Man Struck By Roller Coaster at Kings Island Today

[BeeastFarmer]

And , in the case with the Cedar Point death, making changes could be seen as admitting fault.  I am not an attorney, but I don't think the ones who practice law for Cedar Fair/Six Flags Entertainment Corporation/Kings Island would want to do this.

[DispatchMaster]

1 hour ago, disco2000 said:

If anyone would be looking at if any adjustments are necessary, it would be the manufacturer of the ride B&M.

No, it would be the park's/chain's underwriters.

This incident was not due to a failure of the attraction. It was due to a guest purposefully circumventing an attraction's restricted area barrier.

[Tr0y]

How I imagine some of y'all would prefer to go to Kings Island:

[disco2000]

22 minutes ago, DispatchMaster said:

No, it would be the park's/chain's underwriters.

This incident was not due to a failure of the attraction. It was due to a guest purposefully circumventing an attraction's restricted area barrier.

CF is self-insured, but regardless as that isn't the point, the point is that the ride manufacturer provides the fence plan sheets that details the attraction's restricted area barrier to keep people out of areas that the ride could hit someone....the ride manufacturer isn't going to open themselves up to that liability by not providing that basic design element.

[DispatchMaster]

Does B&M also specify the characteristics, signage, etc., for low zone fencing? My understanding is that the manufacturer denotes any areas where the ride is below "X" height, and the rest is left to the other parties involved in the design.

[disco2000]

Now you are just splitting hairs to be argumentative. 

Of course B&M subcontracts to others for various aspects that are not their core service, but the fence design (and architectural, structural, electrical, other civil site drawings, etc.) would be incorporated into B&M's overall design plans that are reviewed and discussed with the park and approved by the various agencies.

Certainly the manufacturer would take any incident, even totally guest related, into consideration as to if any modifications to existing or future similar designs should be considered.

At the end of the day, maybe the determination is made that nothing else needs to change, but they would be foolish to not take a least a cursory review as part of continuous improvement practices.  It isn't like there are millions of these designs out in operation, so when something like this happens, they will know about it will see if there are any lessons learned.

[DispatchMaster]

I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking the question - how does B&M have any responsibility for keeping guests out of low zones? My understanding - possibly wrong! - is that B&M delivers the roller coaster itself, along with instructions on how to assemble it, and with various requirements specified, etc., one of which would be to identify low zones. But do they also specify, for example, the type of fence to be used? The signage? The color? I would think all of that would be covered under local ordinances. That locally-approved fence designs are incorporated into site plans doesn't, to me, imply any assumed responsibility on B&M's part. I could be wrong, but I am looking for more than a "because I think that's the way it is" as evidence.

Also, I know that CF is self-insured (what was that you were saying about splitting hairs to be argumentative? pot, meet kettle, etc.). That's why I said the underwriters would be the entity that would advise CF on whether or not their existing low zone security is adequate. That CF has underwriters to answer to would also be another reason that B&M would not be involved in specifying what type of fencing to use or whatever.

But whatever, my comment was only that I would be surprised if B&M has any involvement whatsoever in an incident that was not in any way a result of their product's failure.

[BeeastFarmer]

https://youtu.be/ohHJ8pyKofw?feature=shared

[disco2000]

It comes down to how did the park contract the work.  Did the park enter into a design contract with only B&M and thus B&M is the "responsible" entity for the architectural firm that designed the station, the geotechnical firm that designed the footings, the fencing firm that designed the fencing, etc. or did the park enter into design contracts with each company separately....that does make a difference....

If it was a design contract or design-build contract with B&M to provide them with a turnkey attraction, then KI officials point to B&M even if B&M didn't design the particular aspect that has an issue.  Now how B&M would deal with that internally with their subs is up to them, but the park points to one entity.

But even if it were separate contracts, why would you think B&M wouldn't look at this to see what they could do to prevent it for future designs, if anything.  It would be foolish to just brush it off as guest error as there is always something that could be done.

Let's use an analogy from another B&M coaster.

People defending the Orion is a giga debate talk a lot about how someone wouldn't notice if they had added 13 feet to the height of Orion to make it a "true" giga, just like the ground near misses on Banshee would be basically the same if the ground near misses were raised 4 more feet or however many feet needed so that someone 7 feet tall wouldn't get hit by a coaster going by.  And a rider pointed straight to the ground at 60MPH will still feel like a near miss whether they are 4 or 8 feet from the ground.

And just because it is "not in any way a result of their product's failure" doesn't mean that they simply ignore this or not consider that a change on a future design could prevent this from future inverts.

Maybe after this many incidents with a similar model they decide the next inverted coaster will be higher off the ground so that this doesn't happen again on future installs.  This happens enough times and a regulatory body steps in or they lose a lawsuit.

Now fortunately for ride manufacturers, there is no national standard like the NTSB for transportation related issues, because after this many similar incidents with one particular manufacturer, a federal government agency would likely mandate changes, similar to what they do with automobile recalls.  Could you imagine if Banshee had to be shut down for extended period while they raised the near miss ground elements!  And the costs and who picks up that tab.  And then the thrill of roller coasters starts to diminish as regulations would push for no ground near misses, no coaster crossing over a midway, etc.

And my splitting hairs comment was in relation to how the design contract was entered into and thus who is the "responsible" party, not the self-insured part....

 

[SonofBaconator]

9 hours ago, CedarPointer said:

I don't think it's a good idea to blur the line between actual safety warnings and ride theming. Plus, "don't go into the restricted area" blaring kind of feels like it's in poor taste now.

