Height requirements

[disneyfirsttimer18]

My 3 year old is a little guy. He LOVES Cars and was in heaven in Carsland at DCA. I knew of the height restriction on RSR and knew that he was still too short, he was 37". We didn't even measure him at the ride, just got a rider swap. He has no idea what he missed. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that he grows at least 5 inches(just for good measure) before we go back next year.

 

[bumbershoot]

Risk it as in the safety of the child.

The OP is asking a question.

She's asking if her kid, who will likely be 40" in her shoes (which she needs to wear at the parks anyway) can go on a 40" ride. This is not risky behavior. If the kid, wearing normal park clothing, hits the mark, she hits the mark.

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.

Just by saying that they are challenging the rules IS saying that you think the OP doesn't care. The OP isn't challenging *anything*. She's asking a question.

If she makes sure her daughter is well rested and hydrated, and goes first thing in the morning in normal park shoes, it's entirely possible that the child can get on the wished-for ride, and it will be totally righteous and FINE. If, after the forces of that ride and the day and not enough water hit her, and she doesn't get on later, try again tomorrow morning. Easy, no disregard for safety.

Measuring isn't risky. Asking isn't risky. Getting on a ride that she measures up for righteously isn't risky. And none of it is about challenging anything.

 

[Malcon10t]

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.

Jumping Jellyfish, while listed as 40" is actually 41". I have taken a tape measure and checked all of the markers as some were curious how accurate the sticks were. JJF is the only one that was off at all. The rest were right on the mark.

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.

I have seen them have young girls in heels remove their shoes to be measured.

 

[fly girl]

We ran into this issue too a few years back.

Dd was right at the cusp. As long as you have on regular shoes/sandals (nothing with heel or platform) I can't see them asking for a child to take off shoes. But they will push hair down, so keep that in mind.

We had one pair of tennis shoes that gave her a little more oomph opposed to her Stride Rite sandals. We measured before we left, and wore the tennis shoes on the days we needed that extra bump.

Of course, we did talk to Dd that they may say no and that there is lots of other stuff to do. She was turned away once for Soarin' and she handled it quite well. We didn't focus on it and rode something else.

And yes, go in the morning!

Have fun and I hope she gets to ride.

 

[4Siamese]

Measuring isn't risky. Asking isn't risky.

You misinterpret my initial statement, of coarse asking and measuring is not risky, my initial statement was meaning that if they are under the height limit they are under the height limit.

Just by saying that they are challenging the rules IS saying that you think the OP doesn't care. The OP isn't challenging *anything*. She's asking a question.

Again at no time have I said or implied (that is your assumption about me) that the OP doesn't care, she most obviously does hence the reason she asked the question in the 1st place.

The crux of my posts which is seemly being misinterpreted is a general one at its core and if I hijacked or caused the OP post to go in a sideways manner, that was not my intent.

 

[FryingPansWhoKnew]

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.

Oh, I see. You were suggesting that I think a difference of .15625% (one sixteenth of an inch versus 40 inches) is the same as a 14.2% difference of going 45 in a 35 is the same thing. Let's clear that up. I, in fact, don't think they are the same. To put it in perspective, 34 1/3 inches (14.2% of 40 inches) is very far away, while going 7 one-hundredths of a mph faster or slower doesn't alter the risk very much.

Where have I said that the OP doesn't care for the safety of their child

You, of course, didn't say this. I very specifically used the word "implication" which is to say it sounded like you were implying something more than what you said. I allowed for the possibility of my misunderstanding, but it seems I'm not the only one who inferred this from your post. Sounds like this has been cleared up though.

I think there are many reasons for the height restrictions the way they are: Safety (as was mentioned), Insurance/Liability (probably the more compelling), "it's actually more like 39.25 but let's round it up for consistency and allow for a possible error in height measurement". If I'm an engineer of a ride at Disneyland, I would not sleep well if I knew the entire safety of passengers relied on employees accurately checking height every single time. I would allow for leeway just in case something slipped through the cracks.

 

[delaney's mom]

We purposefully waited until my son was 40" to travel to DL. There were so many more rides open to him at that height. And I wouldn't have been able to bear it if he had to be turned away from RSR. He was 39.96"! (no shoes) at his pedi appt a week before we left. They constantly measured him at almost every ride, but since we was always tall enough, it always made him so proud. It also made it easy to convince him to finish his dinner at night - "don't you want to grow tall enough for the cars ride?" worked every time.

