Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Six Flags Over Texas (SFOT) Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

(2/5/13) I’ve been sent some rumored new entertainment updates for Six Flags over Texas in 2013. From what I’m told the Lonestar Theater will either see a new Looney Tunes themed show, or an updated version of the old Looney Tunes Dance Off show. A new unknown show will be added to the park’s Crazy Horse Saloon along with a new Country music themed show in the Majestic Theater. The “iLuminate" show will not return in 2013 however, and I’ve been told to expect to see the return of the Chart Topper show (or something similar with a new name) take over the Southern Palace theater. -SCREAMSCAPE.

 

 

Wow sounds like a big year for over Texas! TSS, looks to me like 4 new shows or updated versions, and the rumored return of Adventure Theater this summer! I'm excited!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in the area Saturday gathering material for a future project and swung by and took a few fotos.

1941925385_SFOTConstruction2.2.13002.JPG.a0be5effdd6140503e1e8485f5aaef24.JPG

Yup, looks deserted.

1974677798_SFOTConstruction2.2.13003.JPG.82f09b40eca2be7075a37ae2a9d38f73.JPG

Stupid fence.

2082069329_SFOTConstruction2.2.13008.JPG.f5d44ce4091c180447f02802d0755684.JPG

Not.Tall.Enough.

841959417_SFOTConstruction2.2.13007.JPG.90f9318595c61068ab3061c450374b3e.JPG

Luckily some wood had rotted and made a hole.

SFOT-Construction-2.2.13-00.thumb.jpg.28a2b778ae75f1feff739907a4df8d5b.jpg

And then I was able to get a shot between an ACEr's legs. And trust me, that's hard to do. (Hint: thighs)

1564880571_SFOTConstruction2.2.13012.JPG.6b283767f94a14bef1c3d02207f01de9.JPG

Moving on.

128033653_SFOTConstruction2.2.13015.JPG.61ab940632c54d370ee6d4eede8e2c27.JPG

Road to Six Flags is getting a much needed pavement rehab. Or replacement. Whatever you call it, it's about time.

1174757213_SFOTConstruction2.2.13017.JPG.e0523bf1b6ec976095b684bc695db7aa.JPG

So yeah. With the weather kicking some serious niceness butt, it's a shame the park hasn't been open the last month. Ah well, only 4 more weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like SFoT is getting sued by a man without hands for the park not letting him ride Aquaman.

 

Hopefully it'll get thrown out. Unfortunately I think a lot of people assume that because a lot of people ride rides with their hands up that they're not necessary to ride. But you still need to be able to support your upper body in case the forces overwhelm you, and it sounds like he wouldn't have been able to do such a thing.

 

And I just feel bad for the ride ops. I've had to deny people from riding in similar situations and it felt horrible. Not to mention a pretty critical decision for a part-time teenager to make in the heat of the moment.

 

Perhaps the park should get a very clear and unified disabled rider policy together? If I recall it's somewhat jumbled and varies widely from ride to ride which can probably improve somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like SFoT is getting sued by a man without hands for the park not letting him ride Aquaman.

 

Hopefully it'll get thrown out. Unfortunately I think a lot of people assume that because a lot of people ride rides with their hands up that they're not necessary to ride. But you still need to be able to support your upper body in case the forces overwhelm you, and it sounds like he wouldn't have been able to do such a thing.

 

And I just feel bad for the ride ops. I've had to deny people from riding in similar situations and it felt horrible. Not to mention a pretty critical decision for a part-time teenager to make in the heat of the moment.

 

Perhaps the park should get a very clear and unified disabled rider policy together? If I recall it's somewhat jumbled and varies widely from ride to ride which can probably improve somewhat.

