Rider Height Wristbands- What's the Point?

If a child is 42", and a parent "snuck them" a 48" band, I get it. You measure them, and they should not be able to ride. That's a pretty big difference.

However, if a kid has a wrist band and the measurement is so frickin' close that you start getting out the metal thing and going back and forth over their head and staring real close like you're trying to peer into their soul...

...you're doing nothing but ruining a kid's potential experience. It's overkill. If there is an obvious difference, I get it. But if a kid has the wristband and is suddenly measuring 47.99999 on your little height machine, let them ride. It's not a safety issue, it's a common-sense issue at that point. From ride to ride there is a difference when your child is right on that border.

The stick should be sufficient. Got a wristband? Close enough? Go ahead and enjoy our day, kid.

I'll just copy/paste my post from a Valravn thread last year, since I don't think this has come up:

The wristband is not necessarily a guarantee. A friend of mine got his kids measured at guest services and they were still measured on some rides, and denied at least one of them because of the inconsistent measuring stands. So what was the point of the wristband?

(And p.s., they had used a measuring tape at home too, so it's not like they were trying to pull a fast one. Some of the measuring stands were just flat out wrong.)

If it's such a safety issue, perhaps the measuring instruments should be calibrated. And again, if you can still be denied a ride even when guest services says your kid is tall enough, what's the point of the wristband?

What's the point of complaining on pointless buzz?

Contact guest services. Perhaps they have an actual answer.

If it's pointless buzz then why are you on here stating your opinion every 2 minutes?

Kevinj said:
The stick should be sufficient. Got a wristband? Close enough? Go ahead and enjoy our day, kid.

That was always my philosophy, Kevin. I wasn't about to ruin a kid's day over 1/16" if they had a wristband, especially if they were to simply put on a different pair of shoes and suddenly be 1/16" over the limit. Problem is, you get an 18 year old kid who has suddenly been given power for the first time in their life, and presto: 4-page topic on PointBuzz ;)

If you guys are so convinced the metal things are wrong, bring a tape measure and measure how tall they are. You'll look a bit funny, but you may prove or disprove your point.

When I worked at Disney, the height thing was drilled into us that if it's too close to call, it's a no. I get it - in practicality, 1/64th of an inch is not going to make one bit of difference in terms of rider safety. But in the microscopic chance something did go wrong (related to height or not) and it comes back on someone that the rider in question missed the height requirement, that is not going to look good. I fully agree that if you are 53.99999 inches tall, you are going to be fine. But no one wants to make that call and have something bad come back on them for making that call. And that is drilled into operations employees, and I honestly think it's the right mindset to have from the perspective of the park. They aren't trying to ruin your day by being strict or have an ego boost, I promise. They are adhering to strict safety rules that will get them in very big hot water if they do not enforce 100%.

XS NightClub said:

What's the point of complaining on pointless buzz?

Contact guest services. Perhaps they have an actual answer.

Guest Services' answer was that the individual ride hosts are allowed to re-measure at their own discretion, even if it means denying a ride to someone who was previously granted a wristband (after all, as 203958 people have stated here already, someone may have surreptitiously slipped the band off another kid). Or at least, that was the case in 2015 when this happened.

Cartwright, I don't dismiss what you are saying in any way, nor would I ever get upset over an employee doing their job. Both of my daughters are on the border of different heights...48 and 54. I am quite certain that, as CPvet expressed in a different opinion, it comes down to individual workers and their own attitude towards the whole practice.

Before we get in line, I have a short conversation with them that even though they have a band they may get measured and may get told they cannot ride so they are prepared. It's amazing how well that works.

And that's the difference: setting realistic expectations goes a long way.

You don't know how many times we had kids in platform flip flops who were clearly not tall enough to ride in their bare feet. Those parents set the expectations for their children that they were going to game the system and try to sneak on unnoticed.

I also had a grandfather try to tell me that his young granddaughter (who wasn't even close to tall enough by a good 6 inches at least) could ride in his place if it was such a big deal to me. I looked at him in disbelief that he wasn't understanding the concept that it's a height requirement and not an age requirement or anything like that.

I told him that he could walk through with her and leave her at the other side if he still wanted to ride, but that she couldn't ride. What does he do? He tries to get her on the ride by placing her in the seat and putting the harness down. We released the harnesses for them both to leave the ride area and they did.

Again, it's about expectations. That grandparent tried to bend the rules to his will rather than comply with rules that were put in place to protect his granddaughter. That sets expectations that she doesn't necessarily need to follow the rules because grandpa let her bend the rules.

You know what else doesn't help? When people just behind them in line are mocking ride hosts for not allowing a child to ride who isn't tall enough even though it's not their ass on the line if they allow the child to ride and something happens to them.

