39 and 3/4 inches??

[maxiesmom]

I don't think it is Disney's "inconsistent policies". I think that if a child is close, Disney should measure carefully. But I don't think that is an easy job, to try to measue a squirming, excited child. Sometimes they slouch, sometimes they don't. Disney has a policy that you need to be a certain height to ride some rides. Of course they leave in some wiggle room, look how many "helpful" people have ideas on how to get around the height restriction. If you don't want to follow Disney rules, especially on the safety of you child, why are you at Disney?

 

[WeluvDisney2]

So if my 4 yr. old is 39 3/4 inches he is going to fly out of Splash Mountain, but if he is 40 inches he will not?

 

[AKLRULZ]

YOU may not think 1/4" matters - but the ride designers and company owners do.

Amen to that. Not worth the risk of compromising my kids' safety - there is always the next trip.

 

[Max Rebo]

YOU may not think 1/4" matters - but the ride designers and company owners do.

Actually, I believe the height restrictions are much more of an arbitrary designation than something designers came up with after scientific research.

The Stitch ride offers an example. The current height requirement is 40 inches. But not too long ago, the requirement was only 38 inches. Before that, it was 35 inches. Why the changes? Has the ride grown more dangerous with time? If the "ride designers" and "company owners" knew so much about the safety limits of the ride, why would the height requirement change? (Most likely, it's more of an effort to keep little kids off a scary ride, than anything having to do with safety.)

Also, I once read that back in the 70s, Space Mountain had a much lower height requirement (or had no requirement). That's in contrast to today's 44-inch standard. Why the change? Has the ride gotten more dangerous in the last several decades?

Furthermore, the various height requirements on different rides seem to be inconsistent. 44 inches for Space Mountain. 40 inches for Splash Mountain and BTMR. 40 for Soarin and Test Track. 44 for EE. 48 for RnR. Only 40 for ToT. 35 for the Barnstormer. 38 for Kali. 48 for the Primeval Whirl. It's hard to understand how Primeval Whirl is "8 inches more dangerous" than Splash Mountain.

If it was all scientifically determined by ride designers, why isn't there a weight requirement instead, or at least in addition. After all, isn't a feather-weight 40-inch tall child more likley to be thrown from a vehicle than a husky 38-inch tall child?

In the end, I think the height restrictions are more about an attempt by Disney to keep kids of certain maturity levels off certain rides. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's also about insurance liability. Without a height restriction in place, it's harder to prove your doing everything you can to keep the rides safe.

 

[sukhakuli]

My 3 year old is a solid 41 inches, but she is definitely not emotionally ready for lots of the rides that she can ride. How old is your child?

There are so many great rides that do not have a height requirement that I'm not sure why there is so much fudging about the few that do. Those shoulder harnesses are designed for a certain height range. Would you be so flippant about car seat safety? Would you turn your infant forward facing at 11 months because it's close? Or at 19 pounds and just put an extra pound of clothing on? Some things are just worth being careful about, IMO.

 

[kiddoc]

Take your child to ride whatever attraction you are looking forward to first thing in the morning if he is close on the height requirement. You are actually up to a 1/4 to 1/2 inch taller first thing in the morning before gravity has done it's job on you all day long.

 

[Mom2LnE]

I seem to remember a couple of years ago having the same problem with my son for Spash Mountain. He was about 1/2 inch too short to ride. But when we went to MGM, they let him ride Star Wars which had the same height requirement. I'm in agreement with whoever said the thing about the weight. Where my son was 3 inches shorter than my daughter (who is 2 1/2 years older) he out weghed her by 10 pounds. I was scared to death she was going to fly out of some of the rides (like spash mountain) and held on for dear life.

BTW-I need to get a new rack. Mine got worn out (little devils) and I need a new one.

 

[allyphoe]

Would you turn your infant forward facing at 11 months because it's close? Or at 19 pounds and just put an extra pound of clothing on? Some things are just worth being careful about, IMO.

OTOH, there's nothing magical about carseat cutoffs, any more than there's anything magical about Disney's height requirements. One year and 20 pounds is the law in most states, but two-year-olds are safer rear-facing than front-facing, too. In some countries, kids have to be 5 to ride facing forward. And older kids (or short adults) should be in booster seats until they're 4'9 and at least 80 pounds, but you don't see many young teens using them.

Every cutoff, from carseat recommendations to levels of contaminants in drinking water to Disney height restrictions, has a safety margin built in. Disney enforces strictly not because the ride that's safe for a 40 inch kid is unsafe for a 39.95 inch kid, but because if they let the 39.95 inch kid on, some parent is going to ask for a 35.9 inch kid to get on, and "I let that kid who was too short ride, but your kid is *really* too short" is less compelling an argument than "We err on the side of caution for everyone."

In either case, height from seat to shoulder is probably a better measure to use than overall height, because the restraint fit isn't affected by legginess. So there's an additional safety margin built in, to account for people who are leggy and short-waisted. Adding a bit of leg-length to a long-waisted kid isn't going to compromise safety to any degree, because they already have the height that matters from a safety perspective. By that same logic, a kid with an abnormally short torso who does meet the height requirement probably shouldn't ride, even if Disney lets them on.

