Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Officially Limits G-Forces on Coasters
Well, NJ has (sadly) become the first state in the US at limiting G-Forces on roller coasters. The regulation calls for prohibition of forces greater than 5.6 that last longer than one second. NJ gave itself the right to regulate rides after an accident where two were killed from a malfunction, not excessive Gs. (A ride I rode once -- It's a kiddie-sized coaster, not what you'll find at Cedar Point, OH. The two killed were a seven year old and her mother.) This is also despite the lack of scientific evidence linking G forces to brain injury, and 320 million riders who turn out just fine every year. One brain-injury specialist interviewed said that you can exert 10 Gs just plopping into a chair, saying the state was "a little misguided."
Wow! 10G's for over a second just from plopping into a chair, really? No? Okay then I guess you can stop missing the fucking point, in that case.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Six Flags Great Adventure in NJ is one of the best parks for coasters that I've ever been to. Gotta love the Scream Machine!
God Fucking Damnit
that you can exert 10 Gs just plopping into a chair,
Sure but that's for a really short period, nothing like a second.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Former Astronaut, "Buzz" Aldrin seems to have suffered no ill effects or brain injury from high Gs from his flights and space shots.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The G-forces in military aircraft are enough to make pilots blackout (the blood goes away from the head) or redout (the blood goes to the head) with little effort. The major G-forces aren't caused by engine acceleration, rather they are caused by centripital force. Generally, the pilot can sustain far less G-force than the aircraft.
Plopping into a chair produces a very short pulse at 10G. That duration is key here. Most people will pass out in prolonged exposure to 10G.
Most "injuries" related to non-bruising/bone breaking G-forces are from blood deprevation. A really long, tight turn may be enough to deprive your brain of enough blood flow to cause you (or someone with poor circulation to start out with) to pass out. After passing out, you'll just flop around on the ride, where real injury can occur.
As for direct effects, we of course have the very unscientific number of "healthy patrons" which gives us some comfort with the current state. However, it isn't insane to believe that large exposure to prolonged, high-G roller coasters could pose real health hazards. Imagine if someone built a 10G sled that accelerated you linearly, then radially for say 30 seconds. Most of the people on the ride would have a hard time walking after, and many may have passed out.
Setting reasonable standards isn't a bad thing. If someone wants to build one faster or whatever, they could always file a variance with the locality if they could prove it was safe. This just puts their rides up to (more) public scrutiny.
I'm not sure about the statistics you quote, but I agree. Whats with the /. crowd assuming that all rollercoaster riders are like them (ie 20-40 yo males w/ too much testosterone)? There have been several cases of death induced by (and possibly caused by) rollercoaster use.
Limits are needed and the industry brought it on themselves by (1) Making rollercoasters really fast and (2) Not addressing the issue of deaths.
If the rollercoaster manufacturers/theme parks had really addressed this issue to begin with, this might not have been as big a problem.
-Sean
Well, it depends a LOT on the nature of the force. Plopping into a chair is a force that the body is pretty well equipped to handle. Car accidents (suddent deceleration) can toss about very heavy G loads - 25 G's isn't unusual. A lot of auto safety now is figuring out how to mitigate those forces (airbags soften the forces relative to the dashboard) and how to redirect them into a more survivable form (why small children ride backward - we can take more G's from our back than our front)
5-6 Gs in the manner that rollercoasters deliver are pretty high (forces that an unsupported head will need to resist against). Sustained for even a few seconds and some people will pass out, and most people will be sore, and few will suffer significant problems due to pre-existing conditions. A CART race was postponed last year when drivers complained of dizziness and difficulty breathing with G forces around 5, though it was for fairly sustained periods.
I think the problem boils down to more people riding coasters, more high G coasters, and more people that aren't in sufficient shape to handle such forces. The number of injuries and deaths aren't high, but for an activity that is supposed to be entertainment, I suspect our tolerance for casualties is pretty low.
From the article:
G-force is the pressure put on the body when it is suddenly accelerated from a motionless position, resulting in a person's body being pushed back into their seat.
What the author just described here is half nonsense and half the wrong thing. Acceleration from any "position", motionless or not results in a force being applied to bodies going along for a ride. Secondly, the suddenness, or rate of change of acceleration, is jerk, not acceleration. G-forces are acceleration, not jerk.
That said, I personally think the regulation of the g-forces isn't really going to help much. Whenever I ride a rollercoaster, the sudden acceleration making my head knock into the supports is definitely the least fun part to me, and my guess is that's what causes the alleged brain injury, not sustained g-forces.
How about known risk. I know when I go onto a roller coaster that despite all the past history, anything going that fast could in some way cause me injury. If you avoid everything just because of a possible risk, then life would really suck. Better to make the public aware than impose somewhat random or uninformed limitations.
If you know people who have died in auto accidents, does that mean you shouldn't drive?
Cars can cause accidents, TV can cause seizures. How many people were the 42 out of? If it's 42/100000000 that's lower than most things. I'd almost guarantee that there are a number of things you do every day that risk your life more than jumping in a roller coaster (despite the feeling that you're going to die every time).
Life is full of personal risks. We should be informed of the risks, and make our our decisions. Thus is the only way that we can lead a life of freedom - phorm
Do I think it's "American" to lecally prohibit someone from hurling themselves down a steel railing at Ludicrous Speed?
No, not particularly.
But at present, do I feel it's the sort of "right" which our efforts can be BEST spent protecting?
No. Let's worry about Joe-Bob's "Constitutional Right To Scary Carnival Rides" in a couple of months. For the moment, let's see whether we can allow a bunch of medical students to drive cross-country without closing down interstate highways and expelling them from school (all in 48 hours) on the word of some half-witted busybody.
crib
Please don't read my journal
The prevailing attitude from the 30 odd replies I've read so far, is something like this: They are sil;ly and stupid bureaucrats who are limiting our enjoyment in something totally harmeless.
My reply to this is, a 5.6 G turn will produce the same sensation as a 4.6 G turn. So the fun is still exactly the same. Besides, for those who have a hard time thinking beyond their own noses, G forces apply to machinery as well as to humans. Lower Gs results in less stress on the machinery, and thus becomes less likely to malfunction. Also, designing for less Gs reduces the cost of construction, which, theoretically, means more roller-coasters.
