Dr. M

If it had buckled, would it have kept her in the seat?

^Thank you.

*sigh* The two questions are, 1. could the seat belt have better indicated if she was too big to ride, and 2. would the seat belt have kept her in the seat when the lap bar didn't. Learning about the mechanics of the restraint itself answers neither of these questions.

Oh good lord, this is why I gave up trying to discuss things with people on online forums. Just throw a link at me that doesn't at all answer the question at hand, then when I point that out, tell me I didn't read it. Go ahead.

If the ride operators can't or won't tell riders when they're not secured properly even though the lap bar is down far enough, and a seat belt could indicate that, then maybe the ride should've had seat belts. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then avoiding longer dispatch times is a pretty shitty reason for making a ride less safe. If I'm so ignorant chadster, then why don't you educate me?

I can not even tell you how much I want to experience a compressed air launch. I'm obsessed, I've probably watched that Dodonpa video about 100 times. It makes me very sad that the technology seems to have been "outmoded" by more reliable systems (and possibly cheaper?). Imagine Kingda Ka's launch, but in half the time/distance and double the G-force. Does that not sound like the better ride?

The only reason I'm willing to back down on that is because of just how explicitly the sign indicates how the bar must be in contact with your thighs. If, after this accident, it's determined that the ride must install seat belts, then I'll have been vindicated, because it means the ride should've had them from the beginning, and if it had, this woman may still be alive. I'm not sure why anyone is so dead set against them.

Do we have confirmation that the bar was indeed touching her belly/bosom and not her thighs? If that is the case, then I would be inclined to agree with you. It's all just speculation, but can somebody come up with an alternate scenario that makes sense?

I don't believe anyone has seen a photo of her that shows her whole body and that we know was recent. She was obviously on the larger side. Although the eye witness accounts aren't 100% accurate they do seem to support that she needed help (i.e. the full weight of a ride attendant) to get the lap bar down far enough, and that she didn't feel safe (i.e. she could feel the bar wasn't touching her thighs like it should). The weight in her upper body, like you see in the video, is exactly what would've caused the problem, all the weight above her waist which is what got in the way. I guess it's possible she might not have even been *that* big, if her belly hung down far enough. It does make me wonder why this kind of thing doesn't happen more often.

Watch this video that was posted a couple pages back and it's very easy to see how she slipped out, no broken bones involved. I've sort of changed my mind about all this, it seems to be primarily operator error. This video combined with the entrance sign posted above pretty much tells you all you need to know. The bar was touching her belly or bosom, not her thighs, so it didn't come down far enough to properly secure her, and the sign clearly explains that that has to be avoided. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KmTMf0VVQ Really not much more to say, I guess.

You say it could have "easily" been released, but I've been on plenty of rides where it's not immediately obvious how the belt is released and it takes one or two tries before you get it. In the midst of a panic attack, it's possible she wouldn't have been able to release it, especially with increased pressure on the mechanism from the forces. It's all meaningless speculation anyway. Maybe if she'd felt the seat belt securing her, she wouldn't have panicked in the first place!

I don't think anybody's mentioned The Haunted Mansion, which is easily my personal favorite example. I know the props and effects were all done in-house, not sure about the ride system itself, but that's enough to count in my book.

This is where the entire issue lies, and I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If there are conditions where the lap bar can fail, and we KNOW this is true because it's happened on other rides in the past, then there should have been seat belts. If they didn't want to install them because they reduce capacity, then the designers and the park created an unsafe ride in the name of increased profit margins, no more, no less, and they should be held accountable. As an aside, I've never ridden a ride with shin bars. Now that I see what they actually look like, I must say they don't look comfortable at all. Though I guess I'd prefer them to OTSR. No, you're making a distinction here. The issue is not the lap bar failing, because it's statistically impossible. I also want to point out that you're putting words in my mouth about the seat belts. I never claimed the manufacturer intentionally left them out against safety protocol just for rider capacity gains. I don't have access to all the safety studies and mechanical testing they performed, but most if not all hydraulic restraints do not have seat belts. And that is across multiple manufacturers. She fell out of the ride, OBVIOUSLY the lap bar failed. I'm not saying it sprang open, I'm saying it failed to keep her in the train. Not statistically impossible, because it happened. I'm not putting words into your mouth, I myself am saying the only reason they wouldn't put seat belts in is due to cost and ride capacity, and we see here that if they had been installed, this woman would still be alive, so obviously they were necessary. I can't speak for all hydraulic restraints but in this case, this was/is not a safe ride, for riders of a certain body type. Why should they not be held responsible?

