new blog: Do You Own the Space Above You in a Theme Park?

[mom2rtk]

All I expect is for people to show up at a parade or show in the same form that they intend to watch the show. If you want to put your kid on your shoulders, fine. Just do it when you arrive so the people around you know and can find another spot. It's the last minute change in scenery that causes all sorts of problems.

It's incredibly rude to unilaterally decide that your child's view is more important than that of everyone behind you.

 

[JimmyV]

All I expect is for people to show up at a parade or show in the same form that they intend to watch the show. If you want to put your kid on your shoulders, fine. Just do it when you arrive so the people around you know and can find another spot. It's the last minute change in scenery that causes all sorts of problems.

It's incredibly rude to unilaterally decide that your child's view is more important than that of everyone behind you.

I agree 100% with this. Sort of a "buyer beware" approach.

 

[3Gsandme]

We put the kids up on shoulders at our last trip. We were up against the fence by the partner statue, so hopefully we didn't block anyone and despite being there early, the kids could. not. see. I did everything I could do in the space I had to try and move the kids around so we wouldn't have to do that, but in the end, it was shoulders or not be able to see. I picked the latter. I don't want to be rude or block someone from seeing. I even tried to have dd stand on the fence, but it was too narrow to be safe no matter how I tried to hold her and it didn't help little dd at all. She's too small. Ultimately, what would be best is that if they make EVERYONE sit like at the Disney Junior show. But, people would get mad about that, too.

 

[3Gsandme]

Okay then. Inconsiderate, or inconsiderate boors.


Having a selfie stick or an inexplicable need is no good reason per the persons whose view is impaired, but the photographer Wil find an excuse why it's an advantage for her/him.


Holding that child on one's hip gives the child the same vantage point as the parent, without creating a seven or eight foot tall blockade.

Obligation? No. Consideration? You betcha.

I'm 5'2". I can't see either. :confused So, holding them at my height doesn't help them. There are a lot of polite Dis'ers who say they let children and short women around them, but that's not really the case in society. I know this because I've spent 38 years shorter than nearly everybody. My eight year old is nearly as tall as me. In fact, most of her class is as tall as me. They like measuring themselves against me to see who's bigger; Me or them.

 

[mom2rtk]

Ultimately, what would be best is that if they make EVERYONE sit like at the Disney Junior show. But, people would get mad about that, too.

That's hard for some older people with knee problems.

That said though, at DLR they walked the street at parade time and told people who were sitting on the curb that they would be required to stay sitting on the curb. I think that's a nice start. I had been sitting but knew I wanted to stand for a better angle photographing it when it started, so I had already told the people behind me I would swap spots with them when it started.

 

[Jennasis]

Totally dont care what anyone else thinks....I find it rude to hoist a kid onto your shoulders when there are people behind you is rude.

Holding up an ipad/selfie stick etc is also rude. IMO of course.

 

[okstate_angel]

All I expect is for people to show up at a parade or show in the same form that they intend to watch the show. If you want to put your kid on your shoulders, fine. Just do it when you arrive so the people around you know and can find another spot. It's the last minute change in scenery that causes all sorts of problems.

It's incredibly rude to unilaterally decide that your child's view is more important than that of everyone behind you.

I totally agree with this. This happened to us at Disneyland this last summer. Just as the fireworks were starting someone hoisted their 5 year old up in the air and blocked us all... I was tired and cranky and frustrated that my 7 year old could then not see after waiting so I yelled "seriously" and the mother said "he's not even 4 feet he can't see" so I hollered back, "Awesome so now none of the kids behind you can either".. people are so self centered these days. If they had made any attempt to put him up before the show more people could have moved to where they could see

 

[Elevationist]

Folks who need to use wheelchairs and or ECVs have it just as bad as the kids and short ladies, as one of the PPs stories shows. I learned the hard way, when on two occasions on the same trip, a person standing directly in front of my ECV hoisted a kid or an iPad up in the air at the last minute, totally blocking my view. It was a bummer, especially since in crowds that thick, it's simply not possible for somebody in a wheelchair or ECV to just go watch from somewhere else. We're stuck in the spot until the crowd thins out.

