Ever had a kid tall enough not measure up?

[daliseurat]

You're welcome. Your OP did not read like you were advocating breaking any rules.

And, I too am one of those people who will always get caught if I come close to breaking any rule. Or if I tell a lie.

Glad we could clear that up. Have a great trip!

 

[dixiegirl]

I suppose if your 3 year old showed up wearing 6" stiletto heels, they might ask you to remove the shoes. :lol: Normal kid appropriate footwear? Nah.

LOL, as my 6 year old suggested something like this so she would be tall enough to go on RNR:ROFLOL:!! Love that kid!

 

[dixiegirl]

You're welcome. Your OP did not read like you were advocating breaking any rules.

And, I too am one of those people who will always get caught if I come close to breaking any rule. Or if I tell a lie.

Glad we could clear that up. Have a great trip!

And I was waiting for someone to fire back about breaking the rules ..Ah people really need to chill out! I feel for the people who ask a question innocently and get fired back, makes me second guess about asking certain questions around here! But I guess thats what makes this a "message board"!
And I still love it here!

 

[daliseurat]

And I was waiting for someone to fire back about breaking the rules ..Ah people really need to chill out! I feel for the people who ask a question innocently and get fired back, makes me second guess about asking certain questions around here! But I guess thats what makes this a "message board"!
And I still love it here!

The problem is that when all you have to go on is a post, it can be easily misread. I find that I frequently don't post things clearly and wind up having to re-explain myself. But a lot of these discussions lead to some really good observations.

 

[Kamikaze]

So, our son is super excited because he is 43 3/4" tall in his bare feet and still has just over 60 days to grow. But I am a little worried that maybe Disney makes the 44" rulers taller than 44" to account for shoes, and if he isn't in tall shoes, won't make up for the difference. You know what I mean? Has anyone had that problem before? I know there are only two rides that are 44" but he is really excited to ride them both. He is a total roller coaster junkie (his words!)

Hopefully that all made sense... I am on Nyquil for a summer cold right now, so if not, well, sorry!:hammer:

44" is 44". If he is 43.75 + shoes, you're good to go.

 

[brent2124]

Stuff the shoes with napkins:lookaroun

My Grandpa did it to me so I could ride Splash.

 

[NORMNB8S]

I've always wondered if theme parks in general, not just Disney, don't raise the minimum height requirement to allow for people who will attempt to cheat the system. These companies (Disney, Universal, Six Flags, etc...) have to know that some people will try and boost their kids' height with napkins or poofy hair or whatever. So maybe the designated safe height to ride an attraction is truly 42 inches as deemed by the ride engineer who designed the attraction. Then, to cover their tails, Disney says 44 inches just to allow for that little bit of inevitable height padding. I have no idea if that happens. Just a thought.

 

[gwhb75]

We wondered the same thing last year with our DS. Our DD is two years older than him and takes after me in terms of height (I'm 6'4" and she has always been tall for her age). We went two years ago and knew he would be too short (he was around 42-43"). We went again last year and he was exactly 48" when we left (we measured him at home before we left, and then had a little talk with him about how it would be up to the people at Disney if he would be allowed on certain rides). Anyways, we got to the Rock 'N Rollercoaster and he was fine (he just made the height).

 

[fosse76]

Why would the rides take shoe sole thickness into account? Last I checked the kids ride most rides with their shoes on, so the shoes shouldn't factor into the measurement.

Exactly. The height restriction includes footwear. Height restrictions are actually age-based. They are determined based on the average height of the minimum age the attraction is expected to attract. Once that height is determined, they then will adjust the height requirement if and only if they feel the restraint won't accomodate riders of that size. But that is rare. The restraint is meant to hold you in place during the normal operation of the ride...it isn't meant to hold you prisoner. So "cheating" by wearing thicker soles does not put the rider in any danger.

 

[sublimesting]

I think the posts on here saying that kids a shade under the height requirement are put in jeopardy for being allowed onto a ride are quite mistaken. An inch or two is not going to matter for safety purposes. They are guidlines only. A kid who may be 3 inches over the limit but very light may be at greatert risk than a kids 5 inches shorter than them that is heavier. And these numbers are not absolutes. Do you really think that Disney looks at a ride and the engineers say "Well, 44-46 inches should be safe BUT 43 inches would definately cause injury." and Disney says "Well we'll go with the lowest end of that margin and put 44 inch requirment." In other words there is definately a margin of error. In the real world a kid several inches under that limit would be just as safe. By the way I worked as a rides manager at Cedar Point.

