Thanks for the insight, guys. And I do see the logic from both sides. On one hand, why have a limit if you don't enforce it? On the other hand, why be so cruel to those heightily gifted?
Let me ask this though--is height/girth really a fair parameter for restriction from a ride?
Hear me out: we all know that roller coaster operators know their liabilities. These operator's clearly state stern warnings up and down the queue lines and blast the same warnings over queue's loud speakers.
But. does this stop "expectant mothers," "persons with back or heart conditions," or "those prone to motion sickness" from actually riding the ride?
Nope.
I have to say, I feel that if you're going to post a height limit with a height stick, you better darn well have sonograms and EKGs out there scanning the line and enforcing those cautionary limitations too.
When you're on a coaster, I say buyer beware. The same way that sitting in a T.V. studio gives unwritten consent to use your image on film, sitting in a coaster train should give unwritten consent that you are willing to accept whatever may happen.
I figure a park has a right to kick me off a ride if it appears the ride's restraint (the lap bar and seat belt in most cases) has not been set to a safe level. Other than that, hands off, Miss. Rainstorm. I'm taking my life into my own hands and I'm fine with that.
To clarify, I do think ride height minimums are a good thing, as a ride's restraints clearly need to have some minimum form to work with.
And I'm not saying do away with cautionary limitations. What I am saying is, along with those limitations, roller coaster operators should come right out and say (in text and over the loud speaker) that "riding this attraction releases all operating parties from any and all liability resulting from injury or death."
How hard would that be? Sure it doesn't sound friendly and Disneyland-magical, but it may actually work to make those people who shouldn't be riding seriously think twice.
And I'm no lawyer, so maybe my wording isn't quite right, but I think that an explicit statement of non-liability would mean that, unless the operators did something like prevent medical help from getting to those who needed it, sue-happy ride patrons would have no case.
Because no matter whether you think it's fair or not that I got kicked off that coaster (I'm not sure whether I think it was fair or not) you have to admit that there's almost an absolute chance that I could've sat in that coaster, lowered the lap-bar to a safe level, had the ride of my life and been just fine.
And if something had gone wrong, I don't think my family would sue. They would know I was doing something I loved. In fact, my only wish in hypothetical-death would be that my last on-ride photo be framed on my headstone. Maybe morbid, or maybe I'm just that hard-core.