Good Question, with it just sitting there in the open, it may need some tweeks.
I also feel like SOB was shut down cause of ONE rider.
"Ride at Your Own Risk" and riders should know their limitation. SOB doesn't need fix, true.
Hopefully I'm misunderstanding but let's be clear: Son of Beast would need more than a "few tweaks," and it would
"need fixed" to ever operate again.
The ride was cleared for operation by the state before its accident and after it hurt passengers. The paperwork all checks out on it and engineers approve the structure... Okay, so what?
The ride is too violent, too rough, and too ill-conceived to operate as it did. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the ride - I did. But a park cannot ask its patrons to ride defensively or warn them that this ride is so extreme, it may cause serious health problems. Even if the ride was not solely or directly to blame for the woman's aneurism three years ago, there is no question that people have gotten off the ride with painful side effects. Even just general discomfort
cannot be a common, accepted symptom of having ridden a ride in this age. Is it extreme? Sure. But there's a line that's not worth the risk of crossing.
The park also never gave any indication that the ride was closed then or is closed now due to the reported injury in 2009. Not once. Terpy is fond of saying that just because B happens after A, it doesn't mean that A caused B. Maybe somewhere off the record, the report was an impetus to close it, but you'd be mad to think it's the only reason or even the main one, I think...
If the ride ever operates again, I can't imagine it would bear much resemblance to the ride of 2009, much less to the ride of 2000.
"Know your limitations" is one thing. But you have noticed in a court of law and outside of it that the park and others seem to agree that operating a ride that is violent and unpredictable does not fall under "rider responsibility."