Man hospitalised after falling out of Dreamworld Log Ride

[djmcbell]

The video @reanimated35 refers to is the one where a girl, with disabilities, is not allowed to go on some rides at Dreamworld. Not the full amount, but certainly none of the bigger thrill rides. However, apparently she is allowed to go on the same rides (or at least one of the same rides - a Disk-o, I think) at her home park of Rainbows End in Auckland, NZ.

Is one of those parks breaking their H&S rules? If a person unfortunately has disabilities, it may well be unsafe for them to ride particular rides (depending on the ride in question, and their disabilities). Yes, they may well have been on the same ride 99 times and everything has gone smoothly, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will on the hundredth time. Any remotely sane company should err on the side of caution, and I find the attitude taken by the girls in the video (and their parents for not correcting them, or doing any semblance of research before the visit - way to go, parents!) annoyingly entitled.

As for the person involved in the log ride incident, well we still don't know what happened. If he does have disabilities or handicaps which would have meant he was more inclined to stand up, well:

1 - were Dreamworld made aware of this, and if so why did they let him on the ride?

2 - if Dreamworld weren't made aware of this, why not?

3 - assuming he had a carer (and if not, why not?), why did his carer let him on the ride and not supervise him properly?

If he doesn't have any disabilities which impacted his thinking, then he was just being a prat. I do hope he's fine and everything, but Dreamworld owes him nothing when probably hundreds of thousands of visitors go on that ride annually and don't injure themselves by trying to show off.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

^Just on the Wheely Adventures clip - I believe the girls weren't travelling with parents, so they were 16+ and made their own decisions. They met local friends at the park for the day. I wouldn't say Rainbows end is breaching any policies, they've simply assessed the risk differently.

Risk: Skin Cancer from sun exposure

Control Measure: Wear long sleeves, pants and a hat, use sunscreen.

Control Measure: Never go outside during the day.

Both are appropriate control measures, however one is being a lot more pragmatic. Neither are inappropriate, but obviously one more restrictive. In the event something were to happen, one could look at the control measure and determine it was adequate, but as the log ride event shows - if in doubt, its better for them to be safe than sorry - and a more restrictive control might piss people off, but by eliminating, rather than managing the risk, it is far safer.

[Levithian]

It would be based on the manufacturers recommendations, plus the installation of the ride I reckon.  If the manufacturer says it's ok, differences in access for load/unload, differences in manual handling (ie, an operator having to lend physical assistance) probably make the difference.

might be safe on the ride itself, but if you can't make it out of the ride and out the access way in the event of an emergency and you are offloaded, not going to be able to ride it.

I imagine some of that is down to how much physical interaction the park allows between operators and guests. Some have a virtual hands off policy, not allowing operators to guide or physically assist guests, while others don't mind so much.

If someone had a physical or mental disability that meant they were unable to follow and carry out directions themselves in the event of an emergency, that's probably where the policies come into play. If they don't allow staff to touch, hold or otherwise physically guide/direct the guests, then I can see it being an issue. Likewise, if the person is unable to communicate but is physically able bodied, it would probably be a similar issue unless they had a carer/guardian with them. 

Probably need photos of the ride install and compare each parks policies to see what the difference is.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Levithian

[T-bone]

It obviously differs park to park and country to country, however having returned from a trip to the USA, I found it quite amazing at how willingly open and accepting the parks there were to riders of different abilities, wheelchair bound or not,they way they deal with the issue is a stark contrast to our parks over here. Is it the government "safety" regulations which cause our parks to be less able to cater to disabilities, or more a case of we aren't as accepting and willing to cater to those with disabilities as a nation?  

[Reanimated35]

Government regulations and that people hold no accountability for themselves and would sue for the most stupid thing. 

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

[rappa]

Australia has much higher safety standards than America. 

Geeze there are Parks in America where I've seen several ride opens literally stand on a restraint to squash a fat idiot in there. 

[New display name]

On ‎11‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 4:46 PM, T-bone said:

It obviously differs park to park and country to country, however having returned from a trip to the USA, I found it quite amazing at how willingly open and accepting the parks there were to riders of different abilities, wheelchair bound or not,they way they deal with the issue is a stark contrast to our parks over here. Is it the government "safety" regulations which cause our parks to be less able to cater to disabilities, or more a case of we aren't as accepting and willing to cater to those with disabilities as a nation?  

I think it has nothing to do with the parks being more accepting.  Space Mountain is a good example with its separate loading station for disabled people.  Disney can fill a whole train with disabled people where if DW had the same system how long would it take to fill a car.  I witnessed on the Big Thunder Mountain Ride that the disabled person getting on in front of me had to load themselves onto the train to be able to ride.  

The government’s regulations for disabilities is not what you are thinking, it is built on top of the Discrimination Act.  If it is safe then the Act calls for no Discrimination.  I don’t know anybody who wouldn’t wait an extra 3 min for a disabled person to load onto a ride.  I think it has more to do with how our parks interprets the manufactures recommendations and our parks being a bit more tentative. 