Phoebe

 

[flortlebap]

Those shoulder harnesses are designed for a certain height range. Would you be so flippant about car seat safety? Would you turn your infant forward facing at 11 months because it's close? Or at 19 pounds and just put an extra pound of clothing on? Some things are just worth being careful about, IMO.

Actually yes, I would put my infant forward facing at 11 months. Maybe we have different guidelines here in the UK, but my DD was considered safe to be forwards facing from 9 months. And I know of other children who have done it as early as 7 months because they fit with the UK guidelines for safety, and we are pretty strict here, there's a new law just come into effect which means that most children under 14 will now by law need sufficient car seats, whether they are infant carriers, booster seats, or seatbelt adapters.

She is quite a large child - very tall like my DH and I, and on the 91st centile for weight. Here the guideline is 21lb OR 12 months. There is no way my DD would have fit into her first stage car seat past 9 months - in fact we haven't even taken her in a car since then, we've walked places or got the bus!

Just my 2c! And sorry to get off topic

 

[flortlebap]

The Stitch ride offers an example. The current height requirement is 40 inches. But not too long ago, the requirement was only 38 inches. Before that, it was 35 inches. Why the changes? Has the ride grown more dangerous with time? If the "ride designers" and "company owners" knew so much about the safety limits of the ride, why would the height requirement change? (Most likely, it's more of an effort to keep little kids off a scary ride, than anything having to do with safety.)

I always thought this was because of AE - a very frightening ride, so Disney wanted to force parents to keep their kids off the ride for fear of repercussions. But the restraints are designed in a manner that means very small children wouldn't fit, wouldn't get the ride experience etc - so it's more of an "experience" issue than a safety issue.

I don't think this is the same with thrill rides and rollercoasters, however. A 40" tall child would NOT be safe on RnRc, which is why the height restriction is much stricter. And I wouldn't be safe letting a 39.5" child on ToT either - that's the average 4 or 5 year old. My neice is just tall enough (41") and I'd be scared to death she'd fall out, she just seems too young for those big rides! That aside I know she'll be safe, but if she was shorter/younger I don't think I'd want to take the risk (even though I know Disney are erring on the side of caution and could probaby relax a couple of inches and still be safe).

 

[donaldduck1967]

Isn't it odd to see posts where people suggest ways to get around the height requirements, saying they don't matter that much when it's 'only a little bit', and other posts screaming for higher height requirements when a child is injured on a ride. Very strage.

The height requirements are there for a reason. If, as a parent, you feel they are wrong, fudge it and get the child on. If, on the other hand, you respect the designer's knowledge and concern for their guest's safety, wait until your child makes height. As a parent, it's your decision (unless, of course, the CM's are doing their job). I know what I decided for my son, and I couldn't have decided otherwise. It was a real treat the year he made height for everything.

PS: Shoe lifts and big hair may have worked at one time, but most CM's are well aware of those tricks. They're more of a red flag than a way around it any more.

Well said...

 

[pear86]

It seems to me that Disney has gotten much stricter about the height requirements in the past 2 years. Has anyone else observed this? I think this may be due to the recent incidents. I was here in 2004 and I saw CMs letting kids through who weren't even close...clearly an inch or two short. However, they have been very strict during my current trip. My 6 1/2 year old could not ride RnR yesterday. That is fine as long as the CMs are consistent with every child.

As far as the height requirement on the Stitch "ride", the thing doesn't move. It is all psychological. I freaked out the first (and only) time I did it when it was AE. My 3 year old loved it because it was Stitch.

 

[AKLRULZ]

Well said...

It was well said, indeed.

And I have to ask if the parent whose child is killed or seriously injured when they "snuck" them onto a height restricted ride they weren't tall enough for would then turn around and sue Disney.

 

[cleo]

And I have to ask if the parent whose child is killed or seriously injured when they "snuck" them onto a height restricted ride they weren't tall enough for would then turn around and sue Disney.

You bet your bottom dollar they would. The height restrictions are as much for Disney's sake as for your child's. They know what height is DEFINITELY safe, and that's the height they use.

Will your child go flying out of Splash Mountain if they're 1/4 inch shorter? No. They probably won't if they're an inch shorter. But flying out of the ride isn't the only safety issue, is it? I'm always baffled by the apparent notion the ride designers know less about their rides than the average guest does, and their requirements can be met with such off-handed disregard.

 

[Windy City Heather]

In May I thought my dd was tall enough to ride Soarin. Her head hit the mark. I double checked with a CM who got down on the floor, straightened her feet and then moved her head from side to side. She said No! If there head can move at all under the line they can't go on.

 

[donaldduck1967]

It was well said, indeed.

And I have to ask if the parent whose child is killed or seriously injured when they "snuck" them onto a height restricted ride they weren't tall enough for would then turn around and sue Disney.

They sure would, claiming Disney did not enforce the height restrictions. I know when I go in Oct whatever my daughter isnt tall enough for, even if it is 1/4 inch, sho won't be going on.

 

[Caitsmama]

Ahh, this thread brings back memories..

