Originally Posted By paulyahoo << I think it is a sad and unfortunate coincidence. >> Disney is playing with fire. Do they want Florida to change its laws after M:S kills another person?
Originally Posted By KachinaBear <<Unless you're a doctor, you don't know that. If someone has a heart defect that puts them at risk of sudden death, that means they could die walking down the street>> While this is true, it's also true that aggressive thrill rides are known to aggravate heart problems. Why do you think they have so many warning sides on said rides stating that people with heart problems should not ride? No, I'm not a doctor, and maybe it is just a coincidence. It just seems that if that were the case, we would have seen more such "coincidental" deaths on other Disney (non-thrill) rides in the company's fifty year history. I'm not saying they necessarily need to close the ride, I'm just saying I think it's getting harder to deny there is a correlation between the nature of the ride and the deaths (in my non-professional opinion).
Originally Posted By oc_dean While I don't directly blame the ride for the cause of yet another death within a year .... It's no doubt this thrill ride - a ride that is pushing the limit to how far the human body can take - that it definitely agravated a physical condition that this woman already had. Whether she was aware of it or not. On the defense of Disney, they give plenty of warning of what exactly the ride does ... and in writing. But I am personally against this era in theme parks that keep trying to push the physical limits of what the human body can take - That includes Disney! Lots of money spent on rides that have narrower .. and narrower .. and narrower demograph of riders. While any person can take ill even in standing in a sand box in the new Pooh playground ... no one can deny that the more physically intense the attraction is ... the more chances a person can take ill. I'm not denying Disney shouldn't have a mix of more "exciting" attractions that can appeal to a younger set - BUT THAT'S JUST IT! Rides that rule out most people .. from ages 4 to 49 to 69. It's this latest push in the last 5 years in rides is what is pushing the envelope a LITTLE too much.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<I'm just saying I think it's getting harder to deny there is a correlation between the nature of the ride and the deaths (in my non-professional opinion).>> But the professionals (and by that I mean the coroner who performed the autopsy on the four year old boy) said the ride WAS NOT at fault, but the cause was a heart defect that put the boy at risk for sudden death at ANY TIME. An enlarged heart can kill you in your sleep, walking down the street, or while you're eating your dinner. The ride had nothing to do with it. He easily could've gone into seizures at school and died as a cause of the defect. There was no correlation between the ride and his death, so you can't say that's it hard to deny a correlation. There wouldn't be an uproar if the little boy had died riding Spaceship Earth or the Magic Carpets of Alladin, now would there?
Originally Posted By oc_dean Correlation is one thing. But riding M:S no doubt triggered/aggravated it.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'm not saying M:S should close forever starting tommorrow ..... My pet-pieve .... any new rides on the drawing board from here on out should encompass anyone - the whole family. Not just people between ages 10 to 35 who are in the most absolute perfect health - as if they were training to be an astronaut. But rides that can invite the little ones .. the grandparents ... and everyone inbetween. Disney theme park rides can be *thrilling* without tossing a person guts litterally all over the place. You know - rides that are heavy on "show."
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Post 9 Av--pithy and the truth. Tea cups, to me, are much more dangerous. I would put my kids on MS before going out on the mid cape highway with the Joan Kennedys of the world out there. Just read the court report of your local newspapers. This world is dangerous. MS is safe. MILLIONS of rides and 2 deaths unrelated to the rides. Giving kids french fries at WDW is MUCH more dangerous and will kill your kids and yourself albeit more slowly.
Originally Posted By Labuda Trippy said: "The fact is that people are NOT dieing on the other Disney attractions. I don't think Disney, in 50 years of theme park operation, has had ONE death on any other attraction when it was working properly and the guest was not doing something they should not do." Then Kachina Bear said: "Didn't an older woman die on Pirates of the Caribbean last year, due to heart attack or something?" And now I say: That is correct, Kachina Bear. Also, we had the issue last year of the young girl who collapsed at one of the water parks. In late 1998, we had a guest struck in the head by a rope used to secure the sailing ship Columbia as it docked on the Rivers of America that tore loose the metal cleat to which it was attached then hit this guest, his wife, and a CM. And let's not forget BTMRR jumping its tracks in 2003 and killing a man. So, at Disneyland we've had deaths attributable to Disney error, but so far as WDW, we've not. And, I honestly do not think that Mission: Space will be found to be at fault in this instance either. My condolences to the family of the woman who passed away.
