webslave

I can totally see how the park is designed to be total escape in-mind, but let's not romanticise it too much. The place is seemingly perpetually crowded, and with that you get a front-row seat to some of the worst human behaviour I've seen at theme parks. People faking disabilities for front of line passes, people arriving as early as possible to get mobility scooters because they want to (and I quote) "ride in style". More prams than I've ever seen in a single place ​with accompanying parents who can't seem to manoeuvre them to-boot. And the lines; surely they can't go without mention given the ratio of your time you'll spend waiting in line relative to anything else you'll do in the park combined exceeds 1:1. Around every corner there seems to be some sort of shop. That's the bad, of course - the good (and there is plenty of it) is that it's probably one of the most lushly themed places you'll go. The rides each (for the most part) in their own way push the boundaries of themeing and the emphasis put in by the park on immersion is quite a thing to behold. The shows put on by the park are in my experience several steps above its nearest competitors. The place screams production values. There's a sense of history there, although some would wonder if nostalgia holds the park back today in some aspects. It's also got quite a bit of depth if you go looking for it - there's a lot of hidden detail and backstory that you can really only learn about online. If you do this research you'll be rewarded with an even better experience. It wouldn't be fair to say that I didn't like Disneyland and DCA, but given the last time I was there was around four years ago will I go again in a couple of months when I'm in the area? No, I won't. My younger brother is keen, and I have considered doing a day with him where I can take him through some of the cooler things he may miss, but if it were my wife and I alone? No, we'd wait for our son to grow up a little more first. Come to think of it that's one of the paradoxes the park presents; what is the best age to take a child? There's little doubt in my mind that Disneyland is best experienced through the eyes of your own child on their first visit, but what age should you do that at? There's some great rides for the younger kids, but then you wonder whether you really want to be missing out on things like Space Mountain, or Big Thunder. You could wait until they are a little older, but at some point the Disney thing wears off (especially for boys), so you have to hope you catch it in the middle where they are old enough to ride anything but still adore Disney. In truth as much as I appreciated the production values of Disney I had a better time at Six Flags Magic Mountain. The place was like a roller-coaster trade show, showcasing designs and technology that we will seldom if ever see in Australia. Disney is the type of thing you simply have to do at least once in your lifetime though - if for no other reason than to say you've done it. The choice for me now comes down to on-ride experience or immersion/themeing. I'm fairly comfortable saying that for me that choice comes down to a ratio of 2:1 - for every two times I'd visit SFMM I'd visit Disney once. Edit: And as for the Haunted Mansion - I didn't mind it. Again, I appreciated the very elaborate themeing and the scale of it, and the attempts to reach more than just the sight and sound receptors. As for Pirates of the Caribbean? The movie does nothing for me, so the story is pretty much lost on me. I liked at one stage early in the ride travelling past the cafe as part of the night-time scene, as I was momentarily legitimately fooled that it was night-time. As for the rest? A higher budget LTRR as far as I cared, without any of the fun or suspense.

Couldn't agree more, Richard. Put it better than I did.

Actually, it's more akin to selling your house at auction and taking the appliances with you when you move out. What's important here is what a reasonable guest believes they will get from a visit to the park versus what they actually get. Terms and Conditions are lovely, but they are not law, and don't even have to pass an enforceable test to exist - there's little point citing them. Next time your Qantas flight doesn't have IFE or Meals when they have advertised otherwise ask for compensation - I've done it before and you get it every single time. That's at the very least good corporate citizenship. That's why when you go to the movies and the power fails you will be given an opportunity to revisit at no extra charge. You're painting a pretty good picture here of a guy who seems to believe terms and conditions are immutable and theme parks can do no wrong, and has a fixation on the same. I'm sure there's a condition that covers that...

I'd visit Disney World if I was over there, but I wouldn't go out of my way to fly to Florida for it.

Nah. First thing we did in the park was line up for a photo with Mickey. Don't get me wrong - the park itself is really great, but with a couple of exceptions the rides just didn't have me coming away saying "that was exceptionally cool". RSR is one that did, for example.

