Are they strict on height requirments?

[LBIJim]

Believe me between the engineers who always figure in room and the lawyers and the insurance people 1 inch is not going to matter as far as life or death.

The best proof I have is I'm alive! I'm old enough to be a kid just as height requirements were coming in and I'll never forget when our local amusement park got them and I found out that rides I had been riding for years and I mean years, I was now to short to safely ride!

I'm fairly certain the margin of error is fairly large; it's likely kids 4 or 5 inches shorter than the requirment can safely ride. It's for liability's sake and Disney and the ride manufacturers have to have a cutoff somewhere.

I, too, remember riding things alone as a kid, such as the Scramber or Tilt-a-Whirl and even some coasters when there were basically no height requirements.

Jim

 

[bumbershoot]

Not related to rides, but to your way of reading the other poster's words....

If you had read the post this was referring to you would understand.

She was patting her self on the back because she kept her kids in their boosters PAST when they reached the height to be able to not use them.

New Jersey's child passenger safety law requires:

...Children under 8 years of age who weigh less than 80 pounds to ride properly secured in a child safety seat or booster seat in the rear seat of the vehicle.

Who is to say that her under-80 pound 9 year old CAN sit safely in a normal carseat? I'm 5'3" and I BARELY fit in a normal car's seat without the seatbelt hitting my neck. Do we know how tall he is? No, we don't. I now know that NJ state law doesn't pay attention to height, AKA *how a child fits in the seatbelt*, which makes absolutely no sense, so it sounds to me like she's doing the right thing, safety-wise, with the booster.


Here in WA...

A child who is eight years old or older, or four feet nine inches or taller, must be properly restrained either with the motor vehicle's safety belt or an appropriately fitting child restraint system.

(we now know that WA is thinking about how kids sit in the seat a bit more than weight-based states)

My son is 8. He's not 4'9". He's in a booster. He does NOT fit in the seat belts of my car; he's too short (although he's tall). When we visit my brother, he fits in the 3rd row of their Durango and in the backseat of SIL's Mercedes, and so in *those* cars, he sits without a booster b/c CA law allows it and he fits. But he's just not safe in the middle row of the Durango, or in our car, with just the seatbelt.

And that's what the carseat stuff is all about, once they are older, is making sure the seatbelt fits properly so it restrains them in an accident without, you know, cutting their throats open, right? (last bit I have *literally* been concerned about for my OWN self since I realized 5'3" was as tall as I was going to get and all seat belts hit my neck (since I don't want to sit in SIL's tiny backseat or allllll the way back in the Durango LOL).)

 

[Samar]

If you had read the post this was referring to you would understand.

She was patting her self on the back because she kept her kids in their boosters PAST when they reached the height to be able to not use them.

I said safe is safe, once you are the acceptable height it doesn't make you safer to go 2 inches over just to say you are so good you want our kids to be safer.

And believe me if it is up to the engineers there is a lot of wiggle room in that acceptable height. You also have to add in the opinion of the insurance folks and the lawyers.

It is not a matter of patting myself on the back. You want to play rule rebel, knock yourself out. I just hope that whoever you're doing it for realizes that you don't give 2 rats toes about them and purposely endangering them.

Done with you, hope it's all worth it.

Who is to say that her under-80 pound 9 year old CAN sit safely in a normal carseat? I'm 5'3" and I BARELY fit in a normal car's seat without the seatbelt hitting my neck. Do we know how tall he is? No, we don't. I now know that NJ state law doesn't pay attention to height, AKA *how a child fits in the seatbelt*, which makes absolutely no sense, so it sounds to me like she's doing the right thing, safety-wise, with the booster.


Here in WA...

Quote:
A child who is eight years old or older, or four feet nine inches or taller, must be properly restrained either with the motor vehicle's safety belt or an appropriately fitting child restraint system.
(we now know that WA is thinking about how kids sit in the seat a bit more than weight-based states)

My son is 8. He's not 4'9". He's in a booster. He does NOT fit in the seat belts of my car; he's too short (although he's tall). When we visit my brother, he fits in the 3rd row of their Durango and in the backseat of SIL's Mercedes, and so in *those* cars, he sits without a booster b/c CA law allows it and he fits. But he's just not safe in the middle row of the Durango, or in our car, with just the seatbelt.

And that's what the carseat stuff is all about, once they are older, is making sure the seatbelt fits properly so it restrains them in an accident without, you know, cutting their throats open, right? (last bit I have *literally* been concerned about for my OWN self since I realized 5'3" was as tall as I was going to get and all seat belts hit my neck (since I don't want to sit in SIL's tiny backseat or allllll the way back in the Durango LOL).)