Originally Posted By Labuda One more thing: "And I would guess that these people for the most part were old, had heart conditions, and would have been just as likely to die if they were driving a car, eating in a restaurant, or just relaxing in their recliner. The difference with the MS deaths is that the people were young, apparently were not aware of a medical problem and experienced other Disney attractions without trouble, but died after Mission Space. The woman who died on Pirates is like the folks dieing on planes... elderly people with know heart problems that could have just as easily died riding in their cars." A heart condition is a heart condition, whether you know about it or not. And M:S was not determined to be at fault when the little boy died.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe We agree on this Labuda for sure Cut people slack please (infant thread) when they disagree> thanks joe Experts devote their lives toward TRYING to help people and are not stupid. They may have a different opinion than you or me but they are not stupid. I love Bob Sehlinger and his book which I have memorized and he is not stupid as we had trouble with the 2 kids when they were 7 and 8.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I don't know...it is suspect just due to the numbers. A good point was made that this one attraction, in its short existence, has had some type of connection with death more often then any other (time wise). I love the ride and I would be more supportive of backing it off a notch before closing it. The "G" forces do effect internal organs. I know I find myself having difficulty breathing during initial takeoff. It might be a little less intense and still enjoyable, I don't know, but it is starting to get worrisome that so many have had conditions (coincidentially?) triggered by the ride. It might be time to rethink it. Not eliminate but tweak it to see if they can cut down the number of incidents to zero. I know some will say that they don't approve of "calming" a ride but in this case it may be more than just to prevent fear. I know I personally think it is preferable to leave an attraction vertical and ready for a Mickey Bar.
Originally Posted By t1lersm0m <<All one has to do to stop the arguments that I agree are no doubt forthcoming..is look at how many people die flying each year as an example. >> How could you compare flying to a WDW attraction? i understand accidents happen on roller coasters, and other thrill rides. And I know M: S is considered a thrill ride. But doesn't it pretty much stay still, with just some thing spinning to make you feel the G forces? I would never ride this ride. many people have undiagnosed heart conditions.....I wouldn't want to take the chance.
Originally Posted By paulyahoo Also it's quite incorrect to compare 3-hour flights far from medical help and 3-minute ride with close proximity to paramedics.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I honestly think many guests don't understand the intensity of Mission: Space, and they ignore the warning signs. The ride mechanism isn't something that most people understand in generic amusement park ride terms. It's not a roller coaster, not a free fall ride, it's sort of like a spinner but you can't really see what it's doing. I would be willing to be that there are guests who wouldn't dare ride Tower of Terror or even Big Thunder Mountain, but they'll get on M:S because they think it is just a simulator like Star Tours. I also think the simulator aspect may have something to do with people's reaction to the ride as well. I got more sick on Body Wars than any single thrill ride I have ever experience -- something about the weird motions and simulated environment. I wonder if M:S has the same sort of affect on the brain that makes people experience sensations beyond what they would if they were actually placed in a non-simulated environment? Whatever the cause, I just hope M:S doesn't close indefinitely. I would like to ride it on my next trip.
Originally Posted By sun-n-fun I think people read the warnings, but think it can't happen to them. I rode M:S during it's soft opening and HATED it. It's the only ride I have ever not enjoyed. So I just make the choice not to ride. My decision now is if/when do I let my children give it a try. (With their father, of course - not with me)
Originally Posted By t1lersm0m Here's my opinion on comparing dying on M:S and flying. I hate flying. Yes, it's much more enjoyable flying two hours than driving 18. But I hate it nonetheless. I never flew until a year ago when my husband said the only way we could go on our cruise was if we flew because he refused to drive. Part of my fear of flying is knowing there is a risk involved. Yes, I know that it is more dangerous to drive than to fly, but that doesn't help with my fear of flying. I shouldn't have a fear of riding a theme park attraction. I shouldn't get on that attraction knowing I may not get off. Not everyone that has conditions knows about those conditions. And riding an attaction at a DISNEY park of all places shouldn't be so intense that it can cause people with unknown medical conditions to die. How many more people have to die or be sent to the hospital before this ride is toned down, or closed?
Originally Posted By sun-n-fun While riding M:S I actually wondered if I would ever get off. I have never been scared like that on a ride anywhere before. That's what a bad experience it was for me. BUT, again, now I just make the choice not to ride it. People need to know what their bodies can take.
Originally Posted By t1lersm0m ^^But what if you don't know what your body can take? You shouldn't have to think about that. I'm not talking about people knowing whether or not riding the tea cups will make them throw up. I'm talking about how many people have been sent to the hospital by M:S.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe The scariest part of MS are the warnings. My kids say "Dad they keep on warning you and I'm gtting scared from all the warnings. Did they change the ride?" That was after maybe going on it 50 times. Rachel will NOT go on TOT or RNRRC but MS is nothing.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, after four pages let me be the first to say I feel awful for the family and will keep them in my prayers. After the first death I was of the opinion that this was a unique circumstance and it was tragic but should not be a black mark on the ride. After this death I am not as quick to pooh-pooh this and it does raise some doubt in my mind. There are warnings and those warnings should be followed. But, if you don't know you have a pre-existing condition I'm not sure how you make the call not to ride. Every day I get in my car there is an inherent risk. Anytime you get on a ride there is an inherent risk. Anything that is mechanical, electrical, etc poses a hazard to us. The question is, what is an acceptable risk? Only the individual can make that determination.
