Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

    I think we should just wait until the inspection is complete. That should say who is to blame.


    The world is a treasure trove of places.
    The colors of Earth, Sea and Sky. Beauty i'm told, is ours to behold. In the wonderful world of color.
    Indy Ride Count: 2211
    World of Color Count: 74

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

      What's the old joke?
      q: How do you find an engineer in a bar?
      a: They'll tell you.


      An optimist will say the class is half full. The pessimist will say the glass is half-empty. The engineer will say the glass is over-designed by 50%.
      Amnesia used to be my favourite word, but I forgot it.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
        True, though you did say they should be taken off the list. That's a strong implication that they are not at all to blame for the incident.

        Just to be clear, a design doesn't have to BREAK to be poor engineering. Designs need to account for the fact that riders and operators will make errors. This is a fundamental principle of Human-Machine systems.
        Yes, because you were implying that the items on that list were primarily mechanically related. I'm saying they were not. If you weren't implying that, you should be more specific. And good grief, nothing can be engineered to be 100% full proof.

        Sorry, I just don't see how you can make a "statistical point" when you have numbers that are so completely inaccurate. What's the point of statistics if the data they are based on is wrong?
        Okay, you want accurate numbers, I decided to investigate accurate numbers. According to Intamin's own database website, intamindb.com, they have 188 rides in operation. According to rcdb.com, B&M has 74. Not only that, but Intamin dates back from 1976 (Revolution at SFMM), and B&M began in 1990 with Iron Wolf. Therefore, statistically, I would expect at least twice as many accidents from Intamin, especially with a 14 year longer existence. Case closed.

        Now, I know you are going to counter me and state that Intamin has well more than twice as many. (I've been on this thread long enough to predict this. ) Well, I haven't had a chance to unbury my old Statistics book from my Math Major college days (no kidding), but if I recall, unless data goes well into the 3rd or 4th quartile, it's not statistically significant. A small pattern is not necessarily meaningful. In other words, until Intamin has at least 4 times as many, there's not necessarily a correlation. Given the number of rides it has and it's greater length of existence, I don't think that's occurred yet.


        Besides the fact that you're ignoring a huge number of other complicated ride systems that a coaster has besides the lift, and the mistake of saying all B&M's are 4-abreast, I don't see how this is relevant. To say B&M have not innovated in the industry is completely inaccurate. I would never suggest that they have the variety or novelty of Intamin, but to suggest everything they do is basic and uncomplex is going too far in my opinion. Perhaps you think the safety and reliable compromises Intamin has made are worth the extremeties of their design. That's fine, but I sure don't.
        Granted, I am not a ride maintenance operator, so I'm making some educated guesses here. But unless you suddenly tell me otherwise, you're not either. No modern coaster is "basic and uncomplex", agreed. I am speaking relatively here. And I maintain that relatively speaking, maintenance on B&M appears simpler that Intamin. I've seen the mechanics behind Xcelerator firsthand, and it looks way, way more complex than a simple chain lift. But until an actual ride maintenance crew staffer can personally speak for themselves and state their opinions, we can argue this fruitlessly. I consider this point a draw.

        On a personal note, I am curious to know: do you yourself ride Intamin rides?

        I brought up issues with Arrow, Vekoma, Morgan and B&M. I have said repeatedly that no one is immune from accidents. I explained how you're much more likely to get injured at a small park or fair on a no-name ride.
        Actually, I am curious if you have statistics to back that up, especially regarding fairs. My searches on rideaccidents.com don't specifically single out fair injuries as far as I can tell (although I may have missed it), and many (though certainly not all, but many) of the fair injuries I did see had to do with carnival workers getting hurt setting up or dismantling a ride--and not from riding itself. Or were rider faulted (i.e. swinging a ferris wheel car and falling out, undoing seat belts, etc.).

        I didn't ask about your credentials because I didn't make the mistake of asserting (a lack of) knowledge based on the number of posts on a message board.
        I didn't ever say anything about number of posts=knowledge. In fact, I never brought up number of posts at all, you did that on your own. I said, "I've been logging on for a long time". Not that that really accounts for much either, frankly, but I think I've been misquoted for long enough. Besides, my own number of posts is not all that great because on this board, I read more than I post, checking in daily. I generally only post if I feel particularly passionate about a topic.

