Guest Column - Theme Park Legislation
Page 1 of 4
Theme park legislation and regulation. The mere mention of these terms certainly sends the endorphins streaming into the bloodstream doesn't it? Is there a more exciting topic on the Internet right now? Ok, ok, it may not be sexy, but for fans of theme parks it is certainly important. I would like to take a moment and give you my thoughts on the subject, and specifically, how the topic intersects with the recent accident on Roger Rabbit's Cartoon Spin. Allow me to preface my comments by letting you know that everything in this piece is opinion, and opinion only. Look at this article through the same spectacles of skepticism with which anything on the Internet should be viewed.
Theme Park Legislation:
Shortly after the tragic accident that occurred at the Columbia in 1998 which killed a man and seriously injured two others, a movement began in the California Legislature to enact legislation to protect us, the hapless consumer of the theme park product. Championed by Democrat Tom Torlakson and self described consumer and safety advocates, this legislation was fast-tracked through the Legislature. To date, one version of it has passed and another (or amendments to the first) is on the way. Additionally, the regulations to enforce said legislation are in the process of being formulated, which means some form of it will be hitting your friendly neighborhood theme park soon. The question which I would ask is, is this government regulation going to make our favorite parks any safer? My answer is unequivocally, "NO".
The legislation is championed by its proponents for four primary components which are claimed to make theme and amusement parks safer. Let's take a look at these four areas:
I. Annual State Inspections of attractions: On its face, this is perhaps not a bad idea. Perhaps Disney is lax in inspecting its own rides (never mind the fact that in a capitalist society it would be corporate suicide to create the bad publicity of a constant stream of serious injuries from your product), and thus state sponsored inspectors are needed. Then we take a closer look and it becomes clear that this is almost amusing. At its heart we have the same people who run the Post Office in charge of inspecting the rides (yes, I know Postal employees are Federal workers and these inspectors would be State workers...work with me here!)
A. How much is an annual inspection by State employees really going to help? It would not have spotted the loose molding on the Ghostrider coaster two years ago when a piece of molding flew up and struck some riders (Knott's employees had inspected it that very morning and not found it). It probably would not have saved young Brandon Zucker from injury on Roger Rabbit, as the attraction has not been found to have been malfunctioning. Would it have prevented the Columbia incident? Maybe, if that annual inspection had spotted the loose cleat, but would an inspection done once a year have found it? Doubtful.
B. Proponents of such legislation may claim that the design of Roger Rabbit is at issue, not whether or not it was malfunctioning. So then is the State now trying to delve into every design of every attraction in every theme park? That is a fundamental change in role for the inspectors from mere inspection. You will pardon me if I doubt that State inspectors have the technical expertise to match Walt Disney Imagineering or most design-houses in terms of research and development.
C. Also, is it realistic to expect state employees, who visit these attractions once a year, to have the same familiarity with them as the theme park employees? It seems that in many cases the technology would be such that the average state inspector would not know exactly what the attraction is to look like (in terms of safety), nor the exact design features. Who better to inspect and analyze the potential problems than those who were trained by the exact persons who designed the attraction, those who realize the reasoning and necessity behind every bolt, every curve, and every angle in the attraction? It seems that the State inspectors will be put at a serious disadvantage in that they are not familiar with the particular design attributes and potential problems with which each theme park employee should be familiar.
D. Further, there is no reason to believe that State inspectors are not self-interested themselves. Their existence is justified by locating "unsafe" conditions and gallantly riding to the rescue of the theme park guest. The State inspectors will be expected to "find" problems and require "solutions." If they do not, then there is little, if any justification for the necessity for this particular law, and more to the point, for their jobs. I predict that in all likelihood, to secure their jobs, these State employees may require changes to items that did not need repair (as they were specifically designed to act in a particular manner) and not recognize the more serious problems which would be from faulty design.