[rappa]

Disney's seperate loading areas are nothing to do with being more accepting and all to do with not affecting the efficiency of the ride. This just isn't feasible in Australia with our much smaller budgets. Adding those extra loading areas would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. 

Thats doable on a 100 million dollar attraction, but not on a 10 million dollar ride. 

 

You our also have many more 'disabled' people in America (I say that because over there "I'm too fat to walk" is considered disabled) due to a higher population so you need to cater for that. Add to that the inability the US has to say NO to anyone about anything and that's where you get this perception they are more accomodating. 

[WalleyWorld]

I'm currently completing an honors thesis and engineering design project on this exact topic; disability access on amusement rides. I started at the beginning of this year, even before the log ride accident....funny how things coincide. And now some great discussion is happening on the forums about this topic.

 

8 hours ago, djrappa said:

Disney's separate loading areas are nothing to do with being more accepting and all to do with not affecting the efficiency of the ride. This just isn't feasible in Australia with our much smaller budgets. Adding those extra loading areas would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. 

The reason why Disney spends lots of time and money to create specialty seating, or transfer devices, or special loading areas, and a whole disability policy system, is to benefit the disabled customer and their party; to make them feel incredibly welcome and keep them coming back. Disney, and somewhat Universal, are currently the best at catering to disabled guests. They own the 'disabled themepark-goer' market. And it's a big one in America, with approximately 30.6 million people who suffer from a physical disability.

And yes, one of Disney's design goals is to make sure that the disability accessible ride hardware is efficient - so as to not impact upon normal guest experience in terms of waiting in line.

 

On 6/11/2016 at 4:46 PM, T-bone said:

It obviously differs park to park and country to country, however having returned from a trip to the USA, I found it quite amazing at how willingly open and accepting the parks there were to riders of different abilities, wheelchair bound or not,they way they deal with the issue is a stark contrast to our parks over here. Is it the government "safety" regulations which cause our parks to be less able to cater to disabilities, or more a case of we aren't as accepting and willing to cater to those with disabilities as a nation?  

Yes, in America they have stated in their Disability Discrimination Act that as of 2010, “many newly designed or newly constructed amusement rides must be accessible and located on an accessible route to the ride. However, amusement rides designed primarily for children, amusement rides that are controlled or operated by the rider (e.g., bumper cars), and amusement rides without seats, are not required to provide wheelchair spaces, transfer seats, or transfer systems, and need not meet signage requirements. That said, these rides must be on an accessible route and must provide appropriate clear space". - https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/2010_Standards_factsheet.html

In Australia there is no specific amusement ride law in our Discrimination Act. Yes in Australia the parks have to make all pathways, toilets, building access DDA compliant, but there is nothing specific to amusement ride systems and hardware.

So as @Levithian and @AlexB mentioned, in AUS, it comes down to what the manufacturer recommends. Then it's up to the park if they want to make all their rides ultra accessible like disney or not.

[Brad2912]

Which in a perfect world they would and could do, but in the realism of our theme park environment and the constraints of our parks capex for new rides, as Rappa pointed out, it can be a massive expense that inhibits it occurring 

[New display name]

On ‎15‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 3:22 AM, djrappa said:

Disney's seperate loading areas are nothing to do with being more accepting and all to do with not affecting the efficiency of the ride. This just isn't feasible in Australia with our much smaller budgets. Adding those extra loading areas would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more. 

 

"I think it has nothing to do with the parks being more accepting.  Space Mountain is a good example with its separate loading station for disabled people.  Disney can fill a whole train with disabled people where if DW had the same system how long would it take to fill a car"

What do you think I said?

[rappa]

Let's be clear. Disney is owned by shareholders...

The ONLY reasons they have all these ADA facilities is because they have to by law and it makes them money. There is no kindness of the heart here. They simply know if they spend all that extra money it makes them money. 

 

A massive amount of revenue for Disney's American parks is fat asses that want to drive scooters around all day rather than walk and clog up the entire park and are mostly just really horrible people. 

Can safely say I'm more than happy our parks aren't targeting that market. 

[downunder]

^Having been at Disney world last October I can concur on that. And those people would spend a fortune in food etc.

Is insurance also a factor to a degree, beyond regulations and manufacturers recommendations? For instance if a ride has an over the shoulder restraint and an additional redundancy like a belt versus just a lapbar, does that change the risk assessment from an insurance premium perspective? 

[rappa]

Most definitely. You'll find many things with rides that you might think are OTT are insurance related. 

[razza1987]

On 17/06/2016 at 1:34 PM, downunder said:

^Having been at Disney world last October I can concur on that. And those people would spend a fortune in food etc.

Is insurance also a factor to a degree, beyond regulations and manufacturers recommendations? For instance if a ride has an over the shoulder restraint and an additional redundancy like a belt versus just a lapbar, does that change the risk assessment from an insurance premium perspective? 

