How To Gain 2 Inches by October 27th

[erinch]

Originally posted by ncbyrne
My DGD is 47½" in stocking feet. She desperately wants to ride RnR on our trip Nov. 3-8. She's ½" too short! I know that we could add lifts, or higher soled shoes, but I'm majorly concerned about this ride because of the inversions. I'm so afraid she'd slip out from under the shoulder harness. Do you think she'd be safe? I suppose I'm a bit paranoid, but isn't that how Gramma's are supposed to be?

Leaving the "ethics of height assistance" aside--no, if a child is 47.5 inches, without shoes--it would not be possible for them to slip out from under the shoulder harness. My DD rode it when she was somewhere in that "magic" space between 47.5 and 48 inches depending upon how straight she was standing, and the shoes. It would NOT have been possible to slip out from under the harness. What we did find is that "shorter guests" are more likely to bang their ears on the sides of the shoulder harness when going through the corkscrew--this did not bother her because she worked at holding her head straight. (She was 5 and a daredevil.) But when we rode when she was 50 inches, she commented that it was easier on her ears.

 

[cathy59]

Our neighbors have triplets (not identical) and the shortest one is always mad that he can't ride the same rides. Last time they went to WDW, he wore his sneakers that have the roller skate wheels built into the sole. It made him as tall as his sibs!

Now my DS7 wants to do this so he can do Cyber Space Mountain at DQ! He's 48 1/4" tall bare foot, and the height requirement is 51".

The neighbor boy generously "gave" his old skate shoes to my DS. They are about 2 sizes too big!

Besides the size issue, the skate shoes WEIGH too much to shlep around in all day. I keep trying to hide them, but my DS is sure this is his ticket to Cyber Space Mountain!

Maybe he will hit a growth spurt before November!

 

[SnackyStacky]

Originally posted by stinkerbelle
I know many parents put their children in high soled shoes to get them on rides - but please be careful and hold onto them on these rides.

The height requirement is to keep them safe. Ride restraints might not fit correctly if the child is too short (for example)

Or, as I witnessed on Splash Mountain, the kid might not be able to see. The kid then proceeded to stand up! The mother did nothing, but fortunately, the kid decided to sit back down before the drops.

 

[Gaiusrex]

I wonder how many "height-assisted" children have flown out of their seats at WDW?

 

[tjkraz]

Originally posted by bamadisney
NOW>>>>>>>>>>>Is it necessary to tell people they are not good parents when you dont even know them. That was completely uncalled for. WHen both of my daughters were too short they were only missing by a half an inch or so. Its not like I WOULD EVER put my kids in jeopardy. ANd I do NOT let my kids do everything they want to do. I just think that comment was uncalled for when you dont even know the people who are posting. I just thought that was sorta rude.

I'm assuming you were referring to CarolMN's post, and I have to say that I think her comments were right on the mark.

Nobody said that you are a horrible parent and that your children will turn into serial killers. But the reality is that each ride's restraint system was designed to accommodate an individual that meets certain minimum requirements. To attempt to circumvent those standards DOES represent some risk no matter how you slice it.

I'm going to WDW in a couple of months with a 3yo and an 18mo. Anytime that either doesn't legitimately meet the posted minimum requirement, they simply will not ride. Period.

Just out of curiousity, what was your justification for letting your daughters ride when the were "half an inch or so" under the minimum requirement?

 

[tjkraz]

Originally posted by Gaiusrex
I wonder how many "height-assisted" children have flown out of their seats at WDW?

More importantly, who in their right mind would want to risk adding their children to the list?

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Gaiusrex
I wonder how many "height-assisted" children have flown out of their seats at WDW?

I don't know that any have, but that doesn't mean circumventing the height requirements is okay. I sure as heck don't want my kid to be the first one! I have heard of cases of whiplash, bruises from safety harnesses, and kids being scared to death that they WERE going to go flying out of the car among kids that were too short to ride and had been "cheated" on. And, unfortunately, when the parents complain to Disney about the injuries, it's the CM who measured their child who gets fired or disciplined, because the parental claim always seems to be, "Well, the CM let him ride!"

That said ... I also think there's a difference between a kid who's 1/4" too short who wears a bit of a higher sole or is taught to stand up straighter and a child who is 2" too small who wears a pair of 2.5" sole flip-flops that they can't walk in, simply to meet the measurement. Parents, really ... if your child is too short, they're too short. Chances are that nothing will happen to them if they ride and they're 2" below the height range, but there are legitimate reasons for those requirements. They're not random; they're not made up. Is not being able to ride Tower of Terror until next year really that big of a deal?

