Death on Disney Ride

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

How the heck did this kid make it to 17,thats what I wanna know?

Probably by not going to amusement parks.

[DanGarion]

Here is a picture I took a couple weeks ago from the Batman the Ride at Magic Mountain.

As you can see there is just one fence and it has some barb wire. You can barely see a red sign over to the left. I think it says something like Danger Keep Out! Or something like that. I would like to report I did not feel compelled to jump the fence.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Just dropped quickly into this thread. I think the point here is that I expect Six Flags to take every precaution it can to prevent people from accidentally being killed. I don't expect them to take every precaution to prevent people from purposefully putting themselves in a position to be killed. Fences with a warning sign to a 17-year old seems good enough to me.

[Karlifornia]

Where did accountability go? I think that's one of the biggest problems that every society faces. We want people to be accountable for poor decisions, but when they get killed for their poor decisions, it devolves into either making them into a martyr, or being an unsympathetic sociopath.

If I do a pizza delivery, and the apartment complex has a fence, I'm faced with some choices. I can call the person and hope they pick up. If they don't pick up, I can either return to the restauarant, and wait for the inevitable "where's my food" call. Then, I have to return. Or, I can just jump the fence and take care of it myself. I know the risks involved before I jump that fence. There might be armed guards that will mace any intruder. There probably won't be, but when I decide to subvert very clear obstacles, I am making myself accountable for the consequences that could possibly transpire, no matter how far reaching they may be. If I hop the fence, do I really expect something bad to happen? No. Of course not. Do I deserve sympathy if something bad does happen? Maybe. Probably not.

My point is that this kid fucked up. He got his hand (head) caught in the cookie jar, and if he had just stayed away from the forbidden fruit, he would still be alive today. Just because someone dies shouldn't remove accountability.

Sad situation for his family.....We get away with the dumb shit we do. He didn't. Doesn't make it any less dumb.

[larrymcg421]

From the AJC:

Roller coaster can open Wednesday

State officials gave the go-ahead for Batman The Ride to resume operations on Wednesday at Six Flags Over Georgia.

The ride will be "operational" at 9 a.m. and will open to the public at 10:30, when the park opens, according to a Six Flags statement.

A South Carolina teenager died Saturday after he and his cousin jumped two fences in a restricted area to get to the roller coaster. Asia Leeshawn Ferguson, 17, was decapitated when he was hit by the ride.

State Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond said the amusement park met all safety standards, though he didn't specify what those were.

"We want to thank the department for its careful and considerate investigation," Six Flags spokeswoman Hela Sheth said in an e-mail. "We plan to review the suggested recommendations."

But after spending two days at the site, investigators from his office issued new requirements — not recommendations — for the park.

Within the next 10 days, the park must increase the number and size of warning signs at the park. The message on these signs should includes the words "extreme danger," he said.

"The signs that are out there now meet the standards," Thurmond said. "But it is our opinion these additional steps should be taken to enhance the safety of the surrounding area."

The park must also enhance its fencing within 120 days.

Whether that means higher fences or a different type of barrier will be left up to the park, Thurmond said.

Whatever the park does, it must provide "a more effective barrier from unauthorized individuals," Thurmond said.

During the investigation, Thurmond said he was in contact with Six Flags' CEO Mark Shapiro. He said labor officials will work with the park on the new requirements.

Also, while the work is being done, security personnel must be stationed in the area around the roller coaster to provide continuous surveillance of the ride while it is operating.

Bolded part is pretty much the point I have been trying to make all along.

[Logan]

Your bolded point will still do nothing to stop the next idiot.

Which again leads to everyone else's point...you can ALWAYS do more.

[Axxon]

The article makes no sense. They meet requirements but the agency is requiring changes? You can't require more than requirements or else, they're not requirements. Something is off here besides just the kids head.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Your bolded point will still do nothing to stop the next idiot.

But that won't stop a politician from trying.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by Logan

Your bolded point will still do nothing to stop the next idiot.

Which again leads to everyone else's point...you can ALWAYS do more.

A red sign that was about 1 foot x 1 foot on a 10+ foot high fence didn't stop me.

But a red sign with bold letters...and is like 2 foot x 2 foot on a 10+ foot high fence...I'm getting the hell out of there! DANGER DANGER!

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

The article makes no sense. They meet requirements but the agency is requiring changes? You can't require more than requirements or else, they're not requirements. Something is off here besides just the kids head.

Sounds to me like, upon review, the requirements were found to not be good enough.