That’s a bit of an overreaction. 
 

A lot themed rides involve that type of verbiage.

1. On Adventure Express, you’re distributing the ancient ruins
2. On Mystic Timbers you hot-wire an old truck and there’s a shed full of sketchy stuff that they’re trying to warn you not to go in
3. One of the signs on Diamondback says “do not disturb”
4. On Boo Blasters you are told you are trespassing 
5. During Phantom Theater, one of the lines was “you’ve defiled our world, now escape if you can”
6. On Hagrid’s motorbike ride, you’re literally going into the Forbidden Forest
7. On Tomb Raider The Ride, you’re disturbing an ancient temple
8. On Big Grizzly Mountain at Hong Kong Disneyland, you get switched from tunnel 8 to tunnel 4.(8 being symbol for good luck in Chinese culture and 4 being a symbol of death)
9. In Mystery Mine you’re entering an abandoned mineshaft and warned subtly that you’ll die
10. Verbolten is a play on words the word Verboten which is translation for Forbidden in the German language.
11. Cobra’s Curse is centered around people entering an area at the threat of being cursed
12. I could go on 

When you’re riding these rides, the overall message is F*ck Around and Find Out-it’s part of the theme, fun, and thrill. Someone carelessly disregarding park rules and common sense by hopping a fence isn’t cause to call into question the verbiage of other rides. 

[DispatchMaster]

15 hours ago, disco2000 said:

It would be foolish to just brush it off as guest error as there is always something that could be done.

Again, it's a fool's errand to try and make something "foolproof". Sometimes there isn't anything that can practically be done, and that's ok. And sometimes trying to protect guests can actually backfire, such as the case with Raptor's air gates - a (poorly conceived) device intended to protect guests - causing a guest injury.

15 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Maybe after this many incidents with a similar model they decide the next inverted coaster will be higher off the ground so that this doesn't happen again on future installs.  This happens enough times and a regulatory body steps in or they lose a lawsuit.

Wait, how many such incidents have occurred? I'm only aware of a few, going as far back as Flight Deck in '98.

From a purely practical standpoint the sum total cost of lawsuits for any given operator would have to be more costly than the additional steel (and foundations, etc.) required to build their coasters higher, and steel is not cheap. Given the voluntary nature of these incidents, I don't imagine settlements are costly. The woman who, through no fault of her own, is now disabled thanks to the mishap at TTD rightfully got a big payout. The idiot who ignored multiple park employees, broke posted rules, climbed multiple barriers, purposely disobeying several "DANGER" signs along the way? Not so much.

16 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Now fortunately for ride manufacturers, there is no national standard like the NTSB

Well, there's ASTM, to which, in Ohio at least, adherence is required to obtain a permit, as I understand it. Though I don't know if ASTM's purview extends to low zones, LOTO, etc. But a standard does exist already.

[Born_in_'72]

1 hour ago, DispatchMaster said:

17 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Maybe after this many incidents with a similar model they decide the next inverted coaster will be higher off the ground so that this doesn't happen again on future installs.  This happens enough times and a regulatory body steps in or they lose a lawsuit.

Wait, how many such incidents have occurred? I'm only aware of a few, going as far back as Flight Deck in '98.

From a purely practical standpoint the sum total cost of lawsuits for any given operator would have to be more costly than the additional steel (and foundations, etc.) required to build their coasters higher, and steel is not cheap. Given the voluntary nature of these incidents, I don't imagine settlements are costly. The woman who, through no fault of her own, is now disabled thanks to the mishap at TTD rightfully got a big payout. The idiot who ignored multiple park employees, broke posted rules, climbed multiple barriers, purposely disobeying several "DANGER" signs along the way? Not so much.

I think one option that is being overlooked in this is that you don't have to raise the coaster.  You could always lower the ground, i.e. dig a trench at the low points.  I'm not picking any side here, but if they wanted to increase ground clearance, they could always lower the 'ground'.  It would be much cheaper (and quicker).  Just my 2 cents.....

[KIBeast]

I wouldn't expect any changes to be made in regards to Banshee. Someone always finds a way into restricted areas regardless of signage or even barbwire fencing. You can always remove your shirt and place it over said barbwire to pretty much avoid that. They are also not going to hire endless employees to endlessly search for people who are bound and determined to break the rules to enter a restricted area.

I do feel a great amount of sadness and empathy for the man and his grieving family. One year I went to Cedar Point, I lost my key fob to GateKeeper. Never once did I consider entering a restricted area to retrieve it. It would not have been possible for me to wait until closing to retrieve it as that was my last day there. What I wound up doing was calling a local company to come out, break into my car, then program a key fob for me. It cost me $300 and was a hard lesson to learn. 

[disco2000]

Yeah, at the end of the day, I doubt Banshee would see any modifications as it meets/exceeds all standards and making a change could imply fault.  But I could see a future invert maybe increase the ground clearance.

But even if they expanded the clearances on existing and future inverts, someone someday would do something stupid anyway.  You cannot completely eliminate all risks for someone that is determined to do risky behavior.  Fences and signage should be enough.

[Browntggrr]

I was an EHS coordinator for over a decade in a manufacturing facility.  The one thing I learned was limitless $$ can be thrown at anything to make it "safe" but that does not make it foolproof from being used unsafely.

Also- banks are likely the most secure places most of us go to regularly- they still get robbed.

In a nutshell- if someone is determined to not follow the rules, they will push the envelope to make it happen.

[SOBwasaSOB]

One thing that bothers me about this whole situation is we never found out if they recovered his keys.