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)
Re:A Chair?? (Score:2)
Re:A Chair?? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you get a transient 10-g load by plopping into your chair, what do you suppose you incurr when you get banged around in the coaster?
I don't think you get brain damage; but I also think that you should be able to build an exciting coaster without having excessive g-loads. Sustained loads of 4-5 g's can be very exciting.
They are in airplanes.
Thats a shame (Score:2)
Hmmm. (Score:2, Redundant)
Sure but that's for a really short period, nothing like a second.
Re:short period of 10 gs: Thats the kicker, &J (Score:2, Informative)
It's called Jerk. The rate of accelleration with respect to time.
I don't like the idea of Jerky roller coasters.
They make me feel as if I am getting punched.
I think I could stand higher Gs when the acceleration in longer.
I think the point is: Consider more variables!
I could probably find a way to kill somebody with a 5 G roller coaster, and have the same person live through a 10G roller coaster (though... I'd don't know for sure)
If I were subject to uniformed acceleration, it would be as if I were heavier... (I was going to say had a heavy body suite... but I remembered that the blood has inertia, and would like to stay where it is more than my bones witch are rigid so the blood could FLOW to the head or feet...)
Dangerous G Forces? (Score:3, Interesting)
Former Astronaut, "Buzz" Aldrin [buzzaldrin.com] seems to have suffered no ill effects or brain injury from high Gs [salon.com] from his flights and space shots.
Re: Dangerous G Forces? (Score:2, Funny)
> Former Astronaut, "Buzz" Aldrin seems to have suffered no ill effects or brain injury from high Gs from his flights and space shots.
Yeah, but the kook reportedly suffered somewhat from the law of conservation of momentum.
Re:Dangerous G Forces? (Score:2)
Wasnt George W Bush a fighter pilot? Would explain a lot of stuff.
Acceleration Injury (Score:5, Informative)
Most "injuries" related to non-bruising/bone breaking G-forces are from blood deprevation. A really long, tight turn may be enough to deprive your brain of enough blood flow to cause you (or someone with poor circulation to start out with) to pass out. After passing out, you'll just flop around on the ride, where real injury can occur.
As for direct effects, we of course have the very unscientific number of "healthy patrons" which gives us some comfort with the current state. However, it isn't insane to believe that large exposure to prolonged, high-G roller coasters could pose real health hazards. Imagine if someone built a 10G sled that accelerated you linearly, then radially for say 30 seconds. Most of the people on the ride would have a hard time walking after, and many may have passed out.
Setting reasonable standards isn't a bad thing. If someone wants to build one faster or whatever, they could always file a variance with the locality if they could prove it was safe. This just puts their rides up to (more) public scrutiny.
Wouldn't fear of litigation do the trick? (Score:2)
By the way, 5.6 G's is pretty damned high anyway, isn't it? I dunno whether I'd particularly like to ride a coaster much above that for any length of time. I'd hasten to add I wouldn't want to stop consenting adults doing so if they knew what they were in for, though.
Re:Wouldn't fear of litigation do the trick? (Score:4, Interesting)
I once went for a joy flight in a twin seater (side by side) ex Military Jet Provost (I think they were training jets). We were not using any anti-G suits and the pilot asked if I'd done any acrobatics before. I had in a prop plane, so I said yes.
We had done some groovy acrobatics including a loop which had required me to push blood back to my head to prevent passing out when he put us into another loop... I was having great fun!...
I can only think that it was a tighter loop (higher G's) than the first because I saw grey sooner than expected and the next thing I remember was...
hmm, I can't move my arms.... why can't I move my arms... and my legs they are shaking like crazy, how embarassing. Surely the pilot will be noticing, control yourself man!
Then as I came to, I could see (and feel) that the pilot had a hold of my (crossed) hands preventing me from stiking him in the head as my body spasmed in the seat.
The pilot said we had been doing just below 5 G's.
So... I don't think many people would want many G's sustained over more than a second (not in a virtical loop anyway).
I still enjoyed the flight though
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.
six flags. . blech. (Score:2, Interesting)
Two words: election year. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you say "election year politics", boys and girls? I knew you could...
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?
G's (Score:3, Informative)
5-6 Gs in the manner that rollercoasters deliver are pretty high (forces that an unsupported head will need to resist against). Sustained for even a few seconds and some people will pass out, and most people will be sore, and few will suffer significant problems due to pre-existing conditions. A CART race was postponed last year when drivers complained of dizziness and difficulty breathing with G forces around 5, though it was for fairly sustained periods.
