Coasters to Face G-Force Limits?

jonerik writes "NBC News is reporting that today New Jersey will begin examining the possibility of placing limits on roller coaster G-forces. Pointing out that the G-forces on coasters are considerably greater than even those experienced by astronauts and race car drivers, legislators on both the state and national levels want to start reining in coaster G-forces which have been blamed for a number of injuries and deaths over the past few years. Pansies. Why do they think people ride roller coasters to begin with?"

Comments

Backyards?

[BrianGa]

What about the backyard roller coasters? What kind of regulations will be needed?

57 known cases

[CaptainSuperBoy]

According to Markey's page, there have been 57 known cases of this type of injury. Only 57 cases, ever! Millions of people go to theme parks every year! Has the whole world gone crazy, when congressmen are spending their budgets investigating a one in a million occurrence while ignoring the continual erosion of our civil liberties? It's my right to go on a roller coaster and kill my brain any damn way I want to!

Just another example of what big government causes.. useless legislation, inquiries into problems that don't exist. Your tax dollars at work! Welcome to the New USA, designed to protect yourself from yourself. I'm ashamed to say this buffoon is from my state, Massachusetts. I'll also mention that not a single injury of this type has actually happened in Mass - I guess he's just trying to prevent the one or two injuries that MIGHT happen this season.

It just makes me angry when people focus on extremely rare, freak problems.. like people making such a fuss about school shootings, or shark attacks last summer. Statistically speaking, these things simply do not happen! Why don't we focus on a real problem?

Re:57 known cases

[Some Dumbass...]

It just makes me angry when people focus on extremely rare, freak problems.. like people making such a fuss about school shootings, or shark attacks last summer. Statistically speaking, these things simply do not happen! Why don't we focus on a real problem?

Ever heard of this thing called a trend? Quoting from Senator Markey's report:

At that time, Rep. Markey noted that 14 of the 15 cases had occurred in the 1990's, which he noted coincided with a building boom in the roller coaster industry that was leading to a sharp increase in the average speed and force designed into the rides.

Here's the problem. If high-G roller coasters can already cause harm, and yet roller coasters are only getting faster, how much more damaging will the next generation of roller coasters be? That's why it might be a good idea to set limits now!

Quoting from the MSNBC Article:

"We have right now in America, a roller coaster arms race where each amusement park advertises that they have the fastest, the most dangerous ride," says Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

If there's any truth to this statement, then I can sure see how this could become a big problem.

Assuming it's not a big problem now, that is. If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled! People may expect a few side effects from a drug, like drowsiness. But brain damage? That's a little too much! Likewise, the vast, vast majority of people expect that the worst thing that'll happen to them when they go on a roller coaster is that they'll get dizzy and puke afterwards. If they end up suffering permanent harm, there's a problem.

Re:57 known cases

[sholden]

Legislators are stupid ... similiar situation: a couple years ago here in california, some school kid got himself darwined by running across the street and into the path of a car after getting off a bus.

Our legislators in their finite wisdom decided that to avoid this in the future, drivers would have to *stop* on *both lanes* of trafic anytime a school bus was unloading. The fine for not stoping ? 1500$.

I have nearly gotten in 5 accidents because of this -- people slam on their breaks when the buses flip on their stop sign because they're afraid of the amazing fine (and guess what -- cops are following the buses so they can *give* amazing fines). Then invariably a busy street or expressway comes to a halt with screaching tires. And yes ive narowly avoided some fantastic collisions only by luck.

Which indicates that you shouldn't be driving.

There's this concept of keeping enough distance between you and the car in front so that if they slam on their brakes you have time to slam on yours - without being even close to hitting them.

Only an idiot who drives way to close would manage to come close to crashing in those circumstances, let alone do so five times.

What happens when the car in front sees some kid step out from between parked cars and you don't because from your viewpoint they are obscured by something? Do you almost have an accident because the other driver slams on their brakes?

Braking hard is dangerous (especially if the guy behind you is changing radio stations at the time) but sometimes you need to. Hence you should always leave enough room and assume the other driver just might need to (or maybe the other driver is an idiot who will slam on his brakes because he missed his turn off)...

Kids have underdeveloped peripheral vision, they are bad at judging speeds and distances of object moving at the speeds cars go, they are easily distracted, and often do not notice what is happening around them when focused on something (like getting their ball that just bounced onto the road, or seeing their mother who is an idiot and is on the other side of the road). All this means they will run onto roads...

Stopping for buses to (un)load seems silly to me, a slow speed limit when the bus is (un)loading seems better.

Re:57 known cases

[dschuetz]

The bottom line is that you will get used to the new law. I haven't heard anybody in VA complaining about it *ever*.

You're about to hear a complaint.

I grew up in MD, and have now lived in VA for 10 years, and both states have the same "stop for school bus" law -- including the provision that if there's a median between you and the bus, you don't need to stop. I grew up with the law, I understand its need, and I can live with it.

What I don't understand is why we don't seem to have well-defined bus stops. First, let me explain the architecture of western Fairfax County -- lots of newish (5-15 years old) developments, off a main (4+ lane) highway, with no interconnections between the different builders' neighborhoods. So the buses don't go into the neighborhoods, they simply stop on a major commuter road and pick kids up. Then they drive on a block, and pick up 3 more kids. Two more blocks, and another 5 kids. It's crazy.

