Slashdot Mirror
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?"
There are an aweful lot of roller coasters in New Jersey, and most aren't in big theme parks (like Six Flags and stuff).
Most are on the board walk on small piers, and there have been a number of deaths (actually, usually at least one every summer) from poorly design and/or maintained coasters. Regulating coasters is not necessarily a bad idea.
It makes sense to not allow high speed coasters on little piers that don't have enough staff to maintain it properly. I think that is the basis of a law like this.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
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?
These are legislators solving a problem that doesn't exist
I'd say they are taking a very small problem that has already been reported and nipping it in the bud. This reminds me--the very same people who are now saying that Bush knew about 911 are the very same people that would probably have sluffed off a hijack warning before then. So, what we have here are some politicians who are actually demonstrating forsight, and getting blasted by comments like yours. Would you prefer to see a statisticly significant uptick in brain damage incidents at New Jersey hospitals before action is taken?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Space launches have steadily reduced their peak G forces over the years. During the Mercury and Gemini programs, the Astronauts were exposed to as much G force as modern jet fighters do in a dogfight, and for as long. The heavier Saturn launch system of Apollo was gentler, and the Space shuttle is very tame by comparison. Russian cosmonauts still get a better (in roler-coaster terms) ride than their American counterparts.
Given how tame the shuttle is, maybe it's technically true, if misleading, to say that roler coasters give the rider more G that an Astronaut experiences. (They did after all say "astronaut", not "cosmonaut") A space shuttle jockey, just barely goes over 3G. Some roler coasters may peak at 5. But here's the difference: The shuttle sustains the 3G for the entire duration of the post-SRB-separation boost. That's several minutes of continuous burn. I doubt whether any roler coaster ever peaks over 3G for more than 2 or 3 seconds at a time, if that.
The physiological risks associated with high G are not determined by the magnitude of the G alone, but mainly by other factors:
The duration that high G is sustained. Long duration deprives the brain of blood long enough to cause very bad things to happen. No real risk there on roler coasters.
The onset-rate. How suddenly the G force starts and stops. High onset rates cause all kinds of problems, including back and neck problems, inner ear problems, and even brain dammage in extreme cases. Once again, no issue in a well-designed roler coaster.
Head movement. High G forces, especially combined with high onset rates, are aggrivated by sudden head rotation. This can be a problem even if the G forces are only momentary. Inner ear problems can result. Roller-coaster designers have little control over this factor, so perhaps it is a real concern.
Negative G. (Negative means the blood rushes to your head). High negative G can cause all kinds of problems, including burst blood vessels in the eyes. I've personally never heard of a roler coaster that goes beyond about -0.5G or so, and even then for less than a second, so I doubt that this is an issue.
Sudden transitions from positive to negative, or vice-verca. All the bad things associated with high positive G are accentuated if it immediately follows a period of negative. And vice verca if negative follows a period of positive. This will become a real issue if roler coasters ever start exploring the negative regime. Frankly, I doubt that they will. The average rider views positive G's as exhilirating fun, but would find negative to be obnoxious and uncomfortable.
Frankly, I'm much more worried about the structural design and maintenence of the coaster than the G-profile. But then, I've flown to WAY higher positive and negative G forces than either roler coaster or space shuttle experience, and I know the breathing techniques, and I know to keep my head relatively still. Roler coasters all seem really disappointing to me.
Lack of -training-? No, I think it's jsut that there's a lack of skilled drivers. That involves training, but is not the sole factor. We have drivers that are fearful, drivers that do things they shouldn't while driving (eating, talking on the phone, etc.), poor dextrousity, poor eyesight, and such. Training is just a small factor. Probably also a factor, is the ease that exists in getting a license. It shouldn't be as cheap as it is (cheap to renew, yes, after a basic review of continued competence), and the testing procedure shouldn't be as momentary - they should have to drive on, say, an obsticle course in an unfamiliar vehicle (one big cause for accidents), etc...