This is a personal choice--it doesn't endanger anybody else. I think ride operators should be required to label and state clearly what is known about the dangers, but the state shouldn't prohibit such operations--people should be free to hurt or kill themselves in whatever way they like. But, then, I think the same about both recreational and medical drugs.
Learn just a tiny little bit about law before you go spouting your mouth off. They are banning high G force rides, which sounds like they are making it an offence (ie criminal law, public prosecutors). As it stands now, the rememdy is a civil one, (ie negligence law, ambulance chasers.) You don't need statutes to sue, tort law will do just fine, thankyou very much.
Chances are this law will result in less death and injury, which is a loss for the legal eagles.
The McDonalds coffee example is the most badly chosen one I can think of. There were literally dozens of people who got badly burnt by McDonalds coffee before the old lady got her genitalia burnt off. McDonalds calculated that it was cheaper to settle these cases individually than to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a safe level (hot coffee is supposed to keep longer). Any corporation that calculates their profits on a liability vs personal injury (or death) basis deserves to get hit HARD. Any jury that see evidence like that will. McDonalds got what they deserved, simple.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
'Who in the hell you bring video card on to a roller coaster let alone so many as to the point it needed to be limited'
damn dog, that thought was crunk
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
I might care if you can show me a link to that statistic. A quick Google search turned up a whole lot of nothing, except a Book Review of someone saying that sudden acceleration syndrome was B.S. in the Audi case and it was bad science. If your statistic is legit, then yes, I would care. But it looks like FUD, which is probably why you posted AC.
Are you from Jersey?
I'm from Jersey.
Really? What exit?
--
Damn the Emperor!
This is also despite the lack of scientific evidence linking G forces to brain injury...
Wait a minute, are you telling me that all those people out there that continue to pay $40/day for park admission, $4/slice of pizza, $3/drink, and then are willing to spend 2-3 hours waiting in line for a 40 second ride... have not suffered some kind of brain damage?
By the way, 5.6 G's is pretty damned high anyway, isn't it? I dunno whether I'd particularly like to ride a coaster much above that for any length of time. I'd hasten to add I wouldn't want to stop consenting adults doing so if they knew what they were in for, though.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Way less than one G. In order to have 1G or greater on takeoff you would need to have a Thrust-to-Weight ratio of greater than one. Believe me, no commercial aircraft have anywhere close to that. If I recall correctly, most are closer to .3-1 or so which translates to, at best, a .3G increase during the takeoff run.
Will
I often wonder how many G's are inflicted on my chair at work after eating a Taco Bell lunch.
It must be terrible.
If I bounce on it hard enough,when I sit down, sometimes I can re-live the initial experiece.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
As far as I know, very few if any modern rollercoasters push anything like 5G for over a second. Many can push that many positive vertical Gs for a split second. Over 3Gs side-to-side is rare, and over 2 negative vertical Gs, also rare or nonexistent to my knowledge.
Lacking existing laws to protect us from such awful dangers, why are so many rollercoasters designed to deliver wimpy 2-4G forces?
Could it be because high G forces are NO FUN FOR RIDERS?
Personally, I wish they had made a law forbidding the damn things from snapping my neck side to side with 3-4G lateral transitions. 2Gs right to 2Gs left, for instance, is far more painful than 6 positive vertical Gs.
But we really need no such laws. Most really painful coasters were designed without the aid of modern computer simulations. Nowadays, coaster designers have a pretty good idea what every section of a ride will feel like before it's built.
Good coasters rely on surprise, misdirection, and optical illusion more than high G forces.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Assume your butt moves at 1G from 10 inches above the chair to the chair surface, sinking into the chair 1 inch (it has a cushion). If the time taken to stop sinking into the chair is about the same as it took you to reach the surface of the chair from standing, that's a 10G decelerative force.
I think. Someone with a PhD in Physics can probably explain it better. And probably will.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
NJ gave itself the right to regulate rides after an accident where two were killed from a malfunction, not excessive Gs.
I hate this kind of misdirected legislation. It's like the new airline baggage screening requirements (helllooo! The 9/11 hijackers did not have any dangerous checked baggage!). Or gun control laws being passed in reaction to violence committed with illegally-possessed guns. (they were already illegal, see?)
Gravitrons produce 3.8Gs for about 30 seconds. I believe this is permitted under NJ law.
Re: the accident: The was a chain dog failure ending in derailment [I believe]. Normal ride forces were not involved in any way, it's just a straw man used to push this law through.
No current roller coaster in the state of New Jersey comes close to a prolonged force of 5.6+ Gs. Or in any other state, either.
The law also puts some limits on lateral motion, which is not mentioned in the article. Again, nothing that would impact any currently existing coasters.
The trend in roller coasters is taller, faster, steeper, and tighter - which is good but only to a point. Sitting in the front of Nitro (at Six Flags Great Adventure in NJ) will always black out my vision in the large corkscrew. I haven't yet found a person who didn't feel extremely light-headed after taking that turn in a front seat. And that turn still isn't close to 5.6 Gs.
As for the lateral motion restriction, I applaud that. I know people who have bruised the sides of their heads on their harnesses. (The suspended Batman ride is pretty bad in that regard.) If rides keep progressing towards the extreme, some poor guy with weak neck muscles is gonna lose consciousness or even have his skull cracked. Safety limits are a good thing.
Anyway, this whole "its my body let me abuse it" uprising is pointless. The limits set by this law do not affect your ability to black out or sprain your neck. However, they just might save your life in 5 years when someone tries to build a coaster thats bigger and badder than it ought to be.
Also note that due to heavy lobbying by Disney, official injury reporting is rather weak nationally and in states where Disney has a presence.
You know, in a well-run corporation, managers are generally specialized. Accounting managers deal with money, managers in the technical departments deal with things that are technical, etc.
:)
This scares me about the way democracy works. You have managers (congressmen, senators, judges, legislators, etc..) that decide what goes on in this country, and none of the, are qualified to make every single one of those decisions. How many legistators do you think really understand how G-forces relate to the risks of rollarcoasters?