Now, I don't mean to start an old fart whining battle, but when I grew up in Bethesda, we had TWO stops on our bus, about 10 blocks apart, and each serving something like 20-30 kids. Why on earth Fairfax can't at least make these kids all walk the extra three blocks to a central stop, and thus stop traffic only once instead of 5 times in less than a mile, is way beyond me.

End of rant.

Now, what were we discussing before? I honestly don't remember... ..sometimes the off-topic digressions really are more interesting. :)

Re:Why? Well...

[Malc]

On top of that, most astronauts are very fit and healthy. Considering that over 50% of American adults are now obese, it's little wonder the regulations need to be tightened up a bit.

Re:Deaths?

[Omnifarious]

Well, this would be all fine and good if I were adequately informed of the danger of riding a particular coaster. I'm certainly no engineer, and couldn't make any kind of good assessment of the safety of a particular roller coaster.

So, if there isn't going to be regulation as to how many Gs you can expose riders to, there should be a requirement for them to prominently post information on maximum expected g-forces, and comprehensive safety history of that particular ride.

Re:Another reason not to trust the media

[Artifex]

I can't believe that they think that a Roller Coasters ride has more Gforce then getting shoot up into space at an ungodly speed.

It's not the speed, it's the huge change of speed in a short time that makes the difference. Relatively gradual accleration to significant speeds is not nearly as traumatic as a quick acceleration and then an abrupt deceleration.

Don't forget, also, that the people piloting military planes and shuttles have gone through significant physical training and monitoring to make sure they're in good shape. The same cannot be true of the vast majority of couch-potatoes visiting the fair. And if the stress on the adult body isn't enough, imagine what the stress might be like on a teen or preteen's body, especially to the brain stem, when suddenly given a 3 or 4 G shock. Maybe nothing, maybe a lot more... especially as the stress gets repeated.

Go ask a pediatric neurologist about the effect repeated stresses like this could have, or go ask any trauma surgeon what repeated low-grade whiplash, which is a potential risk at these levels, can do to anyone.

Think about it - the whole point of roller coasters is to give you a "rush" by stressing your body extremely. It makes sense to at least examine the need for regulation, to make sure roller coasters don't get too extreme.

Blackout on Nitro in New Jersey

[shoemakc]

I do know that I blacked out for a few seconds while riding Nitro in Six Flags / New Jersey. It was right at the top of a peak and I imagine the coaster was pulling some serious negative G's.

Anyway...I remember my vision starting to darken and then go black....and returning a few seconds later. I'm a young adult, in fairly good shape and could see how this could become a serious problem for other riders.

Remember....think back to early Coney Island when there were very few safety regulations, and injury was more the norm then the exception.

-Chris

G-forces aren't interesting

[edp]

"Why do they think people ride roller coasters to begin with?"

Like many things, the reason people think they do something is not necessarily the reason people do it. If a person gets on a roller coaster, enjoys it, and does it again, they may figure they like the G-forces they experienced. But a lot of people don't understand physics or the human body or their own mental processes, so their simple correlation of one part of the experience with the cause of the enjoyment is not necessarily indicative of a causal relationship.

Ask objectively, is it the G-forces people enjoy? Isolate the G-forces to see. Suppose you put somebody in a roller-coaster car mounted over some artificial gravity plating. You dial up the G-forces to two gravities, three, maybe even six. Then you ask the person if they're having fun. The answer will pretty much be no. At two gravities, maybe some people will be interested in what they are feeling, but it isn't really exciting. At higher gravities, they'll be uncomfortable. Even if you don't sustain six gravities but merely pulse the plating for fractions of a second, they'll still be uncomfortable. Above two gravities, there is really nothing new to the experience; it is just more of the same, and it is boring, if not painful.

Objectively, I think a claim that G-forces (really acceleration) are the source of enjoyment won't hold up. Here are some other candidates for the true sources of pleasure: The thrill of the appearance of danger. The unusual perspective of being upside down. The surprise of the unknown as acceleration and velocities change without warning and in unusual ways.

The appearance of danger is thrilling because evolution naturally produces a fascination with danger. Evolution causes an organism to be fascinated with danger because if your brain focuses intensely on danger, you are better able to avoid it. (You recognize it, you avoid it, you figure out what to do,...) Because avoiding danger is very important to survival, your brain is very attracted to focusing on danger. And it is not just focusing; there is also pleasure. The reason for the pleasure is to reward you for having learned something. You have done something good for your continued survival, so there is pleasure associated with it.

Being upside-down and experiencing unusual changes in acceleration and velocity may be entertaining simply because we are curious and enjoy being stimulated. Curiousity is also a feature of an organism making its way in a complicated world. It's pleasurable just as above, because learning enhances survival, although not as intense as apparent danger.

Personally, I enjoy free-fall more than high acceleration. It's a more unusual experience, and zero-gravity is qualitatively different from two-gravities. And, of course, the feeling of falling is highly correlated with great danger, so it produces some of the same intense mental focus on the experience.

So, no, G-forces are not the real reason people ride roller coasters. They may play a role, but there are plenty of other factors, and there are plenty of ways to use accelerations entertainingly without cranking up the acceleration to dangerous levels.