Scary Matterhorn experience

[Infernoman]

snip

Another poster summed up my reply to you good sir and I'm just going to say I respectfully disagree with your stance and I know very well already that we're going to keep talking in circles over this.

There's a difference between a child crying because they are afraid of Monstro and an adult showing anxiety because the safety belt that is supposed to keep them in the ride doesn't seem to be working. If safety is supposed to come before anything else, it would seem even more imperative that a CM should be at least verbally addressing that.

And again, there were ways the CMs could have addressed it without leaving their positions. The loader can't leave their position. The guy walking past my sled with his flashlight is walking past the sled and looking at guests! He isn't "leaving his position" if he asks what is going on or verbally reassures a guest the situation will be sorted out.

But it WAS working because you did say in your first post that despite the "Jam" (which we all don't know if that happened because it's only YOUR word and we have no word from the CM's that night you were there) you still got it to work, you rode and got off and are here now still arguing about this. the CM's while are in their safty position cannot leave, they aren't LITERALLY glued to their spots. Do you know each position and what they do? You have only a guess based on the brief time you were there. We're going on you FEELINGS and your ASSUMPTIONS and that is why I didn't see an issue to begin with because they're how you felt, not the facts because NOBODY was there to witness a thing. Again I'm sorry you had a freak out but at the end of the day you're fine and nothing bad happened.

This matter is becoming a mounting out of molehill and it should have ended with the guest and the CM that night. Now it's becoming yet another excuse to rally against CMs who DO their job but just don't have the time to handle EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING. we're all human right? Personally, this needs to be let go...

...As I see it

[monster heck]

Infernoman: This matter is becoming a mounting out of molehill and it should have ended with the guest and the CM that night. Now it's becoming yet another excuse to rally against CMs who DO their job but just don't have the time to handle EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING. we're all human right? Personally, this needs to be let go...

...As I see it

[OliviaVonDrake]

Nothing malfunctioned and the cast members did what they were supposed to do. I'm not sure what the problem is...?

[misfits138]

Nothing malfunctioned and the cast members did what they were supposed to do. I'm not sure what the problem is...?

The problem is that someone grossly overreacted to their unreasonable belief that there was a chance they would be dispatched with their safety restraint unsecured. This problem was exacerbated by their ridiculous assertion that a cast member in a loud, fast-paced, and important position should disregard everything and everyone else to address this absurd behavior knowing full well that in a matter of seconds the individual will realze that there was no problem. What would happen to Disneyland if each of 20000-50000 daily guests reacted this way towards what was essentially a non-issue? However, what is even more outlandish is the fact that not one but TWO individuals responded by calling for the termination of the cast members who had the misfortune of being present when the OP decided to ride the Matterhorn. One of these individuals even suggested that the OP could sue Disneyland as compensation for being upset. WOW. Calsig, your responses in this thread upset ME. Can I sue you? I think the next time the level headed people who have disagreed with the few extreme responses in this thread should make a pact for their next trip to Disneyland to personally thank each cast member they meet for their willingness and ability to deal with such absurd behavior and mindsets

[cruise]

HOLY GOD EVERYBODY NOTHING WENT WRONG. EVERY RIDE AT THE RESORT WITH BELTS HAS THIS PROCEDURE: NOT CHECKING BELTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER LOAD BUT INSTEAD CHECKING THEM AT DISPATCH (INDY, RSR, MATTERHORN).

Seriously what is going on.

All of this about failure rates is irrelevant. Nothing failed here. Everything could potentially fail at some point.

All of this about emotional distress and panic is irrelevant. There are countless rides at the resort that a rider could free themselves from and get hurt were they to panic... Splash, Silly Symphonies, Autopia etc. etc... but the point is that this doesn't put the onus of Disney. Countless times before it has been held that incidents like these are not the responsibility of the park. I could "think" my Autopia car is going to explode because it sounds a little weird, but that doesn't give me the right to run across the track. Personal responsibility doesn't evaporate due to irrational panic.

Others are right to point out that we only have one side of the story. And we will never get the CM side of it because they probably deal with this several times a day. It's okay to be nervous on a ride, but it is not the fault of anyone but that single person.

[Goofy Daddy]

The big question for me is whether there's a way to let all riders know the way the checkpoints are set up so they don't panic when they can't figure out their seatbelts and the ride moves past the first checkpoint(s). Maybe a sign or announcement at the beginning saying "Please buckle your seatbelt. The CM at the final checkpoint will assist you if you're unable to buckle it." And a big sign for Final Checkpoint.

Yes, it's called the power of observation. I figured out the system by the third time I rode an attraction with that kind of restraint system. You can even see this system at work when you ride Star Tours as the readout board is in plain view and the CM checks it before securing the cabin. I understand a lot of folks don't pay attention to those kind of details when they are out and about, but that is one way to know how it works.

