Continued from Part 1. The newest, most exciting rides are “extreme” roller coasters. They offer greater heights, speeds, twists, turns, and novel rider positioning, such as “hanging” from the coaster seat, to give thrill-seeking riders experiences they haven’t encountered before. Computer-aided design tries to build in extreme g-forces from sudden acceleration, deceleration, and changes in direction.
Computer design tries to prevent injuries from these forces by limiting their duration. Our amusement ride injury attorneys note that in real life, you often encounter high g-forces, sometimes when hastily braking in traffic, but the duration of these forces might actually be longer than what you experience on a new and extreme roller coaster. But g-force injuries caused by fast braking and traffic crashes hints at the stresses exerted on the body by extreme roller coasters.
Computer Aided Design and its Possible Relation to Modern Structural Collapse
Our amusement ride injury attorneys believe that current computer-aided design can’t tell the full story of the effect of forces exerted on bodies or structures. For example, we mention that modern “light” construction methods are based upon calculations derived from computer technology. Building designers can calculate engineering stresses, simulate wind and other environmental effects, and build in minimal safety standards based upon these calculations. Yet many modern light construction buildings collapse decades earlier than anticipated. Some of themdon’t even survive the construction phase.
Building designers have opted to abandon the heavier masonry construction of past eras with its built-in safety factors for lighter and cheaper construction materials. Buildings can go up faster at lower cost and supposedly with sufficient built-in safety factors to keep occupants and passers-by safe.
You might have noticed that much of the infrastructure and architecture built during the 70s, when modern light construction had become widespread, are already beginning to fail and show their age badly. Our amusement ride injury attorneys mention that these structures were meant to last on average 70 years – not 40.
What does that tell us? Maybe that computer calculations don’t tell the whole story about safety – whether of a bridge, an apartment building, or an amusement ride. Our amusement ride injury attorneys realize that computers can only calculate those factors that programmers have asked of them. If programmers working with amusement ride designers fail to anticipate certain events, certain rider behaviors, or medical conditions of some riders, among other things, the safety calculations won’t accurately portray the actual effects of the ride on some riders.
Continue to Part 3 to learn about the increasing numbers of amusement ride injuries, how these injuries are reported, and why reported numbers might not tell the full story.