Scoring Safety

Last month Saferparks added a new feature that scores and compares amusement ride safety regulations in the fifty U.S. states based on a set of benchmarks. The scoring system is intended to help normal (non-industry) folks differentiate between the states that actively oversee the safety of amusement rides and states that don't. The idea was sparked by a magazine reporter who asked for a simple tool her readers could use to tell the difference between, say, Minnesota and Wisconsin in terms of ride safety oversight.

The act of compiling the inventory focused my attention more closely on the details of the various state laws, which was instructive in itself. Bigger numbers don't necessarily correlate to more effective programs. Some of the states that scored in the mid-range have solid programs that work just fine for the type and amount of amusement ride business they see. Florida scored lower in the rankings than its regulating agency deserved, because the state political machine favors big theme parks. Florida's theme park exemption, by its very nature, makes a single score misleading. Patrons who are hurt at Disney World or Busch Gardens don't get mid-range regulatory response; they get no regulatory response.

The state-wide inventory of government ride safety requirements generated a good bit of constructive feedback, including corrections to information that has been in error on my website for a long time. It's amazing what adding a number can do to boost interest. After the initial scores were compiled, I sent out a copy of each state's information to the regulating agency and asked that any corrections be returned. My sincere thanks to all the individuals who provided detailed feedback. Saferparks operates on a shoestring; I'm the researcher, writer, fact checker, database manager, and editor all rolled into one imperfect person. I count on the ride safety community to help proof the information Saferparks provides as a public service to consumers.

The first rendition of the state scoring system is admittedly rough. I'm hoping to refine and expand the criteria over time. A few ideas:

• Include frequency of inspection in the benchmarks. States that inspect carnival rides at each setup should score higher than states that inspect annually.
• The type/level/delegation of required inspections could be better articulated so that consumers know which safety-critical functions are being double-checked, and by whom. Whose job it is to make sure a ride is safely grounded? Who's checking on ride assembly? Who's responsible for structural inspections? Who's checking to make sure the ride is fully staffed and the correct height limit sign is posted?
• The accident investigation benchmark should be expanded as well. Some state programs perform a full investigation to determine all causal factors. Others investigate only to rule out mechanical failure, ignoring human error. Some states do not investigate accidents at all, but simply re-inspect the ride to original requirements. The quality and thoroughness of accident investigations in any one state can directly impact safety across all jurisdictions by sharing detailed information about failures. Scores in those states should reflect the added benefit to the public.
• Compliance with ASTM standards is far too broad a subject to be adequately represented by a single point, as in the current system. A new expanded design standard for mechanical amusement rides and new ride-specific standards have been introduced over the last couple of years, and the entire suite of standards for rides and devices is being reorganized. Regulatory programs that keep pace with those changes deserve recognition.

In industries where an effective federal/state partnership exists, federal regulators set standards for design of safe products, while state governments set laws to ensure compliance with those standards and encourage safe operation/use of the product. Consumers don't have the benefit of that partnership when they patronize U.S. amusement parks. Without a federal presence, strong state laws stressing information sharing are critical. So is the participation of state regulatory officials in the voluntary standards process.

I hope the Saferparks scoring system will help shine a spotlight on those states that take a strong role in protecting the general public from ride-related injury, as well as those that don't. It's already got a few people -- including me -- taking a closer look at the specifics of state ride safety regulations.

If you identify any errors or omissions in the state scoring data, please contact Saferparks.