I think the problem boils down to more people riding coasters, more high G coasters, and more people that aren't in sufficient shape to handle such forces. The number of injuries and deaths aren't high, but for an activity that is supposed to be entertainment, I suspect our tolerance for casualties is pretty low.
Re:G's (Score:2, Interesting)
I suspect that a lot of others come away from these rides with minor injuries like this and don't report it. This sort of legislation may seem silly until you experience an injury.
The G forces and heavy vibration on a coaster are nothing like those in car. (unless in a rollover!) Up till now, themeparks have "policed" themselves and I bet a lot of "minor" injuries reports are suppressed. I think that the head restrains and shock dampers on these things could be better designed.
Re:CART and 5 Gs (Score:2)
On a side note, the IRL (Indy Racing League) runs at Texas and its sister track, Atlanta, also a 1.5 mile high-banked oval. The IRL cars are a little slower than the CART vehicles, however, and don't generate the 5+ G that the CART drivers were experiencing. The stock cars (NASCAR) which run at the same tracks, of course, don't generate nearly the same forces, since they are far slower in the turns than the lightweight open-wheel cars.
DennyK
Poorly written article, and imo, law. (Score:3, Informative)
G-force is the pressure put on the body when it is suddenly accelerated from a motionless position, resulting in a person's body being pushed back into their seat.
What the author just described here is half nonsense and half the wrong thing. Acceleration from any "position", motionless or not results in a force being applied to bodies going along for a ride. Secondly, the suddenness, or rate of change of acceleration, is jerk, not acceleration. G-forces are acceleration, not jerk.
That said, I personally think the regulation of the g-forces isn't really going to help much. Whenever I ride a rollercoaster, the sudden acceleration making my head knock into the supports is definitely the least fun part to me, and my guess is that's what causes the alleged brain injury, not sustained g-forces.
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:This is a good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
second, what few injuries rolloercoaster riders have sustained have NOT come from G forces at all. the ones that weren't the result of a malfunction or user error have come from banging their head into the restraints. this has to do with how well the ride is designed, not the G forces it inflicts. a ride could pull only 1 or two G's but still bloody your ears if it's designed poorly.
third, this is simply setting a bad precedent. first come the G force regulations, then height and speed regulations follow. at this particular point in time, rollercoasters are taking quantum leaps forward technologically. the advent of complex high-speed 3d software and the hardware to run it, along with the current theme park boom, are allowing coasters to go higher and faster than they ever have before, and do so while providing a smoother, safer ride than has ever been experienced. have you ridden a B&M coaster, or one of S&S's thrust air monsters? any legislation concerning height and speed, for example, would quickly become laughably obsolete. 100 feet was once a monster of a hill (in the 80's!). now there are coasters more than 400 feet tall.
roller coasters ARE safe. G-forces are NOT dangerous on any roller coasters operating today.
label and warn, don't prohibit (Score:2)
Re:Thier reason. (Score:2)
brain dead (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a minute, are you telling me that all those people out there that continue to pay $40/day for park admission, $4/slice of pizza, $3/drink, and then are willing to spend 2-3 hours waiting in line for a 40 second ride... have not suffered some kind of brain damage?
Re:brain dead (Score:2)
To each his own I guess.
SW
Speaking of Chairs (Score:2, Funny)
It must be terrible.
If I bounce on it hard enough,when I sit down, sometimes I can re-live the initial experiece.
This law will change NOTHING (Score:2)
Lacking existing laws to protect us from such awful dangers, why are so many rollercoasters designed to deliver wimpy 2-4G forces?
Could it be because high G forces are NO FUN FOR RIDERS?
Personally, I wish they had made a law forbidding the damn things from snapping my neck side to side with 3-4G lateral transitions. 2Gs right to 2Gs left, for instance, is far more painful than 6 positive vertical Gs.
But we really need no such laws. Most really painful coasters were designed without the aid of modern computer simulations. Nowadays, coaster designers have a pretty good idea what every section of a ride will feel like before it's built.
Good coasters rely on surprise, misdirection, and optical illusion more than high G forces.
Misdirected legislation (Score:2)
I hate this kind of misdirected legislation. It's like the new airline baggage screening requirements (helllooo! The 9/11 hijackers did not have any dangerous checked baggage!). Or gun control laws being passed in reaction to violence committed with illegally-possessed guns. (they were already illegal, see?)