        I feel like you keep insisting two extremes are simultaneously true--Intamin has more accidents than other companies, but other companies have accidents too, just not as many. Huh? What exactly does that prove? I bring up that Disney has just as many injuries as Intamin, if not more, but you claim you're not talking about Disney, you're only talking about companies that have a lot of mechanical failures. Eh?

        I really need to stop replying to this thread, 'cause I have to go back to work tomorrow. But despite a long history of injuries at Disneyland and Intamin, I still visit and ride both, along with the millions of other people who have done the same, and lived to tell the tale.
        Does anyone even bother with signatures anymore?

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

          Originally posted by JesterMn View Post
          Yes, because you were implying that the items on that list were primarily mechanically related. I'm saying they were not. If you weren't implying that, you should be more specific. And good grief, nothing can be engineered to be 100% full proof.

          Okay, you want accurate numbers, I decided to investigate accurate numbers. According to Intamin's own database website, intamindb.com, they have 188 rides in operation. According to rcdb.com, B&M has 74. Not only that, but Intamin dates back from 1976 (Revolution at SFMM), and B&M began in 1990 with Iron Wolf. Therefore, statistically, I would expect at least twice as many accidents from Intamin, especially with a 14 year longer existence. Case closed.

          Now, I know you are going to counter me and state that Intamin has well more than twice as many. (I've been on this thread long enough to predict this. ) Well, I haven't had a chance to unbury my old Statistics book from my Math Major college days (no kidding), but if I recall, unless data goes well into the 3rd or 4th quartile, it's not statistically significant. A small pattern is not necessarily meaningful. In other words, until Intamin has at least 4 times as many, there's not necessarily a correlation. Given the number of rides it has and it's greater length of existence, I don't think that's occurred yet.

          That's just it, B&M's number is essentially zero -


          Granted, I am not a ride maintenance operator, so I'm making some educated guesses here. But unless you suddenly tell me otherwise, you're not either. No modern coaster is "basic and uncomplex", agreed. I am speaking relatively here. And I maintain that relatively speaking, maintenance on B&M appears simpler that Intamin. I've seen the mechanics behind Xcelerator firsthand, and it looks way, way more complex than a simple chain lift. But until an actual ride maintenance crew staffer can personally speak for themselves and state their opinions, we can argue this fruitlessly. I consider this point a draw.

          On a personal note, I am curious to know: do you yourself ride Intamin rides?

          Actually, I am curious if you have statistics to back that up, especially regarding fairs. My searches on rideaccidents.com don't specifically single out fair injuries as far as I can tell (although I may have missed it), and many (though certainly not all, but many) of the fair injuries I did see had to do with carnival workers getting hurt setting up or dismantling a ride--and not from riding itself. Or were rider faulted (i.e. swinging a ferris wheel car and falling out, undoing seat belts, etc.).

          I didn't ever say anything about number of posts=knowledge. In fact, I never brought up number of posts at all, you did that on your own. I said, "I've been logging on for a long time". Not that that really accounts for much either, frankly, but I think I've been misquoted for long enough. Besides, my own number of posts is not all that great because on this board, I read more than I post, checking in daily. I generally only post if I feel particularly passionate about a topic.

          I feel like you keep insisting two extremes are simultaneously true--Intamin has more accidents than other companies, but other companies have accidents too, just not as many. Huh? What exactly does that prove? I bring up that Disney has just as many injuries as Intamin, if not more, but you claim you're not talking about Disney, you're only talking about companies that have a lot of mechanical failures. Eh?

          I really need to stop replying to this thread, 'cause I have to go back to work tomorrow. But despite a long history of injuries at Disneyland and Intamin, I still visit and ride both, along with the millions of other people who have done the same, and lived to tell the tale.
          There's no reason to be melodramatic. I KEEP saying that overall the chances of getting injured on a ride are very low. It's disappointing when you incorrect assert that I'm chicken little over here forecasting doom for innocent park goes.

          I'm talking manufacturing - where failures should NOT be tolerated ONCE, let alone twice, three times, etc., etc. I see where you're going when you say Intamin has X times more rides than ABC Company, so they can be expected to have X more accidents. But that falsely assumes that accidents are completely random, as if they are purely up to fate, chance, or the universe at large.

          In reality, many are related (if not directly attributable) to a bad design, poor implementation of other systems, and/or a lack of a fail-safe. One such incident is bad - but it's not as if you're "allowed" a second shoddy design every time you double your output. That's not how it works. And if it does, you as manufacturer might be better served focusing on lesser variety so that you can ensure what you do, you do error free.

