Height requirements...borderline cases

I could see someone falling off of Mantis if they were small. I don't personally get to ride it very often because it hurts my wifes legs and head. I rode it this year and it wasn't bad, but I can live without riding it. Raptor though I can't see someone falling out of. A favorite ride of mine. I can understand you wanting your son to be able to ride that one.

Cedar Point has so much to offer over a 2 day trip that one attraction in itself will not break your trip. Just be glad that your there and I hope the weather works out great. I have never been disapointed with any of our trips to the point and some of them involved heavy crowds and bad weather. I'm sure your son will still have a good time.

Now.... About the rules.... There comes a time when we all become "Big Boys or Girls" and your son will be one in due time. But as a society we cannot give this privillage to everyone and I am not just talking about roller coasters. If your elligible your elligible and if your not your not. Imagine being a banker and having to approve everyone.

I'm sure your trip will be special in you and your families hearts regardless of one ride not functioning or not getting to ride one. If the weather is nice.

Gravity said:
During Ride Op training, there's an entire section dedicated to the crap that parents stick in kids shoes. They had an entire 10 foot buffet table littered with crap that parents had stuck in their kids shoes to get them to meet the height requirement.

I have asked a child to remove their shoes before on Wicked Twister... and then had the father try to slip me $20 to get the kid to ride. I asked him if that's what he valued his daughter's life at.

This! Thank you!

When I worked WT, there was a little girl who came up and I could tell that her ankles were way too high out of her shoes, and asked to remove them. Low and behold, her father had stuffed her shoes with Rice Krispy treats. It wasn't a huge issue until the father started getting in my face, calling me names. I just explained that there are rules I have to follow, and there's nothing I can do about his daughter being too short to ride.

Another time, a family of 4 with one older son that was taller than 54" and one younger son that was about a head shorter than his older brother came through. Assuming both children got measured at park op, the parents took the 54" wristband from the older son, and put it on the younger son. Long story short, we measured the youngest son and he wasn't even close to 52" let alone to be wearing a 54" wristband. They got caught and the parents were livid because we had to confiscate the wrist band. It got bad to the point where security and supervision had to come.

Issues like this basically show your child that it's okay to be a liar and cheat the system. I don't expect a child to know any better, but I expect a parent to know there are rules we have to follow just like they do at their full-time job back at home. So whoever said that ride ops are ignorant for thinking that a parent would ever put their child in danger, you're dead wrong. It happens all of the time and whether they are an inch or 1/4 inch under the height requirement, rules are still rules and in no way can it possibly be safe or okay to cheat the system because height requirements are posted for a reason!

Cedar Point is very black and white on borderline cases. If the kid's head doesn't get bonked by the metal swinging arm on the height check station, they don't ride. It's as simple as that.

And yes, it sucks sometimes, but the park has to enforce rules this way because it sets a bad precedent if one employee lets a rider slide and another doesn't. I'm facing the same thing as my kids are getting older. And I hate to break the news to you, it doesn't mean diddly squat how they measure up at home, it only matters how they measure at the park at ride time. So if they don't, sorry. Maybe next year.

I can't believe this discussion has made it to two pages without this point being made.

The PointGuru said:
borderline height requirements come down to bad management and poor customer relations again.

Let me guess, they should issue parents Sorry your kid hasn't hit a growth spurt coupons for free admission to return in the season to try again? We get it, you despise the park, the way it is managed and all policies that are in place. Stop beating the dead horse and bury it already man!

Go to park op and get the kid measured. That's the official higher ups said he's good, he's riding. We can tell who issued wrist bands by what the initials are on the bottom of the band. If I see it's a park op, unless it looks tampered or old/worn out I'm good to go. Any other areas I'll still usually pay attention to the band, kids height, ect...There are times that they'll say, oh he's got the band, but he's 2+ inches shorter...No bueno

And we do take shoes off at times. 1. Kid was wearing shape up type shoes (poor guy, isn't that a girls thing?). And ankles waay above the line, asked because of the shoes to make sure he's not a few inches short, boom. Shoes off, maxipads out the ass...Guess if got a blister he's got gauze ready to go >__>

Just make sure he's safe, and able to ride the rides. I have no problem letting him on if he meets the height requirement. But even if he's close, I'd rather make sure he's safe, not set a precident for the park and have one ride let em on, another doesn't ect. Sorry if it's a bit of a strict policy but rules are followed for the safety of the little ones

First, thanks for the helpful input. Second, I would never put more than insoles inside of shoes. Hamburgers, Rice Krispie treats and feminine pads? That is beyond crazy. I will tell the little guy he can't ride before I do that.

I had never actually paid attention to the "head-bonking" checkers, didn't know they had them, but then again this will be my first trip with anyone coming close to a height requirement.

See how much fun this is Nick?

