Something interesting with Height Requirements

[DLMountainFan]

While heading on GRR we saw a mother and son at the height check. He had about a 1/2 inch of hair and was still barley under 42". The mother was freaking out at the CM because he would not let him on. I eventually saw her go off in a huff without him riding. The CM handled it quite well and appeared correct, because he was a bit short.

But then over in Redwood Creek at the Smoke Jumpers(??). Another CM brought a girl over and told the other CM that she had checked it already and she was tall enough. The other CM at the end still wanted to verify and for about 2-3 minutes they got the girl to do just about everything to hit the height requirement and eventually the CM that was there said OK. Since I was too far away I could not see the actual height I have to assume that she did eventually make it, although it looked more like the other CM was trying to get her on. To me if a ride has a height requirement it is there for a reason and would wonder if that is something a CM and Parent would really want to chance. And if something happened wouldn’t the CM who let on an under height child be ultimately responsible, even though the parents should know better.

[DLFreak71]

I wonder about some of them.
Most kids can get on Space Mountain
but you have to be taller to get onto Indy.
I would think Indy would be easier to get on than Space.
I think Space throws around a child more than Indy does.
I think Screamin' has the tallest heigh requirement that all the rides.

[sir clinksalot]

Alot of times the height requirements have less to do with the ride but more to do with the restraints and ride vehicles.

As for Indy being higher than Space, I can totally see that. You don't sit low on Indy as you do on Space. There really are no sides on the vehicle. It only has a seat belt and you are tossed around a bit.

[DLFreak71]

Originally Posted by sir clinksalot

Alot of times the height requirements have less to do with the ride but more to do with the restraints and ride vehicles.

As for Indy being higher than Space, I can totally see that. You don't sit low on Indy as you do on Space. There really are no sides on the vehicle. It only has a seat belt and you are tossed around a bit.

I can see the point.
Still think Indy does less tossing
and if you can put two adults between the child (and in the middle) I don't see why they can't ride.
And what does height (in Indy) have to do w/ falling out?
If you fall, you fall. Being tall isn't going to stop you.
I realize that they feel sometimes height goes along w/ age
but my friends sister is shorter than normal.
She's in her early 30's...they won't let her ride any of the rides that have a requirement. Now I think that is just silly for some of them...I can see the ones that have shoulder restraints and if your shoulders can't reach that point..then I can understand not letting them on.

[Berry Princess]

Originally Posted by DLFreak71

I wonder about some of them.
Most kids can get on Space Mountain
but you have to be taller to get onto Indy.
I would think Indy would be easier to get on than Space.
I think Space throws around a child more than Indy does.
I think Screamin' has the tallest heigh requirement that all the rides.

The tallest is actually Maliboomer (52"). Screamin and Orange Stinger are right after it though (48"). If you want to count Autopia for when you can drive alone it is at 52" though. I do understand why they have the heights as they do.
But as for the original post, I can't believe a CM would do that and risk something happening. I don't care if a child is just a tad bit shy of that height requirement, the CM has the responsibilty to tell the parent the child isn't tall enough. I know there are lots of CMs that do follow those rules, as they should. My oldest was just like an inch off of Mulholland years ago and the CM was very nice about it. We weren't sure if he was at 42 at that point or not. And he was a bit upset but got over it fast (we rode Jumpin Jellyfish a bunch of times in a row that day since it was slow). But sadly with how people get so sue happy about things, not only would that CM have been responsible for letting the child get through to something they shouldn't but Disney would as well and the parent(s) would of course blame them all and not take any responsibilty for their part in it. I am just amazed (I know I shouldn't be) at how many parents will do such things instead of just telling their child "sorry but you aren't tall enough yet and we will have to do that when you are." Then give them a choice of something else they can do to get their mind off it.

[SCUBAbe]

IMO space is alot smoother than INDY...indy is a very rough ride.

[sir clinksalot]

I've seen people going to very EXTREME measures to get kids on rides.

Spiked hair, Ice Cream in the shoes ... yeah.

I'll admit that our Son used to have a pair of "Coaster Shoes". They were basically shoes that had a higher than normal sole and we put some foot pads in there. This gave him about a 1/2 an inch when he was 47 1/2 inches tall.

Sure it was not the right thing to do but we were still very selective on the rides he could actually ride at 48". NONE of the rides he rode then were any more intense than the same rides he rode in Texas that has a 42" height requirement.

But now he's 49" and it's not an issue.

[BFJen]

Smoke Jumpers may have a height requirement, but I would think it's only because smaller kids can't jump up onto the rope swing. My son fell off everytime - because he thought it was fun. It was funny watching older kids get rejected because they were too tall! How's that for role reversal.

[spunkymonkey]

We went yesterday for the 4th, and my 4 yo son just hit the 40" marks on BTRR and soaring, but was a god 3/4 in short on Star Tours. The CM just shook her head and said that this was the correct height.

[Nephythys]

I don't see why clunky shoes are a wrong thing to do- until Disney puts in place a requirement to measure them barefoot- if they are tall enough in shoes- they are tall enough in shoes.

[Trixster]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I don't see why clunky shoes are a wrong thing to do- until Disney puts in place a requirement to measure them barefoot- if they are tall enough in shoes- they are tall enough in shoes.

Yep, we have this same problem at tower. We see a child who, you know isnt tall enough without the shoes. As long as they make the 40inc requirement they could ride. However, when I notice this I tell the parents that they do meet it but its what the shoes are making them tall and they are taking the risk of their own child's life.

[AEGuy42]

I posted this link in another thread regarding height requirements, but the big shoe discussion here also pertains to this link:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y&RS=AN/Disney

That's a Disney patent application for different height measuring devices. Among these, are several variations of height checks that require the child to be sitting to be measured, which would totally negate any shoe lifts and be more realistic to the actual ride conditions.

[Trintara]

Height requirements are there for safety reasons, as I'm sure you all understand. I've met plenty of people who don't get it though, including that set of parents that say, "Oh, but I'll hold him real tight and be responsible for anything that happens."

Yeah, right.

My favorite though, is a little event my sister told me about one day when she was working a roller coaster. They had to shut the whole thing down because the parent wouldn't leave with their kid and get this - He said that it was okay since his kid was able to put on their own socks.

....I don't know what putting on socks has to do with meeting height requirements for safety either. People are strange.

[sir clinksalot]

Some parks do use the 48" (without shoes). Cedar Point is one of them as this was a big problem there.

Not sure if the other Cedar Fair parks have followed suit. I haven't noticed this at Knott's.

[FlyThenFall]

Didn't Disneyland use to have a bunch of 48" height requirements. I seem to remember that Indy and Rocket Rods used to have it. Does anyone know why the lowered Indy's height requirement from it? I've never noticed any adjustments to the jeeps or the restraint systems.

I always worry about the staffing at the Cedar Fair parks and at Six Flags. I can't recall anyone every checking height requirements at their coasters. On my last trip to Knott's I was deathly afraid of all these almost too short children hopping onto Silver Bullet. They make the height restrictions for a reason!