Riding with injuries: Dreamworld vs Village ride inclusivity

[Coasterjoe]

Another way Dreamworld is crushing the competition: Ride inclusivity 

Daughter has a brace from a wrist injury, Seaworld was a blanket no for everything, even gentle rides. I am assuming its the same at Movieworld.

Dreamworld uses common sense and only restricts certain rides due to intensity and/or plausibility of riding. The nurse at Dreamworld provided my daughter with a ride access pass that allows her to ride everything except ST, Giant Drop and Dodgems. Village need to step it up. 

[Spotty]

36 minutes ago, Coasterjoe said:

Another way Dreamworld is crushing the competition: Ride inclusivity 

Daughter has a brace from a wrist injury, Seaworld was a blanket no for everything, even gentle rides. I am assuming its the same at Movieworld.

Dreamworld uses common sense and only restricts certain rides due to intensity and/or plausibility of riding. The nurse at Dreamworld provided my daughter with a ride access pass that allows her to ride everything except ST, Giant Drop and Dodgems. Village need to step it up. 

Village used to do the same thing, if a guest rocked up to a ride and didn't have a wristband from guest services and had a visible injury / disability we would send them to guest services. A staff member would then have a conversation with the guest, to determine the nature of it and then punch out holes for the rides they could not ride. If it was more complex a member of the health team would assess it.

Not sure if this is still the process, but I would assume it would be still the same or very similar. We did also use it for guests that were right on the minimum height for a ride, suggesting they go to GS to get measured and get a wristband to let the staff know what rides they were measured up for on the day to prevent them being re-measured every single time. Overall it was a great system, good for the guests and made it easier for the staff.

[New display name]

Village still do the same thing @Spotty  One park has a better safety record, so I wouldn't be complaining about it.

[Spotty]

3 minutes ago, New display name said:

Village still do the same thing @Spotty  One park has a better safety record, so I wouldn't be complaining about it.

Good to know they are still doing that, just wasn't sure

[Coasterjoe]

17 minutes ago, New display name said:

Village still do the same thing @Spotty  One park has a better safety record, so I wouldn't be complaining about it.

Unfortunately this isn’t the case for limb injuries, I have attached the screen shot from Seaworld  guest services chat when I enquired 

Edited June 27 by Coasterjoe

[New display name]

@Coasterjoe why should SW take the risk she aggravates her arm?

[Coasterjoe]

5 hours ago, New display name said:

@Coasterjoe why should SW take the risk she aggravates her arm?

They don’t have to do anything, the reality is dreamworld is willing to find a way to support guests riding rides that are low risk to injuries and village is not? Quite simple really. 

[New display name]

2 hours ago, Coasterjoe said:

They don’t have to do anything, the reality is dreamworld is willing to find a way to support guests riding rides that are low risk to injuries and village is not? Quite simple really. 

VIllage do support people at low risk.  To VIllage you're not low risk.

I don't understand the hate when VIllage wants to protect your child.

[Coasterjoe]

@New display name There is a little bit of disappointment, but its not hate. I dont hate. It’s constructive feedback. In my opinion, dreamworld do a better job in this department. In fact my original post was more about applauding Dreamworld for the experience we had which was really great! 

[Coasterjoe]

Deepest apologies, just arrived at Seaworld and the info that guest services gave me online was incorrect. The team here were also great and assessed the injury clearing her for everything. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 27/06/2025 at 9:17 PM, New display name said:

I don't understand the hate when VIllage wants to protect your child.

I realise we've gotten an update just above where the staff in park were able to assess the situation and it was a different outcome to the park's online team - but just to add weight to this argument - the child's injury meets the legislated definition of a disability for the purposes of the disability discrimination act. This means that they cannot just have a blanket rule that says 'no casts, braces or slings'. 

This doesn't mean that they have to risk somebody's safety (the person with the disability or anyone else) - but they do have to review individual circumstances to determine what can be safely accommodated with reasonable adjustment. This can get very messy, and ultimately would need to involve doctors and medical assessments (and probably lawyers) if the abilities of the person were in dispute, so I would presume the park would err on the side of caution, but to simply say 'no, you can't ride anything while you have a brace on' doesn't meet the threshholds and responsibilities required by the legislation.

On 27/06/2025 at 12:24 PM, New display name said:

One park has a better safety record, so I wouldn't be complaining about it.

This is a garbage argument

On 27/06/2025 at 1:29 PM, New display name said:

why should SW take the risk she aggravates her arm?

This is also garbage. The park's T&Cs all state they ride at their own risk. They're also not medical professionals equipped to assess whether ride forces are going to aggravate an injury. How many people with head, neck and back problems do you think ride big thrill rides every day despite the signage saying not to? 

The park can assess. They can recommend she not ride certain things that may aggravate an injury and they can record such advice without specifically prohibiting a person from riding where it isn't a safety risk. Like everyone else at the park - they ride at their own risk. If she were to aggravate the injury for going beyond her own limits or abilities, that would be on her and wouldn't make the park liable.

[New display name]

22 hours ago, Coasterjoe said:

Deepest apologies, just arrived at Seaworld and the info that guest services gave me online was incorrect. The team here were also great and assessed the injury clearing her for everything. 

Good to hear.

[Levithian]

Trouble is, the ride at your own risk thing doesn't really work anymore. Why?

1) Because it doesn't stop people attempting to drag you through courts, which ultimately costs money even if they lose or drop the lawsuit. 

2) It all impacts your insurance premiums. Underwriters are increasingly setting the tone for what they will consider acceptable and what they won't. The more claims you have to make, the more notice they take, premiums increase, greater restrictions are applied. 

