Stardust Racers Accident

[jseal777]

Only thing I will say about all of this as somebody who knows very little about the legal side of this, the healthcare side of this, and didn't even get to ride this ride on my one trip to Epic this year is this:

It says a lot about where we are socially, politically, and culturally, that we are so so good at turning tragedy into spectacle.

 

[KlownzNskullZ]

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.

When I was a ride op, we used to be able to help guests. Then guests would try and drag us down when they fell, so we were told nope, we can’t help. Families then were able to help their own guests get on whatever ride. The wording is clear. You need to be able to walk from a mobility scooter or crutches or cane, unassisted to the ride vehicle.

I’m guessing universal wants to make it clear that you need to be able to be a little more independent than before.

 

[nikem3]

Knowing her, thats not surprising

I think the thing that bothers me the most about her posting is how much random speculation it has. Including details about the ride being rough, yet she later admits she has never been on the ride and proceeds to criticize the ride by saying "Because it was broken the 3 times I was there" as a way to reiterate how "unsafe" it is.

 

[Mad Dog]

Knowing her, thats not surprising

and...what are the 'Influencers' about.....Click, click, click......$,$,$.....and that's why I pay no attention to any of them, with
the exception of @Alicia.

 

[Allison]

When I was a ride op, we used to be able to help guests. Then guests would try and drag us down when they fell, so we were told nope, we can’t help. Families then were able to help their own guests get on whatever ride. The wording is clear. You need to be able to walk from a mobility scooter or crutches or cane, unassisted to the ride vehicle.

I’m guessing universal wants to make it clear that you need to be able to be a little more independent than before.

Which is why I posted I don’t think I’ll be returning to Universal anytime soon, we don’t go on enough of the rides regardless but if I’m gonna potentially get scolded for even offering a helping hand to a family member on the few rides we do go on, it’s simply no longer worth the added aggravation.

 

[RGMick77]

In the United States, amusement rides have gotten safer with each passing year. That’s truly great news for those of us alive today.

Unfortunately, those safety regulations had to be written in blood.

After any deadly accident, lessons have to be learned and new rules have to be created.

And, because lawyers are so clever now, parks have to go above and beyond to cover themselves from being sued out of existence.

You can’t just slap a sign up that says “ride at your own risk” and call it a day. You have to be very specific about which risks people are taking and you have to prove that you enforce your own rules.

I understand that people will be discouraged by the addition of new restrictions to their favorite rides. It’s unfortunate, but human error has consequences.

Some parks already have more restrictive rules than Universal, but those who don’t might eventually follow their lead. The amusement industry functions through networks and they can all be very reactionary. Pretty much all of the amusement parks in this country have eyes on this case and the corporate lawyers are chattering.

How much will really change going forward? Who knows. It all depends on each park’s tolerance for liability. Corporations will always rush to protect themselves from liability because it’s their job to stay in business.

We as people, however, should look out for each other because we care. I want everyone to be able to have the same care free escapism at their favorite parks, but I also want them to be safe.

 

[tommyhawkins]

Just want to make two points

Jenny Nicholson once threw a massive hissy fit on Twitter because she wasn't on the media list to some Universal ride opening media event. The animosity isn't a new thing.

People are assuming the changes to ride access are Universal, when the Directive is just as likely to come from the ride manufacturer with liability issues. Since the same changes have been made to at least one Mack ride with the same train in UK, we can deduce a risk assessment took place that identified a need for mitigation with that set of disabilities. We may see others quietly change policy before next spring. It's very sad for wheelchair users but hopefully it's contained to very specific rides

 

[UOR92]

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.


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.



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."

Accomplishes nothing?

Nothing at all?

Might I propose to you that had a rule been imposed before this gentleman ever boarded this roller coaster, there would be a strong chance he’d still be alive.

So, please. Continue telling us nothing will be accomplished by this. I get your mad. I would be too if this directly affected me or a loved one. But not because a new rule had to be put in place that wasn’t there before. Someone’s dead. You should be cautious to remember that in the time you ponder this. It’s a dreadful accident, and unfortunately, they can have dreadful consequences. But I’d rather a loved one still be alive than risk their life on a 2 minute roller coaster. That’s just me, though.

 

[Jordan]

Accomplishes nothing?

Nothing at all?