It is pretty simple, ultimately. When existing security/safety measures fail, you obviously need to look for ways to improve upon it. You don't bury your head in the sand and pretend that your existing measures are good enough despite the proof otherwise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Sounds to me like, upon review, the requirements were found to not be good enough.

Not really a surprise there considering Thurmond's political base. The sudden change in requirements just reeks of motivations that have nothing to do with reasonable precautions.

[larrymcg421]

Okay, I think people are still working on the assumption that the earlier reports about the kid wanted to jump up and touch people's feet is true. That doesn't seem to be the case. Most reports I read now is they were just trying to make a shortcut to the line for the ride. Sure thats still really stupid, but I think a higher fence and some additional barb wire may have stopped them from attempting the short cut. We will never know, but I simply don't see the harm in trying to do more.

Everyone seems to agree that a rider could be hurt by someone getting into that area. So let's look at it from that perspective. Shouldn't Six Flags try to make the area more restrictive in an effort to protect their non-idiot riders?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Sounds to me like, upon review, the requirements were found to not be good enough.

It is pretty simple, ultimately. When existing security/safety measures fail, you obviously need to look for ways to improve upon it. You don't bury your head in the sand and pretend that your existing measures are good enough despite the proof otherwise.

Well, where do you expect them to bury his head??

Your premise is also quite false. Every time a moron dies it's not the requirement to find out why and do something to prevent it. That's absurd. Several golfers for example are hit by lightning every year. In fact, in 1991 alone two people were killed by lightning at PGA tour events. Clearly the golf courses' existing measures aren't good enough so they must be required to cover all golf courses and make them indoor. That way, no golfers will ever run this risk of dying that way.

How about deaths by improper crossings at crosswalks? Clearly this must be corrected. It's way worse than one accidental pedestrian in 8 years. We simply must either have raised crosswalks at every corner or maybe crossing guards to protect those to stupid not to run in front of fast moving cars.

This is fun. How about slipping and falling in a shower. According to these guys this is a huge hazard. http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

Why aren't we illegalizing showers or at least making them so tiny that no one can actually fall? Pure negligence. Lets pass a law quick.

I tell you what. You eliminate all these problems and basically any forms of deaths that occur more than twice in 8 years and I'll give your argument that Six Flags must be even more blatantly obvious that a moving roller coaster could be dangerous to your head. Otherwise, it's a stupid argument to protect someone too stupid to matter anyway.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Okay, I think people are still working on the assumption that the earlier reports about the kid wanted to jump up and touch people's feet is true. That doesn't seem to be the case. Most reports I read now is they were just trying to make a shortcut to the line for the ride. Sure thats still really stupid, but I think a higher fence and some additional barb wire may have stopped them from attempting the short cut. We will never know, but I simply don't see the harm in trying to do more.

Everyone seems to agree that a rider could be hurt by someone getting into that area. So let's look at it from that persdpective. Shouldn't Six Flags try to make the area more restrictive in an effort to protect their non-idiot riders?

No. Not if you're talking being required to. If they consider it prudent I have no problem with that.

I'm assuming you're talking about that girl who messed up her legs when she beaned the park worker. I heard she was going to sue but her lawyer said she'd never win the case.

She didn't have a leg to stand on.

[KWhit]

The article makes complete sense to me.

They're saying that the signs should be improved so that it is more clear that this is an extremely dangerous area that people must stay out of.

As a young-ish kid many would hop a fence with a sign on it that said "No Tresspassing" and not think twice about it. But a sign that said "Extreme Danger - Risk of Death" or something like that? I think that would be about a million times more effective.

I think the article is saying that SF did have enough precautions in place at the time, but now that we understand better the risks due to this experience (you know we can learn things from our past experiences) they are requiring changes. What's so hard to understand there?

Or is it just cool to say "The kid is stupid, I'm glad he's dead?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Lets pass a law quick.

Please please PLEASE do not give our legislature any ideas.
They do enough damage all by themselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I think that would be about a million times more effective.

And I think that's incredibly naive.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

In fact, in 1991 alone two people were killed by lightning at PGA tour events. Clearly the golf courses' existing measures aren't good enough so they must be required to cover all golf courses and make them indoor. That way, no golfers will ever run this risk of dying that way.

No, but you can get monitoring systems to detect thunderstorms within a certain range. You can then use that information to advise golfers to get off the course. I've seen these types of systems in use at water parks in the past. It isn't about removing all risk, which is virtually impossible, but it is about mitigating the risk.

