Rumba Rapids

[pluk]

As I now don't fit in the banned demographic and would be allowed to ride I'm tempted to go on and do something bloody stupid myself, just to prove them wrong with their daft age based assumption and ridiculous rule.

I won't actually do this, nor would I encourage it. Don't have kittens.

[Fred]

Tis assumption based on fact though - how many fully grown adults do you see in the water of rumba rapids in youtube videos?

[pluk]

I can tell you a few other assumptions based on fact in wider society. Does not mean groups of people are denied access to driving licences / benefits / alcohol / knife ownership etc though, does it? Because that would be massively unfair and wrong, like this is.

[Marc]

Can you really compare that to a riding a ride at a theme park?

Thorpe's T&C's cover them selves regarding this, comparing it to giving out driving licences / knives IMO is a whole different extreme.

[pluk]

I'd say yes you can, under exactly the same principles. Like I said before, what if the pattern of those doing wrong were all of one ethnic, religious or sexual group? it would be outright illegal to ban that group as a whole from access to any goods or services.

The equality act puts age in exactly the same bracket as ethnicity etc as something that can not be discriminated against. It is new and has not yet been fully implemented to cover the provision of goods and services (it already has for employment) but is due to be very soon. What Thorpe are doing is wrong, the law is changing to reflect this and in the mean time Thorpe would do well to act within the spirit of the equality act. Very soon whatever T+C's you might be referring to will not cover themselves against this discrimination in any way, law trumps T+Cs!

[Marc]

I dont see how limiting a ride is discrimination, its in the interest of health and safety for all their guests.

I doubt it will even stay like it very long anyway till a better solution is implemented.

[JoshC.]

Firstly, I didn't mean to be having a dig at your argument in case it came across that way

Na, it didn't come across that way at all; sorry if it seemed as though I was slightly abrupt or anything though!

Thorpe's T&C's cover them selves regarding this, comparing it to giving out driving licences / knives IMO is a whole different extreme.

Interesting that you've brought the T&Cs into this. I just had a quick browse through them, and I can't find anything which really 'covers' themselves; there's nothing I can find which allows them to refuse the right to ride a ride to a particular age group.

The closest I can find in the T&Cs (found: http://www.thorpepar...conditions.aspx) is this:

7. Thorpe will endeavour to ensure that as many rides and attractions as possible are available for use by visitors. However, Thorpe reserves the right, without prior notice and without refund or compensation to close and/or change the programme of rides and attractions and/or the Park’s operating hours. Thorpe in its absolute discretion reserves the right without refund or compensation to close the whole or any part of the Park at any time or to restrict the number of persons having access to the Park due to capacity, inclement weather or special events, to ensure safety, security or order, or if Thorpe considers the circumstances so require.

The way I read this, it says absolutely nothing about how they have a right to stop people from going on a ride because of their age. You could argue that the changing of the programme of a ride could come under this, however, the age of somebody does not come into this. On a serious note, could anyone point out a ride which has an age restriction? (Saw would not count, as it is only a recommendation, not a restriction). I'm willing to bet there isn't one, because the programme of rides will not affect how old someone must be before they can physically ride a ride. Therefore, as far as I can tell, Thorpe have not covered this in their T&Cs and are hence being discriminative. They have no right, in the eyes of their T&Cs (and the law, some may say, but I'm not going into that...) to refuse someone of a particular age the option to go on Rumba Rapids, even if it is for the health and safety of all.

As I've said before, Thorpe are in a winless situation at the moment, and whatever they would have done for now would not have been 'right'. What they are doing is, in principle, discrimination, and I think that is something which cannot be disagreed with. Whether being discriminatory is the best thing to do, even for a temporary thing, is somethign we'll probably never know.

[pluk]

If there is a physical reason (like height or bbfc style age restriction) then of course it is fine and in the interests of health and safety to restrict who rides.

The problem in this case is there is no such limitation to safe riding, they are actively encouraging young kids to ride! The restriction is in place as a 'people like you' sweeping generalisation, which is not on. That is where discrimination starts.

[tomglazed]

Just going to throw this out there: we've already covered that any solution that Thorpe come to in the interim will cause people to lose out, but surely the option of closing the ride entirely until something is sorted will cause less aggravation than turning away groups which do not fit their current "safe rider" criteria?

Pros of closing the ride entirely:

• Ability to run tests and explore solutions better
• No complaints which claim the park has discriminated against them because of the members of their group.

Cons of closing the ride entirely:

• A ride entirely out of action causes queueing else where and complaints that a ride is unavailable.

Pros for running the ride in its current state:

• Allows some riders to still ride.
• Reduction of queues lengths else where

Cons for running the ride in its current state:

• Complaints claiming the park is discriminating against them because of the members of their group
• Running a ride on a much lower capacity doesn't mean they'll pay any less to run the ride, they will still be paying all the usual upkeep costs for the ride even though it is serving half of the number of guests it could be.

