Height requirements

[poseys]

My daughter is about 39 inches barefoot at 3 years old. If she was wearing sneakers, she'd be just about 40". Are the crew likely to let her on any of the 40" rides (there are so many that sound so fun!)?
Do kids this age even like any of the 40" rides or are they too intense?

 

[Allison]

Just about isn't going to cut it. They are strict on the requirements. I saw a child make it through the first measurement area at Indiana Jones and get turned away at the second.

 

[mom2rtk]

My guess is that it will be hit or miss. I would definitely prepare her to be turned away sometimes and let on other times. Also let her know she needs to pass height at the entrance to the line and at the loading platform. It's your job to be sure she's ready for being turned down.

My kids rode the 40" rides quite willingly at a very young age. They didn't seem to hit a cautious phase until they were a few years older. But each child is different.

Fingers crossed it all works out!

 

[nikerbokers]

My almost 3 year old is just shy of 35 inches (she's a tiny peanut) and already wants to ride the Matterhorn and is very annoyed she has to wait probably 2+ years to be tall enough. So depends on the kiddo. But I'm guessing they will check at almost every ride. So be sure those shoes make her 40" or prepare her to be turned away.

 

[Jkpark]

I would also suggest trying first thing in your day. We have had trips where my daughter was tall enough earlier in the day (barely - but hit her head on the thing) and then wasn't tall enough in the evening. I've read since then that our spines make us shrink throughout the day and we are tallest in the am. So - I learned the hard way - if they are close and measure tall enough - but aren't ready to ride it just then, they might not tall enough when their courage gets there later in the day. This happened at both 42" and then again at 48" - you would think I would have remembered...

 

[Abbey1]

We were in the exact same predicament for our trip in February. From our experience, they seem pretty strict with the height limit. It didn't stop us from trying though.

In the end, the only 40" ride we got away with my son riding was Jumpin' Jellyfish at California Adventure (which doesn't even seem like a 40" ride honestly). Good luck!

 

[4Siamese]

The height restrictions are there for a reason...Safety. I don't get why people would even risk it.

 

[FryingPansWhoKnew]

I've read since then that our spines make us shrink throughout the day and we are tallest in the am.

We have noticed this when our son was on the border. In the morning he would be able to ride the ride, but the afternoon he wasn't.

The height restrictions are there for a reason...Safety. I don't get why people would even risk it.

Maybe I'm not following, but who is risking what exactly? Is it this?

From our experience, they seem pretty strict with the height limit. It didn't stop us from trying though.

Taking a child up to measure his/her height at different parts of the day doesn't seem risky to me.

Also, I struggle with the concept that one-sixteenth of an inch transforms the situation from mortal peril to absolute safety. To be clear, I don't condone "cheating", but I see the height restriction as more of a "we had to draw the line somewhere (literally)" rather than a line of demarcation dividing safety and danger. Because of this, I typically don't cast judgment on people for innocent inquiries about height restrictions.

 

[figment_jii]

I agree with the PPs that they will check the child twice for each attraction. The CM at the attraction entrance will check against the height post and if the child is not tall enough they will not allowed to get into line. The second check point is close to the loading location and that CM makes the ultimate decision about whether the child is tall enough to ride. If the top of the child's head touches the bottom of the height post (standing flat-footed), then they'll be okay. I personally have not seen CMs request children take off their shoes (although there have been reports that it has happened to kids wearing super thick soled shoes), but I have seen them request removal of hats and other head wear.

 

[beachdreamr1229]

I agree on not counting on anything. About a year ago my son had just been measured by the doctor as being 40 inches, but at Disneyland, he didn't quite hit the bar and they wouldn't let him ride. It doesn't hurt to try, but make sure your daughter knows she probably won't be able to ride and that if she does get on one, she might not get on all of them. If she is closer to 39 inches than 40, I would especially not count on it.

 

[superme80]

I am worried about this. DS #2. He is 37" at the moment and we are hoping to go in December. I am hoping he has grown 4" by then.

 

[Abbey1]

The height restrictions are there for a reason...Safety. I don't get why people would even risk it.