How about deaths by improper crossings at crosswalks? Clearly this must be corrected. It's way worse than one accidental pedestrian in 8 years. We simply must either have raised crosswalks at every corner or maybe crossing guards to protect those to stupid not to run in front of fast moving cars.

No, you mitigate the risk. It is simple risk management. To say that attempts to mitigate risk at crosswalks have not brought changes over the years is ignorant. Almost everytime I go into a big city I see something new related to crosswalks that is attempting to make it safer. Whether it is wider crosswalks, bigger signage, and slower transitions from red to green, I notice changes every year.

Why aren't we illegalizing showers or at least making them so tiny that no one can actually fall? Pure negligence. Lets pass a law quick.

I don't even know what you are asking here. None of this is about making anything illegal. It is about mitigating risk.

I tell you what. You eliminate all these problems and basically any forms of deaths that occur more than twice in 8 years and I'll give your argument that Six Flags must be even more blatantly obvious that a moving roller coaster could be dangerous to your head. Otherwise, it's a stupid argument to protect someone too stupid to matter anyway.

I've been to Six Flags Over Georgia about 5 times in the past few years. There is plenty of room for improvement in their security setup and they have already addressed many issues prior to this year. They will continue to address them, because it is actually in their interest to do whatever they can reasonably afford to prevent these kinds of things from happening. I'm not saying cost is not a factor, because that is not how risk management works. I am saying there are improvements they can make that are worth both their time and their money.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The article makes complete sense to me.

They're saying that the signs should be improved so that it is more clear that this is an extremely dangerous area that people must stay out of.

As a young-ish kid many would hop a fence with a sign on it that said "No Tresspassing" and not think twice about it. But a sign that said "Extreme Danger - Risk of Death" or something like that? I think that would be about a million times more effective.

I think the article is saying that SF did have enough precautions in place at the time, but now that we understand better the risks due to this experience (you know we can learn things from our past experiences) they are requiring changes. What's so hard to understand there?

Or is it just cool to say "The kid is stupid, I'm glad he's dead?"

At this point I'm honestly glad he's dead so he won't cause undue grief to innocent people who have not properly prepared for his level of stupidity.

Fact is, most 17 year olds, hell, most 12 year olds are NOT that stupid. Not one of them in 8 years has shown that they are with this ride. He was monumentally stupid and you are insulting billions of kids IMHO by comparing them to this fool. Kids are unwise, kids are immature. Kids are not fucking stupid.

[KWhit]

How am I insulting billions of kids?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Fact is, most 17 year olds, hell, most 12 year olds are NOT that stupid. Not one of them in 8 years has shown that they are with this ride.

How do you know this? How do we know that no other kid has tried to take this shortcut but didn't get hit by the coaster? I'd be surprised if this was the first time.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No, but you can get monitoring systems to detect thunderstorms within a certain range. You can then use that information to advise golfers to get off the course. I've seen these types of systems in use at water parks in the past. It isn't about removing all risk, which is virtually impossible, but it is about mitigating the risk.



No, you mitigate the risk. It is simple risk management. To say that attempts to mitigate risk at crosswalks have not brought changes over the years is ignorant. Almost everytime I go into a big city I see something new related to crosswalks that is attempting to make it safer. Whether it is wider crosswalks, bigger signage, and slower transitions from red to green, I notice changes every year.



I don't even know what you are asking here. None of this is about making anything illegal. It is about mitigating risk.



I've been to Six Flags Over Georgia about 5 times in the past few years. There is plenty of room for improvement in their security setup and they have already addressed many issues prior to this year. They will continue to address them, because it is actually in their interest to do whatever they can reasonably afford to prevent these kinds of things from happening. I'm not saying cost is not a factor, because that is not how risk management works. I am saying there are improvements they can make that are worth both their time and their money.

Now you're moving the bar. It was that they would be required to upgrade their security by the State Labor Commissioner and now it's a risk management issue which I've already said I have no problem with since that's voluntary and not State mandated. That's my beef. If they want to make things safer, good on them. If they're required by law to then after every death in any conceivable way, we will possibly be faced with a bureaucrat forcing asinine changes simply because he can.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

At this point I'm honestly glad he's dead so he won't cause undue grief to innocent people who have not properly prepared for his level of stupidity.

Deaths at an amusement park are very bad for the business. They will make whatever reasonable changes they can to not have this happen again. Even Disney is making safety improvements on a regular basis.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How do you know this? How do we know that no other kid has tried to take this shortcut but didn't get hit by the coaster? I'd be surprised if this was the first time.