Now I always do my best to stake out a location near a rail or rope super-duper early, preferably in a designated wheelchair section, because in the past I have had people literally climb over me and my ECV to wedge in front of me. I've also had them crowd in so close to me on either side that anytime they moved or turned, I was getting smacked in the head/face with their backpacks, and them not so much as noticing, much less bothering to apologize.

 

[techtony]

Vacations, (especially those that cost thousands of dollars) are somewhat uniquely Machiavellian pursuits. People are going to do whatever they can to maximize the utility of their vacation and they have no obligation to help others improve theirs. While this does not and should not entail cutting others off, or shoving your way past someone who beat you to a particular spot, it does mean that you have no obligation to improve the sight lines of others who did not beat you to a spot. Is it a kind gesture when people are considerate of others? Sure. But to suggest that people are "jerks" or "rude" for not doing so is a bit much.

I do not care how much the vacation costs. I also do not care about self absorbed jerks that think that it is perfectly fine to block peoples view because of their enjoyment at the expense of others. You can defend these people all you want, because I truly suspect you are one of these people - just be aware that your actions should ALWAYS be considerate of others. To use your conjecture about obligation, or the lack thereof - let me give you a real world example so that you may see through the fog here -

If we are both in a parking lot on the same aisle, and a spot comes available, you reach it first, you put on your turn signal and patiently wait a few minutes for the old lady to put her groceries away and back out of the space. Just as she pulls out - I come upon the scene. I see your turn signal on, I can clearly see you have been waiting there, but I decide to just rush into the space and leave you sitting there wondering what just happened. You would be ticked off - do not pretend that you wouldn't be. Was I OBLIGATED to allow you to have that space? nope. Was I INCONSIDERATE of you? Yep. You and I can sit here and argue ethics all day long, but in the end - it is RUDE. If you do not think it is rude, it is because you are lacking in that department.

Hyperbole much?

Nope - just pointing out what I hear all the time. People are afraid that rude jerks are armed or will beat you up. That was not hyperbole at all.

Confront them for doing what, exactly? Being ahead of you and getting to the curb first? Or better yet, not getting to the curb first, but being in a position whereby placing a child on their shoulders will allow the child to see? As long as that person is ahead of you, you endure the consequences. No confrontation necessary or warranted.

Consequences for what exactly? For a consequence to happen - you are implying that somehow people not at the curb has done something wrong. That is not correct at all. It is ridiculous that people think it is OK to act this way. This is actually a recent phenomenon, perpetuated by people allowing it to continue to happen.

It is not up to the rest of the world to assist you.

No one said that either - we are trying to say it is RUDE (and yes they are categorized as a jerk) for them to stick their frigging ipad in your line of sight, hoist children 8 feet in the air, push their way ahead of you in line, or demand that we all behind them just deal with their RUDE behavior. It is not asking for people to assist you - it is a public place, and contrary to your own beliefs, when in public you have a duty to be considerate, polite and not impose your RUDE behavior on them, otherwise, just maybe.... you should suffer the consequences for your bad behavior, and if that means that people like me start to point out your bad behavior or publically humiliate you - then so be it. It is up to you to keep being the jerk, we are not obligated to take it either.

 

[techtony]

Folks who need to use wheelchairs and or ECVs have it just as bad as the kids and short ladies, as one of the PPs stories shows. I learned the hard way, when on two occasions on the same trip, a person standing directly in front of my ECV hoisted a kid or an iPad up in the air at the last minute, totally blocking my view. It was a bummer, especially since in crowds that thick, it's simply not possible for somebody in a wheelchair or ECV to just go watch from somewhere else. We're stuck in the spot until the crowd thins out.

