Personal ride height limits.....
I remember when I was alot younger and shorter. I wanted to go on this one flat ride kinda like the swings may have been a Yo-Yo. I walked up to the height sign and was about too short. the ride op came over and said I only need to be as high as his arm. he lowered his arm to my hieght and I got on the ride. Well it scared the crap out of me I screamed for him to stop the ride and he did.
My point is they may want to go on it but when they actually do they might get the crap scared out of them like I did. They may end up not liking coasters after that too. That could hapen to any first time rider though.
Just think how horrible you, ride op, height inspector, etc would feel if one of your kids got hurt or killed by somthing you allowed them to do even though they shouldn't have. It would probably even make you sick just thinking about a park or coaster. I know it would me and I don't even have kids. Plus it would make the park look very bad too. The false media would eat that story up.
-----------------
Knoebels visits in 2002. 4
DEK said:
You probably don't want to hear my suggestion: If they're not tall enough they shouldn't ride. Period.
My 10-year old daughter is developing "the bug" and is always worried about not being tall enough (she's a little short for her age). I absolutely will not let her ride if she's not tall enough.
I hate it when I see parents trying everything they can think of (thick soled shoes, puffed up hair, tip-toes, etc.) to get their child on a ride when they are obviously not tall enough.
I believe the limits are set for a reason and no child should be endangered just so they can get on a ride.
-----------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Ya know thats not always true. The height requirements are just for the people whose parents are dumb enough for a 5 month old to go on a kiddie coaster. I was at Darien Lake a few weeks ago and my mom wouldn't let my brother ride Predator, even though there was no one checking heights at the entrance. This is my theory "If someone can be 48 inches and drop 310 feet on MF while pulling 4.5 g's, why can't someone 47 inches ride Predator which is only 85 feet while pulling 3 g's? Its just plain dumb! I'm not blaming the ride ops because its their job but seriously one inch isn't going to make a difference. Ride ops have to check heights and I respect that but if there is no one checking heights I'll take advantage of it. Trust me I'm not letting my 5 year old brother on MF. He's been crying for the past 2 weeks because I told him he couldn't go on it even if he's tall enough. I think its the parents choice whether or not the kids can handle the ride but thanks to some idiotic parents thats where height requirements come in. Thanks for reading my whining.
-----------------
2002 Ride Count: S:ROS 4, Predator 3, Viper 2, ME 1, Boomerang 2,Kraken 8, SWF 10
Check out CoastNY at coastny.cjb.net
MP said:
For any of you cheating parents, if your child had been hurt (or God forbid, worse) on the rides they were too short to be on in the first place, whose responsibility is that? Yours, or the parks?
*** This post was edited by MP on 6/19/2002. ***
The parks! because if height requirements were really that important (which I think not) they would check heights. Plus, how often have you heard of acciedents where kids get hurt on big rides?
-----------------
2002 Ride Count: S:ROS 4, Predator 3, Viper 2, ME 1, Boomerang 2,Kraken 8, SWF 10
Check out CoastNY at coastny.cjb.net
*** This post was edited by Superdude on 6/20/2002. ***
MP said:
Ok, none of the cheating parents answered my question. If your too short child gets hurt (or worse) on the ride that you disregarded the height rules, and therefore your child's safety, then what??? Who's fault is that? Yours, or the parks??? I'm very interested in hearing the answers to this question as well. To those parents or guardians out there willing and ready to break the height restrictions for a 2-3 minute ride for a too-short child, who will you blame if your kid gets hurt or worse on such a ride? And how many of you are the individuals criticizing the government's actions against amusement parks while at the same time you are a major factor in why they have any reason to be aggravated at all? It's very easy to dodge a question you don't want to answer. Will you take the responsibility that's yours, or will you drive a lawsuit against the park and drive up ticket prices and government suspicions even more?
-----------------
2002 Ride Count: S:ROS 4, Predator 3, Viper 2, ME 1, Boomerang 2,Kraken 8, SWF 10
Check out CoastNY at coastny.cjb.net
Superdude,
I hope you change your mind if you exer become a ride opp. Whatever park you are working out will drill it in your head that hight requirments are very important to saftey.
Ride manufactures only suddgest the hight requirment and base thier suddgestion on therestraint system and not the forces that the ride produces. It is up to the park to decide what it will be. Intimin suddgested 48" but when MF first opened, CP made it 54". After many complants and a re-evaluation of the rides restraints, CP changed thier minds.
So my opinion is that you are somewhat right and somewhat wrong in your attitude about hight requirements.