Re:Misdirected legislation (Score:2)
Imagine that you're securing a concrete building with 10 identical doors. One day burglars break in through door #4 and you suffer serious losses. Do you upgrade all 10 doors or only #4?
Go down a layer of abstraction. You have a building with a door, a window and a skylight, each equally resistant to attack. The walls and roof are much more resistant to attack. Burglars break in through the skylight. Do you only upgrade the skylight, or do you upgrade all three entry points?
This assumes that the new baggage security measures actually make sense. I am not familiar with them, and maybe they make no sense.
I'm not advocating gun control, but I think most illegal guns were once legal. Someone buys or steals them and diverts them to illegal use. If they're going to restrict the flow of illegal guns, they have to tighten up the monitoring of legal guns. Of course you may be referring to laws that have nothing to do with this and are just passed for chest-thumping purposes.
So, whats the big deal (Score:4, Informative)
The law also puts some limits on lateral motion, which is not mentioned in the article. Again, nothing that would impact any currently existing coasters.
The trend in roller coasters is taller, faster, steeper, and tighter - which is good but only to a point. Sitting in the front of Nitro (at Six Flags Great Adventure in NJ) will always black out my vision in the large corkscrew. I haven't yet found a person who didn't feel extremely light-headed after taking that turn in a front seat. And that turn still isn't close to 5.6 Gs.
As for the lateral motion restriction, I applaud that. I know people who have bruised the sides of their heads on their harnesses. (The suspended Batman ride is pretty bad in that regard.) If rides keep progressing towards the extreme, some poor guy with weak neck muscles is gonna lose consciousness or even have his skull cracked. Safety limits are a good thing.
Anyway, this whole "its my body let me abuse it" uprising is pointless. The limits set by this law do not affect your ability to black out or sprain your neck. However, they just might save your life in 5 years when someone tries to build a coaster thats bigger and badder than it ought to be.
Re:So, whats the big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So, whats the big deal (Score:2)
And everyone knows it.
Some coasters have bad injury records (Score:2)
Also note that due to heavy lobbying by Disney, official injury reporting is rather weak nationally and in states where Disney has a presence.
Politics rant (Score:2)
This scares me about the way democracy works. You have managers (congressmen, senators, judges, legislators, etc..) that decide what goes on in this country, and none of the, are qualified to make every single one of those decisions. How many legistators do you think really understand how G-forces relate to the risks of rollarcoasters?
Worse, the democratic managers of this country have horrible employers: you and I, the people who hire and fire them by voting. And most of the people in this country (that vote anyway) don't understand most of the issues the managers have to deal with.
So it sets up a perfect scenario for the politicians to act out of fear of being disliked, or even voted out of office for lack of activity. Case in point, this rollarcoaster issue: a few people died, so voters start looking at the lawmakers to act. The lawmakers are forced to do something, anything, even if what they do is wrong. If they didn't, the people would get angry and possibly vote for someone else come next election.
Not that I have a better solution, at least not at 2am on a monday morning
Re:Politics rant (Score:2)
As for the "politicians must do something" argument. Why don't they try telling the truth and educating the public about these types of issues rather than catering to unfounded fears by passing knee-jerk legislation, aka egg cooking laws, roller-coaster G force limits, and the Patriot Act.
I live in Ocean City (Score:5, Interesting)
While going up the incline, I heard several faint but audible metal pinging sounds; these were the sounds of metal ejecting from the machine. Once the roller coaster reached the peak I discovered something awful: the back right corner was not secure! During the whole ride the back bucked and jittered unnaturally, and I honestly thought the thing would come off. Afterward, I told everyone I could about my experience, though no one wants to listen to a hyperactive thirteen year old.
Though I love to be right, having a mother and her child die to prove it wasn't what I had in mind...though I did say for years the thing would kill people.
G-Forces my ass; that roller coaster is the same generic thing you see at every carnival. The owners of the park, the Gillian family, have been pocketing inspectors for years. The entire place reeks of disrepair and I refuse to set foot in it. I'm STILL waiting for the litigation against their greedy asses to surface, but they still drive all over town with their fancy cars and personalized parking places.
Re:I live in Ocean City (Score:3, Interesting)
- I rode the said roller coaster many times, though certainly not recently. The last time I rode it must have been 1993 or so, and that ride remains one of the most horrific and memorable events in my memory.
