Stardust Racers Accident

[Jordan]

I guess some people just don't care enough about their physical safety and take safety for granted. Just about everything in parks has the potential for injury, if guests don't heed the safety recommendations and requirements.

What is this supposed to mean? That none of the park's guests care enough about their physical safety? Because as you said yourself, everything has the potential for injury. Especially once you consider undiagnosed ailments. But it sounds more like you're trying to paint a particular demographic of guests as being reckless for wanting to ride.

They basically made it that if you can’t walk you can’t ride. Which to me is a major change to the standards in any ride.

Yeah... no. They can't enforce that requirement at all. Not unless they want to be sued for much more than this guy's family is asking.

 

[AvoidTIMtation]

The discourse that Universal=unsafe is nauseating and all over social media now. Even being peddled by large creators like Jenny Nicholson. This is very quickly turning into a Disney vs Universal thing in the public space and I don't think it'll ever fully go away.

Signage was updated, new restrictions added, and the coaster was deemed safe by all parties directly involved. What else do people on the other side realistically expect them to do?

The Jenny Nicholson rant was filled to the brim with ridiculous speculation and misinformation, but she has a big following so of course it spread like wildfire

 

[Freak]

Sad to say, but that is exactly what’s going on. And Universal will settle, no matter how much they know they were not culpable and the ride performed as intended. Crump is a sensationalist. He puts out negative information as quickly as possible, whether it is true or false before whatever organization is involved has a chance to respond so that all that negativity is ingrained into public opinion. This tends to insure a nice settlement.

I totally agree that Crump is being a sensationalist here, but I don’t entirely blame him for doing what he’s doing….because that’s what the family is paying him to do. Again, I’m no lawyer by any means, but as a lawyer, Crump is going to do as much as he can to scrap anything he can from Universal for his clients.

I whole-heartedly feel for the family and I am very sorry for their loss. This obviously never should have happened. God forbid if I was in the same boat as that family and I had a very close relative suffer a similar situation that Rodriguez suffered, I would most likely take legal action as well. I think most people would. Even if I knew that most likely that Universal was not at fault, it would be nice to get some compensation out of that grief….and this is what’s likely happening here.

 

[NotPennysBoat]

Even if I knew that most likely that Universal was not at fault, it would be nice to get some compensation out of that grief….and this is what’s likely happening here.

You see, that is the problem. In today’s society, whenever someone has an unfortunate accident, too many people want to try and sue somebody to get as much money as possible, even if the person or company they are suing are not at fault. Just as you said “Even if I knew that most likely that Universal was not at fault, it would be nice to get some compensation out of that grief.” Why should you get compensation if it was not their fault. Sure it was a horrible thing and it is truly tragic, but too many people want to make people or companies to pay even if it wasn’t their fault. In my opinion, the whole “I’m going to sue somebody” mentality has gotten out of control. Companies have to pay sky high insurance premiums and then passes the cost on to us.

 

[Mad Dog]

What is this supposed to mean? That none of the park's guests care enough about their physical safety? Because as you said yourself, everything has the potential for injury. Especially once you consider undiagnosed ailments. But it sounds more like you're trying to paint a particular demographic of guests as being reckless for wanting to ride.


Yeah... no. They can't enforce that requirement at all. Not unless they want to be sued for much more than this guy's family is asking.

You are putting your words into my mouth. ......Rides have safety standards posted. Guests, that are aware of their physical limitations, if they have any, are made aware of the safety issues.
The particular guest I was referring to stated she had X limitation and was complaining that Universal TMs would use their questioning in
regards to her safety on that particular attraction. She did ride the attractions. She complained that she was being made aware. Seems that
asking her if she could independently walk on to the attraction from her wheelchair would be a reasonable safety question.

 

[HandsomePete]

Yeah... no. They can't enforce that requirement at all. Not unless they want to be sued for much more than this guy's family is asking.

ADA Section 36.301(b): A public accommodation may impose legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation. Safety requirements must be based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

 

[Freak]

You see, that is the problem. In today’s society, whenever someone has an unfortunate accident, too many people want to try and sue somebody to get as much money as possible, even if the person or company they are suing are not at fault. Just as you said “Even if I knew that most likely that Universal was not at fault, it would be nice to get some compensation out of that grief.” Why should you get compensation if it was not their fault. Sure it was a horrible thing and it is truly tragic, but too many people want to make people or companies to pay even if it wasn’t their fault. In my opinion, the whole “I’m going to sue somebody” mentality has gotten out of control. Companies have to pay sky high insurance premiums and then passes the cost on to us.