It was the first time one walked within head distance of a 50 mph roller coaster. I'm extremely sure if it wasn't we'd have heard about it. Had the car come off track and killed the kid who just so happened to be inside the fence he'd still have been wrong but not exactly stupid since no one can reasonably expect that to happen. Pretty much everyone can expect a moving roller coaster aiming at your head = extreme risk of disaster.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Now you're moving the bar. It was that they would be required to upgrade their security by the State Labor Commissioner and now it's a risk management issue which I've already said I have no problem with since that's voluntary and not State mandated. That's my beef. If they want to make things safer, good on them. If they're required by law to then after every death in any conceivable way, we will possibly be faced with a bureaucrat forcing asinine changes simply because he can.

Let's find out the extent of these changes that are being required and whether they truly are required before we rush to judgment on them.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Deaths at an amusement park are very bad for the business. They will make whatever reasonable changes they can to not have this happen again. Even Disney is making safety improvements on a regular basis.

But these are their choices not state requirements. That's the difference.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Let's find out the extent of these changes that are being required and whether they truly are required before we rush to judgment on them.

Which was my point when I said that the story sounded off because it was ambiguous whether these were requirements and you were the first one that piped in stating that it sounded like they were. SHURG.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It was the first time one walked within head distance of a 50 mph roller coaster.

It might be more accurate to say it was the first time that somebody did it and was injured. I doubt they keep statistics on those who got away with it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Which was my point when I said that the story sounded off because it was ambiguous whether these were requirements and you were the first one that piped in stating that it sounded like they were. SHURG.

A miscommunication... I read it differently. I really only said that you don't continue pretending that current safety measures are effective enough when it has been demonstrated that they are not. If their security setup allows an idiot teenager, by your own description, to easily gain access to a dangerous area, they clearly have some work to do.

[Lathum]

The article makes complete sense to me.

They're saying that the signs should be improved so that it is more clear that this is an extremely dangerous area that people must stay out of.

seems more to me they are backtracking and trying to make it look like they are doing the right thing now.

As a young-ish kid many would hop a fence with a sign on it that said "No Tresspassing" and not think twice about it. But a sign that said "Extreme Danger - Risk of Death" or something like that? I think that would be about a million times more effective.

I totaly disagree. Lets say it's a zoo and not an amusement park. In front of the tiger pit there is a sign that says "no tresspassing" A person of any intellegence can make the connection that tresspassing equals danger because of what is contained in the enclosed area. There shouldn't need to be a sign that says "danger, a tiger will eat you if you enter"

I think the article is saying that SF did have enough precautions in place at the time, but now that we understand better the risks due to this experience (you know we can learn things from our past experiences) they are requiring changes. What's so hard to understand there?

like many others have said, there could always be changes. I hate the fact that the powers that be feel the need to change something because one stupid kid broke the rules.

Or is it just cool to say "The kid is stupid, I'm glad he's dead?"

[/quote]

no, that isn't cool at all to say but I don't think widespread changes should be made because of it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

It was the first time one walked within head distance of a 50 mph roller coaster.

With the Batman ride, it's not exactly that easy to judge what is within head distance. My guess is he thought he was walking through an area that was high enough for him to pass under.

I'm extremely sure if it wasn't we'd have heard about it.

Do you think we would have heard about this if the kid didn't get hit? I don't. It certainly wouldn't have been an article in the AJC.

Had the car come off track and killed the kid who just so happened to be inside the fence he'd still have been wrong but not exactly stupid since no one can reasonably expect that to happen. Pretty much everyone can expect a moving roller coaster aiming at your head = extreme risk of disaster.

Well, I doubt he saw the roller coaster aiming at his head. I don't know exactly which part of the ride he got hit at, but Batman is a twisty ride and can pop up suddenly where you don't expect hit, expecially travelling at 55MPH.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Pretty much everyone can expect a moving roller coaster aiming at your head = extreme risk of disaster.

Luckily for us all, the use of the words "Extreme Danger" on a sign will spark an epiphany about the risk associated with fast moving heavy object for those who are too f'n stupid to understand the concept in the first place.

Not sure how that's going to work exactly considering the reasonable doubts raised about the reading comprehension abilities of a person suffering from the aforementioned level of stupidity (not to mention that it's based on an event involving someone who already showed a willful disregard for warning signage) but gosh, I sure am glad we've got such a competent elected official to help make it all work out.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

no, that isn't cool at all to say but I don't think widespread changes should be made because of it.

I don't see how any of the proposed changes would be considered "widespread".

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No, but you can get monitoring systems to detect thunderstorms within a certain range. You can then use that information to advise golfers to get off the course.

right, but you can't force the golfers off the course when the sirens go off.