Maybe you just need to stop whining and not ride rollercoasters... wanna know the reason why? Read my next response.- While going up the incline, I heard several faint but audible metal pinging sounds; these were the sounds of metal ejecting from the machine. Once the roller coaster reached the peak I discovered something awful: the back right corner was not secure! During the whole ride the back bucked and jittered unnaturally, and I honestly thought the thing would come off. Afterward, I told everyone I could about my experience, though no one wants to listen to a hyperactive thirteen year old.
No one wanted to listen to a thirteen year old (in this case) because he was dead wrong. Rollercoasters are designed with an emergency "braking" system on the upwards incline to prevent it from falling back down uncontrollably if the chain breaks.Wooden roller coasters and even some others are pulled to their highest point by a chain much like a massive bike chain. The roller coaster (by the force of gravity) leaves the station, rolls over the chain, loses speed (comes into the incline), has a big tooth on the bottom that is hooked backwards (so it can go over the chain but hooks into it, when the chain's upward/forward rate is in excess of the coaster's), the coaster then rises to the highest point, breaks the crest and falls due to gravity and the ride begins.
Along many curves and the upward starting track are metal rungs, like a metal rung ladder but not very wide. The coaster has teeth/a tooth much like the one that grabs the chain... big spring loaded device that is continuously being pushed down... if the coaster starts slipping backwards, it grabs...
COASTER
/(tooth)
....
[_____________________]
the tooth because of it's angle rides over the springs, and sounds like (to a certain 13 year old) pieces of metal ejecting from the coaster... almost like metal pins/rivets being popped from it. What said 13 year old was really hearing was the spring pushing the tooth back down once it cleared a safety rung.
On many new coasters this is done using hydraulic brakes. Hydraulics hold the massive (long) brake pads apart, the coaster has fins on the bottom that slide between them. If there is a system failure or another reason to stop the coaster, the brakes close (with a V wedge opening on both sides that allow the fin to slide between and be "caught" due to friction).
Some coasters employ both. (Almost all employ this method to stop coasters when they enter the station).
People hysterically making retarted claims are what can often cause idiotic laws like this. Proper maintenance avoids most all such problems. The rest are due to "unavoidable" mechanical malfunctions that no amount of legislation can prevent.
-Rob
www.BinFeeds.com
Re:I live in Ocean City (Score:2)
However, regardless of whether my hypothesis was correct, two facts remain:
- I was correct: the roller coaster would eventually kill people
- The roller coaster broke in a fashion consistent with my complaint
I hardly think asking for proper inspections is "retarded."
Re:I live in Ocean City (Score:3, Informative)
The accident occurred on a ride called the 'Wild Wonder', installed in 1999, and removed later that same year. After modifications to fix the design flaw, that ride now operates at Magic Springs park in Arkansas.
What basically happened was that the car slipped backwards down the hill (after two diffirent safety systems simultaneously failed...) and the two passengers were ejected as the train rounded a very tight radius turn.
Made that way! (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to study roller coaster design a little more. Many roller coasters are designed to look and feel like they are going to fall apart at any moment. I've ridden those that are, and those that are not. I avoid the roller coasters that feel soild becuase they are no fun. (In general the soild roller coasters ahve to mkae up for the lack of fun by going upside down, while the "weak" ones are fun with much tamer rides)
Engineers are tricky, those roller coasters are still plenty safe, and inspectors are not often bought. For that matter the operators know that they need to appear to be running a minimal maintance operation, but if that actucally running minimal maintance is risking death, and they cannot afford those lawsuits. (Okay, so the insurance company might force it in some cases, but the result is the same: a raide that feels unsafe while still perfectly safe)
How to enjoy freefall without worrying about Gs... (Score:2)
You should see my comfy chair!! (Score:5, Funny)
Woah Woah... into a chair? Thats crazy!! i've got the most comfy overstuffed lounge chair and I can tell ya the "specialist" has it all wrong.. its getting out of the chair!!! that exerts gforce!! i probably push against 100g's to get out of oh so comfy chair!!
No GeForces? (Score:2)
Well, at least you can still game with ATI video cards in New Jersey!
Do any words beginning with "pre" really need them (Score:2)
Other than 'previously', what other words need the prefix 'pre'? An existing medical condition says the exact same thing as pre-existing. Can anyone think back to a time when 'pre' wasn't abused all over the place? Maybe it started with pre-heating ovens? Have previews always been called that? Have trailers ever been at the end of movie, else why are they called that?
Re:Do any words beginning with "pre" really need t (Score:2)
Just being pedantic back at you.
(But I have no idea about the trailer thing....dumb movie lingo)
G-Forces on Coasters (Score:3, Funny)
"exert 10 Gs just plopping into a chair" (Score:3, Funny)
Pardon me for asking, but isn't that a bit unhygienic?
