SeaWorld Orlando

Engage with like-minded members and discuss the world of theme parks and attractions here.
Post Reply
User avatar
BSwiss
Member
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:46 pm

Push come to shove, if it were me in the ride hosts position and there was no clear definitive answer in the training I'd been given or whatever accompanying information the manufacturer had produced alongside the ride, I wouldn't allow the guest to ride.

Yes, it's a 0.1% chance that anything harmful should happen to her but at the end of the day, safety is paramount. Above inconvenience, above embarrassment. They are denying her a 1 minute ride, not something that will radically alter her life for the better.
User avatar
AWTSW90
Member
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:03 pm
Location: West Midlands
Contact:

BSwiss wrote: Push come to shove, if it were me in the ride hosts position and there was no clear definitive answer in the training I'd been given or whatever accompanying information the manufacturer had produced alongside the ride, I wouldn't allow the guest to ride.

Yes, it's a 0.1% chance that anything harmful should happen to her but at the end of the day, safety is paramount. Above inconvenience, above embarrassment. They are denying her a 1 minute ride, not something that will radically alter her life for the better.
Just to add to this, in the case of Alton Towers, there certainly is definitive training that states guests must hold on (Obviously this depends on the attraction, but certainly on the coasters, this is the case)
I just so happen to have a copy of Thirteens code of safe working practice to hand, and in section 3.0 'Ride Restrictions' it states 'The ride is not suitable for guests with amputated limbs or similar impairments who cannot hold a normal sitting position.', 'Guests who are unable to use the lap bar/grip the lap bar or are not securely held by the lap bar must not ride.' and 'Guests must remain seated at all times and hold on tight.'
The restrictions in the COSWP are directly taken from the ride manual provided by the manufacturer.

I am aware not all of these restrictions directly apply to this exact situation, but have included all of the basic restrictions related to disabilities as they have some relevance to the topic at hand.

Now I must admit I found it surprising at first that guests are required to hold on whilst riding Thirteen as it seems the ride is designed specifically to be ridden with the upper body free from restraint, however this just goes to show that the parks and manufacturers cover themselves from every angle. All the park has to do is state that a guest must hold on in the small print of one of the rides signs (And you will be able to find this somewhere around all of the coasters) then if an incident occurs, the park can point out the sign and it instantly becomes the guests fault for not adhering to the rides restrictions. The downside of this is that anyone who is physically unable to adhere to these restrictions cannot ride and there is very little that can be done about this.

It's an unfortunate cycle, the parks make exceptions and allow a bit more freedom, people sue the parks for not keeping them safe, the parks put restrictions in place to prevent this, people sue the parks for keeping them safe.

EDIT: Just a further quote from the COSWP to demonstrate the restrictions placed upon disabled guests
Section 5.0 'Disabled Passengers (Restrictions/Loading/Unloading/Evactuation)'

'In order to ride Th13teen, disabled guests must be able to sit upright unaided and be able to brace themselves against the forces generated during the ride.

Guests must have full use of at least three working limbs i.e. (one-leg two arms or two legs and one arm).'

So if the guest had had one hand, she would have been able to ride. Ride restrictions are made very clear, but can be a little complicated at times  :P
Last edited by AWTSW90 on Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Coaster_Dude
Member
Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 1:32 am
Location: Cheshire

I'm on the side of the park here as well. I'm sure it wasn't fun for the girl to experience but from the perspective of the ride staff, they know the rules - which for that park are that you have to be able to hold on with at least one hand - and they know that she would break the rules. At the end of the day, you can't start making exceptions for some rules and not others. I'd certainly hope that the staff handled the situation as delicately and politely as they could, but I can't find fault in the decision. As someone said earlier in this thread, the 'I've already been on it before without problem' is the first argument we've all heard when there's a dispute about a riders height but it's down to that ride host, if you're too short you're too short.
User avatar
BigAl
Member
Member
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:00 am
Location: South East Cheshire
Contact:

Rob wrote:
BigAl wrote:I want to go on the Driving School at Alton Towers but I'm not allowed to because I'm too tall. Is that Alton Towers/Merlin being heightist? Just because I'm taller and older than the average rider doesn't mean I can't drive one of the cars around.
That is a ridiculous thing to say and is completely different. The Driving School cars are designed for children which I am sure you fully well know, not adults.

:)
That was the point. It isn't different as it's another rule for another ride. Also, let's say I'm 1cm too tall to ride Th13teen. It's still unlikely that they would let me ride as that is a rule. The height limit doesn't mean that anyone over by 1mm will have their head taken off going backwards, it's to cover them as something could happen. The same applies here. Although a park and manufacturer can make rules based on previous incidents, they must also create rules to prevent things that haven't yet happened that could, should they choose to be lenient. If parks and manufacturers see riders without hands for certain rides being a health and safety risk then they will act. They must act. If they don't and something does go wrong then they would suffer much greater damage than paying out some money to a disgruntled guest.