[monster heck]

The problem is that someone grossly overreacted to their unreasonable belief that there was a chance they would be dispatched with their safety restraint unsecured. This problem was exacerbated by their ridiculous assertion that a cast member in a loud, fast-paced, and important position should disregard everything and everyone else to address this absurd behavior knowing full well that in a matter of seconds the individual will realze that there was no problem. What would happen to Disneyland if each of 20000-50000 daily guests reacted this way towards what was essentially a non-issue? However, what is even more outlandish is the fact that not one but TWO individuals responded by calling for the termination of the cast members who had the misfortune of being present when the OP decided to ride the Matterhorn. One of these individuals even suggested that the OP could sue Disneyland as compensation for being upset. WOW. Calsig, your responses in this thread upset ME. Can I sue you? I think the next time the level headed people who have disagreed with the few extreme responses in this thread should make a pact for their next trip to Disneyland to personally thank each cast member they meet for their willingness and ability to deal with such absurd behavior and mindsets

Yes! Thank you!

[Oedipa Maas]

Yes, it's called the power of observation. I figured out the system by the third time I rode an attraction with that kind of restraint system. You can even see this system at work when you ride Star Tours as the readout board is in plain view and the CM checks it before securing the cabin. I understand a lot of folks don't pay attention to those kind of details when they are out and about, but that is one way to know how it works.

True, that is one way, but I'm struggling to understand how one would use observation to figure out this system until they see someone having major trouble with their seatbelt be stopped and helped by dispatch. I'm sure that happens multiple times a day, but not often enough that everyone in the park will see it. Many people would observe the location with CMs shining flashlights on guests and reasonably--but wrongly--assume that is the final seatbelt check.

If I were the OP, I would send Disney a brief note letting them know I'd been unnecessarily scared because I didn't understand the loading procedure, and I wish they would explain it better. I would not mention the CMs, because from comments here it appears they all did their jobs. If Disney gets enough similar notes, maybe they will put up signs or even change the duties of CMs at loading stations.

[calsig31]

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this related to "innocent until proven guilty"?

That is the standard for a criminal case which does not apply here. If this was an actual trial, the rider would be the plaintiff and it would be up to Disney or the specific employee as the defendant to disprove the plaintiff’s case.

Absence of "facts" that the CM did their job doesn't mean they were guilty of not doing it. Right?

When there is a plaintiff and a witness that claim that they did not do their job, absence of proof to the contrary is enough to show that they did not.

Again, the seatbelt worked and she was in no real danger. The problem is that no one let a rider who was expressing concern for their safety know that.

No we don't - because the people in this thread don't KNOW what the specific performance of those positions are. They PRESUME.

It is not a presumption to say that the primary duty of any “on stage” worker at Disneyland is customer service. They are there to make park patrons safe and happy. By ignoring her concerns of safety, they failed.

No evidence presented by the defendant.. you mean the people not represented AT ALL in this thread? My god.. this is beyond comical. By creating a one-sided story, you argue it's more credible? I've had some wth moments before reading some of these threads of late.. but I don't think anyone can top that.

There are Disney employees that are members of this forum. Not one of them has provided any evidence that an employee of the company would not have let the rider panic under a belief that the ride would start without her restraint secured until she went to the next station without trying to reassure her that the belt would be fixed at the next checkpoint.

The riders PRESUMPTION of the different ride operator positions means nothing to the actual job definitions.

It does when she is voicing her safety concerns and those go unanswered.

HOLY GOD EVERYBODY NOTHING WENT WRONG

Disney’s customer service went wrong.

but the point is that this doesn't put the onus of Disney.

So you feel it is ok for an employee to just ignore a guest who is expressing concerns about their safety restraint? Whether the concern was valid or not, if a rider is addressing a worker, it is just good customer service to answer them back.

I figured out the system by the third time I rode an attraction with that kind of restraint system.

What about those riders who are riding for their first or second time?

[cruise]

When there is a plaintiff and a witness that claim that they did not do their job, absence of proof to the contrary is enough to show that they did not.

Yes, this is true, but it is also probably one of the worst arguments to make in an online forum. By this logic every one-sided story thread ever posted on this site should be taken on its face. Maybe you'd have some weight with this after a full investigation... but c'mon, after one 200 word post...

It is not a presumption to say that the primary duty of any “on stage” worker at Disneyland is customer service. They are there to make park patrons safe and happy. By ignoring her concerns of safety, they failed.