Worse, the democratic managers of this country have horrible employers: you and I, the people who hire and fire them by voting. And most of the people in this country (that vote anyway) don't understand most of the issues the managers have to deal with.
So it sets up a perfect scenario for the politicians to act out of fear of being disliked, or even voted out of office for lack of activity. Case in point, this rollarcoaster issue: a few people died, so voters start looking at the lawmakers to act. The lawmakers are forced to do something, anything, even if what they do is wrong. If they didn't, the people would get angry and possibly vote for someone else come next election.
Not that I have a better solution, at least not at 2am on a monday morning
_______
2B1ASK1
I rode the said roller coaster many times, though certainly not recently. The last time I rode it must have been 1993 or so, and that ride remains one of the most horrific and memorable events in my memory.
While going up the incline, I heard several faint but audible metal pinging sounds; these were the sounds of metal ejecting from the machine. Once the roller coaster reached the peak I discovered something awful: the back right corner was not secure! During the whole ride the back bucked and jittered unnaturally, and I honestly thought the thing would come off. Afterward, I told everyone I could about my experience, though no one wants to listen to a hyperactive thirteen year old.
Though I love to be right, having a mother and her child die to prove it wasn't what I had in mind...though I did say for years the thing would kill people.
G-Forces my ass; that roller coaster is the same generic thing you see at every carnival. The owners of the park, the Gillian family, have been pocketing inspectors for years. The entire place reeks of disrepair and I refuse to set foot in it. I'm STILL waiting for the litigation against their greedy asses to surface, but they still drive all over town with their fancy cars and personalized parking places.
And last year 42 people in the US were rendered with an IQ of 55 by sticking over 14 crayons in their face. Crayola doesn't care. They just want to sell as many crayons as they can. Especially powder blue ones.
If one of those 42 people were your close relative, would you care? Would you remove the crayon?
Would you even take the time to write the number 42 in crayon?
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Give me a break. You neglect to mention that they "joked" about commiting an act of mass destruction.
If you were meeting the president, and you said, "Hey, i'm going to kill you!" they would lock you up faster than you could say, "Just kidding!"
I don't blame the waitress. What these three did was really, really stupid.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
You say that like its some sort of bad thing. Its a freaking free service what's to complain about? The gas costs just as much many other places and you have to pump it yourself.
Why would you want to pump your own gas? Trust me when its either 95F or 25F you sure as hell don't want to be standing outside. Plus the attendant comes to you and you don't have to wait in line with people buying cigarettes. As someone who has lived in both California and New Jersey, I'll take someone waiting on me any day over having to get out of my car. I don't see your logic.
Regarding the driving age I've always thought 16 was too young anyway. Having an extra year of maturity never hurt anyone. And yes I when I was 16 I was jealous of kids in other states who had their licenses, but whatever I got over it.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Yup, I've seen a reproduction of the balance sheet from ford, numbers of deaths, injuries etc, all tallied up against potential liability, and then the bottom line calculation of cost of modifications needed to alleviate the problem. Truely shocking.
McDonalds made no such calculationsOK, I don't have any access to the evidence brought at that trial, so I shall defer to your greater knowledge. It remains, true, does it not, that the apparently excessive exemplary damages awarded in that case, were the result of McDonalds' failure to change their practices despite repeated injuries of a similar nature (presumably they felt that colder coffee would adversly affect sales). While this is not as shocking as the behaviour of Ford, it is not entirely dissimilar.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Military pilots have to pass a strict physical examination and graduate from a training program that includes testing in a G force simulator and training in how to resist G forces. They also have airplanes and equipment that are scientifically designed to deal with high G forces.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
They have to keep the driving age high. If sixteen year olds could get licenses, the insurance rates would become unaffordable for the majority of motorists. It's on the threshold alredy.
Actually, there has never been a single case of excessive G-forces causing any kind of injury to anyone.
now, if you want to talk about ride safety, then fine: yes, occasionally either something malfunctions or someone does something stupid (much more often the latter) and someone falls to their death or is struck by a moving train. a mentally handicapped person managed to wriggle out of his harness while on Shockwave at Paramount's Kings Dominion, and subsequently fell to his death. also, this summer, someone hopped a 10-foot fence into a restricted area and was struck by a train. just a week or two ago, several people were injured when a kiddie swing ride tipped over (at a county fair, not an amusement park). these sorts of accidents do happen. but what has never, ever, happened is someone being ijured (or at least being shown to have been injured) as the result of G-forces on a rollercoaster.
i could live a little longer in this prison
One brain-injury specialist interviewed said that you can exert 10 Gs just plopping into a chair, saying the state was "a little misguided"
Woah Woah... into a chair? Thats crazy!! i've got the most comfy overstuffed lounge chair and I can tell ya the "specialist" has it all wrong.. its getting out of the chair!!! that exerts gforce!! i probably push against 100g's to get out of oh so comfy chair!!
Are you sure the deaths were because of SAS in the last year? According to an article on the Darwin Awards, there's been a total of 42 roller-coaster related deaths in the last 11 years. And I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of the cases were user stupidity, with the rest machine malfunction. Roller coasters are incredibly safe considering how many people ride them each year.
First Greece, now New Jersey...
Well, at least you can still game with ATI video cards in New Jersey!
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
It's called Jerk. The rate of accelleration with respect to time.
I don't like the idea of Jerky roller coasters.
They make me feel as if I am getting punched.
I think I could stand higher Gs when the acceleration in longer.
I think the point is: Consider more variables!
I could probably find a way to kill somebody with a 5 G roller coaster, and have the same person live through a 10G roller coaster (though... I'd don't know for sure)
If I were subject to uniformed acceleration, it would be as if I were heavier... (I was going to say had a heavy body suite... but I remembered that the blood has inertia, and would like to stay where it is more than my bones witch are rigid so the blood could FLOW to the head or feet...)
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
I strongly doubt that. It's more likely that the 10-20 cents extra per gallon is added in.
