Myths About CPSC Regulation of Amusement Park Rides

Commissioner Statler's Response:
Those who oppose any changes in the status quo concerning amusement rides downplay this litany of accidents by spurious comparisons to accident rates for such items as "billiards" and "aquariums".  They distort the picture by referring to a ranking of emergency room-treated injuries from the Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS).  Numbers of injuries alone, however, are never used by CPSC as a measure of the relative safety of products or the unreasonableness of a hazard.

Far more important is the seriousness of the injuries -- whether death, disfigurement, paralysis, or amputation was involved.  Also key is the degree of product involvement -- whether the product was merely "associated with" an injury in a secondary way, or the product was a "direct cause" of harm.

By all objective accounts, many amusement ride injuries involve faulty design, equipment failures or falls from equipment, and improper inspection and maintenance.  Billiard injuries, on the other hand, for the most part typically involve such scenarios as people falling against or bumping into pool tables, or being struck with pool cues, sometimes deliberately.  The fault is generally their own and the injuries tend to be less serious...Let's not kid ourselves:  A 60-foot vertical fall from "the edge" at the Great America Park in Gurnee, Ill. -- as happened to three teenagers on May 22 of [1984] -- has a far greater potential for injury and death than a tap on the head with a pool cue.

A higher potential for letha l accidents is also borne out by the available data.  Information collected by CPSC in the seven years prior to 1981, indicates five times as many fatalities involving amusement rides as involving billiards.  And again, the amount of product contribution -- as opposed to user fault -- is much greater for amusement rides.  While ride fatalities often involve a passive rider victimized by design or equipment failures or operator error, the few billiard fatalities typically involve pool tables falling on children or active cases of assault.

And it's much the same story for comparisons to aquariums, dollhouses and all the other nonsensical comparisons the amusement park industry cavalierly selects to justify what really amounts to callousness and irresponsibility on its part in repudiating the clear need for greater governmental involvement.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
Poor ride design, ride failure, improper maintenance, incorrect operation and rider misbehavior are all causes of amusement ride accidents.  Some amusement ride industry officials tend to "blame the victim", claiming falsely that over 90 percent of all ride injuries are caused by human carelessness, usually that of the rider.  But at a recent Commission seminar, we heard from state and local officials that this just isn't so.  A ride is only as safe as the system makes it.  That means designer, manufacturer, the owner and operator, the inspector and the rider.

This point is supported by a sampling of the Commission's in-depth investigations, consumer complaints, and news clips spanning the five-year period from 1978 through 1983.  Of the 18 fatality reports reviewed which were associated with amusement rides, 6 deaths, fully one-third of the total, were clearly attributed to ride failure; only 4 deaths were linked to rider behavior; the others tend to be attributable to a combination of factors.  14 of these deaths occurred on fixed-site rides.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
The fact is, fixed-site amusement rides aren't much different from other intricate and massive hunks of machinery with the potential for serious injury or death if accidents occur.  Costing a few hundred thousand to several million bucks, they're nothing to scoff at.  It's just that they're regulated less.

When an aircraft takes off full of passengers, FAA rules require meticulous maintenance and inspection, regardless of the plane's cost or size.  Seats must be specially designed, belts must hold during turbulence, and interior furnishings must be fire-resistant.  There is an aura of safety in the friendly skies, which travelers expect and demand.  Government regulation is ever-present, even though accident rates for the airline industry are much lower than those of the amusement ride industry.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
(This testimony was given by the CPSC in 1984, three years after the federal exemption went into effect.)

We have a patchwork of state laws governing both mobile and fixed-site amusement rides.  Some 26 states don't regulate amusement rides in any way .  The prevailing attitude is let the rider beware!

In the other 24 states, there's no uniform approach to improving safety.  19 states require state inspectors to check rides that stay "fixed" in one site as well as those that travel from one site to another.  Most are inspected for structural integrity and safety; in some states, though, as long as electrical and building codes are met, the show goes on.  In 2 states, only mobile amusement rides are inspected.

3 states merely require that ride owners and operators carry a minimum of insurance; insurance companies usually dispatch an inspector prior to issuing a policy -- perhaps just once, before the fair opens for the season.

And what of the amusement parks and carnivals in states without any type of regulations?

Commissioner Statler's Response:
Exemption of fixed-site amusement rides has created a precarious "window of vulnerability" (to borrow a phrase) for those who place their trust in the safety of these rides.

For example, the "Enterprise" is one of the most popular rides in the country; there are 19 of them across the land.  Because the fatal accident at the Texas State Fair in October 1983 involved an "Enterprise" ride which was moved from place to place on a flatbed truck, the Commission could inspect the scene of the accident and determine the probable cause for this tragedy.  This same ride, ironically, had been a fixed-site ride for several years at Rye's Playland in Westchester County, N.Y., before moving to Oklahoma and then on to Texas.

