If it wasnt then it would have happend eventually,
Maybe.
The risk of sudden death in children is as high as 6% per year.
Maybe not.
Look, this is a difficult question that I don't believe I have the answer to, but I can say that while automatically putting blame on Disney is a mistake, its an equal mistake to just chalk this up as "stuff" happens.
Now, I haven't been on the ride, but you can't tell me its the same as a gravitron. If it were, Disney would have saved a few tens of millions of dollars and put show elements around gravitron technology instead of NASA technology.
Beyond just the pure physical stresses, you also have to consider the visual elements, as they can add to adrenaline levels, disorientation, etc.
But again, I can't come out and say they are to "blame".
Yes, they put warnings up about pre-existing conditions, but that doesn't help you much if you have a difficult to diagnose pre-existing condition.
overall prevalence of HCM is low and has been estimated to occur in 0.05-0.2% of the population.
I think we can tell by this that even if you have this particular condition, its not a given that you will have problems on M:S. Otherwise, we'd have far more than just one tragic case.
But it has to be pause for thought, at the least.
With his condition the little boy could have died on that (Space Mountain) just as easily.
Now, see, this is what I'm talking about. I hate to single you out Bank, but since you were the last person to say something like this, I'm using your quote. The fact is, neither you nor I know if your statement is true. Those rides put different types of physical stresses on the body for different lengths of time, and contain different visual elements. Your making an assumption that is no more valid than somebody saying that if one person died on a ride in the first year, 20 will die in 20 years.
I'm sure Disney has put a lot of effort into determining if M:S is safe enough. Have they put "enough" effort into it, as some have claimed they have not? I don't know. I hope so.
DK, on the point about Disney having more of a responsibility than another park operator may have...
I think the point made was that a vast majority of the people who go to Magic Mountain, for example, are looking for thrill rides. If they have a "condition" or aren't comfortable with those rides, they have their guard up. Plus, they can usually see exactly what they are getting into.
With Disney, there is a much larger population that doesn't have that guard up. Yes, there are warnings on the approrpriate rides, but they've been on Big Thunder, Space Mountain, Splash Mountain, even RnRC, and their experience tells them that a warning sign at Disney is usually followed by something different than a warning sign at Magic Mountain. Also, unlike coasters like Goliath and X, you can't take one look at the attraciton and know what you are getting into. Yes, I know there are warnings and descriptions, videos, etc.
The first question is does that give Disney any additional legal responsibility? I highly doubt it, though I don't know if anybody has tried to present that as an argument in court.
The second question is does it give Disney more of a moral responsibility? Of course this is highly subjective, and there's probably no point in getting into it. I'm honestly not sure about it myself.
The third question is does Disney have a "business" need to take this into consideration? I think the answer to that is an unequivocal YES. That doesn't mean they don't build any given ride, but they have to understand that if X number of people who probably shouldn't ride a ride at Six Flag's does it anyway, than a multiple of that will do it at Disney.
That most certainly has practical implications to say the least.
I am reminded of a quote by an imagineer about how a 1 in a million chance is not good enough for Disney. If you say there is a 1 in a million chance something will go wrong on M:S then that means something will go wrong four times a year.
Good point, and that's why this tragedy should raise a few red flags, beyond just the concern over this one boy's life. I think we'd agree that Disney could not successfully operate with rides that claim the lives of 4 people a year who did nothing wrong other than carry around an undiagnosed pre-existing condition.
One every five years would probably be significantly detrimental, especially if they are going to build multiple rides of higher intensity. When you factor in the point about more people being apt to be caught "off their guard", its something that has to be considered, from a practical point of view, if nothing else.
Who knows, maybe M:S will go the next 10 years with no further fatalities, and all will be well. But the fact that it hasn't been open that long makes it logically more suspect than if the same thing happened on a ride that had been open for 20 years with no incidents of this type.
Now, I can't help but say that I do have some moral concerns about all of this, but beyond that, I won't say much. Other than to say I would need more questions answered before I could say anything definitively, and that while its easy to say "stuff" happens from the outside, I'm not sure I'd want to sign the approval paper that told me "stuff" would likely happen "X" number of times.
And considering it has been one child out of how many....
