Sandusky police investigating accident at Cedar Point near Raptor

I've been alive for more than 11,000 days. On 3 of those days, I managed to crap myself! Does Ms. Glaser need to write an article on incontinence? I am an expert.

Signs are there to scare you into compliance. Even without them, the message seems quite clear. Stay away.

DA20Pilot said:

It probably wasn't immediately apparent to a layman guest that the trains hung that low from the track. In that context, he probably didn't realize the significance of his actions. His thought process was likely not as reckless as his actions may seem to suggest in hindsight.

It was, clearly, apparent to this layman guest that there were fences between him and the coaster: after all, he scaled them. That there's the place I get hung up. Scaling a fence clearly intended to keep people out of an area, bedecked with signs sternly warning guests to not enter the area, is a reckless action.

When I was in the park Thursday evening which I guess is now technically yesterday I took quick look at where that picture was taken. You have to be in an employess only area to even get to the spot where those two fences meet. If that's where he went over he would have already gone over a fence or let himself through the employee gate before arriving at that point.

TwistedWicker77 said:

...you can't tell the height of that fence from this picture. Unless you're literally standing next to it with a tape measure, I don't understand how you can make that assumption.

Because math. The shorter, black fence has been reported (and that jives with my observations of similar fences in the park) as being 4 feet tall. The taller fence directly adjacent appears to be about 25% taller than the black fence.

4 x 1.25 = 5

Furthermore, it appears as though the grade is lower as you move away from the shorter fence and toward the low zone. And the top of the fence is at a consistent height. So, if the fence is 6 feet tall from the lower grade, then that also adds weight to the assumption.

I mean, after investigation (and I would think there was inspection by the state), Raptor reopened the next day.

And what does that have to do with fence height? The rides, including barricades, are presumably inspected every year. The existing barricades were apparently not compromised, so that's why the ride reopened the following day.

Reread my post, and focus on the part where I wasn't making the argument, but was merely pointing out a few items that could be used by others to form a coherent argument.

The solution is simple. Take all of the security wanding people at the gate and station them around Raptor fencing armed with machine guns. They will get you before the coaster can.

Take this with a grain of salt - but someone posted on Reddit that they talked with an officer who had responded to this incident, and said the man was drunk.

I heard that too.

How would someone responding to the scene know the man was drunk when the man was dead? It's not like slurred speech would give that away. They would have to determine that with an autopsy at a later date.

They could've smelled alcohol on him.

You can smell alcohol on someone after one drink. It doesn't mean that they're drunk.

Like I said, grain of salt. Unless his friends gave testimony that they were pounding beers beforehand, I don't know either.

The problem with that theory is - even when I'm buzzed up, this wouldn't seem like a good idea at all. If I get to the point where I'm drunk enough that this seemed like a good idea, I'd be way too lazy and uncoordinated to even attempt scaling a fence.

Besides, I don't think I could even afford enough beer at the point to get to that level.

djDaemon said:

Because math. The shorter, black fence has been reported (and that jives with my observations of similar fences in the park) as being 4 feet tall. The taller fence directly adjacent appears to be about 25% taller than the black fence.

4 x 1.25 = 5

Keyword, dj...APPEARS to be 25% taller. My comment still stands.

And what does that have to do with fence height? The rides, including barricades, are presumably inspected every year. The existing barricades were apparently not compromised, so that's why the ride reopened the following day.

Raptor reopening the next day has a lot to do with the fence height. If inspection and investigation was carried out properly, all barricades around the ride would have pointed to the fences not being tall enough and not meeting requirements....resulting in Raptor not opening less than 24 hours after the incident until the fences met safety requirements. I think we can all agree that if there was an issue with Raptor or the fences surrounding it, it would remain closed until the issue was fixed. Clearly that's not the case.

Reread my post, and focus on the part where I wasn't making the argument, but was merely pointing out a few items that could be used by others to form a coherent argument.

I understand that part. And I agree with you there. But the fence height and "faded" signs are not a valid argument. Barricades are barricades no matter what form they come in. Warning signs are warning signs no matter how faded it is (considering the sign is still completely readable). These are all obvious indications that you need to stay out of a specific area.

TwistedWicker77 said:

My comment still stands.

You're saying I can't make an assumption? OK...

I think we can all agree that if there was an issue with Raptor or the fences surrounding it, it would remain closed until the issue was fixed. Clearly that's not the case.

Meeting the basic requirements doesn't mean an argument cannot be made that the requirements aren't infallible.

Again, to be clear (because you seem to be confusing my defense of a potential counter argument with me actually making the counter argument) the guy unfortunately got what he deserved. And frankly, fences shouldn't even be necessary. You can work hard to make something idiot-proof, but the world will just come up with better idiots.

But if fences are required, it's not unreasonable to question whether or not that particular fence configuration should be rethought.

Are you a slip and fall lawyer or did you just sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

taken with a grain of salt

This has to be the most commonly used phrase on this site.

djDaemon, of course you can make an assumption. But I have literally watched you pick apart other comments and assumption just like this in the past. I'm just saying I don't agree with it, that's all.

If Cedar Point meets the criteria set by the state of Ohio, then Cedar Point is not the one to blame. Cedar Point was merely following the rules with a minimum height requirement for a fence.

I 100% agree with you on the idiot proof thing. You're absolutely right.

Exactly, CP is in 100% compliance because the ride was inspected after the incident and prior to that at the start of the season. There was an inspection every year since Raptor was built. If CP were not in compliance, that would have been discovered long ago.

My big beef with this entire incident, and the "doctor's" opinion mostly, is that the man rode the ride beforehand. How do you not realize that you're riding something that is going 57 miles per hour. In fact, I'm pretty sure they spiel that the ride is 137 feet tall and travels at a speed of 57 mph.

This guy was clearly educated, being that he was going to start teaching soon. You'd think he'd realize that jumping in the way of a train going 57 mph would be a bad idea. That would be like jumping into traffic going 55 mph. Of course you wouldn't do it, regardless of what was in the middle of the road that you were trying to retrieve. And to follow through with the analogy, there isn't a 6 foot fence surrounding most roads either.

If someone thinks that the park is culpable in this incident because they didn't have a sign saying something like "Warning, Fast-Moving Train," then they've never heard the terms "personal responsibility" and "common sense."

75 bonus points to everyone who has used the word "culpable" in this thread.