Parkz News Quirks, concerns and flaws with Dreamworld's new Log Ride canopies

[Levithian]

How close is the head? The bar looks like its positioned behind the existing upper back pad.

Padding on the bar being to stop riders accidentally banging their heads. Say when like climbing a lift and leaning your head back. 

Fyi. Momentum of guests in the boats pushes the torso forwards away from the bar when hitting the water after the drop. Not backwards.

To hit the bar like a whiplash injury you'd need a boat to accelerate suddenly or violently. As they travel due to the flow of water, only instance i can think of is in the event of another boat hitting you from behind with force. Even if that were to happen, in the previous design the head is completely unsupported. So if that was an issue youd be talking more along the lines of brain stem injuries and base fractures not whiplash.

2 hours ago, wikiverse said:

This whole design just wreaks of trying to appease government regulators. 

Who are in the business of assessing designs, builds and implementations for issues of safety; who also have the power not to fine you considerable amounts of money, but also close your entire site down. 

So you speak like this is even a consideration.  Make NO mistake. A government inspector will do all the above if you ignore them.

For smaller issues theyll usually give you verbal notice or suggestions to fix any issue they have found. Theyll come back in maybe a week or two and see if its complete to their satisfaction. If it is, no issue. All good. If not theyll give you a written notice and a deadline. If you ignore it, action will be taken and theyll likely shut you or part of your site down until they can inspect, make reccomendations and have you repair them. 

They want to work with you more than punish you. But if youre attitude is rubbish and you ignore them or the safety issues; theyll ream you so hard you wont be able to sit down for a year. 

So. I asked this before. Open? Closed? Want to ride or have it closed? You arent exactly kissing the ground they walk on, but appeasing government regulators is exactly what you do. You have no choice in the matter if you want the doors to remain open. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Levithian

[wikiverse]

40 minutes ago, Levithian said:

So. I asked this before. Open? Closed? Want to ride or have it closed? You arent exactly kissing the ground they walk on, but appeasing government regulators is exactly what you do. You have no choice in the matter if you want the doors to remain open. 

My comment was about the government imposing largely unnecessary regulation.  Literally tens of millions of riders have cycled through the RHLR in it's 34 years of operation.  There has only been one incident of a person 'falling out' and that was entirely because he stood up as the boat entered a lift hill.

The government (and Ardent's insurers) made absolutely NO recommendations for ride modification after that incident happened, and it remained open until the TRR incident.  It was only after TRR occurred - almost 12 months later - that suddenly, despite being a completely different ride with completely different physics and mechanics, RHLR 'required' modifications to prevent people from standing.

Based on the successful operation of RHLR, assuming 20 Million riders across 34 years with only one incident that was specifically caused by their own stupidity, the actual chance of a similar incident happening is 0.000005%.

As far as we know, the TRR incident was caused by a failure in the ride.  The RHLR incident was caused by rider stupidity.

The govt. assessors correctly assessed the risk of another incident on RHLR occurring as minuscule and allowed it to continue operating unmodified. The deaths on TRR did not increase the chances of an incident RHLR anymore than they increased the chances of injury or death from someone standing up in a bumper car or jumping into the cassowary enclosure.

There was no increase in risk to riders of RHLR that would necessitate government mandated mechanical changes to the ride.

[xRazzBerryx]

The thing I’m most disappointed in is the fact that they chose to re-design these in house. It’s 2018, there are plenty of amazing manufacturers out there now, however they have chosen to take the cheap & easy way out. If you’re not willing to put some love & passion into something you own, sell it to someone who will. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

14 hours ago, Levithian said:

To hit the bar like a whiplash injury you'd need a boat to accelerate suddenly or violently. As they travel due to the flow of water, only instance i can think of is in the event of another boat hitting you from behind with force. Even if that were to happen, in the previous design the head is completely unsupported. So if that was an issue youd be talking more along the lines of brain stem injuries and base fractures not whiplash. 

This was the point I was trying to get across - headrests were first implemented because having 'NO' headrest was causing massive whiplash injuries. Even a poorly positioned headrest is going to do less damage than having none at all, and as you rightly point out - splashdown isn't going to cause this type of injury - only shunting and similar - which are rare enough events anyway, and also done at relatively low speed.

Here's the pathophysiological breakdown of a 'whiplash' injury:

0 ms	Rear car structure is impacted and begins to move forward and/or crushes Occupant remains stationary No occupant forces
100 ms	Vehicle seat accelerates and pushes into occupant’s torso (i.e. central portion of the body in contact with seat) The torso loads the seat and is accelerated forward (seat will deflect rearward) Head remains stationary due to inertia
150 ms	Torso is accelerated by the vehicle seat and may start to ramp up the seat Lower neck is pulled forward by the accelerated torso/seat The head rotates and extends rapidly rearward hyper-extending the neck
175 ms	Head is still moving backwards Vehicle seat begins to spring forward The torso continues to be accelerated forward The head rotation rearward is increased and is fully extended
300 ms	Head and torso are accelerated forward Neck is "whipped" forward rotating and hyper-flexing the neck forward The head accelerates due to neck motion and moves ahead of the seat back

Whiplash is made up of 4 phases - initial position, retraction, extension, and rebound. The retraction (highlighted above) is what causes the 'whiplash' injury - During the retraction phase the spine forms an S-Shaped curve, and this is caused by the flexion in the upper planes and hyperextension at the lower planes. This motion exceeds the physiological limits in both directions, and in this phase the injuries occur to the lower cervical vertebrae. At the extension phase all cervical vertebrae and the head are fully extended, but do not surpass their physiological limits. 

