DaptoFunlandGuy

So you're all wrong - it had nothing to do with Dreamworld's password being compromised... or any other page for that matter. A simple glitch in FACEBOOK itself led to the issue. After the news broke and people were going nuts, i tracked the offer down to see what it was all about. Because I 'took the offer', facebook followed up with a nice little email - attached below:

Hi Ben, Being a former sydney sider myself, i've made the odd trek to LPS. The unlimited rides pass usually does work out the best value if you plan to ride everything. You may want to do the wild mouse more than once (the views are great, plus you can try out different 'poses' on the on-ride camera. School holidays are the best time to go because they have additional rides shipped in (although most cost extra). If you want to avoid the crowd and do it all as quick as you can, a weekday afternoon evening is the better time to go, but be prepared for some things to be closed alternating. In most cases, an ordinary weekend crowd won't make the day any worse - usually queue times don't exceed one or two cycles, even for the most popular of attractions. Have fun!

CHANGED - yes. but it was still a destination. So what? they had planned to move the entrance into a position likely to see more traffic - that makes sense... I understand the point YOU'RE trying to get across - but I don't think you're understanding mine. Wet N Wild sydney is being constructed on vacant land. It isn't adjoining another existing attraction. It isn't hinging on an 'expansion' of an existing product - it is being built from scratch. the proposed ASW was going to adjoin an existing attraction (albeit in a different class), and capitalise on the facilities and attractions already there by building similarly themed attractions to make it a better destination. Built from scratch <-----> adjoin existing.... two different things.

Where exactly is this mirror on the floor you speak of?

I think it's safe to conclude that it won't be completed, since they haven't started work on anything yet, and are obviously focussing their attention on Justice League, having already installed a new attraction at SW in Dino Island.

Grammar* I believe GL makes up for whatever loss of speed it may have by the fact that it is 4 abreast seating, so you can have an experience of 'floorlessness'. The effect also gives rise to more interesting forces going around those corners, and perhaps needs to be slower for that reason. Cruise - I think you may just want to take the line of 'agree to disagree'. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personally I think you're wrong as well, but you're obviously set in your frame of mind, so there's no point spouting the same argument (both ways) for days on end. Especially since this is supposed to be an 'international' additions thread - how bout we all move on, hey?

Just to add to the previous discussion - I have from a very reliable source that persons associated with Viper's original manufacturer were called upon to inspect Viper's issues - and the conclusion was that it was not economically viable to repair. Apparently, Maintenance supported this decision, and wanted it removed as too costly to maintain. Management overruled this, and elected to have the repairs done, despite the overwhelming costs. No - my source is not a member of this forum, and no I won't reveal who they are - but yes, they are EXTREMELY reliable in all this. All I say is Kudos to management for investing in an icon, despite the economic advice to the contrary. See? not always just out there to save a buck make a buck....

I'm pretty sure that's what I said. Werribee Zoo was an existing product (already a destination) and add a massive themepark to it (this was just adding to an existing product) Thereby - ASW was a different concept to WnWs - because WnWs did not have an existing tourist attraction in place, that they added onto and improved... it's a brand new product in a location not previously a destination.

ASW was a different concept. It was already a destination as a Zoo... this was just adding to an existing product. WnW (as I said earlier) is the exception to the rule, as Water Parks are cheaper entry, and (although seasonal) are far more popular than a dry park, particularly in the summer months. You could stick one in Darwin and have it be popular - which is why I said water parks are the exception to the rule. Why on earth do you think Jamberoo moved away from the traditional action park, into more of a water park (with toboggans)? Water parks are more viable, cheaper to run, cheaper to install new attractions - less risk involved.

I'm sure she saw the signage, looked at it, and 'decided' not to read it. Chances are, with a brand new ride - her eyes were locked onto the loops watching people come down, and she never saw it? Her claim states that she was injured, both physically and mentally.

It's not him - it's you. You did the same thing to me in the aqualoop thread.

Well to be honest, both state and federal governments have grants programs that can be applied to. I'm sure, given the sensitivities that the government shows towards indigenous culture, that a grants program along the lines of education and promotion of indigenous culture would exist. I'm also sure that an application proposing development of a tourist attraction both promoting and educating people about indigenous culture would be successful in its application for such a grant. The point is - when it comes to grants - there are organisations out there whose sole purpose is to assist people in preparing grants applications. In a volunteer organisation I work with, they wanted to build a kitchen - and applied for a grant from the local council as they had only a fridge, sink and microwave in a very hodge-podge fashion. Council knocked them back. In a recent presentation night, members of the council were invited, and served cold food, with little preparation. The kitchen was approved the next day. Any interested person can get information about the grants handed out by state or federal government by going to the right sources... at the end of the day, the majority of australians elected the current government, and therefore - the decisions made by them can be either liked, or lumped.

I agree they'd end up with more overall visitors in the end, but consider that most interstate families will trek to the gold coast, and visitors to Aus, while most land in Sydney, do end up with a stopover in or around the gold coast too - sure there are some that dont, but I guess what i'm saying is that while there may be a natural increase in visitors by adding another gate - would the increased numbers (where some of those increases come from decreases to the other parks in the family) viably support another park? We don't have the population for it... Water Parks of course being the exception to the rule.

