Alton Towers bans high heeled shoes for children

Posted Friday, May 22, 2009 10:42 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Alton Towers has banned children from wearing high-heel shoes to stop them trying to cheat the height requirements set for the extreme rides.

Read more from The Telegraph.

Related parks

Friday, May 22, 2009 10:55 AM

They make Manolo Blahnik strappies for kids?

+0
Friday, May 22, 2009 11:37 AM

Amazing how parents risk the safety of their children to get on these rides. They're so paranoid about bull**** like stranger danger, yet willingly feed them high fat sodium rich food and put them at risk at amusement park rides. Crazy...

+0
Friday, May 22, 2009 12:29 PM

Park staff have caught creative children trying to sneak on by standing on tiptoes, wearing high heels, layering on socks and even attempting to fill their shoes with different items.

If a kid is three layers of socks too short to meet the height requirement, then good god just let the kid on the ride. Will a half of an inch really make a difference?

High heels can make you a couple inches taller so I understand the ban...but socks? really? They must be running a tight shift over there if kids are doing that.

+0
Friday, May 22, 2009 1:04 PM

Well, they have to draw the line somewhere. They can't say, "3 pairs of socks is okay, but 5 isn't" because then we'd have this exact same discussion.

+0
Friday, May 22, 2009 1:11 PM

They woyuldn't have this issue if they followed CP;

"Children will be measured in a STANDARD play shoe,"

+0
Friday, May 22, 2009 5:37 PM

Wow, why do they let people like this be parents? The stupidity of some parents these days knows no bounds. My kid is a year away from being able to RIDE A ROLLER COASTER! It's not the end of the world. I bet these are the same kind of parents that when the kid is 16 they don't let them buy the "parental advisory" cds or play video games, but hey lets put them into a potential life threatening situation on purpose, and if something happens blame the park.

+0
Friday, May 22, 2009 8:21 PM

I'll apologize in advance, but all day this has been nibbling at my brain. So now, without so much as an opening act (or even the first verses), Traffic.

If I gave you everything that I owned
and asked for nothing in return
Would you do the same for me
as I would for you?
Or take me for a ride,
and strip me of everything
including my pride
But spirit is something
that no one destroys
And the sound that Im hearing
is only the sound
The low spark of high-heeled boys

We now return to your regularly-scheduled forum surfing... :)

Last edited by rollergator, Friday, May 22, 2009 8:23 PM
+0
Saturday, May 23, 2009 5:32 PM

^ There ya go. If anybody argues about the policy, just tell them Steve Winwood says so.

+0
Monday, May 25, 2009 7:57 PM

i am guilty of this crime. scene: disneyland. ride: indiana jones. victim: niece. how: napkins folded up inside of tennis shoes. result: no baby swapping.

+0
Monday, May 25, 2009 10:10 PM

They drag him, her parents shouldn't ever trust you with her well being again. What's next? Jumping a fence with your family to get a good photo under Batman?

+0
Monday, May 25, 2009 10:19 PM

^I think the only reason a family would jump over fences near inverted coasters is too look for change because they are paying to much for their cell phones

+0
Monday, May 25, 2009 11:34 PM

lol. Billy! I found you a new retainer!

+0
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 9:57 AM

Define "standard play shoe". Now that three of every five kids has a pair of shoes with wheels in them, is that now the "standard play shoe"?

I liked the idea of measuring riders "as they present themselves at the ride entrance, from the ground to the top of the head" and then "taking into consideration shoe and hair styles when setting height requirements" but that makes too much sense to be useful.

This whole business of artificial height enhancement has got portions of the amusement industry tied up in knots right now because nobody really wants to admit that there is too much variation in the population to use height as a substitute for age, which is what a lot of height requirements are really all about these days.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

+0
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:06 AM

Then there are some inconsistencies in the parks themselves. We were at Kennywood this past Sunday. My daughter is a good 1/2 inch short of 52" in shoes, so I knew that Thunderbolt was out, HOWEVER, I was sorely tempted to try it since at both the Gran Prix(Dodgems) and Exterminator the ride ops said "close enough" and allowed her to drive her own dodgem car and not wear a seat belt respectively. On the flip side, when I went to the car to get the sweatshirts late in the day my wife took my son on Pirate and the Music Express. I didn't think twice about checking the height on ME since he has been able to ride the Super Himalaya at CP for years. My wife did in fact take him on it with no issues. We attempted to all go together towards the end of the day and we were stopped cold by the ride ops and told he had to be 46" to ride. He's 45 1/2" in shoes. Needless to say I was embarrassed and my wife was extremely ticked since she had successfully rode with him earlier. That set my wife off and our day was over, and my night ride on Phantom's Revenge for my 100th coaster never happened. :(

Tom

+0
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:58 PM

P18 said:
Wow, why do they let people like this be parents? The stupidity of some parents these days knows no bounds.

The trouble is Britain is full of them.

My policy would be to say that this is the height restriction, and if you are too stupid to take notice then don't sue us if you get injured!

I have seen so many arguments between parents and ride ops - clearly serious injury is better than dissapointing their little darling.

+0
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:40 PM

Aside from the obvious safety concerns for those who are using extreme measures to circumvent the height restrictions, like allowing a daughter to where the mother's high heeled shoes to make up the difference, there is also a lesson that gets taught to these kids in these circumstances.

Essentially, this is just one more way that parents teach kids that the rules don't apply to them if they can come up with clever ways to circumvent them. It's just wrong no matter how you construe a justification.

+0
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:35 PM

I don't know if AT would want to do something like this, but maybe Six Flags could offer an extra inch or so to children who don't quite make the height requirement for an extra $30 - $90. They could call it ShortPass. Of course they'd need to find a way to disallow children who are a few inches over the height requirement from the rides, to be fair.

lol

+0
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:32 AM

^ smacks LK for being such a wise a$$ :)

So, if I understand you, You'd have to EXACTLY 48 (or 52 or 54) inches to ride any ride? I've seen poeple in the metal hospital more sane than you!

(I mean all this with a tonge firm buried in cheek :)

+0
Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:31 AM

Carrie M. said:
Aside from the obvious safety concerns for those who are using extreme measures to circumvent the height restrictions, like allowing a daughter to where the mother's high heeled shoes to make up the difference, there is also a lesson that gets taught to these kids in these circumstances.

Essentially, this is just one more way that parents teach kids that the rules don't apply to them if they can come up with clever ways to circumvent them. It's just wrong no matter how you construe a justification.

Wow, it was sitting in the back of my head and bouncing around but you hit the nail on the head!

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...