Posted on 07/05/2010 9:19:43 AM PDT by longtermmemmory
(June 23) -- When most people get in line at Orlando, Fla.'s new Harry Potter theme park, they're worried about the wait -- not their weight.
But according to some Harry Potter lovers, pudgy muggles -- those who weigh about 265 pounds or more -- are getting tossed from line at the most-hyped ride in Universal Studios' Wizarding World of Harry Potter amusement park.
For them, the ride "Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey" is truly living up to its name -- and that's a big disappointment for fans who resemble Harry's rotund cousin Dudley.
Harry Potter fanatic Jeff Guillaume said he was "quite disappointed" after park officials turned him away from the Hogwarts-touring attraction because his 5-foot, 8-inch, 265-pound frame was deemed too large for the ride's safety harnesses.
"What it boils down to for me, and what surprised and disappointed me the most, was that many of Universal's other rides contain 'modified seating' rows for larger guests, and -- let's face it -- a good number of people in the Harry Potter fandom are a bit heavy, so why didn't Universal anticipate and accommodate us here?" he wrote on his website, the Harry Potter Automatic News Aggregator (HPANA to Potter maniacs).
Universal Studios representatives did not return calls in time for AOL News' deadline, but the Orlando Sentinel reports that park officials have "instituted a screening system" requiring random park-goers to sit in "test seats" installed in the line area of the "Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey" ride.
"I'm not sure what the system is, but team members take potential riders -- not all of them -- and test whether the safety harnass [sic] will latch," the paper's Theme Park Rangers blog notes.
Some park-goers are hexing Universal Studios officials over rumors that 6-foot-11, 265-pound Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard was permitted on the ride while other heavyset Harry Potter fans were turned away.
But amusement park expert Dennis Speigel says the restrictions likely have as much to do with body type as they do with weight.
"Height can be a factor either way -- too short or too tall -- and girth could be a factor too," said Speigel, who is president of the amusement industry consulting firm International Theme Park Services.
While amusement park visitors are probably accustomed to signs informing them they "must be this tall to ride," Speigel says weight and body type restrictions are prevalent.
"It's not unusual," he says. "You have weight restrictions everywhere from Disney to the smallest mom-and-pop operators. It's for the safety of the guests. ... They aren't penalizing the person to be mean. They are exercising caution as it relates to safety -- and that's the prudent thing to do."
Even though more than one-third of American adults are obese, amusement park designers simply aren't creating rides for people who are very overweight, Speigel says.
"You can't design a ride for an excessively large person," he says. "You can't build for that narrow segment of the population. You try to hit average and little bit above."
If it is made to fit fat people,, before long it probably becomes unsafe for the normal size people.
If it is made to fit fat people,, before long it probably becomes unsafe for the normal size people.
They are complaining about a basketball player who was able to get on weighing 265...well I believe the people who are getting turned away are the disgusting obese gross people who deserve to not put other people in danger with their fat hanging off the sides. This is a good incentive for people to lose weight and then they will be able to get on the ride. People are getting really fat and until they stop this type of thing will happen. What is sad is it seems that kids are the ones being turned away. A kid who ways 265 is the fault of the parent who should be shot or put in jail. It reminds me the that disgusting Huckster Family and how revolting they are and who wanted to represent the Americans as President...Good God Thank God that fugly family was turned away. How to lose weight....push your chair away from the table when you are full. Not a difficult concept.
ping
Just waiting to see any of those individuals hire a lawyer and sue for discrimination.
OK, I laughed.
I was speaking with a doctor about this “obesity crisis”. He said that very few people have a clinical reason for obesity. Most obese are diet AND exercise related issues. No self control and no exercise of significance.
I think the best response is the person who is using the ride to get in shape for his “three clicks”
But amusement park expert Dennis Speigel says the restrictions likely have as much to do with body type as they do with weight.
"Height can be a factor either way -- too short or too tall -- and girth could be a factor too," said Speigel, who is president of the amusement industry consulting firm International Theme Park Services.
Well, if girth is the issue - stick a girth chart next to the height chart before a ride. Have a scale handy too. Without that guide any employee is making a judgment call and it could be discrimination - if a basketball player with the same weight got on and this fat kid couldn't - being the same weight - there's an issue where none needs to be - break out the scales & measures......without them you have 'would have*could have*should have'
I wouldn’t exactly call 250 or 265 a lard ass.
I would if the kid is 5 foot. Not if an adult is 6 foot.
there is no “duty to be fit” or a “right to be fat”
You see this a lot at Disney etc - which I no longer go to. Loads of fatties who eat like pigs and live in a fantasy dream world. This guy at 5’8” 265 lbs should save his money from universal, sign up at a fitness gym and work on saving his life.
Depends on what it is and how it's distributed.
Amusement park rides have always had a size limit, because of the physics and engineering involved in safe restraints on these G-force rides. Riders can be too small and too big. Kids have to wait to grow up, and morbidly obese folk need to lose weight. The very short and the Hagrids of the world are out of luck, ironically ;-)
The article states they have demo seats thoughout the line.
I am also certain the line has descrete markers which can be used to visually compare the patrons to the safety requirements.
You can’t legislate physics.
This has to be the most shocking part of the entire story.
Next thing you'll hear is that many Twilight fans are heavy-set women in their 30's living in fantasy land.
"This sounds like a job for Spider Man!"
More accurately, they are rejecting people if the restraint system can’t be activated. That isn’t a factor of height or weight per see, but width. If the belt can’t go around you, or if the restraint can’t be brought down and latched, you can’t ride.
In this particular ride, I’ve heard that some people who can’t fit in the test seats have been able to fit in one or more of the real seats.