          There is no excuse for poor design. Period. If you want to talk about where Disney has violated this rule, great - feel free to start or revisit a thread about that. I'm not excusing Disney. Is Disney "worse" than Intamin? I'm not sure, but that's a whole other debate. My point is, so what if they are?? How in the world does that make what Intamin is responsible for OK?

          (The main reason I'm wary of directly comparing Intamin and Disney is because Disney is a unique beast that straddles the line of manufacturer, operator, and owner. An incident pertaining to any one of their "hats" is a "Disney accident". Unless you're talking purely about mechanical design issues, it's not an apples to apples comparison - but again, that is quite obviously a whole other conversation.)

          To answer your personal inquiry, yes, I ride Intamin rides. As I've said, I LOVE Intamin rides. (There are few experiences I've come across as blissful as riding along that river on Superman at SFNE.) I realize that the odds are higher on Intamin (while still overwhelmingly low), and I accept that risk. My concern here is that guests aren't able to make their decision with that information. They aren't privy to the knowledge that might actually influence their decision whether or not to ride (or left their children ride).

          In short - this accident has happened before - people were injured. People were injured this time. Unless Intamin bucks the trend and addresses how their creation is malfunctioning - this will happen yet again, and more people may be injured. There's no getting around this fact, and no getting around the point that this is unacceptable.
          www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
            I'm talking manufacturing - where failures should NOT be tolerated ONCE, let alone twice, three times, etc., etc. I see where you're going when you say Intamin has X times more rides than ABC Company, so they can be expected to have X more accidents. But that falsely assumes that accidents are completely random, as if they are purely up to fate, chance, or the universe at large.
            No it doesn't at all. It's a point that relies on your own very point that the accidents are by design. If they have a 1% chance of failure, having twice as many rides means you'll have twice as many accidents. That's not even probability math - that's alegbra

            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
            In reality, many are related (if not directly attributable) to a bad design, poor implementation of other systems, and/or a lack of a fail-safe.
            If this were the case, ride for ride, the attractions should fail more often, and more consistently. That is a pattern you have failed to prove.

            Having a cable fail within it's design tolerances is not bad design. Bad design is operating the cable outside of it's design specifications and tolerances. Having a cable fail prematurely is often a fact of life. It could be supplier, it could be maintenance, it could be faults undetectable by the QA process.

            Sure there is the path that says 'dont use a cable at all' - but unless the cable design is flawed, it's not bad design, it just may be inferior to another technology, that may or may not be feasible or cost effective.

            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
            One such incident is bad - but it's not as if you're "allowed" a second shoddy design every time you double your output. That's not how it works.
            That IS how probability works.

            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
            And if it does, you as manufacturer might be better served focusing on lesser variety so that you can ensure what you do, you do error free.
            Or you can just sell nothing - and then you are guaranteed to never have a failure.
            Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


            Am I evil? yes, I am
            Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

            Originally posted by sleepyjeff
            Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

              I agree with Wes, I can't help but be surprised there's so much negativity in the response. I never thought I'd get admonished for condemning an accident and pointing out how it's not an isolated incident.

              There's no need to paint this situation as black or white, there is a happy medium between the current state and shutting down Intamin forever. You can disagree with that list all you want - whittle it with whatever criteria you choose to apply, down to where there are only a handful of Intamin incidents. I just want to point out that you'll be hard pressed to get that list smaller than the list for everyone else, combined.

              Flynn, You are making the same mistake JesterMn is making - your algebra is oversimplified by assuming X is a constant. My whole point is that X is NOT constant between manufacturers (i.e. Intamin has a rate higher of accidents than that off other manufacturers). The accident rate may be X for Intamin, and it would not be incorrect to say that every time they double their output, X doubles. (Though I would argue 2 sub-par designs is twice as bad as 1, NO MATTER the output.) But when it comes to Vekoma, or B&M, or whoever - their incident rate is Y. Y is less than X.

              If anything, what you suggest and what I respond with is a HUGE oversimplification and really glosses over the fact that there is nothing constant about accidents. Multiple systems fail in multiple ways, and almost never are the causes, results, or solutions the same. My main concern is that even just in this case, the same thing appears to have happened again, and, as I must continue to point out, there is no getting around the point that this is unacceptable.
              Last edited by sarki7; 09-21-2009, 09:41 AM.
              www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                You know what? This is you best and most succinct post. I get what you are saying about rate X vs. rate Y. I'm not 100% convinced, but I get what you are saying and respect it. There have been more Intamin related accidents happening, especially lately, I agree! While you can debate whether it's statistically significant or not (which is the point I was trying to make), that's another argument.

