And a group of Democratic lawmakers in Congress is asking a physicians' organization to track brain injuries on roller coasters and other theme park rides to see if federal legislation is needed.
U.S. Rep Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has asked the Brain Injury Association of America to assist in the investigation. According to Markey's office, "The Association has agreed to set up a 'blue ribbon panel' of neurologists and other relevant experts to assess the situation and provide guidance concerning what is safe and healthy when it comes to g-forces on roller coasters. They are expected to review cases from the medical literature, cases that have come to light through press reports or private communications, and expert opinion regarding g-force limits."
[Theme Park Insider interviewed Rep. Markey earlier this year, and he said then that G force limits were "urgently required."
"The industry is playing Russian Roulette with the public health of park patrons by not setting such limits itself," Markey said. "If industry does not do it, than the public health departments of government will have to do it."]
Indeed G's would be the most viable answer... but you're playing with something that isn't very clear, and to get the most accurate answer you'd have to sit every human being in the world, and find the median G force that is tolerable, and, "safe."
Now a ride like goliath at six flags magic mountain, now there is a problem... You have patrons blacking out ( I've talked to, and have had e-mail conversations about blurry vision and blacking out on the ride.). We know there is a problem there, now the question is how do we find the most viable answer???
The best way to look at G's would be to examine Goliath at Six Flags Magic Mountain, and go from there... you do it anywhere else; the reserach may not be as good. Even with the research, people are still at risk.. and you implement a set G Force... and someone dies or blacks out... this G force law will BACKFIRE!!! Wish Markey would open his eyes to the REAL Danger inside amusement parks. It's right infront of him...
Both situations might be labeled as 4 G coasters, but the first doesn't squish my brain nearly as much as the second.
A blanket ban on exceeding a certain G level will in effect eliminate launch coasters, while doing nothing to stop coasters with brain scrambling curves that stay just below the G force limit.
Duration and conditions of exposure are as important as exposure itself. It's the difference between smoking one cigarette once and smoking a pack a day for a year.
I would love to see the industry get rid of brain scrambling helixes and curves. I love thrills as much as the next guy, but blacking out or puking into a bush--that's not a thrill. Give me a coaster that excites me--not one that bruises my brain.
Now a ride like Xcelerator will be holding a constant 2.2 G's during the launch, thus eliminating, "high g's." Now maybe launch coasters may be the first to go with a G force law... but again, putting up a Standard G, isn't the answer.. If you put up a standard, and someone is killed.. then what???? It's just not a good idea.. Markey has heart, heck, he has a lot of heart; but his views are a little distorted, and what will happen if his laws are put into affect? One word, DEBACLE.
There has to be another solution, I wonder if Markey see's it?? Probably not.
This is a stupid idea.
Does anyone know anything about what research the Germans used? In that country coasters are limited to 4.5 G's. But like Robert said, is that just total G's or does it get a little more technical than that? And where did they come up with that number? It seems like a good number to me, but Robert posted elsewhere the G-Forces on several coasters and some wimpy ones, like Rock 'n' Roller Coaster exceed that.
Clearly, something needs to be done. Roller coasters aren't like drugs, where they can be tested on rats for years and then tested on a small number of humans for another year and then studied the entire time they are available to the public. Most coasters are nothing but drawings and calculations until they are actually built. Then dummies ride it for a while. Then a few real people. Then it is built onsite where more dummies try it out. Then a few real people. Then the teeming masses. Goliath would not exist in its present form if there was better research out there.
MY course of action would be to immediately copy the German law for all NEW coasters. Meanwhile, have the government finance a THOROUGH study. When details take shape, reword the law where needed. Any new coaster would have to adhere to the law and any old coaster would have to post a warning sign and an explanation of the G-Forces on the ride. That way we can at least be aware of what we are getting ourselves into.
And, in fact, now Six Flags is asking the American Association of Neurological Surgeons to study the brain injury issue.
I hope that this doesn't become a duel between studies, one funded by the government and another by industry. So far, neither group has committed to do a study, and both are awaiting a source of funding.
By the way, I've asked Rep. Markey's office to provide some additional information on the New Jersey proposal, and will post that here when I hear back from them.
I doubt something like this would happen.. but I'll be the first to say that a ride like goliath would be a prime suspect; this ride has had riders blacking out left and right, and I feel we could learn a lot by studying this rides affects on the human body...