95's nothing...get back to me when your temperatures hit 115. As for 25, it almost never gets that cold here. Given a choice, I'd rather pump my own gas than risk having some minimum-wage flunky spill gas all over the paint on my truck. Besides, I usually check the oil and other fluids while the gas is pumping, and I definitely wouldn't want the aforementioned minimum-wage flunky nosing around under the hood.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4068519.htm
Interesting... It seems they were just having a laugh at the expense of some busybody waitress... Paranoia rules!
You neglect to mention that they "joked" about commiting an act of mass destruction.
And you apparently neglected to read any of the news articles on this subject in the last three or four days.
The students claim that the "bring it down" remark referred to a car that they were considering "bringing down" to florida from a northern state. They claim that either the waitress was mistaken or lied about the "september 13" comment she said she overheard. They claim that the conversation was completely normal and did not touch on terrorism, september 11, or september 13. There is absolutely no reason to believe they were joking about anything.
I think the waitress just misheard stuff. However, I do not blame the waitress either. I think she did the correct thing, given the circumstances. I do not blame the police, either, though it seems they overreacted a bit. They were just doing their jobs, in investigating and clearing a possible threat.
I blame the media outlets for gross negligence. How they have handled this has been really, really stupid.
I am perplexed and disappointed at the number of media outlets who printed or said outright that the medical students admitted to "joking" about september 11. It appears, at the moment, that that particular rumor is baseless, and APPEARS to originate (I am not 100% sure about this bit) from early reports stating that the waitress' daughter told reporters that "maybe [the students] were making a joke", which were then accidentally rereported by other news outlets as saying flat-out the students had joked about september 11. You will notice that no news outlets in the latter half of the weekend have said anything at all about "joking".
An extra note, becuase an AC asked for elaboration on cribcage's "being expelled" comment: The students have been asked, at least temporary, to leave their internships at the hospital they are studying at because the hospital had been recieving threats from people who didn't quite grasp everything the news told them (Can't find link at this moment, sorry, but there was an article on CNN.com this morning which now seems to be gone.) The hospital said they would consider allowing the students back in time, or if local law enforcement would agree to assist in providing extra protection from "patriotic" nutjobs.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
There is little data tracking brain injuries and rides, which makes it difficult to know if injuries may have been caused by something other than the rides or if a person may have unknowingly had a pre-existing medical condition, some experts say.
Other than 'previously', what other words need the prefix 'pre'? An existing medical condition says the exact same thing as pre-existing. Can anyone think back to a time when 'pre' wasn't abused all over the place? Maybe it started with pre-heating ovens? Have previews always been called that? Have trailers ever been at the end of movie, else why are they called that?
Pardon me for asking, but isn't that a bit unhygienic?
(I can't even begin to consider the agony of requiring 10Gs!)
Simon
This is unfortunately wasted effort. The lawyers keep the g-forces in check. What roller coaster manufacturer will make a coaster that will kill people? It's obviously in their best interest to do plenty of research and testing on their rides to make sure people don't get harmed. The odds are also statistically insignificant -- one in 100 million riders dies? Please. I wish lawmakers would spend their time on more pressing issues, such as allocating funding to help with the thousands of people who die every year from smoking, car wrecks, and terminal illnesses.
This kind of legislation just makes me sick. The entertainment industry will take care of itself -- noone will ride a ride that is known to hurt people!
I just don't think that's such a large problem--people tend not to want to injure themselves, and the really reckless ones already have plenty of choices, both legal and illegal.
Any anti-government fiend will tell you that it's just "'the Man's' way of limiting your options for having a good time" (a-la Marijuana being illegal and alcohol regulations). But this isn't one of those posts, and I'm not one of those fiends.
Instead, I look at it this way. First of all, G-Forces are nowhere near the problem. Most rollercoaster accidents happen for one of a select few reasons:
1. Safety Devices, like seat belts, lap rails or shoulder harnesses, fail. Only after they fail do G-Forces become a remote issue, as they could easily throw the rider from the car. More commonly, the force of 1G becomes more dangerous in this case, as it's the main one pulling you to the center of the Earth (ie falling out while inverted).
2. Mechanical Failure. Either the car or track could be to blame here. This includes brakes as well. But then again, coasters are often designed nowadays with a few redundant systems, which all but eliminate (accidents do happen) these concerns.
3. Human stupidity. This covers both rider and operator. Failure to heed warning signs (heart condition, pregnancy, etc.) on the rider's part contribute a great deal. Let's face it. Some people are just plain stupid. Operator failure sometimes contributes to injuries and deaths, be it lack of training on operations or just plain idiocy.
The only possible way G-Forces could kill is if number 3 happens, and someone who is stroke (etc.) prone, has extremely weak nerves, or doesn't use safety devices properly gets on.
John Glenn returning to space proved that even older folks can handle G-Forces in excess of 5 Gs. Age limits are enough to prevent small children, still growing and pretty much fragile, from being exposed to high Gs. And most people are intelligent enough to know that if they have a pre-existing condition, getting on might not be such a good idea. Safety and mechanical failures are either pure chance or lack of proper coaster upkeep.
So where's the problem, New Jersey? It's not science, studies and statistics. It's just plain common sense.
Oh, wait. What am I doing talking about New Jersey and Common Sense in the first place? We all know how toxic the place is. The people are good and hard working, but their government severely lacks any stroke to pull this kind of stunt...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Here's a Summary Table of Key Citations. Congressman Markey's main page on the subject is also worth reading.
As for the millions who escape unscathed, I don't think that has ever been a valid argument against safety legislation. The majority of people who use power tools without eye protection will not lose an eye; does that mean OSHA should stop requiring protective eyewear?
In other news, Newark International Airport was shut down, because planes create excessive G-Force pressure on take-off. And accelerating your car too quickly? That's a no-no too.
Accelerating at 5.6gs in a car? Yeah, I can see that. If you drove it into a wall.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Well, in the USA, you need to be 18 to make such a decision on your own. So I suppose if you wanted to make a private park only for people 18 years old and up, you could do so practically without restrictions.