(I can't even begin to consider the agony of requiring 10Gs!)
Simon
Wasted Effort... (Score:2)
This kind of legislation just makes me sick. The entertainment industry will take care of itself -- noone will ride a ride that is known to hurt people!
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...
aa (Score:2)
Here's a Summary Table of Key Citations [house.gov]. Congressman Markey's main page on the subject [house.gov] is also worth reading.
As for the millions who escape unscathed, I don't think that has ever been a valid argument against safety legislation. The majority of people who use power tools without eye protection will not lose an eye; does that mean OSHA should stop requiring protective eyewear?
Hey, this is sane... (Score:2)
Besides, 5.6G is a lot even for just the coaster. If the coaster itself weighs a ton, it would mean the rail would have to be built to deal with 5.6 ton, plus whatever extra comes from vibration, and finally, better double that, just to be on the safe side. This requires extensive testing, all the time... Modern fighter planes spend more time on the ground than in the air for exactly that reason.
If you want more than 5.6G, you should bring your medical attest, sign the waiver, etc... It's just not something you want to send people with unknown physical condition into. And it's not just the cardiac problems. There are people with e.g. weak neck-muscles, skeletal problems, etc. This could probably be enough to trigger a whiplash, or anything else, if you are not physically fit.
Hell, better build the coaster so that they're fun to ride, instead of simply dangerous. The feeling of free fall, the horror of feeling like you're almost going to run into that bar over your head, jerky motion like on a wood-coaster, etc... there are a lot of things you can do without putting people into danger, that will be just as exciting.
And sinking into a chair has nothing to do with it. That is impulse, not sustained force. And while impulse is dangerous too, it's not like you can just compare their numbers without thinking. (While I can survive under water for two minutes, I can probably not survive two days on top of mount everest (even though there are a lot more oxygen at the top of mount everest).)
Win win legislation (Score:2)
Hey stop NARCing my ride man...
and several more:
What a watse of my Legislators time...
posts, but this is, in fact, great legislature.
You see the thing of it is, is that whoever this bonehead is, he/she hasn't done any real harm. Go ahead regulate the gs in my rollercoaster, Hell, regurgitate them for all I care. This truly does not matter. The Government (aka The Man) has done YOU no harm, this time.
For the Legislator well this is a huge plus. Most of the State could care less what they've done and as such will not hold them accountable but... overprotective, SUV on the sidewalk at 50 miles an hour chatting on her cell phone, Soccer Mom thinks you're fucking Joan Of Arc saving her little ones from the brain damage she should be doling out with sugary treats, 50 inch TVs hooked to PS2s and the incessant drone of her voice warning them against the evils of the world. You've justified her existence, you've made a positive impact on her life, you have given a legal voice to her constant nagging... You da man!
And so we're all happier. Truly nothing has been accomplished and somebody somewhere is happy. Everyone wins.
My take on this.... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. They are regulating something that has a lower per capita injury/fatality rate than garden hoses, bowling, driving, walking up stairs, and really just about anything.
2. Given [1] this is obviously 'look good' legislation that, as usual, totally fails to see the cause of injuries.
3. By far the biggest cause of injuries is rider error. You know, people who don't "remain seated with your hands inside the car at all times". The next biggest cause (roughly 15%) is operator error. These type of accidents usually result because the operator did something stupid (IE was walking under the track while the coaster was running.) The other major cause of accidents (almost 5%) are caused by those with preexisting conditions (asthma, heart trouble, back trouble, etc). Again, essentially rider error, as the signs warn quite clearly that those with preexisting medical conditions should not ride.
4. Even assuming g forces are a danger (I disagree, but just for the sake of argument...), NJ is looking at it in the wrong way. Based on a large body of anecdotal evidence (I've ridden 153 coasters at 52 diffirent parks, total # of rides probably close to 5000), the only thing that ever causes discomfort are those hideous over the sholder restraints (Sometimes referred to as 'horsecollars'. These restraints let your HEAD do all the stopping under any sort of lateral acceleration. Ever since Karl Bacon of Arrow Dynamics came up with the idea in the early '70's, they have been causing headaches everywhere they are installed. Luckily, some companies are seeing the light. Schwarzkopf GMBH (one of the dominant builders of early looping rides) always used simple lapbars, and those ride like a dream. Premier Rides, maker of magnetically launched rides, has recently retrofitted almost all their rides with lapbars. Those have now gone from a boxing simulator to being world class rides.
hmm (Score:2)
siri
It's OK to smoke (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise known as the Philip Morris argument.
news flash! (Score:2)
Let me get this straight: you're saying that a bunch of congressmen are making laws regulating something they didn't really understand? That's absurd!