I didn't really feel like I was "risking it" by letting the CMs measure my 39 3/4" tall son to see if he could ride RSR. I certainly don't think he would be any safer had we went a month later when he had grown 1/4 of an inch. I would never try any "tricks" (e.g. platform sandals or Pharell's hat), but he definitely measured differently at different times of the day.

 

[disney world dreamer]

measurements are taken with shoes on.
if she IS 40" or taller with shoes on then yes they will let her on the rides that require you to be 40" or taller.
if she is not 40" or taller with shoes on they will not let her on rides that require you to be 40" or taller.

whether children that age enjoy the rides that require you to be 40" or taller is completely dependent of the individual child.

i can only speak from my experience.
my niece was 40" tall at 2yrs4mos while we were at WDW.
she went on soarin,test track, and splash mountain.
she screamed and cried at the end of test track because she wanted to ride again and did not understand that she had to get out of the car and wait in line again.
she went on tower of terror at 3yrs4mos and did fine but then did not want to ride again.

 

[LisaT91403]

In the end, the only 40" ride we got away with my son riding was Jumpin' Jellyfish at California Adventure (which doesn't even seem like a 40" ride honestly). Good luck!

That's so strange because Jumpin' Jellyfish was the only 40" ride my son COULDN'T ride when he hit the 40" mark. He was fine morning, noon and night on all of the other 40" rides...but he was a solid 1/2" away from hitting the bar for this ride.

 

[poseys]

I guess I should go for the hidden platform shoes, then
I'll probably just skip it, I don't want her to get letdown if she's too short. We might measure her once to be sure.

 

[4Siamese]

Maybe I'm not following, but who is risking what exactly? Is it this?

Risk it as in the safety of the child.

Also, I struggle with the concept that one-sixteenth of an inch transforms the situation from mortal peril to absolute safety

Then you must not struggle with going 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit. Safety rules are there for a purpose.

I certainly don't think he would be any safer had we went a month later when he had grown 1/4 of an inch

While that might be the case if there is even a 1 in a 1000 chance of a child getting hurt then the rule needs to be there.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

That's so strange because Jumpin' Jellyfish was the only 40" ride my son COULDN'T ride when he hit the 40" mark. He was fine morning, noon and night on all of the other 40" rides...but he was a solid 1/2" away from hitting the bar for this ride.

We had the same experience where Jumpin' Jellyfish was the only one we had problems with.

 

[FryingPansWhoKnew]

Risk it as in the safety of the child.

I find it puzzling that you would consider performing a height check a safety risk to a child. You're entitled to your opinion though, I was just trying to confirm I understood it.

Then you must not struggle with going 5 or 10 miles over the speed limit. Safety rules are there for a purpose.

While this is an entirely different discussion, I think you presume a great deal more than what the poster you responded to actually said.

While that might be the case if there is even a 1 in a 1000 chance of a child getting hurt then the rule needs to be there.

I suppose, but I'm not really sure how those odds would be calculated. Everything about this rule seems imprecise. I'm fine with your firm belief that 40 inches magically forms a cocoon of safety around every child, what didn't land well with me though was your implication that the poster you referenced doesn't care about the safety of their child. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but the ambiguity of it all made me question it. Hoping this is all a misunderstanding.

 

[KeKy4]

My son at 39.5 inches had no trouble getting on any of the 40 inch rides with tennis shoes on. We practiced standing up really straight at home and told him he wants to hit the bar with his head, not duck under it!

 

[4Siamese]

I think you presume a great deal more than what the poster you responded to actually said.

The quote I was referencing was yours. And I was making an analogy to another rule that can have comparisons drawn to it. You believe that the 40 " rule is imprecise and somehow arbitraryally arrived at. I would disagree with that presumption.

what didn't land well with me though was your implication that the poster you referenced doesn't care about the safety of their child

Where have I said that the OP doesn't care for the safety of their child, I said that the rules are there for safety purposes and i don't understand why people feel it is worth challenging them.

Ultimately no matter what the safety rule might be, it is there for a reason. You believe that it is an ambiguous value and i believe that there is data and thought that was put into the value be it from Disney or the manufacturer of the rides.

We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.