3) In Australia, disclaimers are basically not worth the paper they are written on. Basically, from a legal standpoint, you cannot knowingly allow or permit something you know could have a detrimental or have a negative impact, either physically, mentally or monetarily.How they are served makes one hell of a difference too, especially when things like tickets for entry are concerned. When you are sued the courts look at if you were actively notifying the persons of the disclaimers, when and where, and if you were just relying on a printed document or statement somewhere. It's not good enough to just basically sit back and rely on the document anymore. You can write all kinds of things in disclaimers and even have people sign them, but there are so many laws and acts that basically override them. And that's without the whole issue of negligence being able to be established which makes you culpable regardless of what is written. 

Village used to go one further and send some guests to first aid where the RN/EN could actually look at the type of injury and make a more educated judgement than guest services staff. I'd hate to think they stopped doing this because, aside from being a legal minefield for the parks, nothing ruins an entire family's day at a theme park like arriving and being told one of your kids is a complete bystander for the day. If that's going to happen, you'd at least like someone with some sort of medical training to be making judgement calls that will completely ruin your day. 

Edited Monday at 02:46 AM by Levithian

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

You're absolutely right, it's a minefield. there are ramifications for having blanket bans and the GS\FA-RN assessment routes are the best options all round. This is why I said they can assess, they can recommend, and they can absolutely prevent someone riding where safety is a factor.

However, they can't pretend that some fanciful suggestion that you "might aggravate a pre-existing injury" is reason enough to discriminate. It is more a matter of degree and a balance of all the factors at play - considering the likelihood of it happening, as well as the consequences (or severity) of what could happen. 

(or to put it another way - if we stopped people from riding rides because there was the mere possibility they could be hurt - nobody would ever ride anything again!)

In the current example, being in a brace that is custom fitted, strapped on with numerous velcro straps and\or press studs - the person is less likely to be injured in it than out of it, and it's highly unlikely to come off and injure anyone else. 

The assessment at that point likely boils down to whether they have hand grip strength capable for evacuations and\or whether the loss of the use of one hand is an excluding factor. Typically this wouldn't exclude people from all but the most extreme rides. 

I'm being very simplistic, and this is in no way formal advice or suggesting the parks are or are not doing the right thing based on their alignment with what i've suggested - i'm simply making a very long-winded point that they can't just say "no casts, braces or slings" as this would not meet their obligations under the DDA.

[New display name]

I love coming to Parkz for legal advise.

[Naazon]

I personally go to my lawyers for Theme park discussion.

[Levithian]

@DaptoFunlandGuy You glossed over it way, WAY, WAY too simply by saying disclaimers cover all though. They simply don't.

As far as discrimination goes, they also have a duty of care to identify that you are greater risk of injury or further injury if you were to ride, especially in the case where it goes against the manufacturer's rules or regulation for their ride. They are not required to make expect medical decisions based on what they can visualise or what (lies) told to them, and likewise, they cannot allow you to place yourself in a dangerous position even if you feel it is discriminating. You can twist it to mean anything you want, and it frequently is, but the intention of the act does not overwrite the potential to do harm. So it becomes a case of do what is reasonable and argue the fine points in court. 

The groundwork for what people can ride comes direct from manufacturers, then external risk assessments are done in relation with SOP's and that draws a very clear line in the sand before it's even handed over to operations to manage. What is and isn't an acceptable risk is ENTIRELY down to how much responsibility you wish to take in addition to these controls. Pro tip, it's usually very little. You are significantly increasing your exposure, and, even in the event that you did everything right, or you felt you did everything appropriately, you can still be sued for injuries.   

Post early 2000's public liability insurance crisis, there isn't a company in the country that won't ALWAYS err on the side of caution, even if that means becoming more risk aversive and excluding more people. Then, when you throw in it's a potentially dangerous, risk filled environment combined with the operational style of village, clearly evident/demonstrated through years of people questioning why/how they do things (when nobody else seems to), you get what you get. 

The problem is the world has changed, and stupid people's expectations are completely screwed. Nobody owes you anything. You pay money to enter their world, they tell you what you can and can't do, end of discussion. Unfortunately, it's flipped, and the opposite is true in the minds of a lot of people these days. It's like businesses should bend to the will or the demands of their customer/guests just because they promise to offer a token (paltry) gesture of good will that is so meager in comparison it wouldn't even cover the initial filing fee of application to sue for injury or damages. 

The more stupid the general public becomes, the more generalised restrictions and controls will be found because it's evident people cannot be held accountable for their own actions anymore, so you have to try to limit your exposure instead.  

Edited Monday at 04:27 AM by Levithian

[New display name]

11 minutes ago, Naazon said:

I personally go to my lawyers for Theme park discussion.

Makes sense.

A lawyer goes to a theme park with their family. The kids are having a great time on the roller coaster, but the lawyer is looking increasingly distressed. Finally, the lawyer yells, "This is outrageous! I'm going to sue! There are too many twists and turns, and I can't keep track of the evidence!

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 minutes ago, Levithian said:

@DaptoFunlandGuy You glossed over it way, WAY, WAY too simply by saying disclaimers cover all though. They simply don't. 

There was no glossing over, and I didn't say disclaimers cover all.

What part of   

6 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

This doesn't mean that they have to risk somebody's safety (the person with the disability or anyone else) - but they do have to review individual circumstances to determine what can be safely accommodated with reasonable adjustment. This can get very messy, and ultimately would need to involve doctors and medical assessments (and probably lawyers) if the abilities of the person were in dispute, so I would presume the park would err on the side of caution

didn't you understand?