Stop them before the try to regulate computers or the internet!....oh, wait....
recliner ritual (Score:2)
This should make for an interesting recliner ritual.
Come home, grab a beer, and annouce "Watch out! I'm coming in for re-entry!"
Setback for the Future (Score:2)
Well it is New Jersey... (Score:2)
Re:Well it is New Jersey... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares (Score:2)
Re:More to ban (Score:2)
Re:More to ban (Score:2)
Re:More to ban (Score:2)
Re:More to ban (Score:2)
Yes, please do...
a F-16 can perform a flat turn. This is where the aircraft does not bank at all before turning left or right.
No, it cannot. The vectored thrust F-22 CAN do somewhat of a flat turn. The engine nozzles turn left or right, causing the nose to move the other direction. A whole lot of other things are going on as well, but that's the basics.
They make roller coasters seem like nothing after you fly in one.
So, from your incisive comment, we can assume you've never flown in one? I have, once. Yes, it is the world's ultimate rollercoaster. And, G-suit or no, I started to blackout at one point.
Re:More to ban (Score:2, Informative)
Will
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:3, Interesting)
Limits are needed and the industry brought it on themselves by (1) Making rollercoasters really fast and (2) Not addressing the issue of deaths.
If the rollercoaster manufacturers/theme parks had really addressed this issue to begin with, this might not have been as big a problem.
-Sean
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:2)
now, if you want to talk about ride safety, then fine: yes, occasionally either something malfunctions or someone does something stupid (much more often the latter) and someone falls to their death or is struck by a moving train. a mentally handicapped person managed to wriggle out of his harness while on Shockwave at Paramount's Kings Dominion, and subsequently fell to his death. also, this summer, someone hopped a 10-foot fence into a restricted area and was struck by a train. just a week or two ago, several people were injured when a kiddie swing ride tipped over (at a county fair, not an amusement park). these sorts of accidents do happen. but what has never, ever, happened is someone being ijured (or at least being shown to have been injured) as the result of G-forces on a rollercoaster.
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:Step off Re:This is a step in the right directi (Score:2)
Batman: R
Viper: R
Revolution: PG
DeathCoaster! NC17
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:3, Informative)
I might care if you can show me a link to that statistic. A quick Google search turned up a whole lot of nothing, except a Book Review [acton.org] of someone saying that sudden acceleration syndrome was B.S. in the Audi case and it was bad science. If your statistic is legit, then yes, I would care. But it looks like FUD, which is probably why you posted AC.
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:2, Funny)
If one of those 42 people were your close relative, would you care? Would you remove the crayon?
Would you even take the time to write the number 42 in crayon?
Re:This is a step in the right direction (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some Perspective...? (Score:3, Funny)
Are you from Jersey?
I'm from Jersey.
Really? What exit?
--
Damn the Emperor!
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
Re:Some Perspective...? (Score:2)
If you were meeting the president, and you said, "Hey, i'm going to kill you!" they would lock you up faster than you could say, "Just kidding!"
I don't blame the waitress. What these three did was really, really stupid.
The med students (Score:4, Interesting)
And you apparently neglected to read any of the news articles on this subject in the last three or four days. [cnn.com]
The students claim that the "bring it down" remark referred to a car that they were considering "bringing down" to florida from a northern state. They claim that either the waitress was mistaken or lied about the "september 13" comment she said she overheard. They claim that the conversation was completely normal and did not touch on terrorism, september 11, or september 13. There is absolutely no reason to believe they were joking about anything.
I think the waitress just misheard stuff. However, I do not blame the waitress either. I think she did the correct thing, given the circumstances. I do not blame the police, either, though it seems they overreacted a bit. They were just doing their jobs, in investigating and clearing a possible threat.
I blame the media outlets for gross negligence [miami.com]. How they have handled this has been really, really stupid.
I am perplexed and disappointed at the number of media outlets who printed or said outright that the medical students admitted to "joking" about september 11. It appears, at the moment, that that particular rumor is baseless, and APPEARS to originate (I am not 100% sure about this bit) from early reports stating that the waitress' daughter told reporters that "maybe [the students] were making a joke", which were then accidentally rereported by other news outlets as saying flat-out the students had joked about september 11. You will notice that no news outlets in the latter half of the weekend have said anything at all about "joking".