Although I would NEVER cheat the decided hight requirement, I don't think 1 inch is all that bad especially if it is made up by taller shoes/more socks/ect. I do not however indorse the act of cheating and when I worked at CP I would NEVER let someone who was too short on a ride.
In a nutshell, it is wrong to cheat.
-----------------
KoRn is the Mellennium Force of ROCK
-----------------
2002 Ride Count: S:ROS 4, Predator 3, Viper 2, ME 1, Boomerang 2,Kraken 8, SWF 10
Check out CoastNY at coastny.cjb.net
Although I think 4" is definitely a stretch, there are other factors. A long torso will make up 2" on a ride. I think the body would sit along the same point as someone else 2" taller with a normal torso. Weight can be a factor also in how a child fits in a seat. Of course, parks can't individually go through all this trouble to allow or disallow a particular rider so general guidelines are put in place.
I guess waiting until a child meets the requirement is the right thing to to but if a couple of inches made a big difference then kids would be falling out or getting hurt all the time as in a lot of parks have tons of kids "slip through the cracks" every day. Parents sneak them in, they're not checked by the ride ops, have big shoes, ect...
I would guesstimate that at least 100 kids every day that are 1/2" to 3" too short slip by the ride ops every day at parks like Magic Kingdom, MGM, PKI. I'm sure there are others but I haven't been to them. CP is really strict, though, and they check everybody.
Good for them!!
-----------------
You can't spell my hometown's name with out "Lame"! aLAMEda...:) He...he...I have the feeling I'm the only one laughing...I guess you had to be there...
Superdude, you're getting off the point. The height requirements have nothing to do with the forces of the ride, they have to do with the restraints / safety measures in place. Read my last post (about 18 replies down from the top) for a full explanation.
I agree that the parents should decide if a child can ride based on the ride's intensity assuming they meet the height requirements for safety. You're misunderstanding the reason for these requirements.
In an earlier post you said:
"Hell, I almost feel out on Predator and I'm way above the height requirement"
Well, exactly! So imagine how dangerous it'd be for a little one who didn't meet the determined safety requirements.
"Obviously these things aren't that accurate because MF was 54 inches when it opened but for some strange reason they changed it to 48! Did they make it slow or something? Take out the first drop? Huh? Huh? Shut up!"
Sadly this is where ages of buzzers begins to show. However I digress and add that they simply determined that the restraints on could indeed hold a smaller body safely. Again it has nothing to do with ride intensity. No big deal. Better to error on the side of safety rather than have set it at 48 inches only to realize it need to be 54 inches after people were injured.
Bottom line: I'd trust Intamin's and Cedar Point's judgement over a 14 year old's.
-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 11
NO. NEVER.
Please, please, please, use common sense. Anyone that would put their child's life in that much danger should have their child taken away and put in a home where they will be safer. There is no call for that nonsense.
Thick shoes, puffed hair, extra socks, wood blocks, BUTANE LIGHTERS in their kids' shoes? All this has been done, and all of us at CP have seen it. We look for it EVERY time we measure, and it's because of people like you. We think because parents obviously don't.
This angers me so much to see a "coaster enthusiast" actually doing this. You, of anyone, should know better. The mfgers of the coasters know better than you what is safe.
Don't try to get her on Power Tower, because it's not happening with our crew.
Alan--PTC02
Let's look at this another way. There are speed limits on highways for a reason. Safety. Yours, your passengers and the people in the cars around you. Who are you to say that you're smarter than the road builders, designers, etc. and you can travel faster than the speed limit with no loss of saftey? You're not.
You're also not the one to decide the height limits on coasters. The builders and designers are. And they do this for the same reason: safety. Yours, your children and all the riders no matter whether they're informed enthusiasts or the general public. The restrictions are there for everyone's safety.
I find it amazing that so many people are so cavalier about their child's safety. It's mind boggling. I'm not saying anyone here but I've seen too many times people *****ing at ride-ops that the limit is stupid and their child was able to ride such-and-such ride so they should be able to ride this one.
Superdude mentioned one ride where they weren't checking heights. That may be true, but I've NEVER seen a coaster with a restriction where the ops weren't checking. And even so, what difference does that make? Should the parks be checking? Absolutely! Should parents be trying to cheat to get their kids on a ride they are obviously too small for? Absolutely NOT! That's all there is to it
Of course someone's going to say that people speed on the highways all the time and nothing happens. That's true. I may even have done it once or twice myself. :) But that doesn't mean it's safe to do. Hey, I just thought of something. Police are sort of like ride-ops. ;) (ending on a lighter note).
