Icon Park - Drop Tower Accident 24/03/2022

[Christian]

Drove over to Icon earlier today and got there just as they removed the top most tower section.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636497862644101128

To me that looks like a very careful removal, not like something going to be scrapped.

We might see this ride turn up somewhere else, maybe even shortened a bit to not turn up the fanfare of it being the tallest in the world and thereby it's tragic history exposed to the gp.

Regarding going to places where people have been murdered. Some people are very sensitive about it, while for others it goes away. Personally, it's not such a big issue. My parent's city, Malmö, used to have the highest homiciderate in Sweden. People have been murdered on streets, parks, malls, schools, squares, restaurants, bars, etc.

A school mate of mine was murdered next to one of the largest supermarkets. One morning a guy was murdered 100m away from my primary school. Another day, a mother carrying her baby was murdered 300m away from where I was having my lunch. These things happen. I still regularly visit all of these places + many others where murders have happened.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

I mean, I don’t know of many other ways to interpret comparisons to murder (and bringing up Florida law after the fact I don’t think alleviates much) and putting scare quotes around ”unfortunate accident” if not to imply a more sinister underpinning. That may not be intent, but that’s how it read to me. Preventable accidents are still accidents.

Murder is murder, regardless of which law you apply. In the UK we use manslaughter as an alternative term for unplanned murders, but the people committing them are still murderers.

It's not an accident if there was a crime involved is it? If I go out and get drunk and drive my car over somebody, would you say that person died in a horrible accident, or at the hands of a drink driving criminal scumbag? I didn't set out to kill somebody, but I knew my actions had potential consequences. If you would still class that as an accident, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree and put it down to interpretation.

Recklessness and malpractice, even severe ones, do not have to involve malice. It’s entirely possible that those involved knew there’d be a risk (wether an accident would occur or they get on the manufacturer’s bad side for not adhering to their specifications), but that’s a far cry from saying they deliberately set out to have riders falling to their deaths or just allowed it to happen. Unless evidence of malicious intent actually emerges, that’s going too far into the realm of conspiracy theories for me personally.

BTW The mentioning of malpractice was supposed to be a fun poke at the origins of the terms malicious and malpractice, hence the quotations marks, they both have origins rooted in the latin term 'malus' meaning bad. As for your actual point, I refer you back to the previous reply, and the drink driving analogy. It's my opinion that, if you commit a crime that leads to the harm of another person, and you were fully aware of the potential for that harm to be caused, but still do it anyway, then the very act of commiting that crime is indeed malicious.

 

[Nitefly]

Classic internet discourse over something that isn’t actually material to the topic at hand

Wasn’t going to get involved but…

Murder is murder, regardless of which law you apply. In the UK we use manslaughter as an alternative term for unplanned murders, but the people committing them are still murderers.

… well, to be a murderer, you need to have committed murder, which by UK standards requires an intention to cause death or serious harm. This is the element of ‘malice’ that is referred to elsewhere.

So what you imply here is not correct, in terms of UK terminology. Not that it really matters…

Colloquially, some people might say that those who cause manslaughter are ‘murderers’… but it’s just a colloquialism.

Sorry to be a bore!

 

[Nicky Borrill]

Classic internet discourse over something that isn’t actually material to the topic at hand

Wasn’t going to get involved but…



… well, to be a murderer, you need to have committed murder, which by UK standards requires an intention to cause death or serious harm. This is the element of ‘malice’ that is referred to elsewhere.

So what you imply here is not correct, in terms of UK terminology. Not that it really matters…

Colloquially, some people might say that those who cause manslaughter are ‘murderers’… but it’s just a colloquialism.

Sorry to be a bore!

You’re right it is a colloquialism, but I’ve personally never heard those guilty of manslaughter referred to by anything else… Manslaughterer? Killer maybe I dunno, maybe I am wrong about that, but it is besides the point.

For one thing it didn’t happen in the UK it happened in Florida, where it is classed as 3rd degree murder. And more importantly, the main point is that if you set out to deliberately commit a criminal offence, fully aware that it ‘could’ harm or even kill somebody, but still do it anyway, then there is malice.

 

[CanobieFan]

And.... it's gone.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639007827707543554

 

[TPoseOnTantrum]

A couple of very big updates as the story around this incident draws to a close;

The Orlando Slingshot has been permitted to reopen as of now following a very thorough inspection, it hadn’t run since the incident;

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657012215633833985

For some Gov. DeSantis news that is refreshingly not controversial surrounding the Disney conflict, he’s signed off on the Tyre Sampson Act, set to become law on July 1. This will require more stringent inspections and standards for amusement rides in the state; https://www.clickorlando.com/news/l...ned-into-law-changes-rules-for-florida-rides/

 

[Christian]

For some Gov. DeSantis news that is refreshingly not controversial surrounding the Disney conflict, he’s signed off on the Tyre Sampson Act, set to become law on July 1. This will require more stringent inspections and standards for amusement rides in the state; https://www.clickorlando.com/news/l...ned-into-law-changes-rules-for-florida-rides/

The whole inspection part seems great but will also any ride in Florida over 100 feet now require both harness and seatbelt? Or did I get that wrong?

 

[Nicky Borrill]

The whole inspection part seems great but will also any ride in Florida over 100 feet now require both harness and seatbelt? Or did I get that wrong?

