CNN reports on MF and govt. regulations
- More
- 1 of 2
- 2
Congress is discussing the possibility of regulating park safety and G force. The article mentions MF, and has quotes from the park. This is an issue that will become more important in the coming months as summer begins. If you have strong feelings on the government regulations I urge you to write your representatives in Washingtion. One piece of email represents a large percentage of their constituents.
To obtain addresses (email and traditional) goto www.congress.gov
CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/09/roller.coaster.worries.ap/index.html
Government regulations could make thrill rides safer. It could also restrict, or greatly delay, the next Giga-coaster from being built. Whichever side of the issue you are on, write to your senators and tell them what you think. Unless individuals voice their opinions to the proper people, you will have no right to complain when laws are written you disagree with.
To obtain addresses (email and traditional) goto www.congress.gov
CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/09/roller.coaster.worries.ap/index.html
Government regulations could make thrill rides safer. It could also restrict, or greatly delay, the next Giga-coaster from being built. Whichever side of the issue you are on, write to your senators and tell them what you think. Unless individuals voice their opinions to the proper people, you will have no right to complain when laws are written you disagree with.
Political discussion = evil! Please, no political party argument! After watching something a long time ago on TV, I have the opinion that the existing inspection laws should be enforced, especially on travelling carnival rides. I think all of the accidents that were talked about on that program could have been prevented by following an existing law.
but they are trying to change it so that by law they CAN regulate those fixed-site rides...
just so you all know, i ahve already written to my Congressmen in Illinois, letting them know how disappointed i am that htey would waste their time and my tax money on such a trivial thing. i reminded them that each ride comes with a warning of "ride at your own risk" and that regualting the rides isn't going to stop stupid people from doing stupid things. then i asked them why they are wasting time and money on regulating the fun out of our lives when they should be regulating the cost of medications and health insurance. let's see if i get any response.
just so you all know, i ahve already written to my Congressmen in Illinois, letting them know how disappointed i am that htey would waste their time and my tax money on such a trivial thing. i reminded them that each ride comes with a warning of "ride at your own risk" and that regualting the rides isn't going to stop stupid people from doing stupid things. then i asked them why they are wasting time and money on regulating the fun out of our lives when they should be regulating the cost of medications and health insurance. let's see if i get any response.
Political things edited!
The govt does seem to want to control us, but they should try and control rides like they have at county fairs and the IX center type things before CP and parks like that. Yes,there are some unsafe parks,but they are giving CP some exposure they don't want,associating them with this blood clot crap. Like the Plain Dealer said sunday, there were 3 cases, 2 of them were senior citizens with blood problems already!
The govt does seem to want to control us, but they should try and control rides like they have at county fairs and the IX center type things before CP and parks like that. Yes,there are some unsafe parks,but they are giving CP some exposure they don't want,associating them with this blood clot crap. Like the Plain Dealer said sunday, there were 3 cases, 2 of them were senior citizens with blood problems already!
Make that 4. Look at all the regulations surrounding guns, there are more laws regarding them than anything else in our country and they don't stop people from shooting each other. It's just some politician in a town where he thinks he will get votes by regulating rides. More of our tax money hard at work.
The Federal Government cannot regulate amusement park rides. The U.S. Constitution is very specific about what Congress can and cannot do. When it comes to the regulation of business, Congress only has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Amusement parks such as CP are not interstate commerce because they are in a fixed location within one state. State governments, on the other hand, have the power to do whatever they want as far as regulating amusement parks within their boundaries. Congress can regulate the moving carnivals since they move from state to state and are thus interstate commerce. It would be unconstitutional for Congress to impose any laws on amusement parks concerning their rides except to enforce peoples' civil rights such as the right to not be discriminated against.
Let's be a little bit rational here...
At issue is a specific bit of legislation sponsored by one Ed Markey of Massachusetts. He intends to close a loophole in the Consumer Product Safety Act which denies the Consumer Product Safety Commission any authority to regulate fixed-site amusement rides. The CPSC does have jurisdiction over portable rides, and the CPSC's authority means that they investigate accidents, collect data, and issue bulletins for defective ride designs. That's pretty much the extent of it. If Markey's bill were to pass, the CPSC would be able to perform these functions for fixed-site amusement rides.
On the one hand it would not be a bad thing to have a central clearinghouse for amusement ride incident data. At the moment, data collected are very spotty, as reporting requirements vary from state to state, so what qualifies as an injury in New Jersey may not qualify in Ohio, and in California there are no regulations at all (yet).
My concern is that there is ample evidence that the regulatory maintenance of amusement ride safety is best done with effective state-level regulation, and those of us who attend parks in Ohio see evidence of this every time we visit our favorite park. I do not want to see the investigative and regulatory authority of qualified State agencies pre-empted by the actions of a Federal agency which is understaffed, overburdened, and lacks comparable competence in evaluating amusement rides. I would prefer a Federal statute which established some recordkeeping guidelines for ride incidents, required that the various state and local regulatory agencies made such reports to the CPSC, and allowed for CPSC intervention in those jurisdictions where there is no other controlling legal authority. That is, I'd prefer to see the local standards pre-empt the Federal standards.
As for all this talk about forces and such...I don't think there is anything we truly need to worry about just yet. Markey is using the lack of agreed-on standards for G-force exposure as a means of gaining attention for his bill, but there is absolutely nothing in his bill that even mentions ride forces, much less makes any move towards limiting those forces.
And by the way, there are no agreed-on standards for G-force exposure on amusement rides, because the standards that do exist are primarily concerned with long-term exposure and with structural loads...not with the G-loading of amusement rides.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
At issue is a specific bit of legislation sponsored by one Ed Markey of Massachusetts. He intends to close a loophole in the Consumer Product Safety Act which denies the Consumer Product Safety Commission any authority to regulate fixed-site amusement rides. The CPSC does have jurisdiction over portable rides, and the CPSC's authority means that they investigate accidents, collect data, and issue bulletins for defective ride designs. That's pretty much the extent of it. If Markey's bill were to pass, the CPSC would be able to perform these functions for fixed-site amusement rides.
On the one hand it would not be a bad thing to have a central clearinghouse for amusement ride incident data. At the moment, data collected are very spotty, as reporting requirements vary from state to state, so what qualifies as an injury in New Jersey may not qualify in Ohio, and in California there are no regulations at all (yet).
My concern is that there is ample evidence that the regulatory maintenance of amusement ride safety is best done with effective state-level regulation, and those of us who attend parks in Ohio see evidence of this every time we visit our favorite park. I do not want to see the investigative and regulatory authority of qualified State agencies pre-empted by the actions of a Federal agency which is understaffed, overburdened, and lacks comparable competence in evaluating amusement rides. I would prefer a Federal statute which established some recordkeeping guidelines for ride incidents, required that the various state and local regulatory agencies made such reports to the CPSC, and allowed for CPSC intervention in those jurisdictions where there is no other controlling legal authority. That is, I'd prefer to see the local standards pre-empt the Federal standards.
As for all this talk about forces and such...I don't think there is anything we truly need to worry about just yet. Markey is using the lack of agreed-on standards for G-force exposure as a means of gaining attention for his bill, but there is absolutely nothing in his bill that even mentions ride forces, much less makes any move towards limiting those forces.
And by the way, there are no agreed-on standards for G-force exposure on amusement rides, because the standards that do exist are primarily concerned with long-term exposure and with structural loads...not with the G-loading of amusement rides.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
- More
- 1 of 2
- 2
You must be logged in to post