So way back in the Day we had a nice young man named Daniel Etcheberry who often posted here. (and Thanks to Roberts new search I found his name quickly)
Daniel posted what it was like to visit Theme parks in a wheelchair, he understood the parks did everything they could for folks with a disability.
But now with this new incident and accidental death (for which we have no damn idea what happened) - Do the parks need to just say no to challenged riders?
Stardust Racers is a fairly aggressive ride and maybe some folks should not be allowed to ride.
I remember Robert saying (In his book) that it was sometimes hard for him while working on Big Thunder railroad since a woman if pregnant was prohibited. And he saw some plump women and he could not tell if they were with child or not.
Therefore my quagmire is this:
Should the Parks Just say No to certain attractions for Certain people?
This is always a very tough question that really doesn't have a good answer. There are a lot of possible conditions out there that could be aggravated by a thrill ride, and even if everything is the same on paper, no two individuals and no two rides are ever truly identical. Even something as minor as whether or not someone is in a good or bad mood can have a notable impact on their tolerance to an attraction, so it's really impossible to 100% guarantee everyone aboard is going to be 100% unaffected 100% of the time. Thus, parks should strive to ensure that every rider, prior to boarding, is fully aware of the dynamics involved on that attraction and provided as much information as possible what they are about to experience, but ultimately it must be up to the individual whether to take a seat in the train or not. If parks started discriminating against riders by restricting them without indisputable safety-related justification to do so, that could open a whole can of worms eventually leading to a ban on thrill rides altogether.
Yes AJ (but ultimately it must be up to the individual) - That is the issue.
Personal accountability can't be trusted. We have mass shootings daily proving we can't habdel Personal accountability.
When and How do you protect One from Oneself? They Put fences and perimeters around the attractions for this. And Yes it is not always work.
But the ride itself may have to be policed harder...?
That is the ultimate quagmire... When to say no...
The whole debate about guest mobility is a tricky one. I do find it infuriating that somebody in a mobility scooter or wheelchair with an entourage of a dozen hangers on/adopted family get instant access without queueing and the person in the scooter/wheelchair just stands up and effortlessly walks across into the ride seat followed gleefully and swiftly by their entourage. Oh, how I love to see this when in a two-hour line queueing patiently. Unfortunately, there are ten of these to every legitimate person but how can you tell?
Bottom line is that most intense coasters have warning signs to the effect that people with back and neck problems should not ride. But this is in no way enforceable and there are always exceptions. Google AI says that people with spinal stenosis should not ride roller coasters but my orthopod seems to think otherwise. I wish we knew what really happened on Stardust Racers. We know that the man who tragically died had a spinal injury but that's all we know. I haven't ridden this coaster but judging by videos, it's difficult to grasp how he could have suffered fatal blunt force trauma unless he was improperly restrained or struck some unidentified object. Had this happened on, for instance, the Coney Island Cyclone, I could easily see how someone could suffer extreme blunt force trauma (that coaster killed at least one person and I'd be quite hesitant to ride it at this point), but Stardust Racers is no Cyclone so what happened in Orlando remains a mystery. People have to use their own best judgement and ride ops have to use better judgement when they see someone, for instance, with no legs such as the vet who was ejected from a coaster at Darien Lake.
@Bobbie - You're absolutely right, but sadly, we live in an overly litigious society where people are willing to sue over anything. It becomes a Catch-22 situation where parks are liable if someone gets hurt riding an attraction they shouldn't because of a pre-existing condition/disability or they're accused of discrimination for not allowing guests with disabilities to access/ride their attractions. The issue is that when parks try to give thrill seekers what they want (intense, forceful, and dynamic rides), they in turn create rides that aren't appropriate for guests that may have certain disabilities, though ADA mandates that those people still must be allowed access if they are not a danger to others by riding or their disability prevents the restraints from working properly.
Theme parks deny boarding on attractions to people all the time. The question that Stardust might raise is whether the boarding restrictions on a specific coaster might need to be tightened, or enforcement made more strict.
But it could be that the rider's disability had nothing to do with the fatality. It's still too early in the investigation to draw conclusions.
Boarding restrictions are ever-changing as technology advances and the nature of individual disabilities and maladies evolve. The goal throughout the industry is to thread the impossible needle of creating unique, thrilling attractions that are accessible to all. The question becomes, when that proves impossible, where do you compromise?