I'm also 5'3 and my son is probably up to my chin. My Odyssey belt gets me at the neck so I end up adjusting it often. My 7 year old is very petite so she'll be on the short end (hehe) of the stick on rides and seats for awhile. lol


****Anyways OP, sorry to go OT but I was just comparing that measurements are around for a reason. Same with things like the Segue tour that limits weight. Follow the rules, enjoy. Don't follow the rules and get caught, don't even try justifying it.

 

[Spaffy]

****Anyways OP, sorry to go OT but I was just comparing that measurements are around for a reason. Same with things like the Segue tour that limits weight. Follow the rules, enjoy. Don't follow the rules and get caught, don't even try justifying it.

I completely understand the purpose of the height requirements, and didn't realize that my question would spark this much controversy. I'm coming from Canada and travelling with a large group. This will likely be our only trip to Disney, so for those who say just wait until next time, that probably will not happen.

That being said I was not looking to take the little guy on Thunder/Space Mountain, but more specifically the Star Tours as he is a big Star Wars fan. With him being just barley tall enough, and with it being a less intense ride I was hoping that he would be able to get on. If CM's allow him on the ride, whether or not he is measured once, twice, or at all, I feel comfortable with his safety on this ride specifically.

If he is measured and is told he cannot ride, I am perfectly fine with that too. I would never try to argue, yell at, or sweet talk my way into getting him on the ride. I wasn't trying to find out ways to be able to sneak him on or past the CM's without them noticing. I was simply asking a general opinion as to whether they were strict about height requirements.

I am prepared that he will not be able to ride it, and once the kids find out we are going to Disney I will make it clear to him as well that he may not be tall enough. And we will have a back-up plan for that in utilizing the baby swap if necessary.

 

[lan3]

Very Interesting. I have missed that attraction every time.



I should have used the acronym TT! That's what I get for using the iPad!

Nobody here spoke about sneaking kids on or bullying CM's. We just walked on a ride with triplets that are all within an inch or two. One was a bit under the mark. I never bullied anyone. When she was measured at Soaring she didn't make it so we walked away. On Splash, they let her through when I joked that we had a picture of her on it earlier. Neither ride was remotely unsafe for her. My other two triplets were certainly not safer because they are a 1/2inch taller. To say that people who walk on to a ride with a child who is 39" doesn't care about their children is completely over the top. To say that their child will die is disgusting.

 

[mesaboy2]

I completely understand the purpose of the height requirements, and didn't realize that my question would spark this much controversy. I'm coming from Canada and travelling with a large group. This will likely be our only trip to Disney, so for those who say just wait until next time, that probably will not happen.

That being said I was not looking to take the little guy on Thunder/Space Mountain, but more specifically the Star Tours as he is a big Star Wars fan. With him being just barley tall enough, and with it being a less intense ride I was hoping that he would be able to get on. If CM's allow him on the ride, whether or not he is measured once, twice, or at all, I feel comfortable with his safety on this ride specifically.

If he is measured and is told he cannot ride, I am perfectly fine with that too. I would never try to argue, yell at, or sweet talk my way into getting him on the ride. I wasn't trying to find out ways to be able to sneak him on or past the CM's without them noticing. I was simply asking a general opinion as to whether they were strict about height requirements.

I am prepared that he will not be able to ride it, and once the kids find out we are going to Disney I will make it clear to him as well that he may not be tall enough. And we will have a back-up plan for that in utilizing the baby swap if necessary.

No worries, OP. You asked a frequent question innocently and got the answers you needed early on. Everything else is the usual debate by mostly the usual characters--that's why I got out the popcorn back in Post #2. You can practically set your watch by these things.

 

[LadyBeBop]

Nobody here spoke about sneaking kids on or bullying CM's. We just walked on a ride with triplets that are all within an inch or two. One was a bit under the mark. I never bullied anyone. When she was measured at Soaring she didn't make it so we walked away. On Splash, they let her through when I joked that we had a picture of her on it earlier. Neither ride was remotely unsafe for her. My other two triplets were certainly not safer because they are a 1/2inch taller.

Just wondering...to parents of twins or triplets, one barely tall enough, and the other just short. Do you let the taller one ride, or do you just tell them, next time?

I'm just glad I never went with my cousin. She's two weeks older than I, and since the school cut-off was during that two week period, she was an entire grade ahead of me in school. However, I was probably a good six inches taller than her, even in kindergarten. I can see my family not letting me ride, because my older cousin couldn't ride.