*Medical Engineering And Physics, 28(6), 515-524.

Headrests prevent rearward movement. Headrests minimise whiplash injury. Although most wiki articles are somewhat dubious, see citations 1 and 2, and the accompanying text in the wiki entry for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_restraint#cite_note-R17-1

13 hours ago, wikiverse said:

As far as we know, the TRR incident was caused by a failure in the ride.  The RHLR incident was caused by rider stupidity.

The govt. assessors correctly assessed the risk of another incident on RHLR occurring as minuscule and allowed it to continue operating unmodified. The deaths on TRR did not increase the chances of an incident RHLR anymore than they increased the chances of injury or death from someone standing up in a bumper car or jumping into the cassowary enclosure.

There was no increase in risk to riders of RHLR that would necessitate government mandated mechanical changes to the ride.

You may find, however, that in assessing risk in totality - the risk of another person falling out, whilst miniscule, could result in a drowning victim, which would be a catastrophic outcome. Perhaps the time it took for emergency services to respond to the TRRR incident was factored into their play, and they considered that the risk of someone falling out, however much their own fault it may be, was not worth the risk of another death (at fault or not) within the park.

So while an incident where a fool suffered some minor injury could be overlooked, the very real incident of four people dead colours the previous incident with a 'what if' that is much worse than previously considered. I've seen decisions made by government bodies that have then been looked at by the same government body a year later, with completely different results. it all comes down to the individual assessor on the day - so it could just be that the guy who looked at it after TRRR imagined more people drowning, whereas the guy who looked at it after the RHLR incident only imagined an idiot receiving his own karma. it's amazing how easily a person's perspective is changed...

[New display name]

Excellent @AlexB you can use google.  I’m not going to waste everybody’s time with a cut and paste google to suite my argument.  I could cut & paste  1/3^rd of cases in court for people claiming whiplash is under 8klm.  I could cut & paste from the Australian Engineering Journal and show their recommendations.   Lucky for everybody here I refuse to have a google cut & paste discussion.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Skeeta

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

and in response I could cut and paste the numerous citations from insurance companies where they refer to whiplash as the most commonly claimed injury for compensation with minimal medical evidence. it seems everyone in a fender bender claims whiplash to get their money's worth. 

How many of those under 8km/h collisions received substantial damages?

The fact that i've used a search engine doesn't undermine the argument. How else do people learn things except by research? Oh right - you can always listen to the dippin dots guy.

[MaxxTheMonster]

I could use my knowledge and background as a claims officer for an insurance company here but just go see my response in this other topic...

 

 

[JeffreyMoore]

ok im going to put this out there 

lets say that the accident happened on RHLR and not TRR 

does anyone think we would now be seeing Ardent adding something sort of the same to the TRR rafts ? 

[Slick]

21 minutes ago, JeffreyMoore said:

ok im going to put this out there 

lets say that the accident happened on RHLR and not TRR 

does anyone think we would now be seeing Ardent adding something sort of the same to the TRR rafts ? 

Nope, because it's been stated many times, including in the articles that the canopies had nothing to do with TRR, so saying the opposite would also apply.

[Brad2912]

If the accident and fatalities had occurred on RHLR I’d probably say TRR would likely have not operated again given the scope for safety issues to occur was larger on TRR then RHLR, so they wouldn’t have taken the risk. We’ve seen it take 14 months post TRR for the log ride to open... I can only imagine the timeframe if it had been the other way around. 

[Slick]

19 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

If the accident and fatalities had occurred on RHLR I’d probably say TRR would likely have not operated again given the scope for safety issues to occur was larger on TRR then RHLR, so they wouldn’t have taken the risk. We’ve seen it take 14 months post TRR for the log ride to open... I can only imagine the timeframe if it had been the other way around. 

Nope, because again, like I literally just said, the issues are un-related. The park has mentioned it's un-related, Parkz has shown it's un-related - it's unrelated.

Say it with me - it's unrelated. Okay? Cool.

[Brad2912]

1 hour ago, Roachie said:

Nope, because again, like I literally just said, the issues are un-related. The park has mentioned it's un-related, Parkz has shown it's un-related - it's unrelated.

Say it with me - it's unrelated. Okay? Cool.

Oh... so you are saying that if the TRR incident had not occurred that RHLR would still have been shut down on 25/10/16 for 14 months? 

Haha... keep telling yourself that.  The issues are entirely related. DW closed down and blocked off any path with eyesight of RHLR as it decided any connotation with a water based ride would be a bad impression or envoke a negative connotation for guests. It’s closure had jack all to do with its safety and everything to do with DW’s image. 