Just like you can put up fences and signs all you want but you can't force people to not jump over them.

The bottom line is you can put all the added saftey measure in place you want, but you can't protect people from themselves.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do you think we would have heard about this if the kid didn't get hit? I don't. It certainly wouldn't have been an article in the AJC.

If he didn't get hit then by definition the roller coaster was not within head distance.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't see how any of the proposed changes would be considered "widespread".

you don't think this will set a precedent?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

You can then use that information to advise golfers to get off the course.

Kinda like the sign that Six Flags had up saying danger? The one on the barbed wire fence? I don't know about you but nothing says shortcut like barbed wire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I doubt they keep statistics on those who got away with it.

Bet they do, or at least try to.

Seems pretty logical that the security folks would at least keep track of how many incidents take place in the various areas of a park.

[rkmsuf]

just make the fence higher and put a bigger sign up. geez, what's the big deal?



If you are going to build these death traps to begin with a least go out of your way to make sure the only people dying are the riders.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, I doubt he saw the roller coaster aiming at his head. I don't know exactly which part of the ride he got hit at, but Batman is a twisty ride and can pop up suddenly where you don't expect hit, expecially travelling at 55MPH.

just to be even that close to the track was monumentaly stupid. I know if I am walking along train tracks the best way to not get hit is stay far enough away from the tracks

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't see how any of the proposed changes would be considered "widespread".

Unless they're written specific to Six Flags and the Batman coaster, or even just to roller coasters, the same would likely apply to other amusement park (or similar) operations in Georgia.

Off the top of my head that would definitely seem to open up issues for the park down in Valdosta (Wild Adventures I think it is) and unless it's coaster specific, White Water & Stone Mountain Park. Although we're not Florida by a long shot, we do have a few other amusement park type businesses beyond Six Flags.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bet they do, or at least try to.

Seems pretty logical that the security folks would at least keep track of how many incidents take place in the various areas of a park.

And you honestly think they catch everyone? Have you ever dealt with Six Flags "security" personnel? Who's the naive one now?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And you honestly think they catch everyone? Have you ever dealt with Six Flags "security" personnel? Who's the naive one now?

Don't they have all kinds of cameras and shit with an underground control room like Beverly Hills Cop III?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Unless they're written specific to Six Flags and the Batman coaster, or even just to roller coasters, the same would likely apply to other amusement park (or similar) operations in Georgia.

Well, I think it is definitely specific to the Batman coaster, or at least a coaster that hangs below the track like the Batman one does. As I said earlier in the thread, the same risk does not apply to other rides in the park.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Don't they have all kinds of cameras and shit with an underground control room like Beverly Hills Cop III?

I'm sure they have something set up, but I certainly doubt they have someone trained to look for people walking under the Batman ride during the entire time the park is open. That would certainly seem less reasonable than adding new signs or putting up more fences with barb wire.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, I think it is definitely specific to the Batman coaster, or at least a coaster that hangs below the track like the Batman one does. As I said earlier in the thread, the same risk does not apply to other rides in the park.

but there are risks on other rides.

Whats to stop someone from jumping a fence of a wooden coaster, climb the planks and slip and fall to their death?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Sounds to me like, upon review, the requirements were found to not be good enough.

It is pretty simple, ultimately. When existing security/safety measures fail, you obviously need to look for ways to improve upon it. You don't bury your head in the sand and pretend that your existing measures are good enough despite the proof otherwise.

But the overall problem is that no signs or fences are going to stop an idiot from jumping them. I say they just close the rides down, that's the only way the public will remain safe.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm sure they have something set up, but I certainly doubt they have someone trained to look for people walking under the Batman ride during the entire time the park is open. That would certainly seem less reasonable than adding new signs or putting up more fences with barb wire.

But it's reasonable to presume that a stream of kids get within head level of the ride but just so happen to not either get killed nor detected until now? It's a virtual underground railroad right under the south's nose AGAIN. Damn.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by dangarion

But the overall problem is that no signs or fences are going to stop an idiot from jumping them. I say they just close the rides down, that's the only way the public will remain safe.

finally someone talking some sense around here

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm sure they have something set up, but I certainly doubt they have someone trained to look for people walking under the Batman ride during the entire time the park is open. That would certainly seem less reasonable than adding new signs or putting up more fences with barb wire.

I have no knowledge in this matter but I would be shocked if they have much if any surveilance. It's an amusment park, not a casino.

To have full surveilance of the park would be a huge expense