An extra note, becuase an AC asked for elaboration on cribcage's "being expelled" comment: The students have been asked, at least temporary, to leave their internships at the hospital they are studying at because the hospital had been recieving threats from people who didn't quite grasp everything the news told them (Can't find link at this moment, sorry, but there was an article on CNN.com this morning which now seems to be gone.) The hospital said they would consider allowing the students back in time, or if local law enforcement would agree to assist in providing extra protection from "patriotic" nutjobs.
No (Score:2)
You neglect to mention that they were alleged to have joked about commiting acts of destruction. There is a pretty big diffrence.
Re:Some Perspective...? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4068519.htm
Interesting... It seems they were just having a laugh at the expense of some busybody waitress... Paranoia rules!
Re:Some Perspective...? (Score:2)
It seems the government can't win in some cases.
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:another win for the legal eagles (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, I've seen a reproduction of the balance sheet from ford, numbers of deaths, injuries etc, all tallied up against potential liability, and then the bottom line calculation of cost of modifications needed to alleviate the problem. Truely shocking.
McDonalds made no such calculationsOK, I don't have any access to the evidence brought at that trial, so I shall defer to your greater knowledge. It remains, true, does it not, that the apparently excessive exemplary damages awarded in that case, were the result of McDonalds' failure to change their practices despite repeated injuries of a similar nature (presumably they felt that colder coffee would adversly affect sales). While this is not as shocking as the behaviour of Ford, it is not entirely dissimilar.
Re:say what? (Score:2)
'Who in the hell you bring video card on to a roller coaster let alone so many as to the point it needed to be limited'
damn dog, that thought was crunk
Re:10 G? (Score:2)
I think. Someone with a PhD in Physics can probably explain it better. And probably will.
Re:Other rides? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: the accident: The was a chain dog failure ending in derailment [I believe]. Normal ride forces were not involved in any way, it's just a straw man used to push this law through.
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:3, Offtopic)
Why would you want to pump your own gas? Trust me when its either 95F or 25F you sure as hell don't want to be standing outside. Plus the attendant comes to you and you don't have to wait in line with people buying cigarettes. As someone who has lived in both California and New Jersey, I'll take someone waiting on me any day over having to get out of my car. I don't see your logic.
Regarding the driving age I've always thought 16 was too young anyway. Having an extra year of maturity never hurt anyone. And yes I when I was 16 I was jealous of kids in other states who had their licenses, but whatever I got over it.
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:2)
I strongly doubt that. It's more likely that the 10-20 cents extra per gallon is added in.
95's nothing...get back to me when your temperatures hit 115. As for 25, it almost never gets that cold here. Given a choice, I'd rather pump my own gas than risk having some minimum-wage flunky spill gas all over the paint on my truck. Besides, I usually check the oil and other fluids while the gas is pumping, and I definitely wouldn't want the aforementioned minimum-wage flunky nosing around under the hood.
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:2)
As a resident, I can say that you are incorrect here. NJ actually has some of the lowest priced gasoline in the US. We also have some of the lowest-taxed gasoline as well. I commute from NJ to PA for work. The gasoline by my house in NJ is currently $1.22 per gallon for regular unleaded (it's even lower elsewhere in the state); its $1.52 here in PA. 30 cents more per gallon, and you pump it yourself.
Given a choice, I'd rather pump my own gas than risk having some minimum-wage flunky spill gas all over the paint on my truck. Besides, I usually check the oil and other fluids while the gas is pumping, and I definitely wouldn't want the aforementioned minimum-wage flunky nosing around under the hood.
First off, I just want to say that this is a damn insulting attitude. Many of the people who are attendants at the stations are also the managers and/or owners of the station. Several of them are also trained mechanics. Even the teenagers I know who work at NJ gas stations are not "minimum-wage flunkies". Please check your condescending attitude, thanks. If anything, I would say someone who pumps gas for a long period of time would be much more likely to not spill any on your car than you yourself would, especially when it's 25 degrees outside and your hands are shaking and shivering from the cold.
Also, you make it sound like the attendant can just open your car hood whenever they want, but actually they still need you to pop the lock from inside the car. If you don't want them looking, just say so. If an attendant asks if I would like him to check my oil, I just say no; problem solved.
Basically, if you lived here, you wouldn't have this attitude. Until that point, please refrain from speaking about what you don't know.
