If it wasn't obvious last year, it sure is this year. There seems to be a dramatic increase in hearing about stories where those with missing or prosthetic limbs are denied access to ride thrill rides at parks. The spark of this storm seems to be the Ride of Steel incident last year at Darien Lake where a US Army combat veteran, who had lost both his legs while serving in Iraq, was ejected and killed. A few cases of riders being asked not to ride have occurred at various parks like Six Flags over Georgia, Universal Studios Hollywood, and Six Flags over Texas.

The controversy stems from an argument over equality for the disabled; the simple question of whether or not they should ride simply based on the fact they aren't as well equipped to ride as 'normal' guests. At least at first glance, it seems simple. It can be a touchy issue for sure, especially on the side of those who were actually turned away. They've probably gone through a tremendously stressful ordeal. Whether it would be through a medical condition, an accident, or injury from serving your country, there is some sympathy to be had in handling those having to be told they can't ride something at an amusement park, a place where people get away from life for a while and have fun, a simple premise it seems at first.

There are a few things to keep in mind about what goes into the 'fun' of a roller coaster or any thrill ride. Something like a roller coaster has a lot of forces that are induced over the course of the ride. Also, during most coaster rides, there are a lot of points where the body is colliding into things like the seat, the restraint, or the sides. All coasters have different styles of restraints and forces. There is no universal coaster ride, they're all different.

Also to consider is the human element. All people are different. Sure, when it comes to people's size, weight, and other elements, you can get a pretty good generalization. Outside of that, people are vastly different. People handle forces differently, they can have different anatomies, they live different lifestyles, etc.

With both of those factors in mind, imagine being a coaster designer/manufacture and having to build a coaster that accommodates people within certain guidelines. They not only have to design the ride within certain parameters, they have to know of the demographic of people who visit amusement parks, particularly how they are physically structured. Roller coasters aren't for everyone, and that's from a physical stand point. Psychology is a whole different creature, but that's for another discussion.

To redesign coasters for such erratic medical conditions, which there are hundreds, its simply not feasible. You have to meet certain medical requirements to ride a roller coaster. The most popular subjects in this area include trying to accommodate those who are too big and those missing limbs or have prosthetic limbs. Both of these things are visible enough for ride operators to spot and react to. Parks also have guidelines they go by for these situations, both out of common sense and regarding insurance and liabilities. To the park, these are lose-lose scenarios from a publicity standpoint. If they let the rider on and they suffer an injury, the parks are liable for that. On the contrary, if you reject them, they do face discrimination being brought up and the same bad publicity, but in reality, the parks are trying to keep those patrons safe.

Now, this does seem like a pretty simple black and white subject, but when you get into asking why, it can stir some interesting conversation. For a little context, I would like to bring up that I myself used to be in the same category. Between 2008 and 2009, I had a few surgeries which involved incisions through my abdomen which required stitching and other things. Though I was given the green light to ride in general, I could only ride certain rides. Flying coasters or any ride which involved lying on my stomach were not part of that list. In addition, with Kings Island as my home park, Son of Beast was open at the time, but I didn't dare think to ride it.

Now, did I want to ride these rides at the time? Sure. Firehawk is one of my favorite coasters at Kings Island, and though SOB was insanely rough, I was trying to give it another chance at the time (I admit, it was before I knew better on the failures that occurred on Son of Beast, but again, different discussion). Sure I had the head start of being an enthusiast in the first place and having knowledge of how certain coasters work prior, but then again, if these people with these conditions are heading to parks, shouldn't they have the similar information in hand? Heck, before given the green light, I was entirely prepared to give up riding coasters and going to parks entirely. We're talking about one's life here. I would want to know everything about certain activities and their affects on whatever part of the body is wrong with me before I make a decision to embark on said activity. The internet has made that process instant and parks have their outlines on medical conditions pretty clear on their websites, or at the very least, on signs and maps at the park and adorning the rides.

The argument many if not all the people caught in these incidents bring up is that 'they rode the rides before in their condition or before it'. Well, first of all, if you rode it before your medical condition, shouldn't you check to see if you can do it at all post-medical issue? Do any of these people consult their doctors before doing these things? Now, if they ride these rides in their current state, then while you can give them some creidit, how do we know they were just getting lucky or perhaps ignorant employees? New coasters now-a-days boast more open seating, mostly boasting better views and a more open feeling when riding. You also have different types to deal with such as inverted and floorless coasters where the open seating is part of the ride. I would imagine being able to secure yourself is crucial in knowing if to ride, especially with amputees.

And really, can you really fault the park for erring on the side of caution? What exactly is the problem with that? Patrons' safety comes first at any amusement park. Yes, admitting the faults you have due to a medical condition is tough at first. People sometimes drag that process out as they don't want to know everything at once. I know, I've been there. There was a while I couldn't lift things at certain weights, I couldn't eat certain things, and I couldn't be as active as I wanted. However, I knew these limitations were only in place to keep me healthy, and such is the perspective of amusement parks.

When someone is going to be doing things that are strenuous on the body after said person has had a medical condition, it is important to be as informed on things as possible. People should be informative on how their body works, even without major medical conditions. The parks can't discern that for you. They are not doctors or nurses, and they don't know about EVERY medical condition out there. People have to know their own situations going in and how they're relevant to certain activities. Though realizing its another item on the list of things someone can't do, in the long run, its a decision that keeps you healthy and/or alive in some cases. That should take priority above all else in life.