:)
Last edited by BigAl on Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nightfall
Member
Member
Posts: 2195
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:10 am
Location: Cambridge

damos1 wrote: I think we all have to also look at do we all actualy hold on when we get told to? I doubt it...

Also many rollercoasters promote themselves with pictures of guests waving their arms in the air...?

Th13teen I believe tells people to hold on? But posters were made with arms in the air on the drop section?

But rollercoasters nearly always say hold on?!?  :roll:
But I don't think the rule is that you have to always be holding on. There’s no way you can enforce that strict a rule. It’s a legal requirement that a driver keeps both hands on the wheel at all times (except for gear changes ect.) but even that gets disobeyed.
In this case the rule is in place to ensure that if there is a time when you need to brace you should be holding on.

Personally I think in the case of most rides a double amputee should be allowed on. Certainly in the case of Th13teen were the lap bar isn’t exactly made for gripping anyway. As for evacuation this person is not a cripple and if they’re considered safe to use fire exits they should also be safe to use evacuation lifts.
However it’s not as simple as that. While most double amputees will have found a way to adapt the park would be unwise to take their word for it In case they're lying. I know someone who’s lost a hand and they have a set of hook like grips for continuing their work in a science lab. Surely something like that would be deemed an acceptable replacement? I thought it would be common place for anyone missing a limb to have a replacement like this.
[align=center]Image[/align]
User avatar
ponder
Member
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Nr Colchester, Essex
Contact:

I'm also on Seaworld's side here. Their ride team were clearly just adhering to the guidelines put in place by the manufacturer or showing compliance to the State's health and safety legislation. I don't see how discrimination comes in to it, as there is absolutely no benefit for Seaworld in discriminating against one of their patrons. Had they not aloud her to ride and then mocked her or something, then fair enough, but to me it looks like a straight forward, albeit unfortunate, case of following the guidelines to the letter.

Of greater concern for me is the fact that she was aloud to ride before (although we're taking her / her family's word for that). That shows a real lack of consistency in how the ride operators are interpreting the guidelines, which I would see as a case for re-training.
Image

Loop - Roller coaster and Theme Park inspired T-shirts
http://looptees.com / https://www.facebook.com/looptps
User avatar
BigAl
Member
Member
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:00 am
Location: South East Cheshire
Contact:

AstwoDan wrote: Let's be honest about this though.

Alton should clearly have "Adult Hour" on the Driving School, when larger, saloon cars take to the stage.
^ This! :yes:

:lol:

Should the title of this topic not be altered to something a little less impartial? Some people on here think it's shocking but many more think otherwise. Just a thought.
Craig

As others have said, I don't believe it to be Seaworld's fault, merely park staff following ride manufacturer's guidelines.  I don't see Seaworld as the issue here, more perhaps a case of more consideration being given to disabled guests when ride manufacturers publish their guidelines.

As for her riding before, that certainly may be the case.  Pure speculation of course, but perhaps she rode the ride before the whole American serviceman incident where the guy died.  Perhaps a tightening of rules took place then where the common sense approach from ride staff was removed and they were told to follow ride manufacturers guidelines to the letter?

Either way, and as an aside to the main issue here, yet again we see the threat of litigation toward a theme park.  I would perhaps be more sympathetic to their position if it were not for them trying to sue the backside of the company involved rather than just genuinely raise what is a very important issue for disabled theme park visitors.
Blaze

I bet anyone here, in the ride op's shoes, would have done the exact same thing. Sure, it's easy to say here that it was unfair and without decent grounds, but if you were actually there, where you have to make a split second decision, where you can't spend a while thinking about it, and where your career is on the line, with a possible prison sentance if something goes wrong, you'd all stop her riding.

In these situations, if the ride-op is even slightly unsure about letting someone on, they should stop them.
User avatar
themealgang
Member
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:24 pm

Truly shocking, and shame on SeaWorld penalising someone with a disability considering the ethic that their park tries to adopt. I really hope that the family get what they deserve from this...
Last edited by themealgang on Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Blaze

What do they 'deserve'? A ride-op decided that a guest was unsuitable to ride on the grounds of their personal safety. Give them a free trip and a fastpass to make up for having to queue for a ride they can't go on and that's it.

It's the park's choice who rides and who doesn't. They had a genuine reason to stop her.
User avatar
BigAl
Member
Member
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:00 am
Location: South East Cheshire
Contact:

themealgang wrote: Truly shocking, and shame on SeaWorld penalising someone with a disability considering the ethic that their park tries to adopt. I really hope that the family get what they deserve from this...
The park owes them nothing. If she'd died or been injured after following all of their rules, then maybe. But all that happened was she was refuse to go on a ride because the ride operator deemed her unfit to ride according to official guidelines. Just one ride. It's not just Seaworld that have regulations; all parks have them.