 

American with disability act casese are horribly complicated. The law is voluminous and confusing on the matter. I don't really know a whole lot about what happenes from here, but Six Flags would be wise to offer up a few thousand and make this go away. From what I heard on the radio this morning, the park has since changed their policy or made it more clear. That wouldn't easily be admissible in court, but if nothing else makes me wonder if there might be some teeth to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the report from this guy suing the park and I don't really see his side at all. I mean honestly if the park allowed him on the ride and something bad happened, like maybe it flips over like Roaring Rapids did years ago and seriously injures him, he still sues. It's a lose lose for the park I believe. I think the park should just pay him off and move on, Cause either way he will bad mouth the park to the news and anyone he can about Six Flags. But if the park gives him what he wants then maybe others would see that and understand Six Flags did the right thing in a situation like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a former amusement park employee, I believe that you have to have unimpeded use of all of your extremities to be eligible to ride ANY water ride in the event of an emergency. I think some people with disabilities (my mother is one of them) decide to cry wolf and claim discrimination because they aren't allowed to do certain activities. I am of the opinion that if a person is told they cannot ride due to a safety hazard, they agreed to that sort of selectivity by park officials when they purchased their ticket and entered the park. In response to the question of whether Six Flags should offer compensation to this customer...they didn't take this customer's hands away, and cannot and should not be held be liable for being good stewards of his SAFETY. If SF had to compensate everyone that felt this way, they'd go bankrupt again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have great respect for the purpose of the ADA. The more people who can safely enjoy rides and attractions, the better. However, I believe some of the benefactors from the ADA have taken things to an extreme in some cases.

 

In this case, I take the most issue with the following excerpt from the lawyer, "On the other hand, the policy is under-inclusive because it says nothing about those who have hands but choose not to hold on." Before making such a statement, I think some research is necessary. Restrictions that require having hands, feet, arms, legs, etc. are put in place in the case of emergency evacuation like others have mentioned, or they exist because these extremities are needed for the restraints to function properly. This statement basically comes off to me as a poor excuse to whine and try to fault others because something didn't turn out as you wanted it to. For the case of Aquaman Splashdown, I'm not defending whether or not Six Flags violated ADA, as I'm not an expert on the ADA (I just follow their guidelines as best I can). Actually, it could be possible that Six Flags may have not made the new policy for that ride. Maybe it was a combination of their insurance provider or the State of Texas? Overall, I take issue with how the lawyer is stating the case against SFoT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like SFoT is getting sued by a man without hands for the park not letting him ride Aquaman.

 

Hopefully it'll get thrown out. Unfortunately I think a lot of people assume that because a lot of people ride rides with their hands up that they're not necessary to ride. But you still need to be able to support your upper body in case the forces overwhelm you, and it sounds like he wouldn't have been able to do such a thing.

 

And I just feel bad for the ride ops. I've had to deny people from riding in similar situations and it felt horrible. Not to mention a pretty critical decision for a part-time teenager to make in the heat of the moment.

 

Perhaps the park should get a very clear and unified disabled rider policy together? If I recall it's somewhat jumbled and varies widely from ride to ride which can probably improve somewhat.

 

You did read that the guy can do pull ups and fire a gun? Sounds like he can hold on to me. Interesting that it wasn't until months after the incident SFOT had a policy about having a full arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did read that the guy can do pull ups and fire a gun? Sounds like he can hold on to me. Interesting that it wasn't until months after the incident SFOT had a policy about having a full arm.

 

And short of getting his life/medical history, how is a ride op supposed to make such a decision to let someone ride who is missing their extremities? They're ride operators, not doctors, and they need to be consistent in following straight-forward safety policies. They made the safe, conservative judgment call which is the better decision to make when dealing with guest safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did read that the guy can do pull ups and fire a gun? Sounds like he can hold on to me. Interesting that it wasn't until months after the incident SFOT had a policy about having a full arm.

Right. But proving you can do pull ups and fire a gun isn't something that a ride op trying to board people onto a ride isn't going to know. Regardless of the rules stated in a guidebook, if a ride op or a supervisor makes a judgement call that it would not be safe for someone to ride based on a disability, I feel that person needs to understand and appreciate that those people are looking out for their lives. It's ridiculous that anyone, I don't care what the condition is, would try to sue over something like this.