This is where the entire issue lies, and I'm sorry but I don't buy it. If there are conditions where the lap bar can fail, and we KNOW this is true because it's happened on other rides in the past, then there should have been seat belts. If they didn't want to install them because they reduce capacity, then the designers and the park created an unsafe ride in the name of increased profit margins, no more, no less, and they should be held accountable. As an aside, I've never ridden a ride with shin bars. Now that I see what they actually look like, I must say they don't look comfortable at all. Though I guess I'd prefer them to OTSR.

I don't see why it's that complicated. If the ride system indicated she was safely restrained, and she wasn't, then the blame lies squarely on the company that designed the trains. And that seems to be the only logical explanation. When I say this could have been anyone's mom, obviously I mean if your mom was of that magical shape and size that Gerstlauer apparently didn't know people came in. But what about her proportions were so unusual? Sure the picture only shows her about from her shoulders up, but she looked like an ordinary person on the very large side. I'm gonna keep saying this, how could this have happened? That actually makes a good point. If she actually panicked, she may have tried to get out and slipped through the bars. I would like somebody to explain to me why this in any way makes sense. If she was scared, why would she try to get OUT of her restraints? And how could she possibly succeed? Wouldn't it make more sense that she fell out either due to negative g-forces or the car turning 90 degrees sideways? Because she wasn't secured properly? I think people just want to blame the victim, but it's not happening, it wasn't anything she did wrong.

There should be no judgement call to make on the part of the operator. Either it's locked in a safe position or it isn't. I don't understand why this was possible. If the ride needed seat belts, it should have freaking had seat belts. ^I wish people would stop saying things that don't make any sense. Even if she did for some bizarre reason try to free herself, if she was safely restrained then that wouldn't have been possible.

I've been following this thread since the news broke, and I know I don't have anything particularly to add that hasn't already been said, except that I seem to be a little more shocked by this whole thing than most of the others posting. Because at the end of the day, a roller coaster killed somebody, and that shouldn't be possible. I just don't understand HOW this could have happened. We've already established that a) the lap bar has to be lowered a set amount to be considered safe, b) the ride train has a clear method of indicating whether each lap bar has reached that position, and so it follows that c) all ride operators have the ability to make sure each passenger is securely restrained before the train dispatches. We know that the fault here is NOT with the rider. The victim had no way of knowing if she was securely restrained, because it's not her job to know. So where was the failure? Either the ride operator dispatched the train when one of those green lights weren't lit, which shouldn't be possible, so the ultimate conclusion has to be that the designers of the train made it possible for a restraint to INDICATE that it was locked in a safe position when it WASN'T. I just keep thinking that this could have been my mom, it could have been ANYONE'S mom. It's terrifying, and I think we deserve an explanation, including a reason why this would never happen again. If the park covers up what went wrong, like that article implies, which wouldn't surprise me, well, that's just freaking terrible (and should not be legal).

I just wrote a poem: "Plants by the river will always grow quicker than plants that are actually not. So in the meantime, they should give Skyrush's line an awning, or, you know, whatnot." Storm Runner was a disappointment for me too when it opened, I thought it was way too short. I still kinda do. But I think it's important to remember the ride's place "historically", it was built before Maverick or iSpeed when the launched coaster really came into its own, it was during the time of rides like Xcelerator, which also has a surprising lack of content. It was the first launch coaster with inversions, after all. So complaining about its length is a little bit like complaining about SDL only having one inversion. Keeping that in mind when I ride it helps me to enjoy it more.

Your comment about Arrow restraints is true for me as well, and I'm not even particularly tall. They come down at an extremely awkward angle. I'm about as skinny as they come though, so maybe if you have extra "padding" for the restraints to rest against they don't lean quite so hard on your shoulders. But I don't have a problem with the OTS restraints on rides like Maverick, since they always bang against my neck, which is significantly softer than my skull. I've been on lots of painful coasters so it's hard to state which would be my *least* favorite. I guess Mantis would have to get my vote as far as sheer physical unpleasantness. Head banging+crotch pressure+shin cramps = three separate points of assault. But if I could pick my least favorite ride in general, well that would be easy. Did anyone else go on that ride at SFA where you ride in these high-walled tubs, so high that you couldn't see out the top, down a trough where you do nothing but spin and spin and spin? Walking around in that concrete desert, you see this ride hoping that a few splashes of cool, refreshing water might come your way, but no... all you do is watch your feet soak in the smelly stagnant water at the bottom of the tub while you do nothing but spin and spin and spin. It was amazing. EDIT: Found a video of it. Turns out my memory was making it out to be slightly worse than it was, and by that I mean at least you could see out of the raft: Still don't get wet at all on it. It's a lot less fun than it looks.