Now I always do my best to stake out a location near a rail or rope super-duper early, preferably in a designated wheelchair section, because in the past I have had people literally climb over me and my ECV to wedge in front of me. I've also had them crowd in so close to me on either side that anytime they moved or turned, I was getting smacked in the head/face with their backpacks, and them not so much as noticing, much less bothering to apologize.

Now that is downright wrong! I wished that Disney had disabled viewing areas for this very reason.

 

[Elevationist]

Now that is downright wrong! I wished that Disney had disabled viewing areas for this very reason.

Thankfully, they do in most cases! I've utilized them successfully for parades, Illuminations, and Fantasmic.

Celebrate the Magic/Wishes tends to still be the big problem, though. Even if I am in the Wheelchair section for the first showing of MSEP, as soon as it's over the CMs pull up the rope and approximately a bagillion people surge forward and fill in all the newly created space directly in front of me, leaving me stuck there in the middle of it all. It's pretty crazy.

On my next trip, I'm going to burn a FP+ on the Wishes viewing area, in hopes that solves the problem!

 

[hburke01]

Vacations, (especially those that cost thousands of dollars) are somewhat uniquely Machiavellian pursuits. People are going to do whatever they can to maximize the utility of their vacation and they have no obligation to help others improve theirs. While this does not and should not entail cutting others off, or shoving your way past someone who beat you to a particular spot, it does mean that you have no obligation to improve the sight lines of others who did not beat you to a spot. Is it a kind gesture when people are considerate of others? Sure. But to suggest that people are "jerks" or "rude" for not doing so is a bit much. Hyperbole much? Confront them for doing what, exactly? Being ahead of you and getting to the curb first? Or better yet, not getting to the curb first, but being in a position whereby placing a child on their shoulders will allow the child to see? As long as that person is ahead of you, you endure the consequences. No confrontation necessary or warranted. Are they a jerk, or are they simply in front of you? How does spatial ordering cause one to be a "jerk? Would it be nice if that person considered your plight and took actions to assist you? Sure. But not doing so does not make them a "jerk". The jerk is the person who deliberately impairs your view while gaining no advantage himself. Or impairs others views for no good reason. A person who is directly on the curb does not need to place his child on his shoulders if his child is already in the front row. That person may be a jerk. But the father who is four-deep at the curb who places his child on his shoulders is not a jerk, even if that results in blocking the view of the person who is six-deep at the curb. That father is doing what he needs to to improve his lot, is not negatively impacting anyone who beat him to that spot, and he has no obligation to account for people who are behind him. Tinkerbellie16 has the right idea. If you cannot be first, or cannot obtain a premium viewing spot, then you need to find a workaround. It is not up to the rest of the world to assist you.

you are clearly not canadian!! we apologize for everything like it's our fault no matter what

 

[kaytieeldr]

Not really. Lacking consideration is the not the same thing as being inconsiderate. Failing to do someone else a favor, such as improving that person's sight line, is not "inconsiderate". It simply isn't "considerate". And it is not the basis for the intervention of Security, or public flogging or humiliation.

What do you think inconsiderate means, then?

And it is infinitely more difficult and painful than placing the child on the parent's shoulder. I think you got it right when you said "Obligation? No." If one is not "obligated" to do "x", and one fails to do "x", one should not be humiliated, accosted, or have Security sicked on them. We are at Cape May. You are behind me in line. There are only 2 crab claw clusters in the steam tray. I am not obligated to leave one for you. Perhaps I am considerate if I do, but I am not inconsiderate if I do not. And I would hope that I would not be "called out", or accosted, or have Security sicked on me for taking both clusters.

Have all the crab claw clusters you want. If you took the last two and I wanted some, I can ask someone working at Cape May restaurant. Not the same.

 

[JimmyV]

What do you think inconsiderate means, then?

Odd Question. Here is the definition:
thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to others.