If that’s wrong then it’s click orlando that got it wrong not you, as that’s exactly what the article says.

If it’s true to the word, even Velocicoaster is going to need belts…

 

[Fluorineer]

A couple of very big updates as the story around this incident draws to a close;

The Orlando Slingshot has been permitted to reopen as of now following a very thorough inspection, it hadn’t run since the incident;

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1657012215633833985

For some Gov. DeSantis news that is refreshingly not controversial surrounding the Disney conflict, he’s signed off on the Tyre Sampson Act, set to become law on July 1. This will require more stringent inspections and standards for amusement rides in the state; https://www.clickorlando.com/news/l...ned-into-law-changes-rules-for-florida-rides/

Maybe I'm just hungover which makes me sound extra-douchebaggey, but one single person has died, via a form of negligence that has been very easily identified and that we know how to prevent: don't be an asshole, operate the ride like the manual says, and for the love of God, don't make any modifications to the safety systems.

Is this really the sort of incident that requires new legislation? Why? Because this incident is so legible? Because it feeds to the people who share Facebook-videos of "deadly roller coasters"?

I'm sorry, but this is appeasement and security-theater. Meanwhile, Florida is still a car-infested hellhole, and Warfarin causes 40,000 ER-visits annually. Back to real problems please.

 

[Dar]

I can't see anything about harness or seatbelt requirements, let alone above a certain height, anywhere in the actual text of the bill?
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/902/BillText/er/HTML

The main changes seem to be the annual permit and the new "ride commissioning and certifications report" which they define as:

75 (r) “Ride commissioning and certification report” means a
76 commissioning and certification report by the ride manufacturer
77 which certifies that the ride has been designed and manufactured
78 in conformance with the manufacturer’s design criteria,
79 standards referenced in this section, and rules adopted by the
80 department.

Operators need to apply for a permit and include an annual NDT report and a complete set of the manufacturers operating instructions and bulletins (lines 81-105)
But that only applies to new rides that start operating after July 1st 2023 (lines 106-108).
Then the department will inspect the ride 6 months after they issue the permit (lines 223-246)

It includes reporting requirements for accidents (lines 358-353)

It also allows for the department to specify minimum training standards and intervals for employees to be allowed to operate a ride. Along with record-keeping requirements for that training. (lines 397-418)

If a ride fails an inspection, it can be closed until it passes another inspection. But, every other ride from that manufacturer or "with similar operating characteristics" can also be closed until it passes an inspection (lines 419-437)

But nothing about specific restraints in specific scenarios. Unless you count the seatbelts and harnesses specified by the manufacturer. Because then, yes, the bill requires you have those fitted.

 

[Nicky Borrill]

I can't see anything about harness or seatbelt requirements, let alone above a certain height, anywhere in the actual text of the bill?
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/902/BillText/er/HTML

The main changes seem to be the annual permit and the new "ride commissioning and certifications report" which they define as:

Operators need to apply for a permit and include an annual NDT report and a complete set of the manufacturers operating instructions and bulletins (lines 81-105)
But that only applies to new rides that start operating after July 1st 2023 (lines 106-108).
Then the department will inspect the ride 6 months after they issue the permit (lines 223-246)

It includes reporting requirements for accidents (lines 358-353)

It also allows for the department to specify minimum training standards and intervals for employees to be allowed to operate a ride. Along with record-keeping requirements for that training. (lines 397-418)

If a ride fails an inspection, it can be closed until it passes another inspection. But, every other ride from that manufacturer or "with similar operating characteristics" can also be closed until it passes an inspection (lines 419-437)

But nothing about specific restraints in specific scenarios. Unless you count the seatbelts and harnesses specified by the manufacturer. Because then, yes, the bill requires you have those fitted.

Nice to see that local news and media is as good in the States as it is in the UK.

Thanks for doing the digging and sharing the results.

To be fair a lot of sensible things in there, particularly some of the newer additions / amendments the more directly relate to this incident.

301 (d) Upon request, the owner or manager of an amusement ride
302 must demonstrate patron-loading procedures and must provide the
303 proper positioning and measurements related to patron safety
304 restraint systems, as established by the manufacturer of the
305 amusement ride or by a professional engineer or qualified
306 inspector.

324 (j)(i) Signs that advise or warn patrons of age
325 restrictions, size restrictions, health restrictions, weight
326 limitations, or any other special consideration or use
327 restrictions, or lack thereof, required or recommended for the
328 amusement ride by the manufacturer must be prominently displayed
329 at the patron entrance of each amusement ride. If the amusement
330 ride manual does not include rider restrictions related to age,
331 size, health, or weight, the department may require the owner or
332 manager to provide documentation from the amusement ride
333 manufacturer, a licensed professional engineer, or a qualified
334 inspector confirming that no such restrictions exist.

 

[Matt N]

So in essence, the bill requires coasters built with seatbelts to have them, but doesn’t require every ride over 100ft to have seatbelts as the news article stated?

So things like Mako and VelociCoaster shouldn’t need to be fitted with seatbelts as a result of this bill?

As @Nicky Borrill said, though, it does sound as though the bill introduces plenty of good measures that should improve the safety of Florida theme parks.