Batman: R
Viper: R
Revolution: PG
DeathCoaster! NC17
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Besides, 5.6G is a lot even for just the coaster. If the coaster itself weighs a ton, it would mean the rail would have to be built to deal with 5.6 ton, plus whatever extra comes from vibration, and finally, better double that, just to be on the safe side. This requires extensive testing, all the time... Modern fighter planes spend more time on the ground than in the air for exactly that reason.
If you want more than 5.6G, you should bring your medical attest, sign the waiver, etc... It's just not something you want to send people with unknown physical condition into. And it's not just the cardiac problems. There are people with e.g. weak neck-muscles, skeletal problems, etc. This could probably be enough to trigger a whiplash, or anything else, if you are not physically fit.
Hell, better build the coaster so that they're fun to ride, instead of simply dangerous. The feeling of free fall, the horror of feeling like you're almost going to run into that bar over your head, jerky motion like on a wood-coaster, etc... there are a lot of things you can do without putting people into danger, that will be just as exciting.
And sinking into a chair has nothing to do with it. That is impulse, not sustained force. And while impulse is dangerous too, it's not like you can just compare their numbers without thinking. (While I can survive under water for two minutes, I can probably not survive two days on top of mount everest (even though there are a lot more oxygen at the top of mount everest).)
Give me a break. You neglect to mention that they "joked" about commiting an act of mass destruction.
You neglect to mention that they were alleged to have joked about commiting acts of destruction. There is a pretty big diffrence.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I got my learner's permit when I was 14, and my license when I was 16. The insurance rates were hardly unaffordable for the majority of motorists, let alone for me.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
If I get sick, you could say my illness is existing. It exists...hence I am sick. If I were sick prior to getting insurance plan X, it is pre-existing. Pre- in this case referring to the time period before my current insurance coverage. Yes, there's a lot of redundancy in the use of that...er..prefix, but in this case it makes an important distinction. If an insurance company said "we do not cover any existing medical conditions" they would be pretty worthless.
:)
Just being pedantic back at you.
(But I have no idea about the trailer thing....dumb movie lingo)
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Who knows, could rollercosters be contributing to the degradation of cognitive capability in the world?
Hahaha.
Actualy that's a good point. Someone mod him up.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think what people are mixing up is that 5.6 G's vertically like in military aircraft is fine. The problem is that roller coasters exert sideways G's and that is what a human body cannot cope with. That is a proven fact. (I saw it on the science channel). And lets please remember a military aircraft pilot is not a person on a roller coaster. A pilot is in good shape, healty. Whereas people on roller coasters tend to not be in the same shape.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Can you show me evidence, that meets the criterion of the doctrine of strong inference, that a 5.6G maximum is consistent with safety for roller coasters? I can sure as hell provide hundreds of thousands (probably tens of millions) of examples of poeple that have rode on any given coaster and suffered no ill effects.
New Jersey's gasoline tax is 14.5 cents/gallon. That's on the low side (and according to this makes it the fourth lowest in the nation.
Keep in mind however that a lot of New Jersey's roadways are financed through tolls--whereas most states finance highways through gasoline taxes.
Now let us take a look at this which is a summary of gasoline price per gallon in summer 01 and summer 02. The average price per gallon in New Jersey is quite a lot higher than most states (except those which are far from refineries, like your Wyoming and Alaska or require a different fuel mix, like California, which is also far from refineries.) Indeed, Connecticut asseses a tax which is some 20 cents higher than New Jersey's tax, but the cost in CT for a gallon of gas is about the same as it is in NJ. Delaware's tax is nearly ten cents higher than NJ's, but most of the time you'll get gas there for about ten cents cheaper. I use CT and DE as states to compare to because they are close by, often with similar population densities. NY would make a bad comparison because a lot of NY is not the NYC metro area, which I suspect has a bit of a inflation effect on gas prices for the tri-state area.)
My hypothesis is that since all stations in NJ have to pump gas for you, the price for that service is rolled into the cost of the gasoline, and the statistics do seem to indicate that gas in NJ, given it's pretty low sales tax, is more expensive than it is in other states.
Having said all that, I think I would be a little sad if NJ got rid of full service--it's one of those unique things that make NJ what it is. Like the Sopranos, non-photo driver licenses (which they are sadly getting rid of) and...umm...damn. I guess that's it.
"Trust me when its either 95F or 25F you sure as hell don't want to be standing outside"
;)
Wimp. All of my life I've lived in places where it exceeds one of those for a good part of the year. I still pump my own gas.
I have seen several:
Hey stop NARCing my ride man...
and several more:
What a watse of my Legislators time...
posts, but this is, in fact, great legislature.
You see the thing of it is, is that whoever this bonehead is, he/she hasn't done any real harm. Go ahead regulate the gs in my rollercoaster, Hell, regurgitate them for all I care. This truly does not matter. The Government (aka The Man) has done YOU no harm, this time.
For the Legislator well this is a huge plus. Most of the State could care less what they've done and as such will not hold them accountable but... overprotective, SUV on the sidewalk at 50 miles an hour chatting on her cell phone, Soccer Mom thinks you're fucking Joan Of Arc saving her little ones from the brain damage she should be doling out with sugary treats, 50 inch TVs hooked to PS2s and the incessant drone of her voice warning them against the evils of the world. You've justified her existence, you've made a positive impact on her life, you have given a legal voice to her constant nagging... You da man!
And so we're all happier. Truly nothing has been accomplished and somebody somewhere is happy. Everyone wins.
This
Okay, as a coaster enthusiast, here is my take on this.
1. They are regulating something that has a lower per capita injury/fatality rate than garden hoses, bowling, driving, walking up stairs, and really just about anything.
2. Given [1] this is obviously 'look good' legislation that, as usual, totally fails to see the cause of injuries.
3. By far the biggest cause of injuries is rider error. You know, people who don't "remain seated with your hands inside the car at all times". The next biggest cause (roughly 15%) is operator error. These type of accidents usually result because the operator did something stupid (IE was walking under the track while the coaster was running.) The other major cause of accidents (almost 5%) are caused by those with preexisting conditions (asthma, heart trouble, back trouble, etc). Again, essentially rider error, as the signs warn quite clearly that those with preexisting medical conditions should not ride.
