Man without hands not allowed to ride roller coaster

[Double0Kevin]

I'm pretty sure SF has gotten more extreme with physical requirements. When I was at SFDK last month, they enforced some rules that weren't around 3 years ago when I was working there.

[bigbill245]

Im impressed by the ride operators. To catch such a "small" thing really shows how well they were performing their job.

[DenDen]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I side with Six Flags for standing by their policy.

 

My basic opinion on this is: If you have no hands, and the worst thing to happen to you is that you can't ride some dumb roller coaster, you're really fudging lucky.

Absolutely!

 

It's over the contradiciton between one sentence stating that the man has NO HANDS, followed by a quote saying that the man can write with his HAND. Does he have a lack of hands or not?

He probably has a prosthetic, which would have been obvious to attentive ride operators.

[larrygator]

Does he have a lack of hands or not?

 

Watch this video and decide for yourself. The park says he has no hands, he considers what he has at the end of his arms to be hands, even though he has no fingers.

 

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/323594/28/Handless-Six-Flags-customer-not-allowed-to-ride-coaster

[Wes]

Here's a screencap of his arms from that video.

[CoasterKings908]

SFOT definitely did the right thing. If only he paid attention to ride requirements, then none of this would've happened.

[simon8899]

I think SF behaves inconsistent here. They allow on many coasters that disabled from wheelchairs use their coasters. Even if those need to transfer from wheelie to coaster by themselves I guess many wouldnt be able to climb the stairs down in case of a lifthill failure. Next to that any restraint should hold the body in place if you hold on or not, at 5 Gs it would mean you'd be able to pull 500 kg if weighing 100 kg - thats just rediculous.

[Jew]

^The issue with someone that has no hands is that they do not possess the ability to properly utilize many restraints. I put ability in italics because it is the key word here. Someone in a wheelchair who can transfer, or someone who chooses to put their hands up still possesses the ability to utilize the restraint as intended (if a situation arises where one would need to actually grab on to the restraint to brace themselves).

[sfmman2000]

Another thing to note is that in the event of a lift hill evacuation, a rider with no hands would not be able to utilize the handrail when walking down the stairs.

[simon8899]

^^ In car accidents poeple who brace with there arms out have more injuries to arms and hands as even at 15 mph the forces are so great your bones just snap. Better not clinging to rails or bars in case an impact is comming up.

 

^ I'd doubt many wheelies who are - barely - able to transfer to the train would be able to climb down due to their weakened legs. But agree that using hands would help. Likely each rider will be led down by an attendant which could also grasp the stump of a forearm.

[Ed Farmer]

It's unfortunate that past occurrences have resulted in stringent policies that seem to stop them from looking at things on a case-by-case basis. In other words- what once may have fallen into a gray area and possibly could have been allowed now falls under a blanket that makes it seem like if there is any doubt, you get denied. In this case, I think it's excessive. I can see it from Six Flags' point of view, I just don't agree. It would be reasonable if both of his arms were amputated and that missing mass somehow compromised the effectiveness of the safety mechanisms a ride was designed with- but if I had to take a shot in the dark, there isn't a system that depends on a rider's fingers. I'm not familiar with how these things were designed by their respective manufacturer's, it's just speculation, and it's easy to see how this could be something to appease insurance companies, so it's unfortunate for this person.

[gromithere]

I definitely think the park made the right decision. My only question would be how consistent they are with the enforcement of the policy. As long as this is consistently enforced as it arises, I don't see an issue.

[Jew]

^^ In car accidents poeple who brace with there arms out have more injuries to arms and hands as even at 15 mph the forces are so great your bones just snap. Better not clinging to rails or bars in case an impact is comming up.

 

I don't know how a car and a roller coaster have anything to do with each other in this instance. The point of making it a requirement that you need to be able to grasp the restraint has nothing to do with the chance of two trains/cars bumping into each other.

[Sir Clinksalot]

My basic opinion on this is: If you have no hands, and the worst thing to happen to you is that you can't ride some dumb roller coaster, you're really fudging lucky.

 

THIS!!!