Again, this is all just assumption work here:

• Being able to run tests on the ride without having to open and close it constantly will maybe allow a solution to be found a little quicker.
• The effect on queues with the ride being closed entirely would change depending on how busy the park is. The ride with its current policy will only reduce queueing else where by a fraction (maybe even barely noticeable?) so the queue length impact of the ride being closed again could be barely noticeable?
• More people are likely to complain about being told they cannot ride due to members of their group as opposed to a ride being unavailable: the rapids aren't exactly aimed squarely at Thorpe's target audience so less people would complain about not having it there than having it open but not allowing the average (again greatly assumed to be groups which will not have a 12 year old with them) group who visit Thorpe Park to ride it.

[Marc]

Josh, in my eyes that covers it, I guess at the end of the day when your on the parks property there in charge so to say, rules like this have been around on Fungle and Carousel before, and are enforced if the staff think its needed to do so.

The restriction is in place as a 'people like you' sweeping generalisation, which is not on. That is where discrimination starts.

Because its the "people like you" (not you! ) who ride the ride, mess around causing problems, rides are very dangerous, even more so rides like rumba rapids, people messing around could very easily cause serious injury on the ride, for that reason they have decided they need to limit it for the time being for the safety of all who ride.

To add to that , when I rode yesterday there are new signs up reminding people to remain seated and those who dont will be ejected from the park, I'm guessing somthing must of happened.

[tomglazed]

To add to that , when I rode yesterday there are new signs up reminding people to remain seated and those who dont will be ejected from the park, I'm guessing somthing must of happened.

To be honest, even if nothing has happened recently; If I ran the park and saw that video that was posted a few posts back? I'd have closed it the very next day to find a solution (and probably have a breakdown trying to comprehend how stupid people can be).

[Mark9]

To be honest, even if nothing has happened recently; If I ran the park and saw that video that was posted a few posts back? I'd have closed it the very next day to find a solution (and probably have a breakdown trying to comprehend how stupid people can be).

I don't think you can come up with a solution for mindless stupidity.

[tomglazed]

My solution for that would be in the form of not just seatbelts on Rumba, but full body harnesses. Saw: The Rapids it is.

[JoshC.]

Josh, in my eyes that covers it, I guess at the end of the day when your on the parks property there in charge so to say, rules like this have been around on Fungle and Carousel before, and are enforced if the staff think its needed to do so.

I guess it's one of those things where we're just not going to agree. The way I see T&Cs, they have no justification / right to refuse people based on age, and what they are doing is a form of discrimination. Fungle and Carousel are different kettles of fish in my mind, simply because they are aimed at young audiences (you didn't see young adults complaining they couldn't ride OG rides for example, nor that they can get into Temple of Mayhem - or whatever it's called now - when at Chessie). However, your point about being in park's property so they're in charge is a silly one really; just because they own the area, doesn't mean they're above the law and can be discriminatory with no right.

One final point from me - just because they are being discriminative, it doesn't mean that this is necessarily the worst decision they could have made. As has been said countless times, this is a lose/lose situation for the park because people have been idiots. The park have hopefully made the best temporary decision they could, and this comes across in what people who are more 'in the know' have been saying...

[Marc]

Yeah maybe that didnt come out quite as I meant it

At the end of the day nothing can come before health and safety and if its that age range of guests causing the most issues then personally I see no issues with it being limited to adults and familys until things are in place to avoid future issues.

Id much rather they do it this way than close it personally.

[JoshC.]

Did think that was a bit of a silly point to raise; understand what you mean now though.

Really have no clue what I'd prefer them to have done in this situation in honesty, just hope that the issue is resolved soon...

[JackR]

I was there earlier and met up with a group of girls I know. They all got on Rumba without being turned away and said they didn't even see a sign at the entrance! Not sure whats really going on here now, but it seems some teens can still get on the ride despite the restriction.

[ste193]

Visited today, they asked the ages of teenagers who were going on the ride without and adult and if you are under 18 you without an adult you were turned away, thought it was very unfair to assume all teenagers under 18 are trouble makers, in my experience its actually the older ones that are worse.

[Fred]

At the end of the day, this thing is covered. There's no such thing as discrimination when it comes to health & safety - as the same with disabled riders, if the ride host, operator, management team or ride manufacturer do not feel fully confident that riders will be safe, they are not allowed on.

Based on an obvious incident which has happened, they will be fully backed by law here. Fair? Who cares, I prefer this to someone drowning really.

[pluk]

At the end of the day, this thing is covered. There's no such thing as discrimination when it comes to health & safety - as the same with disabled riders, if the ride host, operator, management team or ride manufacturer do not feel fully confident that riders will be safe, they are not allowed on.