 

People often forget that amusement park rides are just giant machines that will spare you no mercy and kill you if something were to go wrong. Someone else said it best in this thread:

 

I think some people with disabilities (my mother is one of them) decide to cry wolf and claim discrimination because they aren't allowed to do certain activities. I am of the opinion that if a person is told they cannot ride due to a safety hazard, they agreed to that sort of selectivity by park officials when they purchased their ticket and entered the park. I

 

I agree this is exactly what has happened here. The article states that the guy is suing because it caused him embarrassment and "mental anguish" - Oh, please. It says he's lived with this condition since he was a child, and now he's a grown adult with two kids. I highly doubt this is the first time he's dealt with something like this. It makes me sick the things people will claim in order to get attention and/or money.

 

--Robb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the best way for parks to handle situations like these is to have very specific guidelines for each ride that the ride ops are trained in. Those guidelines should be determined by safety experts. And yes, the guidelines should try to allow as many people as possible to ride each ride safely. But safety is the key. Unfortunately, such guidelines have to try to account for all situations, so even if one person has more mobility than others, it's not fair to leave ride ops to try to judge each individual situation. That's a recipe for disaster, literally.

 

If the park did all of this in this situation, then the person doesn't really have any case, sad as it may be.

 

If not, then it's more of a grey area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, I take the most issue with the following excerpt from the lawyer, "On the other hand, the policy is under-inclusive because it says nothing about those who have hands but choose not to hold on."

 

I find it somewhat ironic that the lawyer's statement included the phrase, "on the other hand".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Not trying to be rude, but there is no "grey area". First off, I have been with someone who has been refused access to a certain attraction after being allowed on all others in the same park, due to a broken leg in a walking cast. Second, Park Ride Operators, by their very license, are both encouraged, and required to judge whether a rider can safely participate in an attraction or not. There should be NO CASE in this matter, and previous park experiences can not stand to vouchsafe for this man's ability to ride. It is harsh to say, but I believe that except in cases where the park or manufacturer was clearly at fault (i.e. "Superman TOP" at SFKK, or "Terminal Velocity" at Extreme World), buying a ticket to a theme park should constitute an immediate and binding non-arbitration clause between the customer and the theme park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last time a disabled person thought they were OK to ride a ride, he unforunately fell out and died (S:ROS), and Six Flags probably does not want another one of these stints on their records. This person in question this time has legs, so falling out isn't a possibilty, but say the forces on Aquaman are too strong for him upon impact with the water and he is unable to grasp his lap bar, he could get a serious head injury if his body is thrust forward duue to inertia. So he can shoot a gun, awesome! But he can't GRASP a lap bar. Plus, Aquaman is a water ride, so the restraint will be wet and slippery (considering the restraint is metal). I think SFOT had every right to deny him the ability to ride. It's just one of those "better safe than sorry" scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are reading too far into the park changing its policy. Manufacturers actually set the requirements. I'm sure all that happened was that the park got sued and then went to the manufacturer to seek further clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have great respect for the purpose of the ADA. The more people who can safely enjoy rides and attractions, the better. However, I believe some of the benefactors from the ADA have taken things to an extreme in some cases.

 

In this case, I take the most issue with the following excerpt from the lawyer, "On the other hand, the policy is under-inclusive because it says nothing about those who have hands but choose not to hold on." Before making such a statement, I think some research is necessary. Restrictions that require having hands, feet, arms, legs, etc. are put in place in the case of emergency evacuation like others have mentioned, or they exist because these extremities are needed for the restraints to function properly. This statement basically comes off to me as a poor excuse to whine and try to fault others because something didn't turn out as you wanted it to. For the case of Aquaman Splashdown, I'm not defending whether or not Six Flags violated ADA, as I'm not an expert on the ADA (I just follow their guidelines as best I can). Actually, it could be possible that Six Flags may have not made the new policy for that ride. Maybe it was a combination of their insurance provider or the State of Texas? Overall, I take issue with how the lawyer is stating the case against SFoT.

 

It is the Lawyer's job to make an argument. It is the judge's call to see through the BS of that argument and rip it to shreds. As long as the six flag's legal team provides sufficient reasons as to why riders need their hands (IE, riders can choose to not hold onto the lap bars, but still have that option where as riders with no hands don't have an option at all) or for various other reasons, the judge will typically rule in their favor.

 

Likely, this man's legal team will recommend to drag the case out until SF has had enough and will settle out of court. As a result no precedent will be set and will leave the next person who is "discriminated" against the ability to sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/