I'm also suprised that Six Flags has offered to help out Markey, It'd be a blow if something was uncovered; I wonder how Six Flags would respond, it'd be VERY interesting... I wonder if Six Flags would like to comment on other aspects of their parks.. and how they've led to patron lawsuits! Six Flags is great with turning everyone away from the obvious, they're kinda sneaky... But the act can't go on much longer... just wish they'd acknowledge the real problem and fix it!!!
They're looking for vindication here.
This has to be a PR ploy on Six Flag's part..Kinda the good neighbor part... and for me it's NOT working... they need to solve the REAL problem!
My reply to Kevin Baxter: I am making the broad leap that you are assuming that since I register disgust at yet another power grab by the democrat party that I am automatically a fundamentalist Christian republican. Wrong. YOUR hypocrisy is showing in your rather silly little reply. In reality, I am a Libertarian who wants government out of amusement parks, my doctor's office as well as my (and your) bedroom. I would submit that this issue should be regulated by the parks themselves, and civil action if necessary and not through legislation. As it is now, I decide what rides I feel are suitable for my safety and comfort. Let the rider decide.
Still, your argument for the industry policing itself is naive and history proves my point. Disney has a long history of hiding accident data from both the public and the government. Disneyland has been fighting the California government for YEARS over having to release these records. Isn't hiding stuff like this DANGEROUS to people who go to the parks? It is no different than car manufacturers, for one example, hiding the fact that their seatbelts don't work. If you knew a certain seatbelt was only 25% likely to stay in place during an accident, would you buy that car?
Civil action is a poor excuse for a solution. The more people sue, the more EVERYONE'S insurance rates go up... the more park prices jump... the more likely a park will go bankrupt, and so on. Are these all acceptable outcomes?
I simply don't accept the Libertarian ideal of keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible. Americans have shown BILLIONS of times in our history that without laws, we will do whatever we want. People doing whatever they want to the American people is why we currently have things like the FDA, the FBI, prisons, OSHA, child-labor laws, etc.
I agree that government should keep out of our lives if whatever we are doing isn't hurting anyone. But we can't make everyone keep from hurting us. The government can. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
By the way, I have to defend Six Flags. Over the years, while Disney threw tons of money at lobbyists to keep park inspections OUT of California, SF was the only California park-operator that supported such legislation.
The answer to this fiasco has to be some type of outside source who has a service that can facilitate a capcity on lawsuits, and save the amusement park industry millions yearly... but it also requires the amusement park industry to accept
change...
Seriously, these goverenment agencies can only do so much.. and our knowledge of what is safe for our bodies is only so much... When those two fail what else is left? If i'm injured, what then? What is left? Is there an answer to that?
Formulating the parameters for 1) DIRECTION + AMOUNT OF G FORCE, and 2)ALLOWABLE TIME SUSTAINED for a PARTICULAR G FORCE is neither a nebulous nor difficult task. Experts DO exist in this field, and they can be called on for help in establishing any initial policy or laws respecting rides that expose the "non-professional public" to HIGH G FORCES.
The comments posted above that "we're playing with something that isn't very clear", and "...government agencies can only do so much...and our knowledge of what is safe for our bodies is only so much..." are not correct in this instance. Concerning this particular topic being discussed, the government HAS done much, and the knowledge accumulated is vast. It just needs to be re-applied, and the guidelines provided to the roller coaster and ride manufactures.
Put simply...for decades, NASA was spinning and centifuging men and women to extremes (on many positional axis of force and duration). The resulting reams of practical WORKING data is a good place to start. And then there is the AIR FORCE, who's pilots know a thing or two about G forces. Their own flight surgeons and training facilities (like NASA) have produced practical boundries (and sound policy)concerning the effects of G Forces, and what the body can handle in WHAT DIRECTION and for HOW LONG. Vision loss, Blackouts, or even WORSE are not on the menu here, as the Government has already demonstrated, by spending millions on understanding G Forces...to protect the life of their pilots, as well as their muli-million dollar aircraft and spacecraft !