                I think what everyone is reacting to is you saying that any accident due to mechanical failure is unacceptable. That's not only a strong statement, but an unrealistic one.

                Even if rate X is greater than rate Y, if both rates are still under 0.0001%, what difference does it really make? If even B&M has a single injury, as you have stated, is that also unacceptable? And if so, why aren't you just as vocal about that as Intamin?

                I know you say that you have stated that you have brought up others, and I don't disagree. But just mentioning them without bringing them to task as you have Intamin seems inconsistent with your statement of "any accident is unacceptable". Perhaps if you had changed your wording to "Intamin has had too many accidents, and that is unacceptable", people (including me) would be less inclined to disagree. Does that make sense?
                Does anyone even bother with signatures anymore?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                  Jester, I feel like I HAVE been saying that:

                  Originally posted by sarki7
                  I'm not saying Intamin is the ONLY player that has had a series of injuries and accidents. I'm saying their history as compared to other similar companies is pathetic
                  Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                  The same thing appears to have happened again, and, as I must continue to point out, there is no getting around the point that this is unacceptable.
                  Originally posted by sarki7
                  In short - this accident has happened before - people were injured. People were injured this time. Unless Intamin bucks the trend and addresses how their creation is malfunctioning - this will happen yet again, and more people may be injured. There's no getting around this fact, and no getting around the point that this is unacceptable.
                  (For the record, B&M has never had a single injury as a result of a mechanical or design malfunction)

                  Besides, when I say "any accident is unacceptable", I don't mean it in the sense that anytime anything goes wrong with a mechanical system, charges should be brought or companies should be dismantled. Nor do I have a naive expectation that accidents will never happen. My point is that when these sorts of things occur, especially when injuries are involved - it's important to take them seriously, properly evaluate the underlying cause, and implement solutions to avoid them occurring in the future. Hence, they should not just "be accepted", or brushed off as "accidents happen" - as it what appears to be not only the case with some posting here, but also Intamin itself. This is my main cause of my concern.
                  Last edited by sarki7; 09-21-2009, 10:51 AM.
                  www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                    Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                    Flynn, You are making the same mistake JesterMn is making - your algebra is oversimplified by assuming X is a constant. My whole point is that X is NOT constant between manufacturers (i.e. Intamin has a rate higher of accidents than that off other manufacturers). The accident rate may be X for Intamin, and it would not be incorrect to say that every time they double their output, X doubles.
                    But you aren't comparing incident rates. You don't have them. You are comparing incident COUNTS and calling their designs bad because of that. That is completely the wrong math. Incident RATES would be reflective of their work - not incident COUNTS. That is why people brought up the # of rides out there. If you double your events (by doubling your ride count) your number of incidents would increase - without changing your incident rate at all.

                    Your problem is you don't know the incident rates. You are comparing the accident COUNTS, not accident rates. This is why people aren't agreeing with you. Yes, doubling your ride count does not increase your incident RATE, but that is not what you are using. You are using the incident COUNT, which depends on how many 'events' you have total.

                    It's like saying Ford vehicles are less safe then Hyundai vehicles because there are 10x the number of accidents in Ford vehicles. Such a statement alone is flawed because it fails to acknowledge Ford has orders of magnitude of more cars in service then Hyundai. This is why accident RATES are used, not absolute COUNTS.

                    Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                    Multiple systems fail in multiple ways, and almost never are the causes, results, or solutions the same.
                    Then you have defeated your own argument, because what you have been arguing is these accidents are by poor designs by Intamin - which would mean the accidents WOULD have trends and common causes. Else, you can't pin the common cause as design. If the accident causes are never the same, then there is no common fault.
                    Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


                    Am I evil? yes, I am
                    Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

                    Originally posted by sleepyjeff
                    Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                      And I would simply suggest that I don't need the precise rates - primarily because, as I've pointed out, the count of almost every other major ride manufacturer are essentially zero, whereas Intamin's count is, well, not. Intamin may have double the number of products in the market, but they sure as heck don't have 10 or 20 times.