 

[maxiesmom]

I completely understand the purpose of the height requirements, and didn't realize that my question would spark this much controversy. I'm coming from Canada and travelling with a large group. This will likely be our only trip to Disney, so for those who say just wait until next time, that probably will not happen.

That being said I was not looking to take the little guy on Thunder/Space Mountain, but more specifically the Star Tours as he is a big Star Wars fan. With him being just barley tall enough, and with it being a less intense ride I was hoping that he would be able to get on. If CM's allow him on the ride, whether or not he is measured once, twice, or at all, I feel comfortable with his safety on this ride specifically.

Star Tours throws you around quite a bit. If you all do make it on the ride, ask to not be in the back row. For some reason that one seems higher off of the ground, and you feel even more tossed around. Good luck!

 

[mjp12831]

I'm fairly certain the margin of error is fairly large; it's likely kids 4 or 5 inches shorter than the requirment can safely ride. It's for liability's sake and Disney and the ride manufacturers have to have a cutoff somewhere.

I, too, remember riding things alone as a kid, such as the Scramber or Tilt-a-Whirl and even some coasters when there were basically no height requirements.

Jim

agreed - huge margin of error is going to be at play here.

also, consider that height is probably the worst metric to use. weight would be more useful, but it would be cumbersome and people would take offense to it.

 

[kohlby]

Prepare him for not being able to go on. DD was only 39" with shoes on when I measured her at home. However, she was magically 40" at Disney with those same shoes on - just regular running sneakers. (And was back at 39" when I measured her after our trip at home, so I'm not sure what was up). But she wasn't always 40" at Disney. At our first ride, TT, I asked her to go get measured so she would know how much taller she would need to be next year - and she made it! She did Test track twice in a row, with getting measured twice fine. But the third time, she made it through the first measure but not the second - and it was the same person who had seen her just a few minutes earlier! (The park had just opened so we were able to skip the preshow). On that trip, we had her do the 40" rides first thing in the morning.

Another tip, "stand up tall" really doesn't mean a lot to a young child. DD was 3.5 and I realized later that stand up tall didn't really help her. What I should have told her was to try to get her head to hit the bar while keeping her feet flat. Kids are worried about bumping their heads and sometimes try to keep their heads down. Or they get tired and don't stand up tall enough.

At 3.5, and sort of 40", she absolutely loved Big Thunder Mountain Railroad and Test Track. Soarin was kind of boring for her though. She didn't make the height for Star Tours since that ended up being an afternoon measurement for us. She went on Tower of Terror as well and didn't care for how high her tiny 32 lb self was off that seat.

 

[OhioDisneyDad]

At the risk of feeding the sharks...what about parents who don't bother to measure their kids to the nearest millimeter prior to their trip and THEN get passed through by the CM even if they're "close"? Who's to blame then if the child was slightly under the height requirement, rides the ride and then suffers an injury? I know I never measured my kids beforehand the first time we went - it never even occurred to me. My assumption was that the Disney folks would check. That conundrum should be good for several more pages of pontification.

And to the PP who commented about a kid going to the morgue - there's many things I'd like to say about you and that comment but you're obviously not worth the effort.

 

[bdklein]

And to the PP who commented about a kid going to the morgue - there's many things I'd like to say about you and that comment but you're obviously not worth the effort.

Obviously? Then why say anything at all? Feel free to say it. You have already commented. Or send me a PM.

 

[Alesia]

At the risk of feeding the sharks...what about parents who don't bother to measure their kids to the nearest millimeter prior to their trip and THEN get passed through by the CM even if they're "close"? Who's to blame then if the child was slightly under the height requirement, rides the ride and then suffers an injury? I know I never measured my kids beforehand the first time we went - it never even occurred to me. My assumption was that the Disney folks would check. That conundrum should be good for several more pages of pontification.

There's no conundrum. Assuming that the parent didn't intentionally avoid having their child measured (like the lady in a wheelchair who tried to sneak an infant on to Mission: SPACE by hiding her under a blanket,) Disney would be at fault. That's why CMs are instructed to measure every child that looks remotely close to the height restriction and why letting a child on who doesn't meet the height requirement is grounds for immediate termination.

 

[OhioDisneyDad]

There's no conundrum. Assuming that the parent didn't intentionally avoid having their child measured (like the lady in a wheelchair who tried to sneak an infant on to Mission: SPACE by hiding her under a blanket,) Disney would be at fault. That's why letting a child on who doesn't meet the height requirement is grounds for immediate termination.