 

The other reasoning may have nothing at all to do with the ride itself, but evacuation procedures.

[disneyfan1313]

The biggest issue is the guy wants the safety requirement to be "grey" and for the park to go - "We feel YOU can handle this ride with what you have so we will make an exception to the rule for YOU". The park isn't going to do that because they aren't experts in what the physics of the ride can possibly do in a 100 different scenarios... the same reason why height requirements are black and white also.

[ArizonaGuy]

This is the thing about this damn country that pisses me off. We live in a country of "Entitlement". People in our country think they have the right to do anything and everything no matter the disability and that if they challenge the rules they'll get their way. Furthermore they think taking the public angle is going to get them what they want because they'll get "Awww poor guy" support from local idiots. I feel really bad that he has the disability that he has and that he has gone through what he's gone through because I'm sure life hasn't been easy but come on........there's obvious reasons and he should have the common sense to understand why he can't ride but of course thinks he should just because of the cards he was dealt. It's just like a child who isn't tall enough to ride but of course since height in most cases isn't a disability, he feels like he can challenge the rules.

 

In anycase I'm sure this is going to be one of those things that settles out of court for an undisclosed amount just because of the fact that this is what our society has become. It's sad but true.

[CoasterKings908]

You have some interesting points, and I agree with what you say.

[Ed Farmer]

This is the thing about this damn country that pisses me off. We live in a country of "Entitlement". People in our country think they have the right to do anything and everything no matter the disability and that if they challenge the rules they'll get their way. Furthermore they think taking the public angle is going to get them what they want because they'll get "Awww poor guy" support from local idiots. I feel really bad that he has the disability that he has and that he has gone through what he's gone through because I'm sure life hasn't been easy but come on........there's obvious reasons and he should have the common sense to understand why he can't ride but of course thinks he should just because of the cards he was dealt. It's just like a child who isn't tall enough to ride but of course since height in most cases isn't a disability, he feels like he can challenge the rules.

 

 

 

He hasn't had problems with riding roller coasters at Six Flags Over Texas in the past, so his reaction is understandable and doesn't seem like it's about entitlement at all.

[ArizonaGuy]

He hasn't had problems with riding roller coasters at Six Flags Over Texas in the past, so his reaction is understandable and doesn't seem like it's about entitlement at all.

 

I totally understand that previous employees let him ride before but that doesn't mean they were right in letting him do so. They obviously didn't follow procedure but that doesn't give him the right to expect them to continue to let him ride. As I said before "I'm entitled to ride even though it's against the rules because I did it before."

 

As posted before by others, Six Flags needs to do a better job of enforcing the rules 100% all the time that way there's not this "I was able to ride last time b.s. that people pull."

[Skycoastin Steve]

He should have cut his legs off, then maybe they would have let him ride.

[DBru]

Remembering the incident at Darien Lake last year, I would say SFOT did the right thing.

 

I just feel like this is a COMPLETELY different situation. The Superman accident involved a man who had had his legs amputated above the knee. In this Texas Giant case, the man was simply without fingers.

 

The restraint systems for both coasters are mainly composed of lap bars. It seems obvious to me that the man's lack of legs on Superman would compromise his safety...but a lack of fingers on Texas Giant? Not so much.

 

I agree that the park made the SAFE decision...but I'm not so positive it was the necessary one.

[Hilltopper39]

He should have cut his legs off, then maybe they would have let him ride.

 

That's a little below the belt, literally

[Wes]

^ We should all have to show our hand before we start pointing fingers.

[BeemerBoy]

The only winners here are the lawyers, who will easily be making money hand over fist.

[ernierocker]

In this Texas Giant case, the man was simply without fingers.

 

 

Did you fail anatomy? Last time I checked my hands, there was more than just fingers. He was without hands. The ride has a rule that the rider must have the ability to grasp. Sure, he has adapted to where he can grasp things with the bones in his arm and his nub, but the park is viewing the rules in black and white. He doesn't have hands, he isn't going to be able to grasp the lap bar. And remember, this isn't just the park here. It is also ride manufacturer policy.

Edited June 14, 2012 by ernierocker