New Jersey Officially Limits G-Forces on Coasters 364
Well, NJ has (sadly) become the first state in the US at limiting G-Forces on roller coasters. The regulation calls for prohibition of forces greater than 5.6 that last longer than one second. NJ gave itself the right to regulate rides after an accident where two were killed from a malfunction, not excessive Gs. (A ride I rode once -- It's a kiddie-sized coaster, not what you'll find at Cedar Point, OH. The two killed were a seven year old and her mother.) This is also despite the lack of scientific evidence linking G forces to brain injury, and 320 million riders who turn out just fine every year. One brain-injury specialist interviewed said that you can exert 10 Gs just plopping into a chair, saying the state was "a little misguided."
A Chair?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Popular abuse of "science" lead to misconceptions? (Score:1, Insightful)
A ride of a rollercoster lasts a lot longer than the fraction of a second it takes to flop into a chair. Perhaps duration and variability of the G-forces exerted should be taken into account?
Sadness is Abound... (Score:1, Insightful)
Two words: election year. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you say "election year politics", boys and girls? I knew you could...
Step off Re:This is a step in the right direction) (Score:5, Insightful)
If you know people who have died in auto accidents, does that mean you shouldn't drive?
Cars can cause accidents, TV can cause seizures. How many people were the 42 out of? If it's 42/100000000 that's lower than most things. I'd almost guarantee that there are a number of things you do every day that risk your life more than jumping in a roller coaster (despite the feeling that you're going to die every time).
Life is full of personal risks. We should be informed of the risks, and make our our decisions. Thus is the only way that we can lead a life of freedom - phorm
Re:Some Perspective...? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not particularly.
But at present, do I feel it's the sort of "right" which our efforts can be BEST spent protecting?
No. Let's worry about Joe-Bob's "Constitutional Right To Scary Carnival Rides" in a couple of months. For the moment, let's see whether we can allow a bunch of medical students to drive cross-country without closing down interstate highways and expelling them from school (all in 48 hours) on the word of some half-witted busybody.
crib
This is a good thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
My reply to this is, a 5.6 G turn will produce the same sensation as a 4.6 G turn. So the fun is still exactly the same. Besides, for those who have a hard time thinking beyond their own noses, G forces apply to machinery as well as to humans. Lower Gs results in less stress on the machinery, and thus becomes less likely to malfunction. Also, designing for less Gs reduces the cost of construction, which, theoretically, means more roller-coasters.
Re:another win for the legal eagles (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn just a tiny little bit about law before you go spouting your mouth off. They are banning high G force rides, which sounds like they are making it an offence (ie criminal law, public prosecutors). As it stands now, the rememdy is a civil one, (ie negligence law, ambulance chasers.) You don't need statutes to sue, tort law will do just fine, thankyou very much.
Chances are this law will result in less death and injury, which is a loss for the legal eagles.
The McDonalds coffee example is the most badly chosen one I can think of. There were literally dozens of people who got badly burnt by McDonalds coffee before the old lady got her genitalia burnt off. McDonalds calculated that it was cheaper to settle these cases individually than to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a safe level (hot coffee is supposed to keep longer). Any corporation that calculates their profits on a liability vs personal injury (or death) basis deserves to get hit HARD. Any jury that see evidence like that will. McDonalds got what they deserved, simple.
Re:Acceleration Injury (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact is, it takes a very fit person to undergo those kind of accelerations over mere seconds, let alone longer. There are techniques to imporve response to high G loads, but if you have high blood pressure, all bets are off.
Re:Two words: election year. (Score:4, Insightful)
It also sets a precdents. If this law passes without challenge, and five years from now they decide to lower the maximum Gs from 5.6 to 3.2, which they undoubtedly will, those who oppose will have no legal legs to stand on.
This is no different from companies picking much smaller companies or individuals to sue to set precendents (for DMCA, Napsters, etc), so the precedent can referred to when going after larger competitors with deeper pockets.
Or when the 15th Constitutional Amendment was passed (Income Tax Amendment). That was billed as "We are only going to tax the top 1% of income earners". You can see how that worked out.
Every new law is almost certainly a step in the wrong direction. But what do we expect? We elect legislators to legislate, don't we?
Limiting Coasters. Lame. (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead, I look at it this way. First of all, G-Forces are nowhere near the problem. Most rollercoaster accidents happen for one of a select few reasons:
1. Safety Devices, like seat belts, lap rails or shoulder harnesses, fail. Only after they fail do G-Forces become a remote issue, as they could easily throw the rider from the car. More commonly, the force of 1G becomes more dangerous in this case, as it's the main one pulling you to the center of the Earth (ie falling out while inverted).
2. Mechanical Failure. Either the car or track could be to blame here. This includes brakes as well. But then again, coasters are often designed nowadays with a few redundant systems, which all but eliminate (accidents do happen) these concerns.
3. Human stupidity. This covers both rider and operator. Failure to heed warning signs (heart condition, pregnancy, etc.) on the rider's part contribute a great deal. Let's face it. Some people are just plain stupid. Operator failure sometimes contributes to injuries and deaths, be it lack of training on operations or just plain idiocy.
The only possible way G-Forces could kill is if number 3 happens, and someone who is stroke (etc.) prone, has extremely weak nerves, or doesn't use safety devices properly gets on.
John Glenn returning to space proved that even older folks can handle G-Forces in excess of 5 Gs. Age limits are enough to prevent small children, still growing and pretty much fragile, from being exposed to high Gs. And most people are intelligent enough to know that if they have a pre-existing condition, getting on might not be such a good idea. Safety and mechanical failures are either pure chance or lack of proper coaster upkeep.
So where's the problem, New Jersey? It's not science, studies and statistics. It's just plain common sense.
Oh, wait. What am I doing talking about New Jersey and Common Sense in the first place? We all know how toxic the place is. The people are good and hard working, but their government severely lacks any stroke to pull this kind of stunt...
Fine (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you show me evidence, that meets the criterion of the doctrine of strong inference, that a 5.6G maximum is consistent with safety for roller coasters? I can sure as hell provide hundreds of thousands (probably tens of millions) of examples of poeple that have rode on any given coaster and suffered no ill effects.
I bet the military and NASA has a TON of data (Score:1, Insightful)