 

[DreamIsaWish]

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!

Funny that Jumpin' Jellyfish was the only one you succeeded on. A few years ago the measuring stick at Jellyfish was slightly over 40". I remember a board member took her own measuring tape and the official stick was something like 41" even though it's a 40" ride. They must have put in a new measuring stick since then.

 

[Malcon10t]

Here is part of it, the ride manufacturer and the state DOSH set the height. If there is an accident, and there is no negligence on the part of DIsney, the ride manufacturer bears most of the liability. Whereas, if Disney allows riders who do not meet the requirement and there is an accident, Disney bears the liability. Also, the state spot checks if Disney is training properly for rider height. If the rider is too short, and the CM allows them on anyway, they can be fired, and the state can shut the ride down for employee retraining. Head has to hit the bar, end of story.

My daughter chaperoned a class trip (5th/6th graders) to Great America. She had 6 kids, and 2 who didn't want to ride a ride. She sent the other 4 up the ride entrance. Imagine her horror when the 4 came off the ride, and one girl told her "I was too short, but the girl said I could ride anyway this time." After that, SHE measured the kids before they went up an entrance.

And *I* measured the Jellyfish stick.

 

[Abbey1]

Funny that Jumpin' Jellyfish was the only one you succeeded on. A few years ago the measuring stick at Jellyfish was slightly over 40". I remember a board member took her own measuring tape and the official stick was something like 41" even though it's a 40" ride. They must have put in a new measuring stick since then.

We went in February of this year, I wonder if they changed the bar? We did ride Jumpin' Jellyfish in the morning, so it's possible that my son was measuring a little taller at that time, but definitely not an entire inch! I remember when we rode it, I kept thinking that I didn't understand why this was a 40" ride? It seems perfect for little ones! There are so many variables, especially when we are talking about the difference of 1/4-1/2 inch- how straight the child is standing, their shoes, the CMs measuring...

 

[momtohms]

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?

To answer this part, I think it would definitely depend on the kid. My middle daughter is 4 1/2 and she is right at 40" (slightly over in shoes) and went on Space Mountain and Radiator Springs Racers, cried during and/or after both and was done with fast rides for the rest of our trip. But I have friends with 3 year olds who are 40" or taller who LOVE the fast rides My oldest is just over the 42" mark and hated Space Mountain and Tower of Terror (both 40" height limits) but loved Matterhorn & Grizzly River Run (both 42"+)

 

[Malcon10t]

My granddaughter was 40" at 2.5 yo. Initially, I said I was only taking her on Racers and Soarin' until she was older, but my son took her on Space and Star Tours, and she loved them! She was riding Matterhorn at 3.5years, and is now 4 and the only one we skip that she can ride is Tower. In fact, Saturday night we were in the park with friends and the teen girls took her on Goofy's Sky Skool 10 times in a row. She was loving it.

It really depends on the child. She is a daredevil. Next trip we will add Tower (if she doesn't like it, she only has to ride it the once.)

 

[DreamIsaWish]

Here is part of it, the ride manufacturer and the state DOSH set the height. If there is an accident, and there is no negligence on the part of DIsney, the ride manufacturer bears most of the liability. Whereas, if Disney allows riders who do not meet the requirement and there is an accident, Disney bears the liability. Also, the state spot checks if Disney is training properly for rider height. If the rider is too short, and the CM allows them on anyway, they can be fired, and the state can shut the ride down for employee retraining. Head has to hit the bar, end of story.

My daughter chaperoned a class trip (5th/6th graders) to Great America. She had 6 kids, and 2 who didn't want to ride a ride. She sent the other 4 up the ride entrance. Imagine her horror when the 4 came off the ride, and one girl told her "I was too short, but the girl said I could ride anyway this time." After that, SHE measured the kids before they went up an entrance.

And *I* measured the Jellyfish stick.

Years later I still remember the tape measure comparison. Thanks for doing that!

I still wonder why Jellyfish is the only one that's off. Is it a mistake in the measuring stick or is it really a 41 inch ride from the manufacturer but Disney didn't want to have another category? Of course none of us know and I'm not going to try to bend the rules (besides, my kids are now tall enough), but I'm curious nonetheless.