Anyway, I understand the frustration. But a few seconds/minutes here or there will not or should not ruin your day. At least, I'd hope not.

I agree with everything being said on here in regards to safety. I'm coming for 3 days next week. My son is 53 and 3/4 inches tall. He wants to ride raptor. Could I pad his shoes or pull something else shady and get him on? Probably, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not gonna be one of those parents. I believe those safety requirements are there for a reason. That being said, make all the measuring sticks EXACTLY the same. That's bs to be told they're tall enough to ride one ride and be told the opposite on a different ride with the same height requirement. This happened to my son on Thunderbird at Holiday World right after he hit the 52 inch mark, and he was being measured by 2 different sticks on the same ride.

A lot of times what can happen with those plastic sticks is that they wear away the plastic over a season from hitting the ground and general wear and tear. Those aren't the absolutely most accurate way of measurement, but they give a great idea.

The measuring stanchions with the swinging bar are more accurate because they aren't as susceptible to that wear and tear the plastic sticks go through over time.

We can agree that Cedat point is ratherpetty in its slavish enforcement of rules to the detriment of common sense. But the bottom line is it doesn't have to be this way and asking for accountability is what we are empowered to do.

Yes, god forbid Cedar Point follows the rules they have set to ensure all of their guests (including you) stay as safe as possible

If a child is legitimately 1mm shy of 48" (or whatever), is it truly a safety issue to let them ride attractions with a 48" (or whatever) height requirement? Sure, if a child is even a quarter inch shy, no question - they don't get to ride. But when a different brand or style of shoe could have pushed the kid over the threshold, common sense should rule the day.

No, the millimeter is likely not a safety issue. But in the eyes of the lawyers in the event of a freak accident, it is. Which means the park thinks it is and they train operations staff to not distinguish a difference between 5 inches and 1 millimeter. And I still will defend that it's the right move.

And I think the inability to distinguish between 89.6% and 99.9% of meeting the height requirement represents a pretty stunning failure of basic common sense. Hell, the park could even make an official "close enough" internal policy. For example, if the guest is less than 1/8" too short (a difference that could easily be accounted for by any one of: shoe type, measurement device material expansion/contraction, posture, time of day, etc.), let them through.

This is especially true in Kevin's case, where the older sibling was well above the 48" threshold. If guests are to have a "best day" experience, it would seem wise to instruct personnel to err on the side of 1mm too short being close enough in that situation.

It's in a trip report over at Coasterbuzz, but the fine folks at Kings Dominion (in addition to not feeling the need to measure our daughters with wristbands) let my wife and I ride the Ferris wheel with our beers so that our youngest could ride; she wanted to ride with her older sister but once she boarded she started crying and changed her mind (she had never ridden a Ferris wheel that large before without either of us, and we had gotten a couple beers to enjoy while they rode some rides together). You can imagine my shock when they told us we could get on with her. With our beers.

No tragic accidents ensued, and fun was had by all.

As I said, different employees, different attitudes towards this stuff, and different outcomes for the guests.

djDaemon said:

Hell, the park could even make an official "close enough" internal policy. For example, if the guest is less than 1/8" too short (a difference that could easily be accounted for by any one of: shoe type, measurement device material expansion/contraction, posture, time of day, etc.), let them through.

There is no possible way a company that preaches safety can then be taken seriously with something known as a "close enough policy".

If they wanted someone who was 47 7/8" tall riding the ride, they would make the height requirement 47"

Again - denying boarding to a kid who is "this close" is not the employee trying to ruin your day. It is the employee making sure they are doing their job and a park making sure they are being as safe as possible in their daily operations. If you start to allow wiggle room, there is absolutely no way you could enforce it in a consistent manner and expect employees to make that call.

djDaemon said:

Hell, the park could even make an official "close enough" internal policy. For example, if the guest is less than 1/8" too short (a difference that could easily be accounted for by any one of: shoe type, measurement device material expansion/contraction, posture, time of day, etc.), let them through.

This is especially true in Kevin's case, where the older sibling was well above the 48" threshold. If guests are to have a "best day" experience, it would seem wise to instruct personnel to err on the side of 1mm too short being close enough in that situation.

Or they could just set the minimum height at 48" and if you are too short by any amount then you do not ride.

What if my kid is 1.5mm too short? He still wants to have a "best day" experience so why can't he ride? He is only 0.5mm shorter than Kevin's kid. That seems close enough. And if they let my -1.5mm kid ride then why shouldn't they let your -2.0mm kid ride, I mean c'mon what is 0.5mm?

Using your close enough policy, which is really just another name for a 120.92mm minimum height requirement, what if my kid is 120.42mm. Isn't that close enough to 120.92mm? It seems like common sense that they should let my kid ride.

And don't get me started on the beer on the ride.