Why is it people always assume overweight people are only overweight due to food? I'm obese and all of my weight has been put on through different medications that I have been on since the age of 13. I guess according to djrappa I'm a "fatass" but through no real fault of my own. I did Disney a couple years ago without a scooter but will probably need a wheelchair the next time I go to DW which will be whenever my partner from overseas finally moves to Australia. Why all the negativity towards fat people on here? Especially when some people have gotten fat through things out of their control. I am on five different medications now. I would like to know which of my life saving medications you would like me to come off so I can fit into your perfect world of "not being a fatass riding a scooter"? 

[Reanimated35]

36 minutes ago, razza1987 said:

 I would like to know which of my life saving medications you would like me to come off so I can fit into your perfect world of "not being a fatass riding a scooter"? 

The third one. 

But seriously, what medication makes a person overweight? < Genuine question, I really don't know. 

[razza1987]

48 minutes ago, reanimated35 said:

The third one. 

But seriously, what medication makes a person overweight? < Genuine question, I really don't know. 

I was on steroids for three years for life threatening asthma and was not allowed to exercise due to the life threatening asthma part. Then I went on the contraceptive pill which made me put on twenty kilos. Doctors demanded I come off it as soon as my husband left so I wouldn't gain any more weight. Then the hormone shots I'm on for DPD and hormone imbalance as well as antipsychotics make you gain weight too. I don't mind answering your questions so don't feel bad about asking. I answer any genuine questions  People just need to be aware that there are illnesses and medication that can cause weight gain and not just through poor diet. It's why I have low cholesterol and optimum blood pressure- cause my weight has not been caused through bad diet. If it makes people more aware that there are people like me with their weight gain out of their control then that partly makes all nine of my illnesses worth it.

Edited June 18, 2016 by razza1987

[MaxxTheMonster]

47 minutes ago, reanimated35 said:

The third one. 

But seriously, what medication makes a person overweight? < Genuine question, I really don't know. 

Quite a few actually...

I had to have surgery a few years back where I ended up off work for several months, 4 surgeries in total, in and out of intensive care, blah, blah, blah...

One byproduct was a few medications (some on that list) and due to removal of some tissue and an organ or two my body is no longer able to handle any fats, sugars or dairy as it would have previously.  I have changed my diet to allow for this but I still have put on almost 30kgs in the last 3 years...  I have seen dieticians, personal trainers, etc and there is little short of gastric bypass that I can do...  It breaks my heart as my little Mr 4yo is 15mm from riding Scooby Doo and I can't go on it with him...  He has to go on all the rides he likes with my wife while I stand there feeling terrible especially since when he was first born I was going on these rides...

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

5 hours ago, razza1987 said:

Why is it people always assume overweight people are only overweight due to food? I'm obese and all of my weight has been put on through different medications that I have been on since the age of 13. I guess according to djrappa I'm a "fatass" but through no real fault of my own. I did Disney a couple years ago without a scooter but will probably need a wheelchair the next time I go to DW which will be whenever my partner from overseas finally moves to Australia. Why all the negativity towards fat people on here? Especially when some people have gotten fat through things out of their control. I am on five different medications now. I would like to know which of my life saving medications you would like me to come off so I can fit into your perfect world of "not being a fatass riding a scooter"? 

Look I don't wanna speak for Rappa - but my read on his statement (and in his defence) I do believe there are overweight \ obese people out there who do legitimately have no ability to control or lose weight because of medical issues, thyroid problems etc.

I didn't take what Rappa said to mean he was directing it towards those with medical problems. 

I took it to be those who don't have medical problems, those being deserving of such labels, rather than the other way around. I have witnessed people at the US parks who get around in scooters, who park their scooter, and then run down a queueline towards the ride. They're fat, and they're lazy. They get out and walk, and let the kids drive around in it just for fun. I've seen the same group go through a park using the disabled entrances - and on 4 different rides, there were 4 different people on the scooter... so they're using it as a queuejump tool rather than legitimately needing it.

It IS a big problem over there where lazy assholes who just don't want to walk, whilst eating themselves stupid are king.

This is the type of person I assumed Rappa was talking about when he made those comments, and at no time did I take it to mean anybody and everybody who was overweight \ obese.

[rappa]

Exactly, there are a small portion of people who can't help it and are genuinely disabled. Which is why they have the relevant medical certificates for those conditions and can use special entry and so forth. Of course I'm not going to be having a go at someone who has no control over their unfortunate condition.

But as Alex B said, that is the minority. And it's exactly those that "can't walk" when it suits them that disgust me. And then you look at what they are turning their children into too, that's really sad. 

Then you have the other group that have a minor condition and then use that as an excuse to give up and take the easy route. I'm sure a couple of you above would love to be able to run around and get the weight off if you could when others are like "oh well I won't try now cause I can take this easy option and society will pay for it."

 

America doesn't understand the word No, fortunately Australia isn't like that. 

[downunder]

I'm sympathetic for people who can't control their weight because of medical factors, and I'm certainly not talking about you. I'm talking about the majority who have a choice, it's disturbing and at the end of the day they are harming themselves and dramatically shortening their lives. It's very easy to consume an extraordinary amount of calories and exponentially harder to use those calories, but it's a choice.