Height Restrictions

Yeah, I've said this before, but why do people think height requirements are an indicator of a child being able to "handle something" rather than a safety measure? What I mean is where did this idea come from? I don't think I ever, even as a kid who became tall enough to ride bigger coasters kind of later in the game, thought to myself that if I stuffed my shoes, I could ride safely. I'm not much of a risk taker and have always followed park rules, but still, I cannot understand the logic of people thinking a kid can handle a ride and therefore just should be allowed to ride.

It is the same logic, as Le Monster said, that then reasons the park owes the parent compensation when something happens due to forcing the safety issue and losing. Why? No one follows all the rules all the time, but this seems to me to be a big "duh".

Oh my. Many of you on this forum must have been the greatest of choirboys who have never sinned at any point in any way and equate murder to a boot which raises a child's height one inch. Not all rules are created equal. I think the Nazis had rules as well. The one guy on Pointbuzz who wanted to cheat the system so that his son could take out his own jet ski could have been putting people's lives at risk. Taking an infant into a show is simply rude to the rest of the audience. This is in no way the same. If you want to call it bad parenting, fine. I will face the consequences of raising a mass murdering, animal killing, psychotic child. Six parks, thirty plus visits, and many coaster rides later, my son is unharmed as I did my research. Vote up to all your morality points!

Toro Padre said:

... equate murder to a boot which raises a child's height one inch. Not all rules are created equal.

The only person here making that comparison is you. Most of the people here realize that rules may not always be agreeable, but having entered a private business, one follows that business's rules.

The one guy on Pointbuzz who wanted to cheat the system so that his son could take out his own jet ski could have been putting people's lives at risk.

And you could have been putting your own child's life at risk. It's sad that you value your child so little.

Six parks, thirty plus visits, and many coaster rides later, my son is unharmed as I did my research.

Of course, you could have simply chosen to observe the rules of the business you chose to enter, skipped doing all that research and not risked your child's life.But there I am, being selfish, only thinking about me not being inconvenienced by your bad choices....

Invoking Nazis, responsible for millions of deaths, in the context of a discussion about height rules, is both stupid and incredibly offensive. This isn't about a contest for righteousness, it's about not being an entitled, inconsiderate dick.

Ooooh! Resorted to name calling. Some of you are still stuck in the same high school clique mentality which is pathetic. Just delete my account, Jeff. No need to respond. The negativity on this site is appealing. Guess I won't win the point scoring game. Darn! I wanted to be prom king!

1. Relatively new user makes a few posts.
2. User trolls long-time members.
3. Members call him out.
4. User invokes Godwin's Law.
5. User is called out for trivializing one of the worst human tragedies in history.
6. User wants to peace-out because he can't be responsible for his own behavior.

We've never seen that pattern in the last 15 years.

I was biting my tongue, but since the floodgates opened...

Yeah, if your kid is close and you cheat it, it seems a dick move. Who knows what level of danger it involves? Possibly very little.

But what are you teaching your kid about safety? They learn the height requirement rule was broken without consequence, so maybe other safety rules are equally able to be ignored?

I dunno. I think it's a slippery slope from the beginnings of disrespecting the machines to thinking you know best to Stark Raven Mad 2003.

Respect the parks, the people and the rides you love. It shouldn't be a novel concept.

Toro Padre said:
Six parks, thirty plus visits, and many coaster rides later, my son is unharmed as I did my research.

And if your son was harmed you would be first in line to file a lawsuit against the park. I feel sorry for your kid, who is being raised and shown that is OK to be a self entitled dick and disrespect others.

Yeah, I kind of didn't want to join in the discussion, but here it goes anyway.

We have a few theories as to why a park decides on a certain height requirement in this topic. Just because someone thinks that the requirement is bull crap doesn't mean that they have the right to disregard it. I totally agree with those who are saying that you are teaching your sons the wrong lesson here.

If it were my kid, I would tell them that although I disagree with the rules, we should still comply with them. I would then give them a few other examples of actual laws, like the speed limit and steeling. I would engage in a discussion about why it is important to follow rules, and maybe a short conversation about what is the right way to show that you disagree with the rules. It would be a good opportunity for a civics lesson.

But now that I think deeper on this, I can attest that I am not perfect. No one is.

To paraphrase RideMan, "Respect rides (and the rules that go with them). They don't respect you."

LostKause said:

If it were my kid, I would tell them that although I disagree with the rules, we should still comply with them.

What makes the average parent qualified or knowledgeable enough to disagree with height requirements in the first place?

Le Monster said:

When having to check height at rides, one of the really frustrating things was parents would insist that "they can handle it" or "it's ok I give him permission" or stuff like that. You hear that stuff all the time and have to explain that the reason for the height restriction is about the risk of injury rather than them being ready for the ride.

This. I can't tell you how many times I had to (attempt) to calm an angry guest because their kid was too short to ride Shoot the Rapids at Cedar Point. Two instances in particular: two adults and their child come up, and I check the kids height, a few inches too short. The father responds with "but it says under 48" can be accompanied by an adult." well, yes, that is true, but you have to be 46" inches to ride with an adult. Family proceeds to walk away with parents muttering statements such as "****ing height restrictions. I could've gone to the ****ing carnival for nowhere near as much money for how much we can ride"

Second instance: Father and daughter go to ride, daughter has a 3" spike of hair sticking straight out of her head, and for some reason guest services gave her a 46" wristband. Employee at entrance tells father that daughter is too short to ride, despite that she has the wrist band. They continue through the line, to be turned away at the platform entrance. Father complains for 30 minutes, waiting for a new employee to be at that position, hoping to get on. Again they are denied. Father and daughter go back to entrance to complain some more. After another 30 minutes, we get a call to platform, asking for the person in charge to deal with an angry guest at the entrance. I had to again explain to this man that the 3 inches of hair on the top of his daughter's head does not count as part of her height. In total it took 4 people on my crew, and an area supervisor to get this guy to understand the height policy.