These ridiculous roofs, I mean “safety improvements”, are simply to appease the masses - if they were in response to the moron who fell out and nearly drowned they would have been required prior to it re-opening back in 2016. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Brad2912

[themeparkaddict]

Why is everyone so GRUMPY!

There is a really good song called dont worry be happy, you folks need a dose of it, with the music video too

[Slick]

2 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

Oh... so you are saying that if the TRR incident had not occurred that RHLR would still have been shut down on 25/10/16 for 14 months? 

Haha... keep telling yourself that.  The issues are entirely related. DW closed down and blocked off any path with eyesight of RHLR as it decided any connotation with a water based ride would be a bad impression or envoke a negative connotation for guests. It’s closure had jack all to do with its safety and everything to do with DW’s image. 

These ridiculous roofs, I mean “safety improvements”, are simply to appease the masses - if they were in response to the moron who fell out and nearly drowned they would have been required prior to it re-opening back in 2016. 

Correlation doesn’t equal causation, however I’m also not going to dig up twelve months of conversation either so... 🤔

[Brad2912]

4 minutes ago, Roachie said:

Correlation doesn’t equal causation, however I’m also not going to dig up twelve months of conversation either so... 🤔

Well done Macquarie...

The fact at hand is that RHLR would have continued to operate on its merry way under the status quo had the TRR accident not occurred. 

i can also say it’s fact that had the TRR incident not occurred we wouldn’t have seen:

- the side rails on the big red boat raised a good 40cm higher than they were 

- those ridiculous harnesses installed on Shockwave.

- the new kiddie Ferris wheel being ridiculously fitted out with seatbelts and Perspex to ensure a toddler doesn’t somehow incapacitate their supervising adult, climb a cage and jump off. 

The relationship between the TRR incident and DW’s over-zealous safety intricacies is a cause & effect relationship - not a correlation. One wouldn’t have occurred without the other. 

[Slick]

1 hour ago, Brad2912 said:

Well done Macquarie...

The fact at hand is that RHLR would have continued to operate on its merry way under the status quo had the TRR accident not occurred. 

i can also say it’s fact that had the TRR incident not occurred we wouldn’t have seen:

- the side rails on the big red boat raised a good 40cm higher than they were 

- those ridiculous harnesses installed on Shockwave.

- the new kiddie Ferris wheel being ridiculously fitted out with seatbelts and Perspex to ensure a toddler doesn’t somehow incapacitate their supervising adult, climb a cage and jump off. 

The relationship between the TRR incident and DW’s over-zealous safety intricacies is a cause & effect relationship - not a correlation. One wouldn’t have occurred without the other. 

Not going to lie - I think we're both varying degrees of correct - all of this I agree with, however, shades of grey and a moron falling out of the log are by and large the contributing factors here.

[MickeyD]

A Moron still can very much fall from one of the Logs -now probably even more so than ever.

Picture some foolish twats sitting on alternate sides of the logs, holding the cage bars and rocking the boat side to side until.....  How does DW prevent something like this from ever happening? Add more bars?? Completely enclose the Logs in Perspex? Ugh.. 

Wouldn't surprise me if they come up with a 'Safety noose' to hang around People's necks at the new Flying Theatre.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by MickeyD

[joz]

I dont understand how the soloution wasn't just 'more staff observing the ride' because really that was the problem, the one staff member had too much stuff to focus on so when idiot number 1 does a dumb thing and falls out a boat, no one noticed. 2 or 3 observers and a staff member on the load platform would have been my preferred fix (which is also inline with industry trends), rather than adding a half baked perspex roof.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

8 hours ago, joz said:

I dont understand how the soloution wasn't just 'more staff observing the ride' because really that was the problem, the one staff member had too much stuff to focus on so when idiot number 1 does a dumb thing and falls out a boat, no one noticed. 2 or 3 observers and a staff member on the load platform would have been my preferred fix (which is also inline with industry trends), rather than adding a half baked perspex roof.

Many rapids rides were designed that way originally - with observation towers for staff to watch different parts of the ride course.

Then costs happened, and they changed the set up so staff didn't need to be in towers - because they could have cameras instead...

Surely, given the fairly small course, some CCTV, and a good loud-hailer system to communicate with dickheads would have worked too?

[New display name]

I agree with you @AlexB but seeing staff on course and knowing they are around is more likely to keep the bum on the seat.  What about dummies with cameras for eyes set up around the course?  

If DW didn't have the budget for extra staff around the course CCTV would've been fine.  The extra staff member now required to unlock the roof would be better monitoring the whole course.  The good thing about CCTV is you can tape the guest being an idiot.  Have the queue snake past monitoring booth.  Build the booth out of glass so guest can see in.  Make it clear, somebody is watching you.  Have a recording, “If you stand up you will be removed from the park” played in all 6909 living languages if you have to.   (Yes I looked it up, 6909 is correct)  ((</sarcasm> every language))