I agree! Great Bear and BM:TR are both too short, Alpengeist was too rattly, and Raptor was basically the same ride except I prefer Talon's compact layout and high-speed ground-level turn finale. I think Steel Force and Talon are both more-than-decent rides, in fact, I'd put them both ahead of any steel coaster Hershey has except Skyrush. What's sad about that is Steel Force managed to be that ride for a surprisingly long time. It's true SFGA opened up Nitro just four years later, but Steel Force was still longer than that ride, and don't forget that at the time it was still ranked in the top five coasters in the world, making Dorney the cheaper and easier option for a lot of people. No other park in the area even had a coaster over 200 ft until Skyrush opened last year. It also still has one of the best water parks, or so I've heard. A coaster does NOT have to break records or be particularly tall to be marketable. A 105 ft coaster would absolutely stand out in the park's skyline, I mean have you seen the park's skyline? It mostly consists of about three coasters and a drop ride (if you ignore the "Corner of Suckitude" that used to hold Laser). Skyrush was marketable purely by being the "tallest coaster at Hershey Park", since it wasn't the tallest or longest in the state or anywhere else. They could put a coaster like Maverick there and then market it as "the fastest coaster at Dorney Park". I think any coaster built there would be marketable, especially if word got out that it was awesome, because it's been so long since they got an awesome coaster and there's a lot of people who love Dorney and need a reason to go there. Now that I think of it, you get a really great view of Dorney from the highway, you can easily see any ride that's taller than the treeline. I can't think of any other park I've been too that that's true for. But I do agree, the Dino exhibit is a total and complete waste of space.

Why hasn't one been built that's a) as fast and b) still operating? It seems like a launch that powerful would be a unique and awesome enough experience that a U.S. park would've wanted one. "Fastest acceleration in the country" has a snappy ring to it that you think would make the marketing department happy.

Hey! I love your POV video of Dodonpa... looks like a seriously good time. If you had to guess, why do you think no coaster with an equivalent launch has been built stateside? Also, you mention in the video that it's one of the few rides that still scare you. Sorry if this has been asked before but what other rides might be on that list? Thanks!

I was thinking a wing coaster would be a great choice, as would a good wooden coaster (I'd prefer something more like Outlaw Run, to avoid direct comparisons to El Toro). The fact is ANY coaster would be a good choice as long as it was decent, but that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon. I don't doubt that there are a few people for whom Demon Drop holds some nostalgia, but I disagree that it's a good reason to have it in the park, just because it's gotta be a pretty niche audience. Rides kept for the sake of nostalgia are typically things like carousels, coasters, rides the whole family can enjoy like the Whip, but drop rides? I'm pretty sure most(!) people brave enough to ride drop rides in the first place would prefer a smoother, taller, more modernized, open-car version like Dominator over Demon Drop, and the overwhelming unpopularity of DD every time I've been to the park seems to support that. I mean, hey, I rode Stuntman's Free Fall as a small child, and there was definitely a pang of nostalgia when I first saw Demon Drop. It quickly wore off after one ride in those bumpy, claustrophobic cars. Oh, and, also, Knoebels now has a drop tower, possibly better than either DD or Dominator.

How is it a waste of money? Cedar Fair had the ride on hand and only had to pay to move and build it. Quite a bit cheaper than designing, buying and building a new coaster. Apparently Cedar Fair doesn't think so or else they would do this. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but Six Flags tried the strategy you suggest and went bankrupt. Doing the relocation still costs money, as does maintaining it, all money that could have been spent on a better ride. Not saying it wouldn't have cost more, I'm saying it would've been a better investment. And saying that Six Flags' situation applies here is a little ridiculous. I'm not suggesting they put in a strata coaster. Kennywood is a good example of the strategy I have in mind, and I'm pretty sure they're doing fine. Are you really saying you think the way CF has been managing Dorney over the past five or so years has been satisfactory, or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it?

^Makes sense! Thank you for answering. Hitting the brakes immediately after the second launch was such a buzz-kill for me that I had completely blocked that hill out of my memory. Upon reflection, I'm not sure I noticed any airtime at that spot, or anything other than a general feeling of "Aw man, seriously?" I don't doubt it's there, I just didn't notice. Haven't gotten on I305 yet, I'm super excited for it, hopefully sometime soon. Although, the ride is very "TWISTY!!!" and as I said twists just don't do as much for me as they seemingly do for others. Still, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. My brother also had a bad time with the bunny hops on Magnum, on our second ride apparently his wallet and cell phone were perfectly positioned so as to deliver maximum thigh pain. The funny thing is, none of the times we rode did I even notice the lap bar was there. I was really surprised when I started reading online how many others have problems with them. It'll always amaze me how two different people can have such entirely different experiences with restraint systems, even when sitting next to each other. Like Gate Keeper nearly suffocating me while being perfectly comfortable for others. Oh, and also about Magnum... it practically feels like a wooden coaster, which is partly why I love it so. Hey, I have another unrelated question: For those long-time CP fans, was there ever a time when Magnum was butter smooth, or was it always a little rough? Because Steel Force is getting pretty old as well and it's still extremely smooth.