It would be one thing for a person to be a “Slippin’ Jimmy” to intentionally cause a slip n fall or orchestrate some injury to get some money out of Universal or if the victim died from clear stupidity. There have been plenty of instances like this a theme parks all around, especially at Disney.

It is quite another if situations like this are a little more grey and the person happened to die on the roller coaster. I think there is a fine line line between just trying to scam the park out of lawsuit money and wanting at least some compensation for a loved one losing their life on a roller coaster, especially if the ride aggravated their physical conditions that caused said death.

I’m not saying this is what your post is implicating, but again, I don’t exactly fault Crump or the family here. They’re not trying to be “Slippin’ Jimmy” here, but they’re hoping to get some compensation for this tragedy. In the other hand, I don’t think Universal is obligated to settle since they seem to be absolutely certain they’re not at fault.

 

[Mad Dog]

ADA Section 36.301(b): A public accommodation may impose legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation. Safety requirements must be based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

Yep. This issue pops ups often on the Magic site, especially whenever WDW has to fix/readjust their disability pass system for obvious reasons.
And, yes, this is the 'real' answer that gets posted over there replying to posters that throw around the legal action threats.

 

[Jordan]

You are putting your words into my mouth. ......Rides have safety standards posted. Guests, that are aware of their physical limitations, if they have any, are made aware of the safety issues.
The particular guest I was referring to stated she had X limitation and was complaining that Universal TMs would use their questioning in
regards to her safety on that particular attraction. She did ride the attractions. She complained that she was being made aware. Seems that
asking her if she could independently walk on to the attraction from her wheelchair would be a reasonable safety question.

It's not reasonable, as it's never been a requirement before. She wasn't complaining about "being made aware," and you still haven't explained how she was taking her safetey for granted.

ADA Section 36.301(b): A public accommodation may impose legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation. Safety requirements must be based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

Never been a requirement before, so clearly not legitimate, just overly reactionary. They have existing procedures in place at these attractions that disprove the need for such a requirement. They also have a responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations. This would be an unreasonable lack of accommodation based on all precedent.

 

[Mad Dog]

It's not reasonable, as it's never been a requirement before. She wasn't complaining about "being made aware."


Never been a requirement before, so clearly not legitimate, just overly reactionary. They have existing procedures in place at these attractions that disprove the need for such a requirement.

But that was the gist of her post on FB. She complained that they asked her the safety questions on each of those attractions. It was looking out for her safety. She was permitted to ride. So what was the big deal? Neither she, you, or I are the ride safety experts. They're allowed to have reasonable safety precautions. And, safety issues are something that are fluid. Just because a certain wording was once used it doesn't mean the wording can't ever be modified to react to new information.

 

[UOR92]

Somebody just died. Universal adjusted their standards to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again as best as they can control it.

Why is that a problem?

Keyboard warriors everywhere, myself included, have no real understanding of what it takes to run a business of this magnitude. Add to that the risk of people suffering bodily harm that could lead to death - of which the majority of that risk falls upon the customer. And God forbid that happens, the business will face extreme outside pressure, litigation no matter if it was their fault or not. if Universal found a hole in their warnings , why would we not want them to address it?

What they’ve done is standard practice. Especially because someone just lost their life and Universal is being faced with a massive lawsuit.

To a relative extent, I understand the shock at such a change. This restricts a certain population from being able to enjoy these rides and that only adds to their continued suffering. My heart hurts for those in this situation. But no one should be able to logically blame Universal from a business perspective. And no one should absolutely blame them for having a “we’re trying to do our best to protect your life” perspective either.

 

[HandsomePete]

Never been a requirement before, so clearly not legitimate, just overly reactionary. They have existing procedures in place at these attractions that disprove the need for such a requirement. They also have a responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations. This would be an unreasonable lack of accommodation based on all precedent.

Then file a complaint - don’t forget to let us know how poorly it goes.

 

[GAcoaster]

I think a settlement from Universal to get him to be quiet and move on is going to be what he’s going for.

I'd assume they already offered a sizable settlement. Generally when an incident like this happens the lawyers and insurance circle the wagons and offer a large payment to make it go away almost immediately.

The fact that the ride is reopen after thorough investigation by the park, the manufacturer, the responding authorities, and the state means they have deemed it safe and this was "rider error" for lack of a better term. This will never go to court because there is no case.

 

[Grabnar]

I'd assume they already offered a sizable settlement. Generally when an incident like this happens the lawyers and insurance circle the wagons and offer a large payment to make it go away almost immediately.

