Raw Efficiency

Here's my slight rant/rambling post in the recent Fast Lane topic:

"Meanwhile at Cedar Fair parks, the B&M hypers have jury-rigged seatbelts (when nobody has been ejected from a B&M... ever) and the classic woodies (Blue Streak being a prime example) have headrests, seatbelts, dividers, and ratchet bars, which means the ride "stacks" 99.9% of the time. This is in contrast to the fact that with the original control system, the ride would require a maintenance reset if it stacked/stopped on the approach to the station. Iron Dragon got rid of the third train because people felt like they were being "rushed on" and they couldn't afford to stack on the lift, ruining the ride's capacity.

As much as I like Cedar Point and as good as its operations are, there's definitely room for improvement and there are some points where an illusion of guest comfort is exchanged for capacity, when it would also be possible to just move the line faster. But I guess there is money to be made in Fast Lane"

I figured this warrants a new thread. Yes, Cedar Point is pretty fantastic among American parks for capacity. Even other Cedar Fair parks tend to trail behind CP (with the exception of Banshee and Fury, for example, which both have great capacity despite Fury's seatbelts) But there's definitely places they could improve, and places where an illusion of guest comfort has been added, but at the expense of a much slower line (Blue Streak and Iron Dragon at CP, and every B&M hyper/giga at other CF parks.)

I am honestly a bit jealous of Europa Park, seeing how they optimize rides for raw capacity and, from what I've read, regularly hit 30-60 second dispatches WITH bins. They ordered the ONLY GCI WITHOUT SEATBELTS solely for capacity (although I've heard it also has tighter restraints, can anybody confirm?)

So could CP hit this level of raw efficiency while still retaining their near-perfect safety record? Or is the American GP that much worse than the German GP that this would be a recipe for disaster.

1. Yes America is dumb in many ways. I can't tell you how many times someone sat on the shoulder harness, seatbelt, etc. thinking they were perfectly fine.

2. People just straight up don't listen at times, see point #1

They could improve efficiency, but safety does come first, and is always the first priority. Unless the GP improves or restraint design changes to allow more efficiency, you'll see rides remain at where they are.

It's also important to remember that the "safer" a ride is, the cheaper the insurance premiums will be for it. It's pretty attractive for CF to be told that if they add seat belts to a particular ride in addition to the double-fail-safe lap bar, the insurance company will reduce said premium by x%. I think that's a big reason we see all of the added safety measures at US parks in comparison to European parks.

^I've heard Cedar Fair is self-insured.

If they were truly self-insured, it would behoove them even more to go above and beyond what regular industry insurance standards are.

How does it make any sense for them to go above and beyond industry operating standard for safety? I am saying this because the industry standards are extremely high.

It is kind of like, were you ever concerned about the safety of an maintained elevator? After all, the elevator is most likely only made to industry standard. If I told an elevator installer to build me an elevator that is even safer than industry standard, they would tell me they could increase the number of governors and such. But they will be laughing at me behind my back due to the absurdity of thinking that an elevator built to industry standards is not already the safest piece of equipment it can be.

First, Nothing is ever the safest it can be.

I said that going above industry standards, would be wise if they're self-insured. In a court case, any attorney would use that argument against them in the case of a claim.
If they're not at or above what an industry insurer would require than the argument would be obvious.
Since insurers and regulations vary by state, if you are going the self insured route, you'd open yourself to liability if you don't meet the requirements of all states.

thedevariouseffect said:

1. Yes America is dumb in many ways. I can't tell you how many times someone sat on the shoulder harness, seatbelt, etc. thinking they were perfectly fine.

2. People just straight up don't listen at times, see point #1

When Americans leave their house, they leave common sense at home. Of course some people never had it to begin with.

^^ As far as meeting the requirements of all states, very few states have any technical standards whatsoever. Do you really think it is a good idea for a politician or bureaucrat to be making technical standards? And why are we restricting our standards to the USA? Is not an international consensus much better?

Cars all meet an industry safety standard, yet there is a vast difference in level of safety from model to model and brand to brand. Industry safety standard usually means bare minimum to keep injury and/or death at an "acceptable" level. You can always go above and beyond.

The difference being, the number of acceptable deaths per year between these examples. On highways in 2015 more than 35,000 people were killed in automobile related accidents in the US. Based on how the GP drives, this seems to be an acceptable number to many people.

The acceptable number of serious accidents a year in the amusement industry is zero. Every time a loss of life or limb accident at an amusement park, it costs the park or ride manufacture millions in litigation, as well as a substantial loss in attendance and revenues. (See Alton Towers)

Are you serious? The number of people driving and riding in cars everyday absolutely dwarfs the number of people on roller coasters.
What are you even trying to argue here? The point was industry standards are the agreed minimum, not the safest, then you reinforce that the point that they should be above the minimal standards because you cite/believe parks are held to higher standards than auto companies.
??? (And Alton towers? What about STR accident being almost catastrophic but overshadowed by the NTG tragedy the on the same day as an example?)

Safety is #1, and safety can always be improved or perfected. I don't care if the ride cycle takes 2 minutes more if it meant checking everything to keep someone safe. The purpose at a park is to have fun, drink rides, and ride beer ;)

In all seriousness though, the parks would be alot less enjoyable, almost in a way anxiety driven if you didn't have that assurance of absolute safety. I KNOW when I ride X, Y, and Z, I will come off of the ride excited and unharmed. If at any point the rides didn't convey that, I stop riding those rides. See Mount Olympus as a prime example, nothing there felt or even looked safe, plus their safety record in recent years proves a point there too.

If a ride takes two minutes more per cycle than originally designed in order to run safely, the ride needs to be removed. An important design characteristic of amusement rides is they must be operated safely and quickly. (Some rides were not designed with capacity in mind, such as Sky Coasters, Slingshots, ect.)

I do understand, there is always more you can do to ensure there will not be an accident, the question is what can you do that will effectively reduce accidents. You can spend five minutes checking to ensure the ride area is clear before starting the ride. The problem with that (besides capacity) is a human gets bored and distracted easily, and end up staring at the nearby midway. Now is that really safer than a quick scan of the ride area?

^^My point regarding vehicle accidents has to do with the acceptability of accidents. After a fatal motor vehicle accident, the firefighters go to a bar and have a drink. Compare that to what happened to Alton Towers after the Smiler accident. After taking into account lost revenue from being closed, decreased attendance this year, paying settlements to victims, and paying fines, the company lost more than £50,000,000. This is for a simple collision caused by a failure to follow proper procedures, that did not kill anyone. (Yes, I Know, even though no one died, it was still a very bad accident.)

I will maintain that most accident are not caused by the technical standards not being good enough, the technical standards developed by organizations such as ASTM are usually very well thought out. Most serious accidents tend to be caused by a failure to adhere to the standards, rather than a failure of the standards.

Europa park seems to have a good, if not perfect, safety record despite its "dangerous" fast operations.

What an odd comment.
I didn't read anyone saying that operating fast was dangerous or even contributed to it.

Speed will never be used as a way to sacrifice safety. Ever.

Speed leads to mistakes, mistakes lead to inopportune events, inopportune events lead to suffering.

;)

^at first I read that as "Speed will ever be used as a way to sacrifice safety. Ever" and was a bit concerned haha

People sacrifice safety for speed every day while driving.

^That's because they are in control and choose their consequences. I mean hell I even speed, but I choose to. In regards to a roller coaster, I choose to do it after assessing a risk. If that risk were to increase because someone wants to go and operate the ride as quick as possible and miss things, I'll stop