Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I let my kid on it when he was 7 and again at 9 going on 10. But I used my judgment and decided he was old enough for it. I think I would worry that the ride would be too much for his developing body at 4. Not being a Dr. I can't give a medical reason, only that I wouldn't be comfortable letting a preschooler of mine ride.
Originally Posted By demderedoseguys >Again what does this have to do with a 4 year old, as contrasted with someone older? That's the issue I'm trying to bring up here - that it shouldn't be directed to the age of the rider, but to the condition of the rider.< I don't think a 4 year old is capable of making the decision to go on an intense ride like MS. With all the warning signs that are posted, at least an adult can digest the information and decide for themselves. How do you know that if a 4 year old could read and comprehend the warning signs that they would still make the decision to get on the ride? I'm sorry. We won't agree on this, but it's up to the parents to protect the child.
Originally Posted By toon-fan <<I don't think a 4 year old is capable of making the decision to go on an intense ride like MS. ... it's up to the parents to protect the child.>> There are lots of decisions that are not/should not be left up to children. If a child wants to overeat on chocolate, ice cream or what-have-you, the parent has the right to prevent them from following through on such a decision. If a parent doesn't want their child to see R-rated movies, they can hopefully enforce a rule to that end at home. But if another parent wants to take their child into an R-rated movie, the theater can't generally stop them. It's the parent's role to make that decision -- and deal with the consequences of their action. Disney and other park operators may be able to set certain rules, but even then people will argue against them. And if a parent chooses to make their choice for the child, especially when they choose to reject fair warnings presented to them, how is the park to blame? People need to take more responsibility for their choices and their actions and not try to pass the buck to any deep-pockets thay may finger.
Originally Posted By GalDisney Why is the family picking on the 4 yr old age thing? If the ride has a height requiremnt and the child met that requirement what does age have to do with it? His age had nothing to do with the heart condition. If this does go to court, i am sure Disney and their high powered lawyers will win this case, and i hope Disney will not "settle" the case just to get it out of court. This thing needs to be followed through if it does make it to court, Disney needs to win this.
Originally Posted By ChiMike More than likely Disney will settle. They don't want a public trial regarding one of their newest investments.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I do not have children, nor have I ridden M:S yet. But I believe I fall on the side of Disney's warnings and limitations, meaning I don't think four is too young for the attraction. While the ride may be intense, IMO it's FAR safer than other rides with height restrictions. With M:S you're in a secure harness, but even if you did manage to wiggle your way out of it, unlike a coaster, you're not going to fall out of the ride vehcle... you've nowhere to go. Yes, you might get dizzy, yes, you might get nauseous, but if you're healthy (and most four year olds are going to be much healthier than the average adult), you're not going to be injured.
Originally Posted By englishboy For the last time, it's an ENCLOSED ride, and though there are many warnings posted, you can't actually see the ride system itself. (We understand exactly what's in the building because we are disney dweebs. The average person has only half a clue.) More importantly, since when are parents supposed to be experts on experimental centrafuge rides at amusement parks? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm looking forward to the testimony in court though: Lawyer: So the decision to de-activate two centrafuges to tone down the attraction had nothing to do with the two recent deaths? Disney park exec: Of course not. It's simply for greater guest satisfaction. Lawyer: Let me remind you that you are under oath. Disney park exec: Let me rephrase that...
Originally Posted By englishboy tekkeruss said: "While the ride may be intense, IMO it's FAR safer than other rides with height restrictions." With 150 emergency calls since opening, many resulting in hospitalization, MISSION SPACE is the least safe ride in the united states at the moment--if you want to define safe as passengers not requiring immediate emergency medical attention. I think that's a reasonable definition.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey I wouldn't allow a small child on M:S becuase I think the ride is far too intense for a small child. I also wouldn't take a small child on one of those rides that spins so fast you stick to the wall. A little kid doesn't belong on that, and IMO the same goes for M:S.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey <<"The risks on MS encompass everything from nausea, to dizziness and lightheadedness and in this case, death, for someone who may have unknown condition." Again what does this have to do with a 4 year old, as contrasted with someone older? That's the issue I'm trying to bring up here - that it shouldn't be directed to the age of the rider, but to the condition of the rider.>> Why would any adult bring a small child on a ride that has warnings posted ALL OVER IT that you may experience motion sickness? Have you ever seen a sick child? It breaks my heart to see a sick kid because they're absolutely miserable and they don't know how to handle it. Why would you take the chance of messing up a kid's trip to Disney by taking him on a throw-up ride? Why would you take the chance of putting any kid through the misery of nausea and vomiting all in the name of a good time? If they're are cautions and warnings posted all over a ride, I think you'd be a stupid, selfish person to think a small child should go on that ride. Their little bodies don't need that kind of stress, and at Disney World there are millions of other things a little kid can do instead of going on that ride.
Originally Posted By pixiedust1 <<Disney park exec: Of course not. It's simply for greater guest satisfaction. Lawyer: Let me remind you that you are under oath. Disney park exec: Let me rephrase that...>> I posted in a MS thread a while ago and said that Disney opened themsleves up to litigation when they toned down MS.. I said that it made them seem guilty.. Bad Choice... and my two cents about age restriction.. at any age you can fall down and die from heart defect.. you can be 4 or 40... the point is.. if you don't know about your defect.. your rolling the dice everyday of your life... it could kill you anywhere at anytime.. the amount of people that go through the turnstiles at WDW ups the odds and of course the rides do to... there is really no solution to this.. do the amusement parks around the world just stop making thrill rides... I don't think so.. life goes on.. think about that roll of the dice the next time you hop on that 5g roller coaster at Cedar Point..
Originally Posted By trekkeruss Speaking of Cedar Point, is M:S in fact more "dangerous" than other thrill rides, or is it just under a bigger microscope because of the two deaths?
Originally Posted By barboy I wish bankruptcy on the lawyer and his/her firm(assuming he/she is a partner or an associate). Oh that's right....I forgot....if one has to file a petition for BK they are better off in Florida than say California.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> And strangely enough, I can't "ride" backward at the Garden Grill; I need to switch seats so that I go forward. << Maybe you're sensitive to the earth's magnetic field?
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> More than likely Disney will settle. They don't want a public trial regarding one of their newest investments. << Bingo. There's money to be made here and the lawyers won't even have to prepare a court case.
Originally Posted By ssWEDguy >> Disney opened themsleves up to litigation when they toned down MS. << They only toned down one (or two?) of the centrifuges as an option, not the whole thing. The original centrifuges operate as originally designed.
Originally Posted By pixiedust1 <<They only toned down one (or two?) of the centrifuges as an option, not the whole thing. The original centrifuges operate as originally designed.>> Don't get wrong.. I know why Disney did what they did... but I'm talking about bottom feeding lawyers here.. they can make anything and anybody look bad with their double talk... I can hear the lawyers now.... so why did you tone it down.. so people had a choice to die or not...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think this is an open and shut case. There is not other ride in the world like Mission: Space. The only thing comparable at all is at NASA. Disney did not respond by taming the ride when dozens of dozens of people were getting sick. They did tame the ride down after two deaths. Now, I don't agree that there are inadequate warnings. The warnings are plentiful. I do argue that Disney has a greater responsibility for determining who should or should not ride...and not a parent. A parent has absolutely NO knowledge about the effects of the ride's technology.