Of course, the above subjects were (and still are) well-trained "professionals" in top shape. If the Government decides it wants to get involved in establishing "Amusement Park G Force Standards", they CAN enlist the help of the NASA and AIR FORCE flight surgeons who are the CONTINUING experts in this field, and come up with a "safe" set of rules/recomendations for the "general population". Like any other medical data relating to the human body, the NASA and AF data gathered on their extremely fit adult subjects [ie, pilots and astronauts] can be studied, modified, and extrapolated out to encompass "most of us" whose vascular systems are not used to the occasional exposure to these forces.
[This is the way it is when determining drug dosages for over the counter medications (or any number of medical/health related issues)...figuring out how to provide most people with an intended effect, without causing harm. (The question of those odd few who will have a bad/allergic reaction, is an "acceptable risk" calculated for a given population...and allowed by law if the patient is made aware of the risk) You can't cover everybody, but "good" laws at least AIM to protect.]
Those who are the type to worry [even if a law is passed] about possible unknown or hypothetical long-term effects (ie, will the 3 vertical g's I experienced for 5 seconds, 3 times a year, from ages 12 to 18, cause me to go blind when I am 55...or give me varicose veins ? etc) will probably also worry about the FDA approved additives in your food. Laws and Regulations don't always predict the future, but attempt to do the best with the available data at the time.
Robert Niles point about the two directions of G forces is right. Any policies that might be enacted will have to separately describe G Forces due to acceleration/deceleration perpendicular to the body (those pushing you BACK into your seat, or causing you to lurch forward on a sudden stop), and positive G Forces exerted parallel to the body (or DOWN through it...pushing/slumping you into the seat). There are also different scaled TIME LIMITS for the amount of G force experienced in each of those two catagories.
The human cardiovascular system is more tolerant of the first type than the second. We are vertical stick figures with our main blood vessels primarilly lined up that way in our body. The valves and blood flow are made to work in a delicate balance against the vertical force of gravity. Increasing those G's vertically in the right amount for the right time (as in a long, tight helix on a fast coaster) will work against the heart trying to get blood up to the brain...or even draw the potential blood pool away from it...leading, again, to the above mentioned menu: Vision loss, blackouts, and possibly even worse.
Astronats take off against gravity lying on their backs for a reason...a better scenerio for maintaining an evenly distributed blood pool for a longer time, even with increased G's. It's easier on the heart, and the Brain with it's blood supply is better protected. These are the same forces at work on the newer accelerated coaster launches, and the reason why they don't bother you as much.
I know this is a long post, but I didn't want to "vote" on the matter without providing some meaningful reasons for why current legislation being considered is not a bad thing.
Remember, NO law or policy will be perfect, but I would rather have one than none.
Having ridden my share of good and bad Amusement park rides and all kinds of coasters, I see nothing wrong with either the Government or Private Sector (take your pick) investigating and establishing medical/scientific "G Force Policy" for all the rides whose physics and FUN is part of what should ultimately be a safe and happy day at the park.
I was trying to explain that we exist in a virtual space somewhere between roller coaster fanatics and the Disney-Is-Our-Life crowd.
But now I realize that what I should have said is "We're the theme park site for math majors."
Robert (Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, Northwestern Univ., Class of 1989)
Read this for a better idea...
http://www.beakerzcoasterz.com/modules.php?name=Sections&sop=viewarticle&artid=5
Unlike many sites out there dealing with Amusement Parks, this site is a site which won't kiss any behind, nor will it rip a park apart ( well most of the time)
I find Amusement Park accidents and injuries to be a serious matter, so serious that I want to make a living out of saving peoples lives at amusement parks...
I value your opinions Kevin,there is no doubt about that, and hope to hear more from you...
As for the wiseguy and the Job with the city... Good one!
Hope to hear from you soon.
I have a few issues with you. Let's start with your site name. Peter Longwood - how original! That joke got old in the 7th grade - which is probably where you are emotionally if not in reality. Don't even attempt to claim that Peter Longwood is your real name because after your posting on another thread about wanting to see a ride based on the trip of a sperm through a female's body you rank nearly at the bottom in the credibility department. Yeah, that posting was cute - real cute.
You weren't content to displaying your immaturity to just that posting. Nope! Now you slam NASCAR fans and the Catholic church. Well I know some NASCAR fans. Guess what? They're engineers and they're pretty darn smart. Matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet they'd put you to shame in the ol' IQ department. A lot of us may not enjoy watching NASCAR (me included) but we can appreciate the competitiveness of the sport and the interest that other people have in it. Be careful of what you put down.