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:2)
Keep in mind however that a lot of New Jersey's roadways are financed through tolls--whereas most states finance highways through gasoline taxes.
Now let us take a look at this [nemw.org] which is a summary of gasoline price per gallon in summer 01 and summer 02. The average price per gallon in New Jersey is quite a lot higher than most states (except those which are far from refineries, like your Wyoming and Alaska or require a different fuel mix, like California, which is also far from refineries.) Indeed, Connecticut asseses a tax which is some 20 cents higher than New Jersey's tax, but the cost in CT for a gallon of gas is about the same as it is in NJ. Delaware's tax is nearly ten cents higher than NJ's, but most of the time you'll get gas there for about ten cents cheaper. I use CT and DE as states to compare to because they are close by, often with similar population densities. NY would make a bad comparison because a lot of NY is not the NYC metro area, which I suspect has a bit of a inflation effect on gas prices for the tri-state area.)
My hypothesis is that since all stations in NJ have to pump gas for you, the price for that service is rolled into the cost of the gasoline, and the statistics do seem to indicate that gas in NJ, given it's pretty low sales tax, is more expensive than it is in other states.
Having said all that, I think I would be a little sad if NJ got rid of full service--it's one of those unique things that make NJ what it is. Like the Sopranos, non-photo driver licenses (which they are sadly getting rid of) and...umm...damn. I guess that's it.
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:2)
Wimp. All of my life I've lived in places where it exceeds one of those for a good part of the year. I still pump my own gas.
If you want something done right... (Score:2)
Why do we want to pump our own gas?
Maybe because the people currently staffing NJ gas stations are barely capable of pumping gas?
Maybe because they can barely understand "Fill it up regular" and 50% of them *cannot* understand "Don't top it off."
Yes, I don't know how many times I have asked, "Don't top it off" and was either ignored or not understand. I've even yelled, "Stop!!!" when they did top it off. Did they stop? Nope.
Gas stations also used to be a place where you could ask for directions. Since they have to hire 4 minimum-wage guys that can barely understand English rather than 1 cash register operator who can at least understand some, the current crop of gas station attendants couldn't tell you how to find a street EVEN IF IT IS THE STREET THE STATION IS ON! I saw an article about just such an incident a few weeks ago - Someone was heading to an appointment, asked the attendants for directions, and they had no clue. The guy called his destination from a payphone, guess what their instructions were?
"Look behind you..."
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:2)
Re:Some explanation of New Jersey (Score:2)
gas pumping NJ citizens = disaster (Score:2)
Then I saw the gas pump fall to the ground, but not before a quick shot of gas was projected on to his car. It was a great moment.
I agree about the the driving age restrictions. They are ridiculous. Currently you have to be 17 and even then you can't drive later than midnight or with more than one non-family member in the car younger than 21. There is always talk of moving the age from 17 to 18. The same people who push the driving age up are the same ones who complain about kids hanging out in parking lots. Sure young drivers get into a lot of accidents, but there are other ways of solving that problem.
560m/s^2 in a car? (Score:2)
Accelerating at 5.6gs in a car? Yeah, I can see that. If you drove it into a wall.
LOL (Score:2)
Hahaha.
Actualy that's a good point. Someone mod him up.
Re:Sadness is Abound... (Score:2)
It wouldn't be as exiting as you are used to, but can't they just slow the rides down in sections? Heck, we know that if all those rides you mentioned went at merely one mile per hour, you wouldn't experience anywhere near those G-Forces. So that means all that the NJ park has to do is see if they can slow the ride down in certain parts to meet the restrictions and still make the ride enjoyable. It can even have those G-forces for fractions of a second. Find a nice happy medium.
I don't think this law is unreasonable at all. Better safe and ho-hum than finding out 40 years from now that super-fast Cedar Point was the cause of 10% of all future mental illness in the elderly. So you might not think that roller coaster park in NJ was worth the price of admission. Would you like me to play my violin?
Re:The funniest part... (Score:2)
won't actually affect any coasters, since none currently exceed 5G
Plus, it won't affect any state that matters (ohio). Jersey is just odd sometimes. or all of the times. oh, time to go make fun of my roommate from jersey again...
Really, i wonder how many G's the Millenium Force at Cedar Point pulls? i've heard it's the edge of what people can stand, but then again, i've heard that for other coasters as well.
Who's quote, back in the early 1900s, was "Man was not made to go 19 Miles per Hour!" It's much like the "we'll only ever need XXX kilo/mega/giga-bytes of memory."