators are, for the most part, teenagers working minimum wage (perhaps slightly more, but not much) as a means to have a little extra cash in the summer. These aren't people who are trained in these complex issues. These are not decisions that ride operators should need to make. I think the best approach is to have very thorough and detailed guidelines on who can ride and who can't, with a policy of when in doubt, they don't ride until a supervisor or higher park official gives the OK.

If someone has to tell a young handicapped child that he can't ride this ride, it will be upsetting for sure. Dealing with their parents may be even more so. But ultimately, worst case scenario, such dealings might ruin the employee's day.

I'd be willing to be there are members of the 2011 Ride of Steel crew that are still haunted to this day by the memory of what happened. It may not even have been their fault in the least. But humans are weird like that. If we're involved in a situation like that any way, it's going to haunt even the toughest of us for the rest of our lives. These decisions need to be reserved for professionals who understand the forces of the ride, any laws regulating who can ride, manufacturer guidelines, etc. If someone has a good grasp on the situation, they are less likely to make a bad decision, and when the time comes that someone must be turned away, they will have the knowledge to convey WHY they had to do what they had to do.

And personally, I think that's way too much for a ride operator, who, as you said, is a teen just making summer money.

The problem with asking persons with disabilities to defer to a professional staff is that they would have to voluntarily consult the professionals, they cannot be escorted.

My Irish mind thinks, "What they don't know won't kill me." and I would bypass the consultation and try to get on rides. It would backfire if something awful were to happen, but as I would be thinking with my Irish Mind, nothing bad could ever happen to ME. I'll just hope the bad away.

That guy on the New England Superman ride tried several times before he was allowed to board the roller coaster; it was the one time that he succeeded that ended in his demise. He knew there were regulations, but he kept pushing it.

[kikid74]

I didn't gather this from the previous news stories linked, but did this boy have/use any prosthetic limbs while at the amusement park? Without them, I'm not sure I understand how the "anything with a seatbelt and lap bar" would have been deemed safe last year. Also, without them, wouldn't he have trouble meeting the minimum height requirement for the ride, or is height requirement not apply in certain cases like this?

[WHODEY2007]

In my best movie trailer voice.... Imagine a world where doctor's notes are required to ride your favorite park rides, (Quick flashes of Banshee, Vortex, etc.) you haven't gone to the doctor to get your yearly note, and time is running out until the new season! Watch as your heroes deal with dramatic events like, wait in long lines at the doctor's office, wait in long lines to turn in your note to Kings Island officials, wait in long lines to get your pass or ticket processed, wait in long lines for a teenage ride operator to verify their identity and ability to ride a certain ride, then experience the thrill of finally being able to.

Coming to a theater or park near you....

[jcgoble3]

Also, without them, wouldn't he have trouble meeting the minimum height requirement for the ride, or is height requirement not apply in certain cases like this?

Very good point. I hadn't even thought about height requirements and how they would apply to an amputee. I don't know how that would work.

[TTD-120-420]

Busch Gardens has a way of measuring the torso. I'm not exactly sure what the qualifications are, but I remember that in a safety meeting.