Kali River Rapids. -- Seat belts too small???

[SirDuff]

Just to point out that this thread is from three years ago - so things might well have changed!

 

[BetsyRNBSN]

Oh gosh how horrible for you! I'm 5'6" and weigh 275. I wear a 24. You think I oughta skip it??

Dede, I think you will be just fine, it was pretty close for me to fit, and I am bigger than you by quite a bit...

Go and have fun!

 

[Candid]

I'm about 280 and 5' 4" and hope like heck I can fit because it's my fave ride

 

[SueM in MN]

I work at Kali. The rafts were refitted with individual seat belts last year for safety reasons. A small person is now more secure when seated next to a large person. Seat belt extenders are not available - never have been, and probably never will be because they have a higher potential for failure than an unextended seat belt.

Occasionally a Pooh sized guest is unable to get the seat belt buckled, and will be asked to exit. We do this as quietly as possible and try to avoid any embarrassment. However this situation is relatively rare, occurring perhaps once a day or less. I have seen many very large guests enjoy the ride without difficulty.

Guano Joe posted this in 2012, so the change was made in 2011.
As far as I know, it hasn't changed since then. So, anyone who rode it since 2011 should still fit.

Gauno advised it was for safety reasons, therefor not a violation.

For the curious, I'd keep an eye on the 'Pooh sized thread' where the most current experiences will be updated.

Safety trumps accessibility.
We rode on this with both the single belt for 2 seats and individual belts for each seat.
My youngest DD is about 5 tall and about 8 pounds. With the shared belt, no matter who we sat her with, she was not secure and could slide around. The same would be true of any child or very small adult seated next to a larger person (even if not Pooh sized).

Just to point out that this thread is from three years ago - so things might well have changed!

I don't think it's likely to change because it is a safety concerm

 

[bookwormde]

Gauno advised it was for safety reasons, therefor not a violation.

For the curious, I'd keep an eye on the 'Pooh sized thread' where the most current experiences will be updated.

Yes at the moment WDW did not have an alternate that provides for safety, but that does not remove the requirement to reasonably develop one such as extenders like are used safely in many situation, so yes there could be a violation or at least a valid complaint.

 

[OurBigTrip]

Yes at the moment WDW did not have an alternate that provides for safety, but that does not remove the requirement to reasonably develop one such as extenders like are used safely in many situation, so yes there could be a violation or at least a valid complaint.

There is no requirement to make every possible accommodation for every ride. It just doesn't exist. There are any number of reasons why extenders might not be possible on Kali River Rapids, meaning that not every guest, disabled or not, will be able to ride.

 

[SueM in MN]

There is no requirement to make every possible accommodation for every ride. It just doesn't exist. There are any number of reasons why extenders might not be possible on Kali River Rapids, meaning that not every guest, disabled or not, will be able to ride.

Very true.
There are attractions that are not accessible yo people with different disabilities for various reasons.

For example, there are multiple attractions where guests need to transfer from wheelchairs onto the ride car.
The ADA has requirements for the amount of transferring space, but not a requirement for every attraction to be accessible without leaving the wheelchair.

 

[aaarcher86]

Yes at the moment WDW did not have an alternate that provides for safety, but that does not remove the requirement to reasonably develop one such as extenders like are used safely in many situation, so yes there could be a violation or at least a valid complaint.

Incorrect. Safety trumps everything.

 

[SueM in MN]

Incorrect. Safety trumps everything.

Agree.
As I mentioned with the wheelchair accessible example, there is no requirement that every attraction be made accessible for every disability.
For example,
- someone who is deaf and uses sign language might not be able to fully benefit from attractions like Splash Mountain, Tower of Terror, Rock N Roller Coaster or Dinosaur because there is spoken content that they can't hear.
It would. It would not be reasonable to put ASL Interpreters on those attractions for safety reasons.

- someone who is blind is not able to fully access any rides because they are missing the visual element, but it would not be safe to let them touch the ride elements of the ones I mentioned talking about sign language.

- there are many attractions with warnings that say someone with a heart condition, a neck or back injury should not ride. There is no requirement in the ADA that says a version needs to be made that is safe for their disability.

- Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse, most of Tom Sawyer Island, Peter Pan and Tomorrowland Transit Authority are listed as "must be ambulatory", so they are not accessible to people who can't walk (or in the case of Peter Pan, can't be lifted in and out in a very short timeframe). There is no requirement under the ADA that those be made accessible.

Besides safety, there is the question of whether or not it is technically feasible. In most of these cases I mentioned, it is not.

 

[bookwormde]

Incorrect. Safety trumps everything.

I do not think you actually read my post since your response is not related to WDW's responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to provide ways for a safe accommodation. Sometimes that is not possible but the burden of proof that is not possible resides with WDW.

 

[SueM in MN]

Safety and manufacturer's guidelines trump any attempt to make an attraction accessible.
Guano Joe commented when the thread was originally posted that seat belt extenders had never been used for safety reasons (he listed "higher failure rate"). They don't have to prove to any burden of proof that using them would not be safe or provide an alternative if the manufacturer or an industry safety group says they are not safe.

I found one of the big manufacturer's of river raft type rides, which makes rafts similar to the ones Disney uses:
http://www.hopkinsrides.com/public/river raft ride/index.cfm

And they had a service bulletin which talks about indicated seat belt extenders should not be used. Also, the seats have an average weight limit of 170 pounds and weight needs to be distributed around the raft.
http://naarso.com/raft.pdf
So, someone who is heavy might argue that it violates their rights to not be able to sit with their companion of choice. That is also for safety.
There seem to be only a few manufacturers of those type of river raft boats and all are very similar, so I can't imagine any would allow seat belt extenders if one says not to use them.
Disney's Kali River Rapids boats vary from the ones I found on the internet only that that hold more people on one raft and seem to have the sets of 2 seats, which are closer together. That might be another reason why they don't allow seat belt extenders - in an accident, the heavier person in the first seat might be more likely to be displaced from their and injure the smaller person seated next to them (logical conjecture on my part).

 

[aaarcher86]

I do not think you actually read my post since your response is not related to WDW's responsibility to make a reasonable attempt to provide ways for a safe accommodation. Sometimes that is not possible but the burden of proof that is not possible resides with WDW.

Neither you or I has any right or ability to know the details of safety with the rides at WDW.

It's not that hard to figure out reasons behind certain things that aren't available. I guarantee someone with dwarfism could post about not meeting the height requirement for a ride and you'd post that it's an ADA violation. It's just bad advice.

 

[SueM in MN]

Since this is an old thread and has been pretty well discussed again, with reasons why it is not available, I'm going to close the thread.