I would have joined in earlier, but the police officer just would not listen to me when I explained why I can drive 85 on Lake Shore Drive. As long as I can do it safely, who cares what the speed limit is?

bigboy said:

LostKause said:

If it were my kid, I would tell them that although I disagree with the rules, we should still comply with them.

What makes the average parent qualified or knowledgeable enough to disagree with height requirements in the first place?

I meant that, if I were him, as in someone who didn't agree with the hight requirement rule. I agree with it. I jus wanted to clear that up.

I am skeptical about the manufacturer setting the restrictions, because you can go on the same ride at three different locations, and the restrictions will be different. Two examples are the Super Loop and the Carnival Zipper. At one location there is a height requirement and no single riders sign, and at the other children must be accompanied by an adult, and no single rider restrictions. I have also seen very small children on Himalaya rides, even infants riding with adults. While at Cedar Point there is a height limit.

As for a park example, the flats at Geauga Lake were mostly unsupervised, and kids would actually move from seat to seat while rides were in motion. When Six Flags took over, rides were well supervised and the level of rotten brat disappeared. I don't recall the old owners have much in the way of height restrictions on the flats that I can recall.

Also, like most of the newer park rules, height restrictions were not always a rule. Just like other restrictions that didn't start happening until several people were killed or injured. I can remember a time in the 1970's when a kid could pretty much go on any ride he wanted. When I first started going on carnival rides I was 5 and barely 3 feet tall. I did not reach 48 inches until I was 13. Though I was going on rides at Great America when I was 11, that had no height restrictions. I think the only ride that had one was revolution, which was 48 inches. in 1978.

And a loaf of bread was 50 cents.

And Timber-Rider STILL hasn't grown past 48 inches.

Timber-Rider said:

I am skeptical about the manufacturer setting the restrictions, because you can go on the same ride at three different locations, and the restrictions will be different.

And you can drive at three different speed limits in three different states on three different roads.

Ride height restrictions are a mix of manufacturer restrictions, state regulations, insurance company requirements, park policies and who knows what else.

Sorry it took so long to get to this...

ASTM F2291-15:5.1 Ride Analysis

5.1.1 The designer/engineer shall perform and document a ride analysis that illustrates how hazards to persons have been managed. The documentation shall include but not be limited to the following:

5.1.1.4 An assessment of hazards that includes a description of how identified hazards are mitigated to an acceptable level. (...) This assessment shall include but not be limited to the following:

(1) Patron Suitability Assessment--A patron suitability assessment shall describe the suitability of the design of the amusement ride or device for the intended patrons, including anthropometric factors that relate to age and physical size.
(...)

In other words, the manufacturer is responsible for establishing the physical requirements for the patrons who will be riding the ride. On a related note:

5.6.3 Documentation supplied to the buyer, owner, or operator shall be complete and adequate for proper installation, maintenance, inspection, and operation of the ride or device. (...)

But that is only a recommendation from the manufacturer. The manufacturer tells the owner how the ride is intended to be used. Let's take this one step further:

ASTM F770-11:4: Owner/Operator's Responsibility

4.1 Each owner/operator shall prepare an Operating Docu- ment for each amusement ride or device based on the recom- mended instructions and specifications provided by the manu- facturer. This Operating Document shall be made available to each amusement ride or device operator and attendant. The Operating Document shall include but not be limited to:
4.1.1 Specific amusement ride or device operation policies and procedures with pertinent information from the manufacturer’s instructions, (...)

...furthermore...

4.5 Theowner/operatorofanamusementrideordevicemay deny entry to the ride or device to any person, if in the opinion of the owner/operator the entry may cause above normal exposure to risk of discomfort or injury to the person who desires to enter, or if in the opinion of the owner/operator the entry may jeopardize the safety of other patrons or employees.
4.5.1 Ride or device operators should be given guidelines on the special considerations concerning patron size, and the special considerations applicable to physically disabled and mentally impaired patrons, related to their particular ride or device.

Of course, the Authority Having Jurisdiction may also alter the specific requirements. Bear in mind also that the AHJ may not be a *legal* authority; it may be the Owner/Operator's insurance carrier, or an independent inspector acting on behalf of that insurance carrier. Since most jurisdictions require that the Owner/Operator have a valid certificate of insurance to operate, the insurance inspector may have effective legal authority, even though he is not technically the AHJ.

Of course, the *final* authority on rider eligibility is described in F770:5, and I am sure you have all memorized this one: :)

5. Patron Responsibility
5.1 There are inherent risks in the participation in or on any amusement ride, device, or attraction. Patrons of an amusement ride, device, or attraction, by participation, accept the risks inherent in such participation of which the ordinary prudent person is or should be aware. Patrons have a duty to exercise good judgment and act in a responsible manner while using the amusement ride, device, or attraction and to obey all oral or written warnings, or both, prior to or during participation, or both.
5.2 Patrons have a duty to not participate in or on any amusement ride, device, or attraction when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
5.3 Patrons have a duty to properly use all ride or device safety equipment provided.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.