Height Requirements?

[Tinkbelle]

We took our 3 1/2 yr. old to Disneyland a couple weeks ago. I agree that there should be height requirements for rides for the safety of children. There was something that surprised me though. DLR requires only 35 inches for Matterhorn, a jerky rollercoaster ride up and down a mountain, and yet requires 40 inches for Soarin over California, a gentle almost nonmoving ride with seatbelts. We did a child swap with a relative, and my husband and I went alone on Soarin. As we buckled in, we both noticed a little boy behind us who looked about 2 yrs. old - he couldn't have been taller than our little girl. He did absolutely fine with the ride - no crying or screaming or falling out of his seat.
We decided to take a chance with bringing our daughter on. The CM at the entrance waved us to come on through. The CM at the halfway point smiled and waved us on as well, but a few paces past her she called us back and asked to measure our daughter. She told us she was too short to ride. I didn't put up a big fuss but mentioned that the CM at the enterance had waved us through. She surprisingly told us that we could go ahead and try to get our daughter on, though she was sure they would not let us. So we went on down the line but as we neared the next CM I saw that she was on the phone, and as we passed her she called to the loading CM and when she thought we weren't watching she pointed at us several times and made motions with her arms that our daughter was too short. The CM at the halfway mark had called her on the phone to make sure we didn't get on the ride. Now, that is all well and good for them to not let us on the ride when they have restrictions, but I thought they handled it wrong. You shouldn't get your guests hopes up by telling them to go ahead in line and try to get on and then make a phone call just to make sure that your guests time in line was wasted. And the CM that received the call should have just politely told us that she was sorry but could not let us on, instead of making hand gestures and allowing us to waste more time in line waiting. Luckily, we saw her and stepped out of line and left.

Anyhow, I wonder if anyone can tell me why Soarin' has such a tall height requirement when it is such a gentle ride with 3 point seatbelts? Does anyone else think it should be lowered a little? Especially when Matterhorn is 35 inches?

[Tech_Disney]

don't let people on these boards call you a bad parent like the last time this topic was brought up. just put your kid in a pair of big shoes. disney puts the height requirement a few inches higher than the manufacturer of the ride says it is. i'd say you'll be safe fudging an inch to an inch and a half.

[jaavick]

don't let people on these boards call you a bad parent like the last time this topic was brought up. just put your kid in a pair of big shoes. disney puts the height requirement a few inches higher than the manufacturer of the ride says it is. i'd say you'll be safe fudging an inch to an inch and a half.

Yes - I brought up this topic about 6 months ago and received the saftey lecture. I had the same question about my 39.5 inch boy. Except for the Jellyfish, he got denied on all the 40 inch rides despite our efforts. When he measured, he was at least an inch short, which made me wonder if they do add a little to the height requirement for shoe thickness.

As to a previous comment about the Matterhorn, I am surprised. My 3 year old bounced around that like a ping pong ball. While he loved it, it was definitely "less safe" than the jellyfish or soarin.

Load up on socks, find thick shoes and where a hat. As previously mentioned, prepare them that they won't be able to go, but they might just make it. If they are OK on Matterhorn, they'll be safe on the 40 inch rides.

[ocnative1964]

Anyhow, I wonder if anyone can tell me why Soarin' has such a tall height requirement when it is such a gentle ride with 3 point seatbelts? Does anyone else think it should be lowered a little? Especially when Matterhorn is 35 inches?

I think part of it is that on soaring the kid has to sit in their OWN seat and could wiggle loose if not watched closely, and the higher up aparatus is quite high off the grould if there was to be a problem....

with the matterhorn a 35 inch child has to be between their parents legs and they are belted together... so you have the opportunity to HOLD onto your child the entire ride... yes its bumpy but if you hold on to your kid you should be fine...

also Matterhorn was designed when the rules were MUCh more lax... I would imagine if the matterhorn was just built in the last 5 years it would also have a taller requirement...

just some thoughts...
I do believe that the rides height requirements do have a margin of error built in, what the percentage is who knows... ( just like when you come to a highway curve that says 45 mph limit, but you can drive 60 with no issues) there is a safety margin built in)

some rides the height requirement may also be so the kids dont get to scared... indy comes to mind, my daughter 5 years old was an inch short and I'm sure from a safety standpoint would be just fine.... but from a maturity standpoint it would scare the life out of her....

[TheZue]

Does anyone know the reason for the matterhorn age requirement? We are going back in May. We've got a really tall 2 year old (he hit 35 inches just before he was two) but he would have to be three to ride. Is there an actual reason, or do they just not want people who get in free to ride the fun ones lol.

[dland72]

If I remember right there may not be an age requirement. A few years back this was replaced with a hieght requirement. My guess is that the age requirement had or has if it is still in effect more to do with the "scare" factor then safety.

[hippie1kenobi]

The age requirement was because very small children do not have as well develpoed nervous system as those over about 30 -36 months do. I forget the details, but I believe it is the protective layer around the spinal cord that is not fully formed until this time and on very bumpy rides like the Matterhorn it was thought that this could be a risk to the child.

I remember reading this on some respectable medical website, but I don't remember where so I can't provide a link unfortunately.

But I believe dland 72 is correct in that it was changed to just the height requirement, because my daughter was able to go at 2 1/2, no problem.