4. Even assuming g forces are a danger (I disagree, but just for the sake of argument...), NJ is looking at it in the wrong way. Based on a large body of anecdotal evidence (I've ridden 153 coasters at 52 diffirent parks, total # of rides probably close to 5000), the only thing that ever causes discomfort are those hideous over the sholder restraints (Sometimes referred to as 'horsecollars'. These restraints let your HEAD do all the stopping under any sort of lateral acceleration. Ever since Karl Bacon of Arrow Dynamics came up with the idea in the early '70's, they have been causing headaches everywhere they are installed. Luckily, some companies are seeing the light. Schwarzkopf GMBH (one of the dominant builders of early looping rides) always used simple lapbars, and those ride like a dream. Premier Rides, maker of magnetically launched rides, has recently retrofitted almost all their rides with lapbars. Those have now gone from a boxing simulator to being world class rides.
TODO: Something witty here...
The race was at Texas Motor Speedway, a 1.5 mile high-banked (24') oval track. During practice, the drivers were experiencing lateral G-forces approaching 6G in the turns, and several complained about various physiological effects (tunnel vision, vertigo, dizzyness, etc.) after just a handful of laps. Fearing that the extreme G-forces would lead to injuries and cause mayhem on the track over the course of the race, CART cancelled the event.
On a side note, the IRL (Indy Racing League) runs at Texas and its sister track, Atlanta, also a 1.5 mile high-banked oval. The IRL cars are a little slower than the CART vehicles, however, and don't generate the 5+ G that the CART drivers were experiencing. The stock cars (NASCAR) which run at the same tracks, of course, don't generate nearly the same forces, since they are far slower in the turns than the lightweight open-wheel cars.
DennyK
This from a state that wont even let you pump your own fucking gas. Hardly surprising. What is it with NJ? Is it all the toxic waste screwing with their brains?
siri
Otherwise known as the Philip Morris argument.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
"One brain-injury specialist interviewed said that ... the state was "a little misguided."
Let me get this straight: you're saying that a bunch of congressmen are making laws regulating something they didn't really understand? That's absurd!
Stop them before the try to regulate computers or the internet!....oh, wait....
-Styopa
I live in NJ. A few months ago I was getting gas and got out of my car to buy a soda. I saw a man frustrated by how long it was taking the attendent to come over begin to pump his own gas. He looked over at the station attendent with a smug look as if to say, "Yeah I'm pumping my own gas what are you going to do about it?"
Then I saw the gas pump fall to the ground, but not before a quick shot of gas was projected on to his car. It was a great moment.
I agree about the the driving age restrictions. They are ridiculous. Currently you have to be 17 and even then you can't drive later than midnight or with more than one non-family member in the car younger than 21. There is always talk of moving the age from 17 to 18. The same people who push the driving age up are the same ones who complain about kids hanging out in parking lots. Sure young drivers get into a lot of accidents, but there are other ways of solving that problem.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
This should make for an interesting recliner ritual.
Come home, grab a beer, and annouce "Watch out! I'm coming in for re-entry!"
Looks like Donald Trump can kiss that Atlantic City Spaceport goodbye....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I strongly doubt that. It's more likely that the 10-20 cents extra per gallon is added in.
As a resident, I can say that you are incorrect here. NJ actually has some of the lowest priced gasoline in the US. We also have some of the lowest-taxed gasoline as well. I commute from NJ to PA for work. The gasoline by my house in NJ is currently $1.22 per gallon for regular unleaded (it's even lower elsewhere in the state); its $1.52 here in PA. 30 cents more per gallon, and you pump it yourself.
Given a choice, I'd rather pump my own gas than risk having some minimum-wage flunky spill gas all over the paint on my truck. Besides, I usually check the oil and other fluids while the gas is pumping, and I definitely wouldn't want the aforementioned minimum-wage flunky nosing around under the hood.
First off, I just want to say that this is a damn insulting attitude. Many of the people who are attendants at the stations are also the managers and/or owners of the station. Several of them are also trained mechanics. Even the teenagers I know who work at NJ gas stations are not "minimum-wage flunkies". Please check your condescending attitude, thanks. If anything, I would say someone who pumps gas for a long period of time would be much more likely to not spill any on your car than you yourself would, especially when it's 25 degrees outside and your hands are shaking and shivering from the cold.
Also, you make it sound like the attendant can just open your car hood whenever they want, but actually they still need you to pop the lock from inside the car. If you don't want them looking, just say so. If an attendant asks if I would like him to check my oil, I just say no; problem solved.
Basically, if you lived here, you wouldn't have this attitude. Until that point, please refrain from speaking about what you don't know.
You've gotta do it yourself.
Why do we want to pump our own gas?
Maybe because the people currently staffing NJ gas stations are barely capable of pumping gas?
Maybe because they can barely understand "Fill it up regular" and 50% of them *cannot* understand "Don't top it off."
Yes, I don't know how many times I have asked, "Don't top it off" and was either ignored or not understand. I've even yelled, "Stop!!!" when they did top it off. Did they stop? Nope.
Gas stations also used to be a place where you could ask for directions. Since they have to hire 4 minimum-wage guys that can barely understand English rather than 1 cash register operator who can at least understand some, the current crop of gas station attendants couldn't tell you how to find a street EVEN IF IT IS THE STREET THE STATION IS ON! I saw an article about just such an incident a few weeks ago - Someone was heading to an appointment, asked the attendants for directions, and they had no clue. The guy called his destination from a payphone, guess what their instructions were?
"Look behind you..."
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The really sad part is that Six Flags Great Adventure (in Jackson NJ) will basically be out of rides. Medusa is gone. Viper is gone. Scream Machine is gone. Nitro Might be gone. Batman is gone. Batman And Robin: The Chiller is gone. basically they might as well close the entire park. there are more deaths based on idiot drivers leaving great adventure every year than from the G forces. I love Coasters... I have been on every coaster in great adventure atleast 10 times each (except nitro its too new) and its a shame that we NJ asshats have to make laws about this... but hey it was a good run...