Based on an obvious incident which has happened, they will be fully backed by law here. Fair? Who cares, I prefer this to someone drowning really.

Sorry, but that is out and out wrong. Of course there can be discrimination when it comes to health and safety:

-There is no physical reason why any of the banned people can not ride

-Disability discrimination IS overridden by H+S - it would be dangerous to ride if you were unable to brace yourself and this can not be be made safe with any reasobable adjustments by the park. So it is fine. This is in no way the case here.

-'If the ride host, operator, management team or ride manufacturer do not feel fully confident that riders will be safe, they are not allowed on.' Fair enough. But as there is no physical difference between those being allowed and not allowed on, which is it? Is the ride safe or is it not safe? Open it, or close it depending.

Here's a fact for you, African Americans, on average, are much less able to swim than the rest of society and are 3 times as likely to die by drowning than the average. Under the same thinking it would be much safer all round if Neptunes beach was white only, would it? Just in case, you know, manage some risk. Of course that is absolutely not acceptable, you have to trust people not to get themselves in a situation where they drown.

I have no doubt Thorpe think they are doing the right thing, but they are wrong.

[StevenVig]

Sorry, but that is out and out wrong. Of course there can be discrimination when it comes to health and safety:

-There is no physical reason why any of the banned people can not ride

-Disability discrimination IS overridden by H+S - it would be dangerous to ride if you were unable to brace yourself and this can not be be made safe with any reasobable adjustments by the park. So it is fine. This is in no way the case here.

-'If the ride host, operator, management team or ride manufacturer do not feel fully confident that riders will be safe, they are not allowed on.' Fair enough. But as there is no physical difference between those being allowed and not allowed on, which is it? Is the ride safe or is it not safe? Open it, or close it depending.

Here's a fact for you, African Americans, on average, are much less able to swim than the rest of society and are 3 times as likely to die by drowning than the average. Under the same thinking it would be much safer all round if Neptunes beach was white only, would it? Just in case, you know, manage some risk. Of course that is absolutely not acceptable, you have to trust people not to get themselves in a situation where they drown.

I have no doubt Thorpe think they are doing the right thing, but they are wrong.

Your treading on thin ice with that subject there

How you can start throwing racial statistics around about a Cheap Theme Park Rapids Ride is bizzarre!

[Mark9]

I have no doubt Thorpe think they are doing the right thing, but they are wrong.

What would you do if you were in Thorpe's shoes?

[pluk]

Your treading on thin ice with that subject there

How you can start throwing racial statistics around about a Cheap Theme Park Rapids Ride is bizzarre!

Not my statistics, moron. Read the link if you are bothered. I am very clearly saying that doing anything like that would be very wrong. Just because something references racism does not make it racist, I've used it to demonstrate the wrongs of discrimination whether that be racial sexual or ageist. Sorry for being rude about it, but your reply is so stupid it is painful. You're an idiot.

What would you do if you were in Thorpe's shoes?

Ohhh, I don't know, maybe the same as I had done for the last 20 odd years without problems?!! Maybe make the sign bigger warning you get chucked out if you stand up etc, and then act on that warning when people do break it. I have seen some very stupid stuff happen on that ride (over all of that time period, not just recently). All that ever happens is the 'please remain seated' announcement thing. Actually chuck them out, they'd soon learn and the word would spread.

People, if in a theme park or elsewhere, need to be given personal responsibility to look after themselves. If someone wants to clime a fence and throw themselves in front of a coaster / car / train / boat then they eventually will, no matter how high you make that fence. Doesn't mean you don't build the coaster / road / track / water ride.

[Mark9]

Ohhh, I don't know, maybe the same as I had done for the last 20 odd years without problems?!! Maybe make the sign bigger warning you get chucked out if you stand up etc, and then act on that warning when people do break it. I have seen some very stupid stuff happen on that ride (over all of that time period, not just recently). All that ever happens is the 'please remain seated' announcement thing. Actually chuck them out, they'd soon learn and the word would spread.

I was genuinely asking, I wasn't going down the sarcastic route.

I still stand by what I said, it's a tricky one. This isn't Rumba's first incident and I can only think the park are adding something behind the scenes so that teenagers can ride very soon and the ride will run more safely in the future. I think we've got off quite lightly to be honest. Some rides such as Dragon Challenge (which has lost the very essence of the ride) or Dragons Fury (Closed for two months and then hindered by stupid loading rules) have been affected quite badly by stupid actions from people.

[pluk]

I was genuinely asking, I wasn't going down the sarcastic route.

Sorry, didn't mean it to sound like a sarcastic reply. I know exactly where you are coming from but after so long operating nothing has changed to the ride and nothing needs changing to the way it is run, other than actually enforcing the rules that are already there.