I hear you on that - did both SoCal Disney parks a couple of years ago. To sum up; Indiana Jones: Down for maintenance, but heard it was good. Space Mountain: Good but nothing special; had the Halloween overlay on it which I think ruined the effect. Splash Mountain: Complete waste of time to ride. Jump on board a log and travel through a cave full of old-world animatronics that shriek incomprehensibly at you. Big Thunder Mountain: A fairly good coaster, but hardly a world-beater. Themeing is nice, but not sure how much you care as you whip by it quickly. Pirates of the Caribbean: Thought I got lucky when there wasn't much of a line for this. I was wrong. Most boring five minutes of my life. I honestly looked for ways I could get off the boat early because I felt so annoyed that I was stuck on this thing when I could be doing something better. Radiator Springs Racers: Legitimately a technical marvel - well worth it. California Screamin: Quite a good coaster that is underpinned by a suitable soundtrack. Tower of Terror: Okay, but nothing overly special. Soarin Over California: Worth riding as it's something fairly unique and quite relaxing. Grizzly River Run: No better or worse than most river rides you'll have been on. World of Colour: A magnificent show well worth your time. Fantasmic: An unexpectedly brilliant show. Equally worthy of your time. Main Street Fireworks: Well... they are fireworks. Seen fireworks before? You've probably seen this. The Matterhorn: Nothing too special - not in the same league as Space Mountain, for example. With this type of ride line-up most parks would flop, but the difference is the level of detailing put into each, usually through combination of soundtrack and scenery. The park is visually beautiful, if somewhat spoiled by the hordes roaming through it at any given moment. If you are the type of person who appreciates fine detail, scenery and immersion you'll like it. If you spend a bit of time learning some of the back-story before you attend you'll get a lot more out of it.

​I knew I'd get a bite out of you. When you arrive at a theme park you expect as a general punter that you'll get a full day out of the park, but we know MW isn't that when those attractions are all down at the same time. When you are charging full price you should be offering the full service. People may swallow it with an attraction or two out of action, but others won't - anything more than that and you'll increase the number of perturbed customers. I agree - you (generally) can't help unplanned faults, but similarly you also can't justify not compensating customers for that. If you book an international flight with a meal service and they can't serve due to a technical fault you have a reasonable expectation of being provided with a credit. If you're in a cab and it breaks down on the way to your destination it's unlikely that you'd have to pay, let alone pay the price you'd have paid if you travelled the whole way to the destination. Movieworld's reliability woes should not be the customer's problem. As for nobody paying $80/ea when VIP passes exist? I can forecast plenty do. They wouldn't be members here, so I'd suspect you probably wouldn't come into contact with them regularly.

I don't blame 'em. The park trying to justify it as a safety issue misses the point - people are paying full whack for entry to a park that isn't operating all of the attractions they advertise.

I'm fairly sure the protocol on, say, Space Mountain is that a staff member has to walk each zone and then contact tower to report the zone clear. It then requires the staff member to press and hold (dead-man) a block release button whilst the tower does likewise whilst also announcing over the internal public address system that the zone is being released. What will be interesting to see is whether this was an operator oversight in erroneously releasing a car into a block that was not clear, whether the system autonomously did so, whether the ride system reported (or was capable of reporting) the block clear, or whether it was a combination of the operator making an error and the system failing to prevent the error.

Yeah, railway style. One potential problem is likely to be that most units use laminated/polyurethane wheels and painted tracks which is likely to present a problem for track circuiting. I know it's almost universally photoelectric cells but had wondered. Track circuiting is generally considered to be a more fail-safe detection technology, although it depends on the application.

Is anyone aware of any roller coasters that use track circuit protection systems?

Your knowledge of the laws of trespass (as a criminal matter) are a little rusty. Trespass covers entry onto the property, and does not provide for exclusions of 'out of bounds' areas. Trespass as criminal law also has no relationship to safety. Didn't you get burned on this last time when you were claiming that Parkz needed to act at the behest of the park only to have practically everything you said debunked? Yeah, that again.

Generally not everyone has the same fixation on the rules of a private company (ie; not laws) and an individual's actions that in no way affect you, or your safety, or the safety of others. How does it affect you whether he posts pictures in the context of a discussion and how he obtained them? That's aspy stuff right there.

I still for the life of me can't work out why anyone on here continues to appoint themselves enforcer of a park's rules. That's up to the park.