                      Besides, I must again point out that your supposition assumes manufacturers are allotted "poor design" as a function of their output. A shoddy design is equally unacceptable whether it occurs once in 100 or once in 100,000,000. Again while I realize this may not be mechanically realistic, it is the fundamental philosophy for all good engineering, and should be the attitude of any company that holds people's lives in their hands.

                      Boy, you sure lost all the context in how you quoted me. If you had included the rest of my quote, you would see how I expand on the "almost" and explain how this is obviously one of the situations were the incidents are all but identical. In the sake of full disclosure, here is my entire comment, without your abrupt edit:
                      "Multiple systems fail in multiple ways, and almost never are the causes, results, or solutions the same. My main concern is that even just in this case, the same thing appears to have happened again, and, as I must continue to point out, there is no getting around the point that this is unacceptable."
                      www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                        And I would simply suggest that I don't need the precise rates - primarily because, as I've pointed out, the count of almost every other major ride manufacturer are essentially zero, whereas Intamin's count is, well, not.
                        A statement that I'm not even going to bother disproving because it's so blatantly false.

                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                        Besides, I must again point out that your supposition assumes manufacturers are allotted "poor design" as a function of their output.
                        It makes no such stipulation - in fact it speaks nothing towards the acceptance or not of incidents. It was purely an exercise of why people brought up to you ride counts and the fallacy of your rebuttal to them.

                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                        A shoddy design is equally unacceptable whether it occurs once in 100 or once in 100,000,000. Again while I realize this may not be mechanically realistic, it is the fundamental philosophy for all good engineering, and should be the attitude of any company that holds people's lives in their hands.
                        No it's not - there is the concept of acceptable failure rates in engineering, because engineers live in the 'mechanically realistic' not the fantasy you want. The importance is to design the system's failure rate based on the expected use and design what the result of the failure to be. Even in the Saturn V rocket, NASA *EXPECTED* over 6,000 components to fail in a launch. The difference is the system was designed to allot for those failures and not result in a catestrophic failure.

                        For someone who like to quote engineering a lot - you don't come across as one who has any training in it. Even non structural engineering types like myself (Electrical) get basic education in probability, systems design, physics, and math that apply to all this.

                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                        Boy, you sure lost all the context in how you quoted me. If you had included the rest of my quote, you would see how I expand on the "almost" and explain how this is obviously one of the situations were the incidents are all but identical
                        Wow, with those conclusions I guess the investigators can just go home right? I mean hey, I saw it on youtube, that's all we need to conclude what happened.

                        The reason I didn't quote the rest was because you start off with a definitive, and then try to back track with completely unsubstantiated conclusions. It's value is nil.
                        Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


                        Am I evil? yes, I am
                        Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

                        Originally posted by sleepyjeff
                        Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                          Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                          A statement that I'm not even going to bother disproving because it's so blatantly false.
                          Feel free to compile a more complete list, then we can talk about what is blatantly false.

                          Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                          No it's not - there is the concept of acceptable failure rates in engineering, because engineers live in the 'mechanically realistic' not the fantasy you want. The importance is to design the system's failure rate based on the expected use and design what the result of the failure to be. Even in the Saturn V rocket, NASA *EXPECTED* over 6,000 components to fail in a launch. The difference is the system was designed to allot for those failures and not result in a catestrophic failure.
                          Their proactive anticipation of failure is hardly akin to the "accidents happen" mentality portrayed by some here. Yes, they sure do, but you can bet NASA, as evidenced by your description, does everything to understand where, why, and when they might. That sort of diligence would be delightfully refreshing from Intamin.

                          Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                          For someone who like to quote engineering a lot - you don't come across as one who has any training in it. Even non structural engineering types like myself (Electrical) get basic education in probability, systems design, physics, and math that apply to all this.
                          Goodness, I forgot to post my C.V. I too am a non-structural engineer, and have received all the fundamental training you describe. I guess I'll have to try harder to "seem like it". But I'd rather we just be adult and avoid the personal stuff, eh?

                          Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                          Wow, with those conclusions I guess the investigators can just go home right? I mean hey, I saw it on youtube, that's all we need to conclude what happened.
                          Wait, so either this accident IS the same, and the design has failed yet again, or the accident ISN'T the same, and we're looking at a new and different failure. Remind me which one I should be commending Intamin for providing?