 

[BrianD]

When I read the subject of this thread I thought I was in my Hotmail Junk Mail folder for a second there.

Anyway, the best you can do is wear thick tennis shoes, try to have a thick head of hair, and have really great posture.

IMO, I don't think 2 inches will make enough of a difference to be a safety concern. I'm pretty sure that Disney sets the height requirements pretty conservatively. Of course, it's all up to the CM standing there with the measuring stick.

 

[bamadisney]

Okay....its just funny how total strangers who are usually so nice and helpful can start making judgements about other people that they dont know. I did decide to let mine ride and they were no more than a half an inch too short if that much....but it was my decission. Now I know that it did not specifically say that me or anyone was a bad parent...but it did assume that a "loving parent" would not do that...or that it is "selfish" or that "I cant say no" I am a loving parent, and Im not being selfish and I do say no (several times a day...haha). Im also a very nice person who normally avoids any kind of controversy, and Im not at all mad or upset...I was just making a point that was sorta harsh to say when someone doesnt know me or anyone else on here that is wanting their kids to ride. Its not like I put them on RNR. Plus we had ridden a ride just like Splassh Mountain at a local theme park where it was only 38 inches. So she had ridden it before and we knew. YOu know different poeple believe and do things differently. It doesnt make one right or wrong. It also says tht kids should be in a CAR SEAT not a seat belt until 60 pounds and I bet most of us just buckle our kids up. It doesnt mean that we dont love our kids. I was just making a comment not trying to slam the other lady for her view. I do think I am a very loving Christian parent and I dont think that it shows that Im selfish or unloving by letting my child ride. Now you can say that I use poor judgment and that can perfectly be a good reasonable opinion. I just thought that unloving or selfish was a bit much... Thats all I was trying to say. ITs neither here or there now....both of mine are plenty tall enough to ride. And just for the sake of it......I only did it for splash mountain and no my kid was not the one standing up...haha. Not that only Splash Mountain makes it better or worse. I just thought to say thats not good judgment is one thing and can absolutly see that opinion but to assume the other is a bit much because whether on riding restrictions or everyday life we all do things that we probably shouldnt do and doesnt mean that we are unloving.

 

[Tigger&Belle]

There is a difference between being and inch too short in barefeet and wearing normal height sneakers and being told to "stand tall", as I tell my son and being way to short even with shoes and and putting lifts in the shoes. My son will slink over to get measured and put his shoulders down. When I tell him to stand tall he stands as he should be standing. He's gone on rides when he was barely tall enough, but I wouldn't sneak him on when he really isn't tall enough.

He's 43" now in barefeet and will *probably* be 44" with shoes on when he goes in a couple months. If not, he won't be able to ride, plain and simple.

T&B

 

[Gaiusrex]

Originally posted by WDSearcher
That said ... I also think there's a difference between a kid who's 1/4" too short who wears a bit of a higher sole or is taught to stand up straighter and a child who is 2" too small who wears a pair of 2.5" sole flip-flops that they can't walk in, simply to meet the measurement. Parents, really ... if your child is too short, they're too short. Chances are that nothing will happen to them if they ride and they're 2" below the height range, but there are legitimate reasons for those requirements. They're not random; they're not made up. Is not being able to ride Tower of Terror until next year really that big of a deal?

[/B]

I'll agree with that. The final height restriction Disney creates must have an inch or two of wiggle room for their own protection. The height bars for the rides assume children are wearing reasonable shoes.

Risk isn't simply a matter of severity; it is also a measure of probability. The further away from the height bar your child is, the higher the probability of the risk.

Each person decides their own risk comfort levels.

 

[bamadisney]

Gaiusrex...I agree with you totally. I wrote on this thread earlier that my child wore sketcher ( not the real high kind and I didnt buy them for this reason)m and I told her to stand up tall....becuase they were borderline. I would never snaek my child on a ride if they were like 2 inches too small. But I totally agree with your post....its each parents decision what to risk and what not to risk. We went they year before my child was five and she was like 1 1/2 inches to short and we didnt even try to ride things she was too short for...not that people who do are bad people.

 

[chipnwendy]

Here's my justification for asking this question to begin with. I figure if I have to pay the kind of money that Disney asks of me, I ought to be able to cheat a little bit when it comes to a major attraction like Splash Mountain. This is really the only big kid ride I am really interested in taking my girls on, and this ride doesn't even have any kind of restraints that they could slip out of.