The fact that the ride is reopen after thorough investigation by the park, the manufacturer, the responding authorities, and the state means they have deemed it safe and this was "rider error" for lack of a better term. This will never go to court because there is no case.

If Universal doesn't settle out of court (they will) this will probably go to court as a civil case arguing that Universal either did not have appropriate safety standards or they didn't enforce them and allowed him to ride.

 

[TheCodeMan95]

The Jenny Nicholson rant was filled to the brim with ridiculous speculation and misinformation, but she has a big following so of course it spread like wildfire

I generally like Jenny Nicholson, but she definitely wants to push the "Disney vs Universal" thing for some reason like @AustinT said.

(despite there being, sadly, multiple instances of people passing away on rides at Disney)

 

[Jordan]

But that was the gist of her post on FB. She complained that they asked her the safety questions on each of those attractions. It was looking out for her safety. She was permitted to ride. So what was the big deal? Neither she, you, or I are the ride safety experts. They're allowed to have reasonable safety precautions. And, safety issues are something that are fluid. Just because a certain wording was once used it doesn't mean the wording can't ever be modified to react to new information.

Except the actual "safety issues" on most of these rides has not changed at all. In fact, even the particular circumstances surrounding Stardust Racers' safety hasn't been made any clearer, nor have they really changed since it first opened, they're just now realizing, "Hey, maybe our ride can kill people." Why? We don't know. They apparently haven't figured that part out yet, or they just aren't saying. Regardless, what does changing the safety protocol on other, completely unrelated rides solve? Or for that matter, changing protocols on Stardust Racers that may have little to do with the actual problem? Nothing, that's what. It's all reactionary nonsense to make it look like they're being proactive.

Then file a complaint - don’t forget to let us know how poorly it goes.

If they were actually stupid enough to start enforcing such a blatantly discriminatory restriction, I wouldn't be filing a complaint, I'd be filing a class action lawsuit. And since you've decided to be so condescending about it, I won't be sharing any winnings with you.

Somebody just died. Universal adjusted their standards to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again as best as they can control it.

Why is that a problem?

Keyboard warriors everywhere, myself included, have no real understanding of what it takes to run a business of this magnitude. Add to that the risk of people suffering bodily harm that could lead to death - of which the majority of that risk falls upon the customer. And God forbid that happens, the business will face extreme outside pressure, litigation no matter if it was their fault or not. if Universal found a hole in their warnings , why would we not want them to address it?

What they’ve done is standard practice. Especially because someone just lost their life and Universal is being faced with a massive lawsuit.

To a relative extent, I understand the shock at such a change. This restricts a certain population from being able to enjoy these rides and that only adds to their continued suffering. My heart hurts for those in this situation. But no one should be able to logically blame Universal from a business perspective. And no one should absolutely blame them for having a “we’re trying to do our best to protect your life” perspective either.

Why is that a problem? Because it's complete overkill that solves nothing in particular? Why are we pretending that altering operations elsewhere is somehow the magic bullet for fixing what happened on Stardust Racers, when it's so clearly not? Not to minimize the tragedy, but this is like chopping your hand off at the wrist because you burnt your finger... on your other hand. And just because Universal is a massive corporation that doesn't mean every business decision they make is a sound one (I can give you a whole list of very unsound decisions they've made over the years.) It's also not "standard practice."

 

[Parkscope Joe]

Crump put out a press release.

He’s being disingenuous and conflating some serious legal terms. Clown show.

 

[Allison]

I expect there will be a day where someone who uses a cane to steady themselves will try to get on the train without it so they can ride..fall...and then break a hip. I'm glad my wife got to ride this summer but now EPIC is one and done for us since there just isn't enough to do once you take away those two rop rides. I'm really having a hard time understanding the monsters unchained change as they have that special loading station and everything. I suppose this will also happen at IOA...

Yeah, my mom has serious mobility issues so I’m very used to helping her in & out of ride vehicles so with the wording of this new change I can’t imagine we’ll be visiting Universal parks any time soon if offering my hand to get a loved one in & out of a ride vehicle is going to be a problem.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

This is very quickly turning into a Disney vs Universal thing in the public space and I don't think it'll ever fully go away.

It’ll go away, but Uni vs Disney on this is just disgusting. No i don’t believe one cares about theme park safety and guests if you’re taking a learning opportunity for all and making into fandom wars.

 

[ChrisFL]

The discourse that Universal=unsafe is nauseating and all over social media now. Even being peddled by large creators like Jenny Nicholson.

Knowing her, thats not surprising