Retractable Seat Belts

ashleygCP95 said: ^^^I was shocked when I read that question....but I have heard weirder questions.

It's not so shocking. More than one amusement park has lax or spotty enforcement of seat belt usage. Some parks even have rides with seat belts that are specifically not used as part of park policy. Kennywood, for example, only requires riders under 48" to use the provided seat belts on Exterminator.

Seatbelts aren't 100% necessary really. All they are is a backup restraint in case the main restraints fail. That doesn't mean you shouldn't follow all rules and regulations regarding the ride, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if your seatbelt wasn't buckled.

No, it wouldn't be, and I didn't imply to mean that they are "necessary", just see my comments on Corkscrew, but that any coaster/ride at Cedar Point that has them, requires that you wear them. Even things as simple as the car rides.

You know, I don't know how I didn't catch this when I was at KI the year Italian Job opened (I refuse to use lame names from CF while the old ones are fresh in my memory), but that coaster doesn't have seat belts. It may be the Premier restraints, but even Flight of Fear had the odd belt configuration, and I was expecting it on IJ today.

It seems that everything in the park except Son of Beast has the retractable belts, and I really did kind of like them better. On an unrelated note, the first two rides of the day were Son of Beast, and they were actually very fun, and pretty smooth for a wooden coaster that huge. I would go so far as to say it was smoother than MS, and almost back to what it felt like in July of 2000. Maybe its the G-trains that really did it for the ride.

If you can't tell what this has to do with CP, I'm trying to get across that I really like the retractable belts, and that I'm hoping they work well at the park.

JuggaLotus said:
No, it wouldn't be, and I didn't imply to mean that they are "necessary", just see my comments on Corkscrew, but that any coaster/ride at Cedar Point that has them, requires that you wear them. Even things as simple as the car rides.

Oh I wasn't referring to anything you or anyone said, really. I was just making a general observation. It's too bad seatbelts are required on all of the coasters now. It kinda kills capacity when some people can't squeeze in the seatbelts or there is some general seatbelt malfunction that holds up the works. Safety first, though, I suppose.

Someone noted the problem of belts getting jammed..

When Kings Island installed a bunch of retractable belts, they had that problem. But when I visited Kings Dominion in 2001, I noticed that they had retractable belts but they never seemed to jam. The difference is that at Kings Dominion they had a little stopper on the belt about 2" back from the buckle that stopped the belt before it got all the way into the retractor, and that seemed to make a huge difference.

This year, Kings Island has added a checker-loop to each belt that also serves to stop the belt from retracting fully. It will be interesting to see if it has the same effect. I would guess that Cedar Point is using the configuration that is new this year at Kings Island.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

ashleygCP95 said:
^^^I was shocked when I read that question....but I have heard weirder questions.

Shocking aren't I? Well apparently not to other people who gave me a real answer. Thanks for nothing Ash.

RaceRinger said:
Seatbelts aren't 100% necessary really. All they are is a backup restraint in case the main restraints fail.

That isn't true for all rides. Some use the seatbelt as the primary restraint.

I just mean with the roller coasters. Every coaster has some kind of lap bar or OTSR, and the seatbelt is a backup just in case. I know some of the smaller rides don't really need double restraints.

However, seat belts are necessary for those small kids and those super-skinny adults who could wiggle their ways out despite having a lap bar on them.

The problem with completely doing away with the seat belts is in the case of a lapbar/otsr failure. In that case, CP's historic safety record would be diminished. I guess that's what they get for being so safe; slower lines.

But how many of the rides *cough*Corkscrew*cough* operated for years without seatbelts? And WITHOUT incident.

Heck, how many traveling carnivals have a Matterhorn ride that doesn't have a seatbelt?

The addition of seatbelts is for the appeasement of lawyers and insurance agents, not to actually keep any of us safe.

JuggaLotus said:
But how many of the rides *cough*Corkscrew*cough* operated for years without seatbelts? And WITHOUT incident.

Heck, how many traveling carnivals have a Matterhorn ride that doesn't have a seatbelt?

The addition of seatbelts is for the appeasement of lawyers and insurance agents, not to actually keep any of us safe.

You probably don't even need restraints at all on corkscrew. Is there ever a time where gravity or some centripetal force isn't holding you into the train?

Putting on a seatbelt is not a very big deal and I have no problems with them at all.

Um...ridiculously strong bunny hop after the first hill?

JuggaLotus said: Heck, how many traveling carnivals have a Matterhorn ride that doesn't have a seatbelt?

I don't know that I would be using carnivals' safety records to argue against seat belts, John. ;)

JuggaLotus said:
But how many of the rides *cough*Corkscrew*cough* operated for years without seatbelts? And WITHOUT incident.

Heck, how many traveling carnivals have a Matterhorn ride that doesn't have a seatbelt?

The addition of seatbelts is for the appeasement of lawyers and insurance agents, not to actually keep any of us safe.

A-freaking-men. And yeah Randall, that bunny hill after the first drop would send you flying headfirst into the loop.

I think you could ride Millennium Force without any restraints and you would be fine.

^..lol going down an almost 90 degree drop at 92 mph.?

Good luck with that man!

Yeah you would be fine. There's some ejector air on the first drop but you could hold on well enough for that. The rest of the ride features no serious airtime (a little on those hills over the river and the bunny hop by the station, but nothing extreme). It's all fast turns and speed. Easily enough g-force to hold you in.

Maverick_Millennium_Cp 4 lyfe said:
^..lol going down an almost 90 degree drop at 92 mph.?

Good luck with that man!

If you didn't push yourself out of the seat and TRY to fall out you'd be perfectly fine. The 92 mph wouldn't pull you out of the train it would keep you in. The most dangerous part would be at the top of the hill.

I dont know what you all are talking about. MF has some serious airtime on the drop, the two island hills over the river and the speed bump by the station. You would most defiantly be thrown from the car. Claiming otherwise is stupid, especially when two people have been killed when their restraints failed on Intamin hypers.