Rules on Rides Still at Issue for Parks, Activists

More than a year after the hard-fought passage of a bill regulating amusement park safety, industry leaders and consumer advocates remain at odds over how the law should be enacted.

At issue are two of the law’s key requirements: who will perform annual ride inspections and which injuries must be reported to the state.

Those topics are expected to dominate a public hearing in Oakland today. It is the first official hearing on the matter since Gov. Gray Davis signed the bill last year. The bill was prompted by a fatal accident at Disneyland in December 1998, in which a Washington state man was killed when a metal cleat tore off the sailing ship Columbia and struck him in the head.

“This process is taking forever,” said activist Kathy Fackler of La Jolla, who began lobbying for greater disclosure of ride injuries after her son’s foot was severely injured in 1998 on a Disneyland roller coaster, Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. “It’s a careful, cautious government project . . . and we’re in regulatory limbo.”

The law remains largely unenforceable because the state must still adopt three sets of regulations that will outline safety standards, inspection procedures and penalty determination when a violation occurs.

Despite the lack of clear guidelines, amusement park officials have said they are operating on the honor system and have already notified the state about several incidents this year.

Disneyland officials contacted state investigators in September after a 4 1/2-year-old Canyon Country boy was critically injured when he was pinned under the Roger Rabbit Car Toon Spin attraction. Brandon Zucker suffered brain damage and remains hospitalized.

That accident is a clear example of injuries that would be reported under the law. But numerous other injuries fall into a gray area. Under the draft regulations, parks would be required to report injuries beyond those needing ordinary first aid, including loss of consciousness, bone fracture, loss of bodily member or organ, or permanent disfigurement.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch), plans to attend today’s hearing to push for a broader interpretation of the reportable injuries, said his spokesman, Robert Oakes.

“I’m concerned when I see things that are an extremely gruesome list that might be common for loggers and commercial fishermen but not Californians who go to amusement parks,” Oakes said. “If you’re artificially limiting it to these gruesome injuries, you’re restricting the amount of information that gets to the public. It’s come down to that.”

*

Torlakson and other consumer advocates argue that some common ride-related injuries such as whiplash or neck and back strains will not be reported if such a list is included in the regulations. In that case, they argue, park-goers will not know about risks they might encounter by taking certain rides.

Although consumer advocates said injury reporting remains their chief concern, Boyd Jensen, an attorney who often represents industry interests, said he doesn’t view it as a major issue.

Jensen said he is more concerned about who will inspect the rides and how often. The law requires annual inspections by the state and a private inspector who would be paid by the park. It also provides for inspections when a new ride opens, if there is a major modification and after an accident.

Jensen says as the rules stand now, four of those five kinds of inspections would be conducted by the state; he wants more inspections left in the hands of the amusement parks.

“This has turned into a state inspection program, as opposed to focusing on qualified inspectors who have been using, maintaining and working on rides and attractions for decades in some situations,” Jensen said. “We are now going to have the state accept responsibility, and I think that is a huge mistake.”

Disneyland spokesman Ray Gomez said the park will give its comments to the state in writing and does not plan to attend today’s hearing. Universal Studios submitted its comments in a written report last week. In it, park officials also raised questions about the qualifications of inspectors.

The written reports and public statements at the hearing today will be reviewed by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the state agency that will oversee the new regulations. The agency can rewrite the regulations based on the comments and allow additional time for public review before the rules are ultimately adopted.

The agency will hold at least two more public hearings next year to address additional technical regulations and how penalties should be assessed.