Anyway, back in 2004, when my dd wanted to first go on Splash mt. and TMRR, she was 40".. (she was almost 4 yrs old), and we had her measured at the beginning of the line for TMRR, and she was fine. Then, We waited, got all the way to the end, and the 2nd CM went to measure her.. Well, this CM (whom i am NOT thrilled with) took her head and was basically trying to shove her under the 40" bar.. Her head kept bumping it.. and she was (IMO) actually getting a little rough for my liking with my little girls head!! I asked how she was JUST measured at the front of the line, and passed CLEARLY with no problem, and now she was basically looking to force her head under this bar! Everyone in line started screaming at the CM - "Let her ride!!!!" And clearly my dd proved to be the correct height, and was let on... we rode that ride several times over the course of the trip,and had no other problems with it.. (Or getting onto Splash Mt.)
It just REALLY bothered me to the point of almost making a complaint against the CM with the way she was handleing my child!!

So, fast forward to 2005 - all was well.
And now for 2006, she wants to go on Space Mt.. and by MY measurements, she is up to about 45 1/2 " - And we don't go til Nov. So she should be fine.

I think it really depends on the CM you get, I totally understand if the child is a clear inch or two shorter, but 1/4"!! Come on! No one can SERIOUSLY tell me that that will make any difference in the ride.

I say to you - the OP to just pray she grows.. And if she doesn't , pray she gets a lienient CM.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

Would you be so flippant about car seat safety? Would you turn your infant forward facing at 11 months because it's close? Or at 19 pounds and just put an extra pound of clothing on? Some things are just worth being careful about, IMO.

Many people would!

My 21 month old is still rear-facing, because it is safer. Most people think that makes me a crackpot, because they refuse to do any safety research for themselves.

To keep this on-topic, said child is 34 inches now. We go to WDW in 2 months, and I'm hoping he'll grow that extra inch to be able to go on Barnstormer. I won't try to sneak him on if he's under the requirement, but I also don't believe that a 1/4 inch is the difference between life and death. That's just crazy! As someone else posted, the engineers did not test the rides for safety and find that kids 39 3/4 inches will die and those 40 inches exactly will live. It's kinda kooky to even think that, IMO. Still, I respect the requirements. They are probably for liability reasons more than anything else...although obviously at SOME point the ride does become dangerous for a small child. Believe me when I say that WDW isn't putting kids millimeters from falling out on those rides. Not all kids of 40 inches have the same "seated height", anyway! Some have a longer torso...some have longer legs. So how on earth do people think there is a SUDDEN DEATH cutoff point?

Disney has the policy for a reason. It's just not the life-and-death reason most people think it is, IMO. RESPECT THE RULE!

 

[tjmw2727]

In my experience the CM's are very strict about making sure all riders meet the height restriction. We had two trips with children right at a cut off point, 40" one trip and 48" another. Its tough and yes my dd's would probably have been just as safe on the ride at 39" or even 47" but Disney has to put the cutoff somewhere. No matter what the height is there will always be children just short. We just reminded them what they could ride and didn't focus so much on the few they would miss.

I have personally seen CM's ask children remove obviously high shoes when measuring, this was as recently in May 06. FWIW they also ask to have hats removed and measure to the childs head (ponytail won't help either). The stick is an upside down L and if it moves over the head the child can't ride, if the childs head stops the L from moving over the child can ride.

Be prepared to be meausred every time on every restricted ride, sometimes 2x, once at the entrance to the queue and if the child looks borderline they may be measured again at boarding. Help your child understand they need to stand tall (but not on tippie toes) as sometimes they shy away from the bar.

Hopefully your child will grow a bit prior to the trip - and even if not there are only a few rides he/she can't ride vs the many they can.

Have a great trip.

TJ

 

[Raevyn_Wolfe]

OK, another personal story.
My son was 39 1/2 inches at the last dr's visit before our trip in january. So, ok, guess I get bad parent award cause I bought him boots that definitly made him 40+ because he really wanted to ride Splash and Tower of Terror. Well, our day at MK went well with the boots, no questions. . . . but I felt bad cause they made him trip a couple times.
Next day at AK I let him wear his normal shoes, forgot he wanted to ride Dinosaur. Well, thought we would try it anyways and he passed just fine, no magic shoes needed.
The whole rest of the trip he didn't have to wear them, but for the rest of the week every single ride at the beginning and end of the line he was measured. . . . . always passed. But he was so proud he was big enough that every time he was told to go to the measuring thing he would purposefully bonk his head on the upside down L part of it just to show them how big he was. (what can I say, he is ALL boy) his head HAD to be sore by the end of our trip.


I personally don't feel you are putting anyone at risk over an inch of a difference . . . . .that is my opinion and really such a thing should be made by the parent themselves. As you see there are plenty that feel it is a MAJOR safety issue, some with borderline concerns, and some who are not afraid of taking measures into their own hand and giving their kids that extra boost. (love the stretcher comments, lol!) It's a personal judgement call.

The best thing about going to Disney though is even if your child is too short there is SO much they can see, do, and ride without height even being a consideration!