-----------------
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
I'm sorry, but no one is going to convince me I put my son in danger with him being less than 1/4" too short for Raptor.
Frankly, I was more worried about him falling out on Blue Streak before they changed the seats to individual lap bars. There was 8 inches between his lap and that bar. And the long seatbelt didn't secure him very well considering the tightest it could be was as tight as it would fit me. At the time, he was over the height requirement for Blue Streak. I rode with my leg over his legs.
So to answer your question MP, IF he had gotten hurt on Raptor for being less than 1/4" too short, I would not have blamed the park at all. It was my decision to let him ride after I had thoroughly checked the restraints and determined his weight alone was enough to keep him secure (in fact, the restraint didn't even go down all the way on him).
If he had slipped out of the restraint on Blue Streak, that would have been another story altogether, especially since he was well above the height requirement. As much as I miss the old single seatbelt/lapbar on Blue Streak, I do feel it is a much safer ride for children now.
-----------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
CPLady said:
I'm sorry, but no one is going to convince me I put my son in danger with him being less than 1/4" too short for Raptor.
Frankly, I was more worried about him falling out on Blue Streak before they changed the seats to individual lap bars. There was 8 inches between his lap and that bar. And the long seatbelt didn't secure him very well considering the tightest it could be was as tight as it would fit me. At the time, he was over the height requirement for Blue Streak. I rode with my leg over his legs.
So to answer your question MP, IF he had gotten hurt on Raptor for being less than 1/4" too short, I would not have blamed the park at all. It was my decision to let him ride after I had thoroughly checked the restraints and determined his weight alone was enough to keep him secure (in fact, the restraint didn't even go down all the way on him).
If he had slipped out of the restraint on Blue Streak, that would have been another story altogether, especially since he was well above the height requirement. As much as I miss the old single seatbelt/lapbar on Blue Streak, I do feel it is a much safer ride for children now.
-----------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
Thats exactly what I think!
-----------------
2002 Ride Count: S:ROS 4, Predator 3, Viper 2, ME 1, Boomerang 2,Kraken 8, SWF 10
Check out CoastNY at coastny.cjb.net
Lord Gonchar said:
Superdude, you're getting off the point. The height requirements have nothing to do with the forces of the ride, they have to do with the restraints / safety measures in place. Read my last post (about 18 replies down from the top) for a full explanation.
I agree that the parents should decide if a child can ride based on the ride's intensity assuming they meet the height requirements for safety. You're misunderstanding the reason for these requirements.
In an earlier post you said:
"Hell, I almost feel out on Predator and I'm way above the height requirement"
Well, exactly! So imagine how dangerous it'd be for a little one who didn't meet the determined safety requirements.
"Obviously these things aren't that accurate because MF was 54 inches when it opened but for some strange reason they changed it to 48! Did they make it slow or something? Take out the first drop? Huh? Huh? Shut up!"
Sadly this is where ages of buzzers begins to show. However I digress and add that they simply determined that the restraints on could indeed hold a smaller body safely. Again it has nothing to do with ride intensity. No big deal. Better to error on the side of safety rather than have set it at 48 inches only to realize it need to be 54 inches after people were injured.
Bottom line: I'd trust Intamin's and Cedar Point's judgement over a 14 year old's.
-----------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park visits in 2002: 11
Well actually my point is that if these requirements are so accurate, why don't they make them higher for some of these woodies? Or take more safety precautions. They added seatbelts last summer and it made a huge difference in the safety IMO, so thats why I would let my brother on now. The incident where I almost fell out was before the seatbelts.
-----------------
2002 Ride Count: S:ROS 4, Predator 3, Viper 2, ME 1, Boomerang 2,Kraken 8, SWF 10
Check out CoastNY at coastny.cjb.net
Sometimes the height requirements change depending where you ride the coaster. CP's wildcat is 48" but at a county fair a very similar coaster can be 54". Also, that same coaster at another fair might be 48". Insurance companies can dictate also.
The Congo Rapids ride at BGT used to have a "2 year old and over can ride with an adult" policy for years. Those rides throw you around like crazy. I think any kid under 5 should be held by the parents or not go on. BGT changed their policy and the ride is now 42" but that is still low considering those restraints do nothing to hold you in when you're that small.
-----------------
"Attention all Time Travel Commitee Members; the reasearch and development meeting will take place last friday at O-Three-Hundred hours. Do not be late."
You must be logged in to post