But it has to be embarrassing to sit in a ride, and then be kicked off because several operators working together just can’t squeeze the restraint around you.
The price of an electric scooter rental would cover a gym membership.
For the people you mention, it is about EXCUSES not fitness.
But there is a law somewhere that can be twisted and misconstrued that says you have to make accommodations for people with disabilities...like being obese. Yeah, that’s the ticket! Obesity = disability. And we have the ADA that will force this evil ride to be either shut down or physically altered at the ride operator’s expense.
Fatties at the amusement park ping.
Oh I hear you. I think someone recently was talking about ObamaCare and they were overweight. People want a pill so they can keep eating garbage and sitting in front of a TV or on Facebook, video game, etc. Usually playing some fantasy game or something childish.
What? Did I just read that some dude is about to drop dead of a massive heart attack and he is worried about getting on a Harry Potter ride???????????????????
Lol! No kidding. Wish they would do the same on airlines.
265 is pretty high a weight limit and should cover most people? I am still too short for many rides at 5’2” so I have little sympathy sicne I will never be tall enough to be 5’3” or taller.
And they rent those scooters because they can’t walk all day at the park.
ROLF!
“I wouldn’t exactly call 250 or 265 a lard ass.”
I would. Most people weighing that much are severely obese. Even a 6’4” muscle bound dood weights in at 240-260.
Obesity is not that type of disability. It is like saying voting for democrats is a disability.
My point is that I’ve been in the 250 range at 6’2. Should I be excluded as a lard ass? I understand the arguement for planes. But should Disney spend all that money in R&D and not be able to accomodate people of the upper limit of average without compromising safety for youngsters?
I guess I should replace the work should with could. Could Disney accomodate large people? Everyone is assuming large people are fat or lazy. Disney with its money and technology should be able to build a ride for most. Even NFL players should they choose to visit Disney and ride.
“But should Disney spend all that money in R&D and not be able to accomodate people of the upper limit of average without compromising safety for youngsters?”
That’s not your call. It is their business.
“My point is that I’ve been in the 250 range at 6’2. Should I be excluded as a lard ass? I understand the arguement for planes.”
I have BIL that is 6’4” and 245. He’s primarily muscle. My weight lifting partner is 6’2” and 225. If you are not muscle at 6’2” and 250, then, yes, you are a lard ass. Today’s standards might make you seem not a lard ass, but 250 is fat for most people.
You’re right. It is there business. They have every right to cater to 90 pound Japs. They won’t get my money, and that’s my choice.
Unless they're weight lifters, if someone is 5'8" tall and weighs over 190 pounds, they need to be seriously concerned with losing weight. A large-framed person who is 5'8" shouldn't weigh more than 172 pounds. At 265 pounds, they'd have a BMI of around 40 and be considered morbidly obese.
Isn’t Leftism a mental disorder according to Mike Savage? LOL! They definitely need ADA-compliant rubber rooms!
Why parrot a fad idiocy! BMI is BOGUS.
1. The person who dreamed up the BMI said explicitly that it could not and should not be used to indicate the level of fatness in an individual.The BMI was introduced in the early 19th century by a Belgian named Lambert Adolphe Jacques Quetelet. He was a mathematician, not a physician. He produced the formula to give a quick and easy way to measure the degree of obesity of the general population to assist the government in allocating resources. In other words, it is a 200-year-old hack.
2. It is scientifically nonsensical.
There is no physiological reason to square a person's height (Quetelet had to square the height to get a formula that matched the overall data. If you can't fix the data, rig the formula!). Moreover, it ignores waist size, which is a clear indicator of obesity level.
3. It is physiologically wrong.
It makes no allowance for the relative proportions of bone, muscle and fat in the body. But bone is denser than muscle and twice as dense as fat, so a person with strong bones, good muscle tone and low fat will have a high BMI. Thus, athletes and fit, health-conscious movie stars who work out a lot tend to find themselves classified as overweight or even obese.
I think people are confusing muscle density and fat content. You can have two people with the same weight but one be out of shape and “rotund” and the other person in shape and compact.
I guess my point is that Disney should be able to accomodate all(or most). The people paying the crazy prices are us “lard asses”, not 50 pound kids. Airplanes are 50 years old. Rides are new and should be designed to accomodate the changing size of America- if possible. Its not like a 750 lb heiffer showed up expecting to ride. We are talking about people in the 200’s. Just my opinion. And the arguement is different than air travel.
BMI is crap. When I weighed 260, my waist never exceeded 38-40 inches. It doesn’t measure fatness or fitness.
We are talking about the people who have elected to ignore a prudent lifestyle of proper eating and exercise. They have the freedome to eat and live as they choose. The business has the freedom to not accomodate them. Obviously their dollars do not matter so what are they upset about?
I'd like to know just how many large framed 5'8" adults are below 172 pounds. I'd also like to see that broken down by age, or decade of age.
The point is not who could, should, has been, will be a lard ass. Its about accomodating consumers. I’m not making judgement on large people, like some others.
They are offering a product that many can’t use. Its their loss and bad PR.
The point I’m making is that BMI does not measure ‘lard assness’ at all. Most hard, muscular small assed persons such as me have “obese level BMI’s” simply because muscle is much denser than fat.
That is use or invocation or labeling people by BMI is slanderous, it’s mean, vile, prejudice.
Point taken. I’m on your side guy.
Thanks!
To be sure, I don’t care one way or the other about the main issue of the thread, although at some point such issues might be interesting to me, which is why I read it at first, and the responses too. You were right to say, in a way, that I took the thread off topic, but this BMI stuff sticks in my craw — today’s medical professionals, including my own, can’t help but practice ‘defensive’ medicine so the BMI think colors — shades, that is — good practice based on real learned wisdoms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.