                          While you're free to disagree with my point, there is nothing unsubstantiated about my concern. Beyond that, this conversation hardly looks headed for consensus.
                          www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                            Feel free to compile a more complete list, then we can talk about what is blatantly false.
                            Sorry, I missed your compiled list in the earlier post. Maybe you can point it out? Your claim is ludicrous, I'm second guessing my time investment to even reply this much.

                            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                            Their proactive anticipation of failure is hardly akin to the "accidents happen" mentality portrayed by some here
                            No, it's essentially the same. They knew accidents would happen, and the point is to minimize them and be prepared for when they do happen. They don't start off with fantasies of no failures ever.

                            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                            Goodness, I forgot to post my C.V. I too am a non-structural engineer, and have received all the fundamental training you describe. I guess I'll have to try harder to "seem like it". But I'd rather we just be adult and avoid the personal stuff, eh?
                            as long as you don't say your a computer engineer...

                            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                            Wait, so either this accident IS the same, and the design has failed yet again, or the accident ISN'T the same, and we're looking at a new and different failure. Remind me which one I should be commending Intamin for providing?
                            Go back and look at who's making the claims - not I. You've already been judge, jury and executioner since 4hrs after the event.

                            Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                            While you're free to disagree with my point, there is nothing unsubstantiated about my concern
                            About your concern? No. Everyone should be concerned with reliability and safety.
                            About your facts and conclusions? Yes - plenty unsubstantiated.
                            Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


                            Am I evil? yes, I am
                            Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

                            Originally posted by sleepyjeff
                            Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                              Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                              Sorry, I missed your compiled list in the earlier post. Maybe you can point it out? Your claim is ludicrous, I'm second guessing my time investment to even reply this much.
                              http://micechat.com/forums/other-the...post1055567028
                              Or a compilation from Screamscape here: http://www.screamscape.com/html/knott_s_berry_farm.htm
                              Or the discussion from coasterbuzz here:http://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/56481.aspx

                              What's ludicrous to some is apparently obvious to others, that there are serious design and safety shortcomings with Intamin. You may be looking at the same data I am looking at and opine differently, but to suggest that information isn't valid before you've seen it is, well, wrong.

                              Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                              No, it's essentially the same. They knew accidents would happen, and the point is to minimize them and be prepared for when they do happen. They don't start off with fantasies of no failures ever.
                              The difference is, in your example NASA did minimize them, and as it would appear, Intamin has not done enough in this instance. Just for reference, calling a "principle" a fantasy does a lot to imply that striving to eliminate errors is folly. Yes, errors happen, but a good design will account for this and not result in damage, injury, or death.

                              Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                              as long as you don't say your a computer engineer...
                              Nope, as I said earlier, Human Factors. But way to sell out a whole bunch of perfectly informed and educated people.

                              Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                              Go back and look at who's making the claims - not I. You've already been judge, jury and executioner since 4hrs after the event.
                              I never would have considered claiming that the investigation and solution should be given serious credence, especially considering Intamin's history - would be considered so outlandish. Shows what I know.

                              Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                              About your concern? No. Everyone should be concerned with reliability and safety. About your facts and conclusions? Yes - plenty unsubstantiated.
                              Ah, you've convinced me. Your facts are clearly more correct than my facts. Now it's your turn once again to point out that either the opinions I've formed, or the information I'm basing them on, are wrong. Unless both are.
                              Last edited by sarki7; 09-21-2009, 02:26 PM.
                              www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                                Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                http://micechat.com/forums/other-the...post1055567028
                                Or a compilation from Screamscape here: Knott's Berry Farm
                                Or the discussion from coasterbuzz here:CoasterBuzz Forums - Serious accident on Xcelerator caputerd on Video

                                What's ludicrous to some is apparently obvious to others, that there are serious design and safety shortcomings with Intamin. You may be looking at the same data I am looking at and opine differently, but to suggest that information isn't valid before you've seen it is, well, wrong.
                                Says the man who lists only 3 roller coasters (besides Intamin) as ever having accidents. That is the ludicrous statement. As for the second link - what does this have to do with KB Farm.. do they hold ever amusement ride in the world? And for the coasterbuzz thread... please give me the 15mins back of my life I tried finding any overall accident rates or even incident counts in that thread.

                                Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                The difference is, in your example NASA did minimize them, and as it would appear, Intamin has not done enough in this instance.
                                Maybe you missed all those rockets that blow up? Or maybe the 14 Shuttle astronauts that have died in just the last 25 years. I'm not trying to say coasters is the same as space flight - but even in the MOST overbuilt systems in human existence - there are failures. That is reality.