They can't make acceptions. It's up to ride operators to strictly follow these guidelines. The guidelines were already in place when she apparently first went on the ride and the operators should have stopped her from riding then as this now wouldn't be happening. It's a true shame that she can't go on certain rides. It must be awful to not be able to do some things that most take for granted and I can't imagine what she must feel when things like this happen, but it's not the park or manufacturers who are at fault here, it was the operators who initially allowed her to ride. The park needs to attempt to find out who initially let her on to the ride in the first place so that action can be taken against them. They then need to re-train these employees or find suitable recruits that are able to operate a ride properly.

To prevent things like this happening with new rides, manufacturers and parks would have to reassess their rules and possibly make improvements to designs in order to accommodate a slightly wider range of people. But it's a very small percentile that get rejected and it's for legitimate reasons. Manufacturers can only modify designs so far before they become unrealistic, poor value for money and too complex whic leads to more susceptible to technological malfunctions. They need to think about what's more cost effective as well; make a ride suitable for anyone to ride by adding many, many expensive features which use up more space and risk loosing more customers, or, make a ride that is easier for more parks to afford, which the majority of the public can ride, more simplified to run and is practical?

Not the best example, but here goes...

Think of a leather belt being designed for a company to sell in your local store. The designer of this belt wants as many people to be able to purchase and wear the belt as possible. Unfortunately, some people will have a waist which is too large or too small for this belt to loop around. These are the 5th and 95th percentile areas. A designer can make the belt suitable for most people without affecting the price, or, make modifications to that design which make the belt far too expensive, impractical and/or not very aesthetically pleasing. These would have a negative impact on the sales of this product.

Go back to the theme park ride. The ride is a product which has been sold to the theme park. This ride is there to make money for the business that runs the theme park to keep it going. Unfortunately, to make the most of this ride, some people have to be rejected as it may not be safe for them. You may be wondering how is this fair and how does this link with safety? If a manufacturer can sell more products by only making the rides to a certain specification (which means some are unfortunately left out) then they will do so. Not every product is suitable for everyone and that is a sad but true fact of life. The manufacturer needs to make products which will appeal to all areas of a park and a park will only install rides which can make them money. If a park was only able to have rides where catwalks were wide enough for wheel chair access, seats were wide enough to fit even the largest of guests, ride layouts were as such that there was no extreme forces to brace against, etc, then their line-up would be insignificant and not attract people to the attraction in the first place.

Safety, practicality and cost are all priority when making a ride. If a certain demographic can't ride the ride because it is unsafe for them as the ride in question wasn't possible to manufacture in a practical manner for all guests then the park cannot bend safety regulations that were set with that specific ride and risk something going wrong. Certain rides can be made in a way that anyone can ride, but there are certain rides where conditions are such that only certain people can ride as it isn't possible to build the ride to accommodate everyone and have the same experience. New technology which is more safe and efficient may not have this same problem but existing rides that were built to suit the most riders possible at the time without making the ride a safety risk face this.

A different example: If you're too small for Nemesis but were once let through because the ride operator didn't check your height, it doesn't mean that you can try your luck again and expect the same outcome. Nemesis could have been made to suit the smallest guests, but that would have meant that different sized restraints, seats, mechanisms, lifting platform sections would need to have been developed and that wouldn't have been cost effective for Alton Towers and may have affected the look of the ride, as well as make it more susceptible to things going wrong with it. It is instead made so that certain people can fit the ride and people who ride must be able to follow the safety guidelines so that the ride doesn't pose a risk to them or anyone/anything else.
User avatar
ponder
Member
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Nr Colchester, Essex
Contact:

BigAl wrote:

The park owes them nothing. If she'd died or been injured after following all of their rules, then maybe. But all that happened was she was refuse to go on a ride because the ride operator deemed her unfit to ride according to official guidelines. Just one ride. It's not just Seaworld that have regulations; all parks have them.

They can't make acceptions. It's up to ride operators to strictly follow these guidelines. The guidelines were already in place when she apparently first went on the ride and the operators should have stopped her from riding then as this now wouldn't be happening. It's a true shame that she can't go on certain rides. It must be awful to not be able to do some things that most take for granted and I can't imagine what she must feel when things like this happen, but it's not the park or manufacturers who are at fault here, it was the operators who initially allowed her to ride. The park needs to attempt to find out who initially let her on to the ride in the first place so that action can be taken against them. They then need to re-train these employees or find suitable recruits that are able to operate a ride properly.
Indeed, and it's also worth mentioning that the original posts states that she was also removed from the Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey queue-line for the same reason. The fact that 2 different parks, owned by 2 different companies have decided that it may be unsafe for her to ride clearly demonstrates that it's not just 1 ride-op discriminating or trying to be difficult, they're just adhering to the safety rules as they interpret them.
Image

Loop - Roller coaster and Theme Park inspired T-shirts
http://looptees.com / https://www.facebook.com/looptps
Sazzle

I think this debate has raised a rather important issue - where do you draw the line at stopping a person with a disability from riding an attraction that requires them to brace themselves.