Might I propose to you that had a rule been imposed before this gentleman ever boarded this roller coaster, there would be a strong chance he’d still be alive.

So, please. Continue telling us nothing will be accomplished by this. I get your mad. I would be too if this directly affected me or a loved one. But not because a new rule had to be put in place that wasn’t there before. Someone’s dead. You should be cautious to remember that in the time you ponder this. It’s a dreadful accident, and unfortunately, they can have dreadful consequences. But I’d rather a loved one still be alive than risk their life on a 2 minute roller coaster. That’s just me, though.

You would need to propose to me evidence, not merely an unsubstantiated theory, presumably based on nothing but blind acceptance of Universal's own misguided actions. Do you have solid evidence that these new rules would have saved the rider in question? I'm going to guess no. Therefore until such evidence arises, I will continue telling you this will accomplish nothing.

 

[KlownzNskullZ]

You would need to propose to me evidence, not merely an unsubstantiated theory, presumably based on nothing but blind acceptance of Universal's own misguided actions. Do you have solid evidence that these new rules would have saved the rider in question? I'm going to guess no. Therefore until such evidence arises, I will continue telling you this will accomplish nothing.

I legit never had to say this on here but bro you need to chill out.

 

[UOR92]

You would need to propose to me evidence, not merely an unsubstantiated theory, presumably based on nothing but blind acceptance of Universal's own misguided actions. Do you have solid evidence that these new rules would have saved the rider in question? I'm going to guess no. Therefore until such evidence arises, I will continue telling you this will accomplish nothing.

Seeing as to how the rule would have kept him off of the ride, uhm, yes, I believe he would have been saved.

Because this is a decent forum where we treat each other with respect, I’ll leave our unfortunate conversation echoing what Klowns said…chill.

 

[Mad Dog]

His comments are the type you see on Magic whenever Disney tries to clean up the Disability pass fraud. Pure entitlement for their
lightening lane family/friends access, though this is a slightly different issue, it's a similar over the top angered response. I don't recall
ever seeing a poster on IU being so angered over any disability issue, until he started posting on this safety issue yesterday.

 

[Lucky Planet]

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.

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.

but most people don't get anything no? even when sometimes people get injured on rides they just ignore it and just go home? I have no idea how many people tried to sue the parks with lawyers, but it didn't feel like it was that much? or maybe we just never hear about it?

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.

and the other thing, how much will the lawyer get? so the family doesn't even receive everything. he gets a lot?

I think the thing that bothers me the most about her posting is how much random speculation it has. Including details about the ride being rough, yet she later admits she has never been on the ride and proceeds to criticize the ride by saying "Because it was broken the 3 times I was there" as a way to reiterate how "unsafe" it is.

i checked and lately she said this "and based on my recent visit they didn't seem very concerned with safety in general, so I'm not really surprised"
so she's mad at something. she got mad. and is being negative.

 

[maxairmike]

I get the feeling that regardless of what the final conclusions for this unfortunate incident are, that Crump believes this is his chance to make his mark as the person that gets attractions regulations put on the major Florida players. That would be a terrible decision for the family, IMO, as I believe they don’t need the further attention and scrutiny on the victim that it would likely bring. As much as many of us would like to know the details (including myself to validate my suspected version of what happened), I believe the family deserves and will want to have this settled quietly with any release of final reports passing without much notice.

This is not the case to pick for such a political move, and for their sake I hope this feeling of him pursuing it turns out to be wrong.

 

[Jordan]

Seeing as to how the rule would have kept him off of the ride, uhm, yes, I believe he would have been saved.

Because this is a decent forum where we treat each other with respect, I’ll leave our unfortunate conversation echoing what Klowns said…chill.

You know what else would have saved him? Not allowing anyone on the ride. Now tell me if this solution sounds reasonable to you, since it's just a simple extension of your own logic, and in this form it doesn't even require the unfounded assumption that his disability caused the accident. Personally I don't know what it would achieve, but I see equally no value in these more focused restrictions that do nothing to pinpoint the actual problem and merely punish an entire subset of guests for no good reason.

If you've found our conversation "unfortunate," you needn't respond to my posts next time.

I legit never had to say this on here but bro you need to chill out.

I'm being perfectly "chill," all things considered. It's a contentious issue. If such difficult topics stress you out, no one is forcing you to partake.