                                Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                Just for reference, calling a "principle" a fantasy does a lot to imply that striving to eliminate errors is folly. Yes, errors happen, but a good design will account for this and not result in damage, injury, or death.
                                Yes, but the failure to do so does not automatically infer a bad design either. There are also other constraints systems must be designed and operated under. You can drive for perfection - but you can't hang someone for failing to reach it either - which is what you are doing.

                                Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                Nope, as I said earlier, Human Factors. But way to sell out a whole bunch of perfectly informed and educated people.
                                Computer Engineering Majors do not deserve the title Engineer IMHO. Even in my old univ, where they share many of our EE classes and are part of my direct school, I don't give them full credit as engineers.

                                What discipline did you do your under grad in? I am not aware of many (if any?) univ that offer Human Factors as an undergraduate degree.

                                Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                I never would have considered claiming that the investigation and solution should be given serious credence, especially considering Intamin's history - would be considered so outlandish. Shows what I know.
                                Again, its the foundation of your claims that draws the criticism - not your concerns.

                                Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                Ah, you've convinced me. Your facts are clearly more correct than my facts. Now it's your turn once again to point out that either the opinions I've formed, or the information I'm basing them on, are wrong. Unless both are.
                                Which facts have I presented? Or conclusions? You'll take note that all of my posts have been around your claims/defense of your accident 'rates' which were really based on counts and did not take into account other meaningful factors. The only other factual references I have made have been about NASA which you have not refuted.

                                That is unless you want to refute my claim that achieving a error-less system is not possible.

                                You are the one who made the claims - and is receiving the criticism for your attempts at backing them up. I was simply showing the holes in those points. I do not claim to have the data needed to draw these conclusions about coaster safety - so I will not make them.
                                Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


                                Am I evil? yes, I am
                                Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

                                Originally posted by sleepyjeff
                                Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  Says the man who lists only 3 roller coasters (besides Intamin) as ever having accidents.
                                  Not any old accident (i.e., it could be called an accident if someone stepped in the path of a coming train, though that's not exactly a mechanical failure in the general sense), accidents specifically relating to mechanical failures by reputable ride manufacturers. I also said the list was incomplete. Please, help complete it and remind me of the instances I've overlooked. There was one at Gillian's Pier, that was a Zamperla I believe. (Schwarzkopf had that horrible Mindbender accident some 20+ something years ago. I admittedly didn't include that because of an arbitrary line I drew relating to the development of new technologies and a higher standard of safety in more modern times).

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  As for the second link - what does this have to do with KB Farm.. do they hold ever amusement ride in the world? And for the coasterbuzz thread... please give me the 15mins back of my life I tried finding any overall accident rates or even incident counts in that thread.
                                  The second link should have taken you to a page on Screamscape listing a very similar list as the one I compiled. Not sure what the issue was. The Coasterbuzz was more for your reference that (while the data may be absent) the assertions I'm making are hardly as outlandish as you suggest.

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  Maybe you missed all those rockets that blow up? Or maybe the 14 Shuttle astronauts that have died in just the last 25 years. I'm not trying to say coasters is the same as space flight - but even in the MOST overbuilt systems in human existence - there are failures. That is reality.
                                  Patronize me all you want, but you gloss over the important issue of expected and accepted risk. No astronaut has stepped into a spacecraft with any delusion that he or she is anything close to 100% safe. But each has made a conscious choice with full knowledge and accepts that risk. Many coaster riders are "novice users" and have little to no understanding of the mechanical system the are now interacting with, and often function with (the sometimes false) trust in a system they don't fully comprehend. I don't mean ramble on about how incongruous your analogy is. To your point, yes, even NASA has failures. I'm not sure why you would think I don't realize that.

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  Yes, but the failure to do so does not automatically infer a bad design either. There are also other constraints systems must be designed and operated under. You can drive for perfection - but you can't hang someone for failing to reach it either - which is what you are doing.
                                  I'm not sure how discussing, pointing out, and maybe even a little arguing is hanging. If you think I'm being hard on Intamin, fine. If you think I'm too idealistic (i.e., principled), that's great too. But admonishing me for it seems unnecessary.

