Right what I’m saying is internally it is 4x redundant and is designed to fail safe regardless.
Here’s an old (2006) publicly available version of ASTM F2291 which governs amusement ride safety, notably class 5 restraints (highest tier) must be either redundant (i.e. two distinct devices as you suggest, or fail safe) and have external verification, which in the case for these ones is a proximity sensor that gets flagged once the pawls have dropped in by enough teeth
The original design of those particular restraints has 4 separate pawls that engage with the ratchet holding down the restraint, any one of them is more than capable of holding the full force of even the largest rider. The newer versions are purportedly half ratcheting half hydraulic, but that’s not what was present on the Goliath in question.
The unlocking mechanism works on the entire row at once, so since it was just the one seat it’s probably not related to that.
B&M, the Swiss manufacturer also has notably not suggested any other customers close their similar rides pending investigation.
Yeah I see what you’re getting at, and a seat belt would probably have saved this man.
To point back to the ASTM standard for a second though, most seatbelts in use on rollercoasters are not allowed to be counted as part of the restraint system for enhancing it’s class rating to 5 via redundancy because they can be opened by the rider (6.4.3.9 (4)). The vast majority of intense rides that use them are typically using them as external verification of sufficient restraint position instead of or in addition to the proximity switch.
From an industrial safety perspective the seatbelt feels like more of an administrative control to me than an engineered* control because of the rider ability to bypass. Which an administrative control can prevent accidents, but an engineered control is definitely preferable where feasible.
*For anyone following along, the seatbelts are definitely engineered to handle the loads, just in my opinion industrial safety wouldn’t put them in an engineered control category because of aforementioned reasons