Well since this is about a legal case - one in which liability needs to be determined (or not) I would say that this entire discussion is one based around legality. You can call it a ridiculous charge if you want - but at the end of the day it will be up to the judge (or jury) to determine what is ridiculous. The decision handed down will be a determination by 'reasonable persons' view of the situation - and a reasonable person may just determine that it isn't as ridiculous as you claim.

Eureka stood for at least 12 months, and then disappeared off the park maps and maintenance schedules. The only reason we know that it was a safety issue was because months down the track, someone emailed Dreamworld PR and that was the answer given. Why should a park explain why they do something? It's their park... if it proves universally unpopular, the gates will tell them, and they'll change it.

I may be wrong - but the last time I used the '1 hour only' lockers - you didn't have the option of re-entry and keeping the locker hire. I thought the re-entry option was only open to all-day locker hire?

it's called 'dreamworld fanboy syndrome'. There is a similar condition known as 'VRTP fanboy syndrome' also. People are entitled to their preferences... the negativity when the parks do something fantastic is wearing a bit thin though.

Then tell me why coaster attendants tell you verbally over the PA to keep your head back, and hold onto the grab bars etc....? Because it is well known that guests check their brains at the gate, and don't read shit. They only have to make an argument that the bright, colourful signage didn't convey the seriousness of the message, and that it wasn't noticed for that reason... you spend every day reading through court judgments, decision documents, rulings, etc, and you'll understand what i mean. Just because it's logical, doesn't mean it's legal.

I agree jjutp... I was going to say the exact same thing. Expansion into other areas of Australia is problematic because building there will take local interstate visitors away from the gold coast parks. By building in another destination, you're securing local visitors in another area - thereby increasing your gate, rather than dividing it. the US, Asia and China specifically, are markets that VRTP need to tap into. We could see the VRTP chain as recognisable as Six Flags or Universal or Disney. Naturally, the 'calibre' would be lower, but expanding their market reach further outside australia, in a partnership with another australian company, will see more money come into the parent company... and that can only mean good news for our local parks. Consider VRTP having enough parks around the world that an attraction sharing process similar to Six Flags could occur - instead of buying a semi-spectacular coaster for a park and needing it to anchor the park for 10+ years, VRTP could acquire a spectacular, world class attraction, and rotate it through their parks every two years or so... It can only mean good news... after the initial investments anyhow... I also notice that reference is made to investors like the local governments of the region - this is similar to Disney's arrangements in Hong Kong, Universal's in singapore etc... and is obviously a great way to expand....

Anyone for an independant verification...? maybe pics that have something identifiably 'dreamworld' in the background???

And anyone who's been in a courtroom during a liability proceeding can tell you that what the judge considers to be 'adequate' signage may be different to your interpretation of it.

LOL ^^^ I had that feeling when I rode Canopy Flyers too. a short coaster, but some awesome experience packed into those few short moments...

Yes, but her claim isn't that she COULD have been injured, it's that she was AFRAID of being injured - because she was unaware that the slide has a built in safety system. It's not a matter of the staff halting the attraction - the dispatch system physically won't allow another rider to be launched whilst there is still a rider in the tube - it has a 'block' system built into it - this is what all the conduits are running all over the place. Her claim goes further that BECAUSE she didn't know there was a built in safety mechanism, she was fearful someone would come down on top of her, and due to that, she hauled herself out by her arm, causing injury, rather than calmly pushing the door open and standing up. The whole basis for her claim is that WnW should have appropriate and adequate signage, or staff instruction informing riders that they may not make it around the loop, and what will happen in the event that they do not complete the loop. Don't misunderstand me - I don't support the claim, and Bemaniak is right in saying that the whole 'no suing us, even if we're negligent' statements in the terms and conditions of entry aren't legally enforceable. A contract (which the conditions of entry are) cannot exclude your rights that are applicable under the law - and the law says you have the right to sue for damages in the event that someone's negligence has caused you a loss. I wouldn't say that it's there because of 'really really dumb' people, but by making those statements, they are providing a 'blanket' statement that they aren't liable for any loss, injury or damage, however caused (unless specifically required by law). While it may not include the bracketed statement, you will find somewhere in the fine print that none of the conditions can preclude anything that you are legally entitled to. By providing the blanket, they're effectively ruling out any other possibilities, except those that you're legally entitled to. Having said that, i've seen a few details about the case, and it isn't as open and shut as it would seem. There is a possibility that she will win. The burden of proof for what she is claiming is mainly in how she 'felt'. If she truly 'felt' the way she claims to (which is open to interpretation by a bunch of psychologists psychiatrists), she may succeed.

Kujotess, I want to know more about you. I get the impression you're female, and about 12-15 years old. That isn't intended to be an insult, and I apologise if my impression is incorrect, but it's just how you behave. First of all - what people love about roller coasters varies. If you go back and read some of the older threads on here about 'truly' good woodies, you will see that many people expect woodies to be a little rough, fast and 'out of control'. It's the adrenaline, the thrill that makes them so great. Steel coasters are (mostly) smooth, and they give thrills by quick segways and inversions or high speed. Woodies are more about the 'unstable, out of control' feeling - the feeling that you could fall out, that you're thrown about like a rag doll, all whilst remaining perfectly safe. You have obviously never ridden a wooden coaster - so until you actually have - your opinions are baseless. So shut up. ]

Thanks Joz. knew someone else would remember...