I have the right gear to convert off those for free if the need be. Happy for you to post it to me,

The tape doesn't look like the smaller one in this image, does it? http://www.pro8mm.com/Merchant5/graphics/00000001/VHS-S-VHS-S-VHS-C-comp-650.jpg

See, thing is I think the growth of internet usage has revealed that there are many among us who many would term hyper-sensitive. If you ask me - and few people do - I think there's a portion of people who now think that being offended is meaningful. I'm not sure why this is, but it's growing by the day. The worst part to me is that quite often people are offended by-proxy for others. "I'm offended about what you said about indigenous people", "I'm offended by what you said about people with a disability", "I'm offended by the language you used in front of the women". In poor-taste or classless maybe - but leave being offended to the people actually affected and then let them make up their own mind. Twitter seems to be the worst for it. Being offended isn't an injury - nobody should feel sorry for you, because you haven't come to any harm. It's almost like the term 'offensive' is interchangeable with 'unpleasant'. Some people are offended by religion, or by language or by images. The thing I think we can all agree on is that nobody cares. It sounds harsh, but probably only if you're over-sensitive and have too high an opinion of yourself. It's okay for nobody to care about something you think or say - they have no obligation to you. Your offence is your problem to deal with - and a very easy problem to deal with at that. As for me - I'll get as good as I give. If someone wants to take me to task so much the better - I learn more from watching someone get passionate and debate something than I do watching people try to get along and avoid offending each other. If I don't agree I'll call you out on it and tell you why - it doesn't mean I don't like or respect you; it simply means I don't see it that way.

Yes, plugging your ears and yelling 'la-la-la' is probably easier than trying to have an adult discussion. Of course, if I was trying to offend you I wouldn't have toned down by wording before hitting submit.

Sir, that is about the silliest thing I've ever read. To be able to sue somebody you have to be able to prove that you were legitimately harmed through the negligence of another. If you follow your own logic you're saying that someone who is legitimately harmed in an accident caused by the negligence of a theme park is out to ruin your fun so they can make a quick buck. I mean, sure, they may suffer permanent pain or disablement - but your fun is more important than covering their medical bills and lost wages, right? Get a grip. Thankfully we worked out that attitudes like yours are entirely counter-productive to public safety - that's why there's always a race to determine what the root cause of an accident is, and by extension who is or was responsible for that root cause. Accidents shouldn't happen, but do. They don't happen in isolation.

Sorry if that one went over your head. I mean, they teach that sort of thing to fourteen year olds now, but sure.

See, duty of care is a funny ol' term - people think it means things that it doesn't. To be able to sue somebody you are talking about civil law. To sue someone under civil law you need to identify a tort (or civil wrong) to sue under. Duty of care is not a tort - to go down that path you need to sue for negligence. To make out a case for negligence you generally need to satisfy: - That a duty of care exists - That the duty of care was broken - Proximity (that a relationship exists; somewhat like causation - That the plaintiff came to harm (and that the harm can be proven) So, to think about duty of care as an element of negligence - how is it determined? Glad you asked; - The party knew or ought to have known of the risk (was it reasonably foreseeable?) - The risk was not insignificant (different from reasonably foreseeable - was the risk far-fetched or fanciful?) - A reasonable person in the position of the party would have taken precautions against the risk (were they careless?).

You'd be pretty silly not to at least have a quick consult with a lawyer if for no reason other than to make sure you're informed enough not to prejudice your future legal rights, I'd reckon. After all, you can bet the park will be speaking to theirs. A simple chat with a lawyer doesn't have to result in litigation - instead it may be beneficial to simply know what things you should and should not do from a legal perspective that could come back to bite you later.

It would make quite a lot of sense, it just at immediate glance from the photos I thought to check (Parkz > Google Images) there appeared to be some differences.

To my eye there appears to be some differences in the wheel assembly: http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/image_10595.jpg http://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Green-Lantern-Movie-World-feature.jpg http://www.parkspot.eu/nl/wp-content/uploads/Warner-Bros.-Movie-World-Green-Lantern-Coaster.jpg This one looks more like it: http://cdn.parkz.com.au/cache/photo/individual_photo/general/2012/05/0530-1_Green_Lantern_IMG_2700.jpg Perhaps what is/was throwing me off is the additional stuff you can see here that you miss the detail of on the TPR photo: http://cdn.parkz.com.au/cache/photo/individual_photo/general/2012/05/0530-1_Green_Lantern_IMG_2797.jpg

I'm not sure Crazy Bird's wheel assembly is directly comparable to GL's.