There must be a conundrum because some kids are evidently getting through who don't meet the height requirement. Some folks are saying it's a huge deal, others are saying it's not. What if the shoes made the difference and the CM didn't have the kid take them off and then something happened? My kids were never asked to take their shoes off but others have stated that their kids had to remove their shoes. Would the parents be at fault for having the kids wear shoes? Would WDW be at fault for NOT making the kid take their shoes off. Does WDW calibrate the measuring sticks on a regular basis (if they're wood maybe they get wore down or swell up with moisture). Wood expands and contracts you know. This could turn in to a real cottage industry for some industrious lawyer.

 

[davedmaine]

I guess you're overlooking the fact that the height requirements are for a very important safety reason. Not sure figuring out ways to get around this system are in the best interest of the child.

 

[TDC Nala]

They're usually strict on the height because it is a safety regulation. If the kid is an inch too short you should prepare them for being turned away from the rides. Not to say they'd never squeak through but you shouldn't tell them to count on it.

And you KNOW that if a kid who's under the height requirement is passed, and then something happens to that kid, there are going to be lawyers involved. That's why they're supposed to be strict. Every cast member who shrugs off the fact that the kid is a little too short and lets them board anyway is opening them up to that aspect of liability should something happen.

 

[Brian Noble]

There must be a conundrum because some kids are evidently getting through who don't meet the height requirement.

There's no conundrum. The Cast Member is at fault. That some don't always check carefully is just evidence that it's hard to hire 35,000 people in Central Florida who all do their jobs perfectly when you are paying not a lot more than minimum wage.

 

[Alesia]

There must be a conundrum because some kids are evidently getting through who don't meet the height requirement. Some folks are saying it's a huge deal, others are saying it's not. What if the shoes made the difference and the CM didn't have the kid take them off and then something happened? My kids were never asked to take their shoes off but others have stated that their kids had to remove their shoes. Would the parents be at fault for having the kids wear shoes? Would WDW be at fault for NOT making the kid take their shoes off. Does WDW calibrate the measuring sticks on a regular basis (if they're wood maybe they get wore down or swell up with moisture). Wood expands and contracts you know. This could turn in to a real cottage industry for some industrious lawyer.

There's still not a conundrum. The height requirement's account for shoes. And it doesn't really matter if they're calibrating the measurement sticks or not (which, by the way, I think are plastic,) if the kid gets measured and his
head hits the bar then he gets to ride and Disney would be legally responsible, assuming the kids followed all safety precautions.

The legal issues for the parents are only going to come into play if they did something to skirt the rules, such as stuffing napkins in their shoes, stuffing ice cream bars in their shoes (yes, that actually happened,) hiding them and sneaking past the CM checking height, etc.

 

[OhioDisneyDad]

There's still not a conundrum. The height requirement's account for shoes. And it doesn't really matter if they're calibrating the measurement sticks or not (which, by the way, I think are plastic,) if the kid gets measured and his
head hits the bar then he gets to ride and Disney would be legally responsible, assuming the kids followed all safety precautions.

The legal issues for the parents are only going to come into play if they did something to skirt the rules, such as stuffing napkins in their shoes, stuffing ice cream bars in their shoes (yes, that actually happened,) hiding them and sneaking past the CM checking height, etc.

So why are some CMs having kids take their shoes off if the height requirement accounts for having shoes on? Seems like a slippery slope for WDW. Either they have clear cut guidelines for the CMs or they don't. I've personally seen kids have to take their shoes off but my kids (and plenty of others) never had to do the same. Also, if shoes are included in the height requirement, why are those parents who choose to use shoes with thicker soles considered the scourge of humanity by some on here? Once again a slippery slope.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that kids who don't meet the height requirement should be able to ride. I'm all for the keeping kids safe. The point I'm trying to make is that it would appear that WDW is being very inconsistent and that it will eventually come back to bite them in the behind. When it does bite them in the behind and the crack down comes there will be people complaining about the crack down. It's viscous circle.

 

[mesaboy2]

So why are some CMs having kids take their shoes off if the height requirement accounts for having shoes on? Seems like a slippery slope for WDW. Either they have clear cut guidelines for the CMs or they don't. I've personally seen kids have to take their shoes off but my kids (and plenty of others) never had to do the same. Also, if shoes are included in the height requirement, why are those parents who choose to use shoes with thicker soles considered the scourge of humanity by some on here? Once again a slippery slope.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that kids who don't meet the height requirement should be able to ride. I'm all for the keeping kids safe. The point I'm trying to make is that it would appear that WDW is being very inconsistent and that it will eventually come back to bite them in the behind. When it does bite them in the behind and the crack down comes there will be people complaining about the crack down. It's viscous circle.

The policy is not inconsistent. Enforcement (due to different and imperfect CMs and training) and sneaky parents are.