I feel pretty proud of myself for using insoles and not hamsters to insure no trouble at the Lolly Swing.

Two years ago when we went, my daughter had to take off her rather tall flip flops. Of course that was the style then so she took them off and wasn't tall enough. She ws disappointed, but she got over it. We went to King's island a couple days later and when she measured too short they told me if she had taller shoes she would be able to get the taller colored band. We went the next day with no problem with the tall flip flops. I can't even remember if she even went on the big coasters that year. I think she just anted to know that she could.

Just adding some fuel to an unneeded fire.

I assume that if CP, CF or the manufacturer says you have to be at least 48" to ride that it is really safe for someone 47" or maybe even 46" to ride. I doubt (but admittedly do not know for sure) that the safety margin is cut to the last millimeter--or quarter inch.

The last two post are exactly my point. The thickness of someone's shoe does not matter because there are safety margins. The most prevalent problem is the 48 inch height requirement because that is where the park set the steep price increase for children. More often than not, when parents get upset it is because the ride host are being incompetent. Couple inept ride host with managements hostile culture towards guest and you are asking for trouble. I feel sorry for any ride host who thinks the parents are the problem. Too many times I have seen ride host turn children away from a ride because they haphazardly leaned the measuring stick against the back of a child or they failed to take the time to actually have the kid stand up straight. No one is saying children who are far below a height requirement should be allowed to ride. Just make a set policy so kids have to be measures in socks or bare feet like at Soak City. Do away with the wristbands if they mean nothing or at least train a ride host to figure out if a wristband has been tampered with instead of teaching them to look for hamburgers in shoes. It's not rocket science. It just take a slight bit of effort from management; but, that obviously is way too much to ask.

I believe that you are correct about the the within a millimeter, but better safe than sorry right?

There's almost certainly a safety factor, but that doesn't mean they can safely let borderline cases slide. After all, "borderline" is subjective. A defined, quantitative measurement is objective.

Exactly...Its very subjective. What I meant by borderline when I started this thread was less than a quarter of an inch. I'm sure to some an inch or even 2 inches is borderline, but those would be the aforementioned hamburger stuffers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, But height requirements are set by the manufacture and Cedar Point is required by state law to up hold them for safety. It's seems to me if its even the smallest bit under, under no circumstances should the child be able to ride, not only because of Cedar Points rules, but the law. Its the same as someone being too big to fasten the belt on MF or TTD, "oh its ok he can almost fasten it, less than a 1/4 of an inch from being able to secure it so he is good to ride!"

Tennessee_CP_Fan said:
What I meant by borderline when I started this thread was less than a quarter of an inch.

I can see how some could consider that borderline.

However, when you consider that the child being measured is likely doing his or best to stretch and stand tall, coming just a few millimeters shy isn't really borderline. When that same child is in the ride restraints and no longer making his or herself as long as possible, they're going to be much further away from the minimum requirement.

Very true. I can't disagree there.

Wait a second. this can't be happening... I agree with djDaemon. A quantitative standard would eliminate all of the Maxi Pad capers. I guess the park has never thought of that.

here is what happens if they bend to a "" lets say this year they say "anyone within a 1/4 inch of the requirement can ride" even if its not made public, people will learn, and on a forum like this someone will say "as long as your child it within a 1/4 on an inch he should be fine" so that becomes the standard. come the next season if someone is half and inch from being able to ride, the shoe stuffing with start all over again to get within that 1/4 inch. The park has no way to win this, these people will continue to push these limits no matter what they are set to. so the park is doing the only thing that can, set a black and white standard, either you meet the requirements to ride or you can't. end of story.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, Kevin. :)

A "quantitative standard" is black and white. You're either tall enough or you aren't*.

A "qualitative standard" would be allowing those borderline cases to ride, because they're "close enough".

* The caveat here is that there are some qualitative/subjective cases where, if the person doing the measuring suspects there's some tomfoolery afoot (ahem), they'll ask the child to remove his or her shoes.

djDaemon said:

However, when you consider that the child being measured is likely doing his or best to stretch and stand tall, coming just a few millimeters shy isn't really borderline...

Or, the ride host is just being lazy or mean and not measuring the kid properly. I never will forget seeing a ride host stick his foot under the measuring pole to check a kid who was just tall enough to ride. With his foot under the pole he told the kid he was too short to ride. The kid went crying to the parents and they just walked away. The ride host then laughed and said he was just joking around with the kid and he would have let him ride but he ran away before he could explain the joke.

Height is not nearly as much of a safety factor on almost all of the non-coasters at the park. For lack of a better term, the park tries to use height as a measure for maturity. That is entirely subjective. From what I has seen, I would pick the maturity level of most 5 year olds over the maturity of a ride host that wants to argue with parents because they think Thunder Canyon is unsafe to ride because the child changed what shoes they were wearing.