It wouldn't be as exiting as you are used to, but can't they just slow the rides down in sections? Heck, we know that if all those rides you mentioned went at merely one mile per hour, you wouldn't experience anywhere near those G-Forces. So that means all that the NJ park has to do is see if they can slow the ride down in certain parts to meet the restrictions and still make the ride enjoyable. It can even have those G-forces for fractions of a second. Find a nice happy medium.
I don't think this law is unreasonable at all. Better safe and ho-hum than finding out 40 years from now that super-fast Cedar Point was the cause of 10% of all future mental illness in the elderly. So you might not think that roller coaster park in NJ was worth the price of admission. Would you like me to play my violin?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Please do some more research
Yes, please do...
a F-16 can perform a flat turn. This is where the aircraft does not bank at all before turning left or right.
No, it cannot. The vectored thrust F-22 CAN do somewhat of a flat turn. The engine nozzles turn left or right, causing the nose to move the other direction. A whole lot of other things are going on as well, but that's the basics.
They make roller coasters seem like nothing after you fly in one.
So, from your incisive comment, we can assume you've never flown in one? I have, once. Yes, it is the world's ultimate rollercoaster. And, G-suit or no, I started to blackout at one point.
You need to study roller coaster design a little more. Many roller coasters are designed to look and feel like they are going to fall apart at any moment. I've ridden those that are, and those that are not. I avoid the roller coasters that feel soild becuase they are no fun. (In general the soild roller coasters ahve to mkae up for the lack of fun by going upside down, while the "weak" ones are fun with much tamer rides)
Engineers are tricky, those roller coasters are still plenty safe, and inspectors are not often bought. For that matter the operators know that they need to appear to be running a minimal maintance operation, but if that actucally running minimal maintance is risking death, and they cannot afford those lawsuits. (Okay, so the insurance company might force it in some cases, but the result is the same: a raide that feels unsafe while still perfectly safe)
You're talking about a state where you aren't allowed to PUMP YOUR OWN GAS. No such thing as self serve in NJ. Personally I think NJ politicians have a dartboard with a bunch of random to create new legislation.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
NJ gave itself the right to regulate rides after an accident where two were killed from a malfunction, not excessive Gs.
States have always had the right to regulate amusement park rides. Some do it much better than others. For instance, when I was growing up, shady carnivals would come to Maryland, be shut down, and then set up shop in neighboring Pennsylvania. Why? Because Pennsylvania was particularly lax at enforcing safety regulations for such rides. One such carnival had rides that were bolted together with no lockwashers, cotter pins, or other retaining devices -- despite the fact that the bolts were all cross-drilled for cotter pins. Maryland shut them down and off to Pennsylvania they headed.
Why don't we cut the government-is-the-enemy crap? A state saw a trend towards higher and higher coaster G-forces and put regulations into place to protect the citizens -- most of whom are neither doctors nor mechanical engineers and, thus, would be unable to accurately gauge the potential risk themselves.
won't actually affect any coasters, since none currently exceed 5G
Plus, it won't affect any state that matters (ohio). Jersey is just odd sometimes. or all of the times. oh, time to go make fun of my roommate from jersey again...
Really, i wonder how many G's the Millenium Force at Cedar Point pulls? i've heard it's the edge of what people can stand, but then again, i've heard that for other coasters as well.
Who's quote, back in the early 1900s, was "Man was not made to go 19 Miles per Hour!" It's much like the "we'll only ever need XXX kilo/mega/giga-bytes of memory."
If that half-witted busybody had been right, and nobody had done anything about it, you'd be complaining about the government spending its money doing stupid things like regulating roller-coasters instead of protecting us.
It seems the government can't win in some cases.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
You can still get the shit scared out of you with less g forces. Last time I checked the old wooden roller coasters still got my heart pumping without breakin my friggin neck like some of the new ones where you strap in tighter than a monkey being shot into space.
Judging from the crowds I saw at Cedar Point OH this year, I'd say it'd would be pretty hard to prove that most folks weren't already brain damaged before getting on any of the rides.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Give me a break. You neglect to mention that they "joked" about commiting an act of mass destruction.
Well, even if they did joke around (wich they say they didn't), are you telling me that's grounds for arrest now?
You sure as hell ain't turning into a thought police state huh?
You can't take the sky from me...
"Right now it's too soon to say whether there should be a panic," said Gregory O'Shanick, medical director of the Arlington, Va.-based Brain Injury Association of America, which is studying rides and injuries. "The jury is still out."
DON'T PANIC!
Duh
You can't take the sky from me...
Wouldn't it be an "ex post facto" law, if it tried to regulate existing coasters, anyway?
I think the point is, they want to put some kind of cap on the g-force limits, to ensure the next generation or two of coasters doesn't exceed it.
New roller coasters keep increasing their speeds and drops/number of loops.
In any case, I'm not big on the whole concept of lawmakers attempting to legislate safety. If the amusement parks created a ride that really was reaching the point of being unsafe, they'd get hammered with lawsuits and forced to remove the ride in question. These problems sort themselves out, without the need of specific laws written up in advance, based on someone's guesstimate of what the limits of "safety" are.
IMHO, people paying to ride "thrill rides" aren't overly concerned about "safety risks" in the first place - or else they'd be more hesitant to place their lives in the hands of the amusement parks. For example, it's not really a big secret that the Six Flags over Mid America located outside St. Louis, Missouri isn't doing spectacularly well, financially. Are you sure that all those low-paid teenage workers are doing everything they can to ensure safety? Is all the proper maintenance being done on those rides? Maybe it is, today, but how about tomorrow? Can you say for certain? Six Flags certainly has a track record of killing at least 1 or 2 visitors every year or two....
An existing medical condition says the exact same thing as pre-existing.
The word "existing" only implies existence, not historic existence. A view of a movie takes two hours, a preview does not. In addition, 'view' is generally used as a verb, not a noun.
Yes, trailers used to be at the end of the movie, but people stopped watching them.
A heated oven is the same thing as preheated oven, though.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Funny you should mention that.
CDROMS can't exceed about 50x-60x speeds.
At faster speeds, the G-forces will deform them to the point where they are unreadable. This was discovered by Philips.