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
No, that's not their job. But sometimes they think it is, and that is pretty god-damned unfortunate.
Trenton, N.J. - A New Jersey judge today declared that it would be illegal to expose citizens to gravitational fields greater than 0.2 G . "Every year more people are falling or jumping to their deaths," explained Justice Iverson, " a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. Every day on television I see coyotes cruelly crushed by falling anvils, and its time something was done. I am issuing an extradition writ for a Mr Isaac Newton who I believe is responsible for the problem."
Cynics have suggested that Iverson is merely trying to improve his golf game. Since the ruling, he has been regularly driving the greens at exclusive Rolling Hills Country Club - with his sand wedge. Justice Iverson is aged 92.
In related news, senior mafia officials pledged to 'eradicate chance' from casinos across the USA.
Not to have their bodies exposed to more forces and danger than most astronauts ever experience
From the original post:
the G-forces on coasters are considerably greater than even those experienced by astronauts and race car drivers...
I flew military jets for 9 years, and I think these comparisons are crap. When people used to ask me how jets compared to roller coasters, I would tell them that the two experiences are totally different. It's a matter of scale. Sustaining 4G or more for even 10 seconds, let alone 30 or 60 seconds or more, is an experience that simply cannot be reproduced by any rollercoaster that can fit in a theme park. The effects of the sustained G are DRAMATICALLY different than the one or two second hits (or three or four...whatever) felt on a high performance rollercoaster.
I recently road with my brother on a rollercoaster that I considered to be quite exciting, with corkscrews and consecutive loops, and when it was over he asked me how many G's he thought we had pulled. Based on the sensations I had felt (compared to my years in jets) I guessed 1.5-2. I was surprised to see a brochure later that claimed the ride pulled 6G. The two or three second hits just didn't have time to register.
Another example: a person using an ejection seat pulls an ongodly amount of G -- something like 30 or 60, although the actual number escapes me. Obviously this is enough to kill a man, but the brief time period involved make it survivable. I've known people who ejected and were able to walk around with no problem immediately afterward.
The point is that comparisons to astronauts and race car drivers is misleading. The maximum G must be examined only in conjunction with the period of time over which the G occurs. Brief hits DO NOT COMPARE to sustained G. Maybe rides should be limited and maybe they shouldn't, but the forces faced by astronauts are not part of the debate.
Evil is the money of root.
In this context, positive and negative Gs are relative to the body orientation: positive Gs are directed from head to feet; negative Gs are directed from feet to head.
In physics, there may be no difference between positive and negative Gs, but there are definite physiological differences in how the body reacts to positive and negative Gs, and how much the body can tolerate in each direction. Like the previous poster said, negative Gs cause increased blood pressure in the head, which can lead to bursting blood vessels. Contrariwise, positive Gs cause decreased blood pressure (and flow) to the head, and can eventually cause blackouts.
You know that metal bar on the back of the trailer? Yeah that's what is supposed to protect you from being decapitated, all trucks have them.
;-).
If you had ever worked with large trucks first hand you'd realize that those things are largely worthless.
First, there are loading docks that actually latch onto the underride bars to keep the trailers in place - how many times do you think people forget to disengage them before trying to drive off. This doesn't always tear the guard off, just weakens it.
Second, those guards are often too high to stop a car from underriding. The theory is that they will hit your engine block, collapse and scrape along your hood - buckling it - until you stop. Um, yeah. That works great if you're in something with a hood that high. (hint: Metro and Miata drivers are screwed)
Anyway, I agree with you that there is a higher percentage of safe and conscientious drivers with a CDL than not. The real problem is that 1 bad truck driver can 100x more lethal per incident than some poor schmuck in an Aspire with no clue. Unfortunately, there are too many schmucks on the road creating too many incidents.
Back (sorta) on topic, there definitely needs to be *some* sort of regulation on coasters - operationally as well as mechanically. At the bare minimum, I'd like to see info outside the ride on max speed, max G, sustained G and running time - so I don't wait 2 hours in line for a 10 second ride!