Our inquiry pointed out alarming design and structural concerns that were apparent in many versions of the ride, both fixed and mobile.  For the 7 "Enterprise" rides that were transported from one locale to another, because we had jurisdiction we could require an upgrading of safety features and monitor their maintenance.  But we had no authority to require such changes in 12 parks around the country where the "Enterprise" was set in concrete -- "fixed" in its site, but not "fixed" in its design or maintenance.

This just doesn't make sense.  Our inspectors found a problem, yet we were powerless to include more than half of the affected rides in our corrective action plan.  Perhaps these owners/operators will take up our suggestions, but we don't know that they will and can't even find out.  And neither does the public who may board those "Enterprise" rides in localities where they're found...

Any delay in fixing or retrofitting those 12 "Enterprise" rides could prove fatal for innocent riders.  That's the deadly loophole, and in my mind an intolerable and foolish one that cries out for immediate correction.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
Commission jurisdiction over mobile amusement rides permits us to carry out four essential activities --

First, we act as an information clearinghouse for the states on amusement ride accidents.

Second, the law requires immediate filing of a Section 15 report if any manufacturer or owner/operator of a ride has reason to suspect that it presents a substantial product hazard.

Third, we can send investigators to the scene of a serious accident to determine the cause and avert similar tragedy on rides located throughout the country.

Fourth, we can issue a corrective action plan to require ride designers, owners and operators to make safety changes.

This is what we currently do with rides that travel from site to site.  This is what we should be able to do for fixed-site rides ...Inspection of rides in advance is not something CPSC typically does.  We can't -- we don't have anything like the resources and personnel that such inspections would require.  That activity is best performed by the states, or by local authorities.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
But under H.R. 5790 [one of the bills under consideration at the 1984 hearing], CPSC would be prohibited from sending investigators to accident sites in states which have inspection programs.  There is a fatal flaw to the logic of this bill -- the assumption is that if a state requires inspections in advance of a ride opening up, there is no need for Commission involvement if and when a tragedy occurs.  Not so.  Faced with a tragedy, there is every need for a federal agency like CPSC, with expertise in the area, to assist in the analysis of the accident, convey the findings and recommendations to owners and operators of similar rides across the country, and develop a corrective action plan for all such rides.

Why bar the Commission from using its engineering and human factors expertise, as well as its compliance and enforcement powers that could extend to similarly-situation rides anywhere in the U.S.?  There is no valid reason, when our role could only assist the authorities in the state where the accident occurred, benefit the owner/operators of like rides, and perhaps avert further tragedy in those other locations.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
Contrary to the picture painted by critics of an expanded CPSC role for fixed-site rides...restoring jurisdiction would not result in droves of federal inspectors swooping down on some of the 660 permanent amusement parks in the U.S.  We do not have staffers poised with pens to draft regulations.  We have neither the desire nor the resources to pursue that course.  That's just a red herring.

Federal jurisdiction is needed so that, when any tragedy occurs -- regardless whether on a mobile or fixed-site ride -- a team of engineers can help identify design or structural failures and thereby avert further disaster with the same or similar rides in other locations.   That's no different from what the National Transportation Safety Board does for any airline crash, or any major rail, truck, or school bus disaster.

Commissioner Statler's Response:
Absent a federal role, no local official or state authority can communicate effectively across state lines with park owners, ride manufacturers and operators, and other state and local officials about potential hazards or actual tragedies involving thrill rides.  CPSC currently acts as a clearinghouse for states on mobile amusement ride incidents.  We are able to lend technical expertise to states and localities when resources permit, issue bulletins on hazards uncovered during investigations, and inform state officials of any corrective action plans we have issued for mobile amusement rides.  This work would be expanded to include fixed-site amusement rides if jurisdiction were returned to the CPSC.

Restored jurisdiction would also mean that corrective action plans would apply to all rides and would provide incentives to any recalcitrant firm to develop adequate voluntary efforts.  It would also promote enhanced attention to safety and to proper maintenance and inspection procedures in advance of any incident occurring.

Restored jurisdiction would also mean that, pursuant to Section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, fixed-site ride manufacturers, owners and operators would also be required to notify the Commission immediately if they come across information suggesting that a ride may present a substantial product hazard -- just like any other manufacturer, retailer or distributor of other consumer products, and just like manufacturers, owners and operators of mobile rides.  The fixed-site segment of this industry can only serve their own best interest, and that of the American people, by early reporting of possible hazards or defects.

This is what CPSC jurisdiction now means for some 15,000 other products, including mobile amusement rides.  And the affected industries appear to have little or no problem with it.  They are all playing by the same rules.  And it's time to bring the entire amusement ride industry back into the picture, if we're to promote improved safety and restore the confidence of the American public in these rides.