See:
http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/faq.htm
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
(physics types, please excuse my flaky terminology...I should probably use "impulse" and whatnot, but I'm not a physicist)
People are squishy. A strong force for a very short period of time (hitting a chair), doesn't actually have that strong of a force/time ratio -- the "squish" spreads out the impact time. So if the time is quadrupled by the "squish", your brain experiences 2.5 Gs.
If you keep a strong force going for longer, you cannot spread out the force -- your brain is already squished down into the bottom of your skull. There's no way for your body to compensate more, to spread out the impact time. So you "really" experience those 10Gs.
I thought that astronaut training only went up to something like 7Gs sustained, and much above that you could start blacking out? Perhaps I'm wrong...
Anyway, we evolved to deal well with short, sharp impacts like jumping from rock to rock and banging our head, but not with being centrifuged or similar.
May we never see th
I used to think that way, then I came to realize.
::sobbing::
8A! I'm at 8A goddamn it,
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Does a troll lose its power if the responder mentions that it's a troll?
Anyway. Woo, 42 people died on roller coasters last year. You know how many people died in car accidents in, say, 1999?
41,345.
Not just a larger number, but a larger number of fatalities per unit time, per distance traveled, etc. Roller coasters are far safer than cars. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make them safer, but why go to the point of removing the entire purpose of coasters (to be fun)?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
That's the problem though, many people WILL sue. Look at the jackass that got a few billion dollars because he ignored the big "YOU WILL GET CANCER" warning on the side of cigarettes.
Try joking about a fire in a crowded theater, or joking about killing the president. Let me know how it goes.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
You don't know what you are talking about. It is true that 1g is normal, but when speaking of gforces, they mean in addition to normal. I corvette can pull a skid pad rating of about 1g, a musclecar launches off the line at about 1g. There is definite postive g acting on the body. +1g as in normal "plus" one g.
You need to realize how much 5.6g is. A Pitts airplane which is one of the most successfull unlimited aerobatics planes ever, is only rated to +6/-6g.
He sustained no impact to the head and yet spent months in a coma from closed head brain trauma.
Ok, he sustained a force of about 90 gees to do it, but the point is closed head brain trauma strictly from g-forces with no impact to the head itself is quite common. The brain *moves* inside the skull and has *inertia.* If the forces are high enough the brain can impact the *inside* of the skull even without impact. It's called a *concusion.*
With extremely high and sustained g-forces internal organs can actually "moosh." (Please excuse my use of such a highly technical medical term).
I think this law is a bit on the doofey side because no coaster in normal operation is going to approach these force levels, but let's not lie about it.
KFG
I do that a lot actually.
I can joke about fire in a crowded theatre all I want, so long as I'm no yelling "FIRE!" its allright.
I guess you're of the stuck-up persuasion that thinks that "some things aren't funny". Of course, that's allright, you live a joyless empty life, no problem. But when you start ruining other people's lives because of your lack of a sense of humour, something is wrong.
You can't take the sky from me...
And the article clearly stated that the 5.6 Gee limit was for periods of over 1 second in length.
What's my point? The comment about how this is absurd because you sustain 10 gees falling into a chair is ignoring the fact that they stipulated that it must last at least a second. That phrasing makes it clear to me that the person who wrote this law *did* take into account the fact that in normal conditions objects receive quick impulse accellerations that are very high, and that those aren't a problem.
More than likely the reason for the law, by the way, was NOT the limits the human body can take, but how much frequent inspections and maintenence such a high-gee ride would need to be kept structurally sound. Under those forces, the fear is, the ride itself would rip apart some vital connections somewhere because nobody noticed they needed replacing.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
And of course, there's always the kind of flat turn you don't *want* to do - the kind from a bad stall.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Um, I got my license at 16. I'm Canadian pretty sure it's the same in the US (no, I DON'T drive a snowmobile or dogsled).
Kids don't need to be 18 to get a turtle or other reptillian pet either, how many got sick from salmonella and/or died or it? Technically there's probably a higher injury/death rate from kids getting chewed on by their cute little puppy as it gets bigger and they continue to pull on its ear...
No dear, you can't play with the puppy, you're not 18 yet - phorm
There are several very harsh stipulations if you want to drive before you are 18. Practically no-one under 18 is getting a drivers' license anymore. Take a look at your local high school parking lot.
You can watch network TV before you're 18, but that's carefully censored by the FCC. For cable or satelite TV (which doesn't follow the FCC censors), you do have to be 18 or older to get the service.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Kids are NOT allowed to get a pet. It is their parents (adults) that get the pet. Again, parents can give their children permission to do things that are not very risky, but that usually doesn't apply to thrill-seeking activities.
No parent can give their child permssion to have sex, smoke cigarettes, etc.
As for driving... there are a large number of extremely strict restrictions on drivers under the age of 18, to the point that a driver under 18 is getting quite rare.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
If you're 16 you can't get a puppy? Maybe this is different in the US but I certainly never had a probably with that type of thing up here in the land 'o' Maple leaf. Oh, and I think our legal for sexual activity is also around 16. At some point it was 14 for male and 16 female, but they've equalized it at one of those points, I can't remember which.
Driving restictions here are also Province dependent, probably state dependent down in your end of the continent.
No puppy for you, come back, one year! - phorm
but it seems to me any airplane with one or more vertical stabilizers could perform a flat turn.
Yes, more or less. Rudder left, and the nose of the aircraft turns to the left. Eventually, you will describe a full circle. Slow and not very useful. But also, you start to lose airflow over the wings. Which has to be compensated for. A real turn is done by a combination of bank and elevator.
Think of as the difference between a rear wheel drive car, and a 4WD, 4Wsteering car. On snow. In a rear wheel car, yes, you can hang the back out at an angle, and still be going more or less forward. In a 4WS car, you can haul ass around the turn. The front AND the back steer throgh the turn. Or, with uncoupled frt and rear, you can have all 4 wheels pointed in one direction, with the body in another.
Single axis (sideways) vectored thrust 'turns' the jet. Add 2 axis vectoring (left/right and up/down), and you can climb or descend, while keeping the nose flat (good for maintaining aim/missile lock). Or jink sideways, while still keeping the nose pointed at the target.
The jet body can be uncoupled from the actual direction the jet is moving.