Obviously if Disney doesn't think a ride is dangerous enough to put seat belts in, should it even have a height requirement to begin with?

 

[Stimpy]

I just want to tell you that we went on Splash Mountian with DS when he was 4, He was 1/2 inch taller than he need to be. The kid is a real daredevil, loves thrill rides, including TOT. He will not go on Splash Mountain b/c at the last drop, he actually lifted out of his seat. Like you mentioned, there are no restraints. We're not talking about a little roller coaster type "lifting", he was lifted high enough off the seat that I had to grab him. He's also a very skinny kid so that could have something to do with it too.

I'm not even going to touch the line about paying alot of money and you should be able to cheat. That just sounds ridiculous to me.

 

[chipnwendy]

Thanks to everyone for their tips and opinions. I didn't mean to turn this into an ethical discussion, but I guess this is a subject that everyone looks at differently.

While we're on the subject of ethics, I was told by a friend that we should just say our girls are still two when we go, so that they could get in for free.

I have chosen not to take their advice, but I am curious as to what those of you who chimed in on the ethical decisions have to say about this.

Would you ever consider doing this, and if so, what would be the justifications behind your actions?

 

[chrisn]

But IMHO 2 inches is just too much and yes some of the CM's will check shoes and ask to remove them if they are right at the mark by a hair. I had this happen to my DS although he was a little shorter then a hair. The first thing the CM did was check the shoes and he said no way. My DS was wearing little boys leather sketcher sandles and they did have a thicker sole on them but by no means platform. I didn't expect him to ride, I was just curious how much too short he was for TOT. He was like 39 1/2 inches with the shoes. We were all fine with it because we didn't hype him up. I think they are very strict with the measurements. DS is now 48" and is sooooo excited for R&R when we go in February but I am so paranoid about him riding that I am having DH ride with him and hold him in.

I did have a comment about the log type rides not having seat belts. The reason why they have the requirements is because of the force when you reach the bottom. Some of the little ones can fly up or back or into the front of the log. I've read about this somewhere.

Parents, if your babies aren't tall enough, that's just a really great excuse for another trip when they are! DS held me to this one for R&R and the dolphin swim at Discovery Cove where you have to be 6. He just turned 7.

 

[Brian Noble]

My kids are both adrenaline junkies who go to Big Steel parks to ride whatever they can. Their parents are adrenaline junkies too. Even so, our family has three ironclad rules whenever we visit amusement/theme parks.

1) Take a break in the afternoon and get out of the park. If it's a day trip, we head home by 4 or 5. If it's an overnight trip, we're out of the parks for at least 2 hours midafternoon. We "miss out", but everyone is much happier.

2) No one rides anything they genuinely don't want to ride. If you're freaked out, even if you've made it to the loading platform after a two hour wait, you don't have to get on, and at least one parent will skip with you so you don't have to wait alone.

3) No one rides anything that they don't qualify for without assistance. No "special shoes", no big hairstyles, nothing.

I don't expect (or even suggest) that other families follow these rules, but they work for us. We insist on Rule 3 for the same reason we never considered passing off our just-turned-three-year-old as a two year old the weekend of his birthday when we visited a park. It's important *to me* that my kids follow the rules in a park, and that means I have to do so, too. It's especially important to me that my kids don't lie, and that means I can't lie about my child's age in front of him to save $40.

If someone misses out on a ride because they're too short, we'll be back some other time, and we can ride it again.

A corollary to Rule 3 is that I almost never go on a ride without at least one kid (DS3 and DD6). That means I often don't get to ride the big ones. As far as I'm concerned, that's great. The day will come all too soon when my kids are too cool to ride with Dad, and until then I'd rather ride Small World with them than RnR without.

 

[Gaiusrex]

Originally posted by chipnwendy
While we're on the subject of ethics, I was told by a friend that we should just say our girls are still two when we go, so that they could get in for free.

I have chosen not to take their advice, but I am curious as to what those of you who chimed in on the ethical decisions have to say about this.

Would you ever consider doing this, and if so, what would be the justifications behind your actions?

Without taking the threadjacking too far...

Most people on the boards agree that lying is wrong. Some people think you should take every advantage, but I don't think they're in the majority.

I think this is a moral issue, not necessarily an ethics issue.

 

[Gaiusrex]

Originally posted by Brian Noble
The day will come all too soon when my kids are too cool to ride with Dad, and until then I'd rather ride Small World with them than RnR without.

Here! Here!

Except my DD is afraid of It's a Small World

 

[Brian Noble]

Lucky you.