As for the comment about passing out next to a Catholic priest, give it a rest! If someone of your diminutive mental faculties could understand basic statistics, you'd know that the incidence of pedophile priests is below that of the general population. So in other words, David would be in greater danger of being molested by you than he would be by a Catholic priest. I'm not a Catholic, but I think the church has a positive effect on our society. I don't always agree with it, but I see the good works that it does. What I don't like though is seeing snide comments by people like you because you want to feel superior.
My quess is that you're a teenager worried about an ambiguous sexual orientation or you're an adult trying to compensate for a deficiency. Whatever it is, clean up your act, contribute positively to the site, or go away.
David:
Go to a doctor, describe what happened, and get his opinion. You may have a medical condition that needs treatment, and until you find out whether anything is wrong, don't ride Goliath.
You are entitled to your opinions just as I am mine. Perhaps I did digress a bit. My main point was that I am sick and tired of people being naive and stupid when it comes to accountability and then trying to blame it on someone else. Far more people die during auto races in any given year than amusement parks. Yet Congress seems to only be concerned with amusement parks. That's the flavor of the month. As for Catholicism, this board is not a religious one so I am going to put that to rest. Finally, if you and your engineer friends watch NASCAR, then you really need to get out and get laid more often. As for the IQ crack, my IQ is 170 on the Stanford-Benet scale, and I am a member of Mensa. Perhaps your engineer friends could also buy you a sense of humor, asswipe.
Like a lot of supposedly smart people, you miss the big picture. Just because you may have the mental capacities to evaluate whether a ride is suitable for you doesn't mean that other people do. Many teenagers, like David, will do totally insane things because they think it's cool. Unfortunately, they may not have the wisdom to fully comprehend the consequences. As a society, we have to provide a reasonable amount of protection for all people while still ensuring a satisfactory level of personal freedom.
Personally, I think that it is good that Congress is looking into the issue. Do I want to see the thrill of the rides reduced to the point where there is no thrill? No way! But, I do have a 9-year old who will ride practically anything, and I want to have enough information at my disposal to make a valid judgement whether or not a ride is too radical for him. I don't want his future to be ruined because he suffered brain damage on a poorly designed ride, and yes, there are poorly designed thrill rides out there.
What's your beef with NASCAR? The people subject to the G-forces are trained professionals who are fully aware of the danger to them. They choose to put their lives at risk. The spectators who go to the races are also aware of the danger to them if a wreck occurs and a tire goes flying into the stands. Judging from your remarks, why should you care if a few more unintelligent "rednecks" get killed at a NASCAR race?
I also have a well-developed sense of humor. I just don't care for your brand of putdown cynicism or your sophomoric sexual preoccupation. I doubt that many people besides you think that you are funny.
If you are truly as smart as you claim to be, try to make a posting without making a sexual reference or without putting someone down. I'd appreciate the difference, and I'd also enjoy hearing your opinions as long as they are devoid of putdowns and sexual innuendo. For starters, why don't you get a different log in name? You're a smart guy, why don't you find a handle that labels you as something other than a phallic loser?
I like them giving the illusion that it will be an "independent" study.
I like them giving the illusion that it will be an "independent" study.
Again, you make some excellent points. Let me try to clarify my opinions. I am sick and tired of the amusement park industry being the whipping boy for the press and the government. It's front page news every time there is an accident at an amusement park, but the auto racing industry, which is statistically far more dangerous, is not subject to the same scrutiny. That is why I bring NASCAR into my assertion. I grew up near a speedway in central PA, and every year there would be 2 to 3 deaths and numerous serious accidents from racing. I always wondered why this was being allowed to happen. Dale Earnhardt is a hero to a lot of people. People have his photos plastered on their walls. Hell, some people seem to worship the guy. But the fact of the matter is, he was not wearing his seatbelt when he crashed. Why wasn't there a new law enacted about this? I hate hypocrisy, and I want the government out of my bedroom, my life, and my roller coasters.
Keep the government as far away from this as possible. All they will do is make park visits cost more and will do nothing toward their intended goal. Let's not dig another government money pit.
Goliath for instance, has a lot of fuss made over it's final helix, due to a large number of blackouts, and one death.