 

[CheshireCatStef]

The height is the height of the kid, without shoes. If they are 44 inches tall, they are good to go. Disney measurement sticks at the entrance to each ride, do not add inches to account for shoes. We went through this last year with my 5 year old. He was EXACTLY 44 inches tall, and I worried that they added an inch for shoe soles or whatever, but he was tall enough for all the 44 inch rides.
This September when we go back, I'm really hoping he'll be 48, so he can hit those rides, but he's only 46.5 now, so I'm not holding my breath

 

[wdwmagic]

Somewhat off topic, but does anyone know how Disney handles, um, "little people"? Not kids, but those affected by dwarfism (hope I'm not offending anyone). They may not meet the height requirement, but they are informed consenting adults. Are they still prevented from riding restricted rides?

Yes the height requirement is for any rider. It usually is set because of restraint designs.

 

[daliseurat]

I think the posts on here saying that kids a shade under the height requirement are put in jeopardy for being allowed onto a ride are quite mistaken. An inch or two is not going to matter for safety purposes. They are guidlines only. A kid who may be 3 inches over the limit but very light may be at greatert risk than a kids 5 inches shorter than them that is heavier. And these numbers are not absolutes. Do you really think that Disney looks at a ride and the engineers say "Well, 44-46 inches should be safe BUT 43 inches would definately cause injury." and Disney says "Well we'll go with the lowest end of that margin and put 44 inch requirment." In other words there is definately a margin of error. In the real world a kid several inches under that limit would be just as safe. By the way I worked as a rides manager at Cedar Point.

You probably are correct that a kid a shade under the height requirement is not really in any major jeopardy. But, there's a pretty big difference between a child 1/4 shorter than a height requirement and 3 inches. Especially at those younger ages. And whether you agree with the height requirement or not, encouraging others to utilize methods to to add inches to their child so they may ride is not a good idea. (not that you are recommending that yourself)

I saw my child slip from a restraint on a ride that she was a hair too short (Like 1/4 inch) to be riding. She could have been thrown from the ride and smashed to bits if we hadn't had the ride stopped. Bad move for us for allowing her on the ride, and worse that the operator didn't enforce the restriction. So that was a major wake-up call.

And while I certainly agree with you that the restrictions have a margin of error, and a child's weight may in certain cases be more important, those restrictions are put in place after all that ride testing goes on. Many ride manufacturers themselves put a height restriction on the rides. And at Disney, you can bet the lawyers are going to make certain that the restrictions lean towards the safest possible height.

And we all know that the instant any child is injured on any ride that the lawyers and DOSH will descend and make all sorts of changes.

Trust me, I speak from a scary experience, you don't want to see your child in jeopardy on any ride.

So I'll continue to follow the restrictions.

 

[fosse76]

The height is the height of the kid, without shoes.

No, it's not. See my previous post. The minimum height requirement is based on the average height of the minimum age the ride is expected to attract PLUS restraint limitations.

I saw my child slip from a restraint on a ride that she was a hair too short (Like 1/4 inch) to be riding. She could have been thrown from the ride and smashed to bits if we hadn't had the ride stopped. Bad move for us for allowing her on the ride, and worse that the operator didn't enforce the restriction. So that was a major wake-up call

The restraint isn't there to hold you prisoner. It's there to keep you in the vehicle. Not knowing what type of restraint is unsed in your above example, it could have been a design flaw in the restraint or the restraint wasn't being used properly. But 1/4 inch isn't really significant, as the minimum height requirement is generally well above what would be deemed unsafe. Measuring height isn't going to be precise from ride to ride, so no theme park is going to have a minimum height requirement where a 1/4 inch under can cause injury.

 

[daliseurat]

No, it's not. See my previous post. The minimum height requirement is based on the average height of the minimum age the ride is expected to attract PLUS restraint limitations.



The restraint isn't there to hold you prisoner. It's there to keep you in the vehicle. Not knowing what type of restraint is unsed in your above example, it could have been a design flaw in the restraint or the restraint wasn't being used properly. But 1/4 inch isn't really significant, as the minimum height requirement is generally well above what would be deemed unsafe. Measuring height isn't going to be precise from ride to ride, so no theme park is going to have a minimum height requirement where a 1/4 inch under can cause injury.

I completely understand what the restraint is for. In my daughter's case, she was the improper size for the restraint. Maybe it was and full inch, or half inch. Doesn't really matter. The point I'm making is simply that height restrictions should be followed by parents and ride workers because even a child who is close could potentially be injured if they are not the right size. And while 1/4 inch shouldn't be a problem, people are trying to get their kids on rides when they are two inches shorter. Not a good idea. And people can make whatever excuses they want, rationalize it however, but I've seen it happen. I'm sure it's rare, but I'm not about to break the rule and put my child in jeopardy again. It's not worth it.

 

[sarajo]

This past Christmas, my son finally got to ride Soarin'. He'd been wanting to since he was 2 (what can I say? The kid loves being up in the air!) We had measured him at home (the day before leaving), and he was 40"... right on the dot. We had a cast member friend with us when we got to Soarin', and he took him up to the measuring post... and his head touched the board... both with and without shoes. So, if their sign says 40", 44", or 48"... my guess, it's pretty true!