 

[Lucky Planet]

You know what else would have saved him? Not allowing anyone on the ride. Now tell me if this solution sounds reasonable to you, since it's just a simple extension of your own logic, and in this form it doesn't even require the unfounded assumption that his disability caused the accident. Personally I don't know what it would achieve, but I see equally no value in these more focused restrictions that do nothing to pinpoint the actual problem and merely punish an entire subset of guests for no good reason.

If you've found our conversation "unfortunate," you needn't respond to my posts next time.


I'm being perfectly "chill," all things considered. It's a contentious issue. If such difficult topics stress you out, no one is forcing you to partake.

what if the new rules are not coming from universal per say, but from the ride manufacturers or the investigators or the engineers or something?
what if they figured out something we don't know?

 

[ChrisFL]

You would need to propose to me evidence, not merely an unsubstantiated theory, presumably based on nothing but blind acceptance of Universal's own misguided actions. Do you have solid evidence that these new rules would have saved the rider in question? I'm going to guess no. Therefore until such evidence arises, I will continue telling you this will accomplish nothing.

Ironic

 

[Mad Dog]

I don't see the public buying Crump's game. Just an anecdotal example....The Epic FB thread, that has around 150,000
followers, has had an overwhelming response supporting Universal on the who can ride policy change.......
And I seriously doubt that the Florida political situation would support any major change in ride regulation............
Also, comments just about everywhere I've read, social and regular media, express sympathy for the deceased, but not support
for permitting guests to ride that are unable to walk onto the ride........I think Crump's tactics haven't helped him to land much
public support. And the way he has handled it has basically put him in the limelight, instead of the deceased. I guess it'll earn him more work,
as those ambulance chasers always look for, but it's clearly attorney self serving. He'll get his 40% from some future settlement.

Seems most people are viewing this as an unfortunate 'accident', sympathy for the deceased, but not blaming the ride or Universal.

 

[Jerroddragon]

From what I've read on here and everywhere else

I don't know how I would blame Universal,

The changes suck for some but also if Universal does nothing then it leaves them open for more bad things to happen

Lastly, at least for me I've gone on Coasters that make me not well. So I avoid many extreme coasters like X2 and so on, Universal can warn us all they want but it also comes down to knowing ones self a little as well and knowing your limits.

Its sad this happened and hopefully the new rule makes sure this doesn't happen again

I also know most don't want this last part but also....can coasters just be more fun? All the record breaking and just making things bigger just because Big Thunder and Space mountain are super fun and don't need to break records or go at insane speeds. I know many thrill seekers think they can ride these forever but you only have X amount of years for most people to ride these intense coaster and would not mind more coasters being about fun over making people's bodies feel off and more likley to see people pass away on them. X2 (six flags) had someone have an incident as well and these high intense coasters to me just silly, the HTTY coaster is much less intense and gets good lines and people like it

So my two cents as well is it would be nice to see more fun coasters over ones that go beyond your bodies limits. I know it wont happen but just my two cents I see most moderate thrills coasters at Universal parks doing just as well as the intense ones

 

[Mad Dog]

From what I've read on here and everywhere else

I don't know how I would blame Universal,

The changes suck for some but also if Universal does nothing then it leaves them open for more bad things to happen

Lastly, at least for me I've gone on Coasters that make me not well. So I avoid many extreme coasters like X2 and so on, Universal can warn us all they want but it also comes down to knowing ones self a little as well and knowing your limits.

Its sad this happened and hopefully the new rule makes sure this doesn't happen again

I also know most don't want this last part but also....can coasters just be more fun? All the record breaking and just making things bigger just because Big Thunder and Space mountain are super fun and don't need to break records or go at insane speeds. I know many thrill seekers think they can ride these forever but you only have X amount of years for most people to ride these intense coaster and would not mind more coasters being about fun over making people's bodies feel off and more likley to see people pass away on them. X2 (six flags) had someone have an incident as well and these high intense coasters to me just silly, the HTTY coaster is much less intense and gets good lines and people like it

So my two cents as well is it would be nice to see more fun coasters over ones that go beyond your bodies limits. I know it wont happen but just my two cents I see most moderate thrills coasters at Universal parks doing just as well as the intense ones

Completely agree with you, especially on the fun being the most important ride factor, and maybe more theming and less record seeking intensity.