I wouldn't say that hands make ANY difference - try it on Rita or Nemesis when you're next on park and I am fairly certain that simply by tightly gripping the restraint by crossing your arms, you'd do the same job as using your hands. Remember that this young girl has shoulders, elbows and limbs as far as (presumably!) her wrist. Having no arms would, of course, present a different set of circumstances, but that's not the case in question here.

Having no lap on a coaster that relies on your legs as a functional part of keeping you safe... well.. duh. There's no excuse for that stupidity!

I am fully aware of what the COSWP for many of the rides states, and that their guidance is handed down from the manufacturers, but does a guest really need to 'hold on', and how exactly is that defined? Unless this COSWP states "using fingers, wrapped around the appropriate part of the restraint", then the matter is open for interpretation!
User avatar
AWTSW90
Member
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:03 pm
Location: West Midlands
Contact:

I personally don't think the girl would have been at any risk had she ridden, and the ride operator at the time probably didn't believe she'd be at risk. But the girl herself is exactly the type of person that is preventing her from being able to ride. If people weren't so quick to sue, then rules could occasionally be bent based on the specific situation. As it happens, she is suing because she is not allowed on, and i'm pretty sure if she had been allowed on and injured herself (Kraken as i'm sure many are aware, is a very forceful coaster. I found it difficult not to bang my head even when held on tight!) she would be just as quick to sue. And at the end of the day, a park will never win. Every decision will be met with criticism.
User avatar
BigAl
Member
Member
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:00 am
Location: South East Cheshire
Contact:

Looks like Seaworld has come under fire once more, but for a very different reason:


"Update: PETA Complains Shamu Is A Slave"
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment - (2/8/12) In a shocking headline, not only did PETA file a complaint that SeaWorld is violating the 13th Amendment rights of killer whales, but according to MSNBC, the judge heard the case on Monday and did not dismiss it yet, instead taking it under submission. No timeline has been set for when he will send PETA his decision, though SeaWorld has requested to have the case dismissed as the 13th Amendment was created for the abolishment of human slavery by President Lincoln back in 1865.
(from Screamscape)
Last edited by BigAl on Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nightfall
Member
Member
Posts: 2195
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:10 am
Location: Cambridge

PETA you say. May I direct you to this video:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/4988-Skin-Game

Also In making this response I typed in PETA to google and all you get is a bunch of half naked poses with animals. They like getting attention; SeaWorld knows this and have probably had dealings with them many times before. This story has as much weight as a Merlin publicity stunt.
[align=center]Image[/align]
User avatar
ponder
Member
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:38 pm
Location: Nr Colchester, Essex
Contact:

To be honest, I do think Seaworld tread a very fine line between animal protection and captivity. I certainly didn't feel particularly comfortable with the way the dolphins were kept at Discovery Cove. They all appeared to be very 'worked'.
Image

Loop - Roller coaster and Theme Park inspired T-shirts
http://looptees.com / https://www.facebook.com/looptps
Rowe

SeaWorld Sued for Killer Whale Slavery

Here's a similar article to what BigAl's just put...
Five killer whales have been named as the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against SeaWorld.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA) filed the lawsuit with a US court, arguing that the "enslaved" orcas deserve the same treatment as humans.

The historic case marks the first occasion where a judge has been asked to consider whether animals should be given the same constitutional protection as people.

SeaWorld's legal representatives have rejected the notion that its marine animals are entitled to such legal rights. "Neither orcas nor any other animal were included in the 'We the people'... when the Constitution was adopted," said lawyer Theodore Shaw.

Shaw went on to say that if PETA is successful in its campaign, the judge's ruling could have implications on the use of animals in other contexts, such as police sniffer dogs.

PETA acknowledged that the whales are unlikely to be released from captivity, but its campaigners are celebrating the fact that the case will be heard by a judge.

"For the first time in our nation's history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human," said Jeffrey Kerr, the lawyer representing the whales.

"By any definition these orcas have been enslaved here."

PETA names the captive orcas as Tilikum and Katina at SeaWorld Orlando, plus Kasatka, Corky and Ulises at SeaWorld San Diego.

Tilikum caused a media stir in 2010 when he drowned his trainer in front of spectators, leading to a ban on the park's employees from entering the water with the whales.

US District Judge Jeffrey Miller, who is overseeing the case, expressed concerns about whether animals could be legally represented as plaintiffs. He will deliver his verdict at a later date.
DiogoJ42

](*,)

...too...many...retards...on...earth...
Post Reply