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  What discipline did you do your under grad in? I am not aware of many (if any?) univ that offer Human Factors as an undergraduate degree.
                                  My undergrad is in Applied Psychology with a focus in Human Factors Engineering. That was the closest degree Georgia Tech offered, as I also didn't come across an undergraduate program in HF specifically, though you wouldn't know it by the name of the major. I would be happy to describe the intense coursework and research that's helped shape my professional philosophy, but I'll spare everyone. Instead, I'll add that I also have an M.S. in Human Factors and completed my thesis on the subject of amusement park safety (with specific respect to warning signage and expectations of safety).

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  Again, its the foundation of your claims that draws the criticism - not your concerns. Which facts have I presented? Or conclusions?
                                  No wonder it seems like you're just going after my assessment, instead of offering any contradictory information related directly to this incident or my "claims".

                                  Originally posted by flynnibus View Post
                                  I was simply showing the holes in those points. I do not claim to have the data needed to draw these conclusions about coaster safety - so I will not make them.
                                  Pardon me if I don't perceive the same "holes" you supposedly have shown in my points. All I see is a pretty pointless conversation that doesn't really refute anything besides my admittedly rough numbers. Really just seems like focusing on the particulars of trees while missing the entire forest.
                                  Last edited by sarki7; 09-21-2009, 04:19 PM.
                                  www.gregscoasterphotos.com <- Go there, it's good!

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                                    Pray for the healing of the two people.

                                    Too bad - now we have no major coasters besides SB for Haunt. DARN!

                                    Comment


                                    • #78
                                      Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                                      Reading Coasterbuzz and Screamscape for amusement industry accident data is like looking through the National Enquirer for stock tips.

                                      Wait for the DOSH report, the YouTube video does not, and cannot show the whole story.
                                      See more of my horrible photos (and a few good ones) at my Flickr photostream

                                      Comment


                                      • #79
                                        Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        Not any old accident (i.e., it could be called an accident if someone stepped in the path of a coming train, though that's not exactly a mechanical failure in the general sense), accidents specifically relating to mechanical failures by reputable ride manufacturers. I also said the list was incomplete.
                                        Your list is so flawed to start with. You lump mechanical and design failures together as if they are equals. You say it's 'just a sample' yet use it to draw definitive conclusions from what is included or not, and then you put accidents in there that aren't even investigated yet. That is what you call flawed method AND data. Any conclusions drawn from it are worthless.

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        The Coasterbuzz was more for your reference that (while the data may be absent) the assertions I'm making are hardly as outlandish as you suggest.
                                        Multiple people singing the wrong melody does not create validity.

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        Patronize me all you want, but you gloss over the important issue of expected and accepted risk
                                        Now you're moving the goal posts. Certainly there is merit to the discussion about one's expectations of safety. But that doesn't change the standards you were trying to hold the manufacturer to in your earlier posts.

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        To your point, yes, even NASA has failures. I'm not sure why you would think I don't realize that.
                                        Because you were basically saying failing to avoid failures at all is bad design. That is not factual, nor realistic. The issue is more complex then that and shouldn't be measured purely by incident counts.

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        But admonishing me for it seems unnecessary.
                                        It's not anything personal - it's simply discussing the points.

                                        9147 427742I would be happy to describe the intense coursework and research that's helped shape my professional philosophy, but I'll spare everyone. Instead, I'll add that I also have an M.S. in Human Factors and completed my thesis on the subject of amusement park safety (with specific respect to warning signage and expectations of safety).[/quote]

                                        Very interesting - I was just curious as it's not a widespread specialty.

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        No wonder it seems like you're just going after my assessment, instead of offering any contradictory information related directly to this incident or my "claims".
                                        I don't have to offer my own claims to disprove another. Without the investigation details, I don't think it's prudent to try to make such claims.

                                        Originally posted by sarki7 View Post
                                        Really just seems like focusing on the particulars of trees while missing the entire forest.
                                        Well - when trying to fix a problem it's important you identify the root cause, not try to run around and fix all the symptoms. You'll usually end up trying to fix the WRONG things if you don't identify the true causes first.
                                        Check out my blog - Coreplex: Rambling from inside the Grid


                                        Am I evil? yes, I am
                                        Am I evil? I am man, yes, I am

                                        Originally posted by sleepyjeff
                                        Disneyland was meant to be sipped not chug-a-lugged

                                        Comment


                                        • #80
                                          Re: Coaster Accident at Knotts Berry Farm

                                          You guys are hilarious :lol:

                                          Comment

                                          Get Away Today Footer

                                          Collapse
                                          Working...
                                          X