There is a tremendous difference between failing to do one a favor, and thoughtlessly causing hurt or inconvenience to another. If you cannot see this, then this discussion becomes pointless. If someone is 6 feet 7 and gets to the parade route before you and you arrive later and cannot see past him, you can ask him if he would switch places with you. If he agrees to let you get in front of him, then he is "considerate". If he refuses your request, he is not "inconsiderate". He hasn't thoughtlessly hurt you. You aren't hurt. You aren't damaged. You are in the place that you earned based on the time of your arrival. You are looking at this as a binary equation. "If not considerate, then inconsiderate". And it simply does not work that way. Being inconsiderate requires an affirmative act to hurt or inconvenience someone else. That would apply if the 6 foot 7 man arrived after you, but muscled his way in front of you. THAT is inconsiderate. Get it now? So if a parent already has a child on his shoulder when you arrive, you can ask that person to lower the child. But they have no obligation to do so. They would be considerate for doing so, but not inconsiderate for failing to do so.

Have all the crab claw clusters you want. If you took the last two and I wanted some, I can ask someone working at Cape May restaurant. Not the same.

It's exactly the same thing. In my hypothetical, imagine that the crab clusters were the very last two and the workers at Cape May could not help you out. If I leave a cluster for you, you get one, and I am considerate. If I take both, you get none. But that doesn't make me inconsiderate. Now, suppose I take one cluster and place it on my plate, and take the other cluster and deliberately drop it on the ground, knowing that this will leave you with none. THAT is the definition of inconsiderate.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Remind me not to eat in the same restaurants as you.

The 6'7" guest already standing waiting for the parade isn't inconsiderate. The parent with the child already in his/her shoulders when someone else is looking for a viewing spot isn't inconsiderate. They are considering positively the people around them. The tall guest who jumps in front of you or the parent who swings a child up on their shoulders the guest who blocks your view with his iPad/selfie stick - inconsiderate at the very least.

Merriam-Webster "1 a : heedless, thoughtless b : careless of the rights or feelings of others 2 : not adequately considered : ill-advised "
The Free Dictionary "1. Thoughtless of others; displaying a lack of consideration"

 

[MichelleVW]

Okay then. Inconsiderate, or inconsiderate boors.


Having a selfie stick or an inexplicable need is no good reason per the persons whose view is impaired, but the photographer Wil find an excuse why it's an advantage for her/him.


Holding that child on one's hip gives the child the same vantage point as the parent, without creating a seven or eight foot tall blockade.

Obligation? No. Consideration? You betcha.

Agree totally.

Totally dont care what anyone else thinks....I find it rude to hoist a kid onto your shoulders when there are people behind you is rude.

Holding up an ipad/selfie stick etc is also rude. IMO of course.

Agree!!

 

[JimmyV]

The 6'7" guest already standing waiting for the parade isn't inconsiderate. The parent with the child already in his/her shoulders when someone else is looking for a viewing spot isn't inconsiderate. They are considering positively the people around them. The tall guest who jumps in front of you or the parent who swings a child up on their shoulders the guest who blocks your view with his iPad/selfie stick - inconsiderate at the very least.

We agree. See? It isn't so hard to understand that one who does not extend a courtesy isn't inconsiderate. Just as someone who fails to commit an act of bravery isn't a coward. It's not binary.

 

[Elevationist]

 

[kaytieeldr]

We agree. See? It isn't so hard to understand that one who does not extend a courtesy isn't inconsiderate. Just as someone who fails to commit an act of bravery isn't a coward. It's not binary.

But this thread isn't about the guest already situated. If I stand behind the 6'7" guest and can't see, I'm an idiot. If I stand behind the 4'6" guest who lifts a child onto her shoulders as the show starts, she's inconsiderate.

 

[JimmyV]

But this thread isn't about the guest already situated.

See posts #21 and #22. Seems like that is the exact situation described.