Does Spiderman have a drop?

[phamton]

They are strict about the height. Try and ride first thing in the morning when you are a little taller. Teach him how to stand up tall when he gets measured and no slumping or leaning.

 

[GrimReapuh]

*wrong quote, sorry*

 

[GrimReapuh]

Originally posted by drewc
Everything I've read about this ride makes it seem like much of the action is simulated, with some rocking, jarring being the only real motion.

How strict are they about the 40" height? Are they height nazi's like Disney? My son is about 39" and talks non-stop about this ride (we go in a few weeks). I'm afraid he won't make it, and it sounds like the height requirement is pretty arbitrary.

Anyone with experience on this issue?

Two words: Tippy Toes

 

[phamton]

Originally posted by GrimReapuh
Two words: Tippy Toes

Two words: Won't work

The ride operators are trained to make sure the child has his feet flat on the ground.

 

[GrimReapuh]

Oh, well, maybe they can show a little sympathy.

Since when has an inch made a difference?

 

[phamton]

Originally posted by GrimReapuh
Oh, well, maybe they can show a little sympathy.

Since when has an inch made a difference?

My sons work at Universal. Showing a little symapthy would get them fired or at the very least transferred to an area of the park where they wouldn't be allowed to operate a ride. Their jobs are on the line everyday. If they break the safety rules they are outta there.


If a child were allowed to ride that was injured and later determined to be under the height requirement, the ride operator would be definitely fired and the parents of the injured child would probably win in any lawsuit against Universal Studios.

When a new ride is built, they are given height stats from the manufacturer of the ride. The manufacturer guidelines would state that "this ride is only recommended for those 40 inches or taller." If the theme park follows the manufacturer's recommendation, it protects the theme park somewhat in the case of an accident. If someone fell out or was hurt that was 39 inches, the theme park would be held responsible for not following the guidelines recommended by the company that built the ride. So although a child may be perfectly safe being an inch too short, the theme park must follow the guidelines set for the ride to protect themselves from negligence.

 

[GrimReapuh]

Oh, okay

 

[drewc]

Thanks for the info. About what I expected. It's too bad these things are so arbitrary and so driven by our overly litigious society. I can understand height restrictions on things like roller coasters, but on simulation rides? C'mon.

I certainly wouldn't blame any of the staff for enforcing the policy - they're just doing their jobs.

He'll just have to wait a few years until we can make it back again.

 

[mum4jenn]

Maybe you can feed your child lots of spinach or whatever in the next couple of weeks to hopefully give a growth spurt!!!

The ride is a bit rough even though it is simulated. You will be glad to have him wait the extra time. Our dd had to wait and wait to be able to ride it and once she was tall enough finally she does not really care to ride it because it is a bit rough. We usually have to bribe her with another ride to get her to ride Spiderman so the three of us can ride it together. Hang in there....they grow up so fast!!

 

[spewey]

Yes, height restrictions are - by necessity - completely arbitrary. It could not work otherwise. Lemme go reductio ad absurdum - if the limit is, say, 48", someone will make the argument that their 47" son or daughter can safely ride, and that's possibly true. It's only an inch, right? But ... if someone 47" tall can safely ride, what about someone 46" tall? Only an inch, right? And then ... well, you get the idea.

What also galls me - and let me be clear, I am not referring to anyone on this thread - is the people - mostly parents, who supposedly care about their children's health - that think they know more about the proper safety procedures of a multi-million dollar (over $200 million dollars, in Spiderman's case) ride than the very highly-trained engineers that built the darn thing. Go on son, wear extra socks, and platform shoes, and stand on your toes, and don't worry, if you're thrown from the ride, well, we'll just sue! That's what I call "Winning the White Trash Lottery" (like those bozos in Detroit who are shocked that when they throw beer into the face of a huge man they might get punched. Oh, the pain and suffering!! Where's my cell phone - gotta call one of those lawyers I see on the tee vee late at night).

And for those of you who think I'm being harsh here, I invite you to spend just one day in the shoes of the entrance attendant whose job it is to turn those not tall enough away. You want abuse? Insults? THREATS? I know, I've been there. I can guarantee you not a day goes by at US/IOA or Disney without at least one ride op being reduced to tears by screaming, red-faced "parents" accusing them of ruining their whole family's vacation by not allowing little Dakota or Madison on the ride ...

 

[stinkerbelle]

Originally posted by spewey

What also galls me - and let me be clear, I am not referring to anyone on this thread - is the people - mostly parents, who supposedly care about their children's health - that think they know more about the proper safety procedures of a multi-million dollar (over $200 million dollars, in Spiderman's case) ride than the very highly-trained engineers that built the darn thing. Go on son, wear extra socks, and platform shoes, and stand on your toes, and don't worry, if you're thrown from the ride, well, we'll just sue!

I totally agree with this...the restrictions are there for the safety of your CHILD...your flesh and blood, they aren't there just to induce temper tantrums.

 

[drewc]

I agree with what you are saying, especially in regard to the attendants. I also agree with your point on safety specs.

I just think that due to the fact that people are so quick to sue over anything, that they pad the cushion quite a bit to be on the safe side. So a ride which has an actual size limit of something like 36 inches, gets bumped up to 40 to minimize the liability. It's all risk management, but to the responsible vacationer with a 39" tall son, it's frustrating.

Also, some height requirements seem to be more about appropriate maturity and responsibility rather than physical height. In an open cockpit without restraints (like say, Splash Mtn.) I wonder what difference it makes if someone is 38" vs. 40". I would think that the weight might be more important, or perhaps the inclination to attempt to climb out, or stick arms or legs out the sides.

All a moot point of course. We'll steer our son around this and other 40" rides and enjoy everything else the park has to offer.

 

[spewey]

You are absolutely right on many points - risk management, erring on the side of caution, and accidents having more to do with the behavior of the riders rather than simply height. But is erring on the side of caution - with the safety of children - such a bad thing? Sure, this is all related to lawsuits (well, more related to insurance premiums, but that's another story), but you can't tell me that if your child was injured while riding you wouldn't sue. If so, you are the only person left in North America who wouldn't.

And, as far as making the safety systems excessive, there has actually been a trend amongst at least one manufacturer in the past few years to use minimal restraints, in order to enhance the ride experience. Unfortunately it would appear that in some cases this was a miscalculation that led to several people being thrown from rides, with serious injuries, including three deaths, as a result. This, as you can imagine, has sent tremours through the amusement park industry, with several marquee rides being shut down for long periods of time, and most re-opening with much more "intrusive" restraints. I'm guessing US/IOA is still thanking their lucky stars they dodged that bullet ...