I'm going to go ahead and posit that the primary concern of a ride operator is safety. And it IS a presumption to assume that letting the ride coast to the next brake station is more dangerous than stopping the ride to concentrate on one guest while taking focus off of others in the load area. For all we know it may have been safer to have dealt with this situation at the belt check zone.

Disney’s customer service went wrong.

This is only true if "customer service goes wrong" every time a guest feels uncomfortable. Without an assessment f the reasonableness of the fear think makes little sense, and that requires a subjective judgement. Objectively the ride was dispatched safely.

So you feel it is ok for an employee to just ignore a guest who is expressing concerns about their safety restraint? Whether the concern was valid or not, if a rider is addressing a worker, it is just good customer service to answer them back.

Again, using the word "ignoring" is an example of you making your own judgement here. Was the CM following a protocol in allowing them to move to the next zone? Was the CM fully aware of the level of the guests concern? The OP talks a lot about yelling to the CM but not a lot about if they even turned around. Yes I am also making judgements here... but I am NOT coming to any conclusions about the process. Again, all we can say is that here, the system worked.

My personal take here is that there are so many holes and inconsistencies in this original story that I am more inclined to the side of the CM who does this everyday than the rider who clearly was experiencing the ride for on of their first times.

[Mojave]

That is the standard for a criminal case which does not apply here. If this was an actual trial, the rider would be the plaintiff and it would be up to Disney or the specific employee as the defendant to disprove the plaintiff’s case.

You're innocent until proven guilty ONLY in criminal cases and not in civil? Really?

When there is a plaintiff and a witness that claim that they did not do their job, absence of proof to the contrary is enough to show that they did not.

I'm having a really hard time understanding your logic here. BECAUSE there is an absence of any actual defendant, because there is an absence of any actual evidence or facts, but because someone made an accusation that no one responded to their panic, that is enough to show the CM did not do their job? So this phantom, unknown CM is guilty because the rider says so? Is that what the law requires?

[calsig31]

And it IS a presumption to assume that letting the ride coast to the next brake station is more dangerous than stopping the ride to concentrate on one guest while taking focus off of others in the load area.

No one said anything about stopping the ride. Just a simple acknowledgement that the seatbelt would be checked at the next stop point would have been enough.

This is only true if "customer service goes wrong" every time a guest feels uncomfortable.

It’s not simply just the guest feeling uncomfortable. Here the person was visibly upset and reached out to a Disney employee for help. That employee did not even acknowledge the request. That is a failure of customer service.

Again, using the word "ignoring" is an example of you making your own judgement here. Was the CM following a protocol in allowing them to move to the next zone? Was the CM fully aware of the level of the guests concern? The OP talks a lot about yelling to the CM but not a lot about if they even turned around. Yes I am also making judgements here... but I am NOT coming to any conclusions about the process. Again, all we can say is that here, the system worked.

While it may have been protocol to allow the sled to move to the next zone, I’m sure it is not protocol to ignore a guest when they specifically address a worker – or maybe it is now. Disney’s standards are not what they once were.

My personal take here is that there are so many holes and inconsistencies in this original story that I am more inclined to the side of the CM who does this everyday than the rider who clearly was experiencing the ride for on of their first times.

Please enlighten us.

You're innocent until proven guilty ONLY in criminal cases and not in civil? Really?

Yes, that is exactly right. The term “guilty” isn’t even applicable in a civil case. Civil cases do not determine guilt or innocence. A civil case determines liability. It is totally different than a criminal case.

I'm having a really hard time understanding your logic here. BECAUSE there is an absence of any actual plaintiff, because there is an absence of any actual evidence or facts, but because someone made an accusation that no one responded to their panic, that is enough to show the CM did not do their job? So this phantom, unknown CM is guilty because the rider says so? Is that what the law requires?

I was saying that if this were an actual case and the plaintiff presented their side as well as witnesses and the defense put up nothing to counter those claims, the plaintiffs would prevail.

[Mojave]

I was saying that if this were an actual case and the plaintiff presented their side as well as witnesses and the defense put up nothing to counter those claims, the plaintiffs would prevail.

Just wanted to note in my previous post I said "absence of any actual plaintiff" when I meant "defendant". I edited the post. My point was how can there be any absence of proof of doing the right thing when there is no actual person to accuse.

[monster heck]

Why am I not shocked this has turned into legalese talk?

This is non-story!

No more comparisons to the Big Thunder death and getting CMs fired for something they didn't do.

[calsig31]

No more comparisons to the Big Thunder death and getting CMs fired for something they didn't do.

Something they didn't do is exactly what this is about. They failed to acknowledge a guest who was having some safety concerns. This would neither require leaving their post nor diverting their attention away from others. A simple sentence would have been all it would take. Failing to make that acknowldgement is what they should be disciplined for.