euchrid Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 Strange but true! http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Alton-Towers-High-Heels-Ban-Theme-Park-Introduces-Scanners-To-Stop-Small-Children-Getting-On-Rides/Article/200905415287121?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_9&lid=ARTICLE_15287121_Alton_Towers_High_Heels_Ban%3A_Theme_Park_Introduces_Scanners_To_Stop_Small_Children_Getting_On_Rides Always High-Heel Responsibly
Dr. Shoe Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 Having a daughter who has always been a little devious, this story does not surprise me in the slightest! Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Bad_Robot Posted May 23, 2009 Posted May 23, 2009 After reading the Sky article I have to wonder are these children managing to do this without the assistance of the parent in charge? Would a parent not notice a child taping an extra pair of flip flops to the bottoms of their trainers? or wearing multiple pairs of socks....which then makes you wonder how did they get their shoes on??? Very very curious? Should the parents be charged with conspiring to deceive the theme park along with the children
Dr. Shoe Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 After reading the Sky article I have to wonder are these children managing to do this without the assistance of the parent in charge? Would a parent not notice a child taping an extra pair of flip flops to the bottoms of their trainers? or wearing multiple pairs of socks....which then makes you wonder how did they get their shoes on??? Very very curious? Should the parents be charged with conspiring to deceive the theme park along with the children The problem is is that you can't prosecute anyone because there is no implied financial gain involved. Secondly, often the parents let the kids go off and do their own thing. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
jwhite44 Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 My guess would be that if you're the parent of a teenage daughter, you'd be more than happy if the only reason she wore high heels was to get on amusement rides.
Histiletto Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 What happens if a child is injured and then found to be shorter than the limits allow? Could be a messy and expensive legal battle.
Bad_Robot Posted May 24, 2009 Posted May 24, 2009 The problem is is that you can't prosecute anyone because there is no implied financial gain involved. Secondly, often the parents let the kids go off and do their own thing. Ok so while you can't prosecute the parents what course of action should be taken, can some of the problems with children these days be traced to parents that don't educate their children in the difference between right and wrong and I am not too comfortable with the concept of parents letting their children roam free around an amusement park unsupervised....thats how kids can go missing....children do need boundaries and to understand that they can't always have what they want and to cheat and deceive is the wrong path to take, after all the rules and height restrictions are there for the childs safty
LovesHiHeels Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 Does this mean that Alton Towers will not be a good place for a heel meet then?
Dr. Shoe Posted May 30, 2009 Posted May 30, 2009 Ok so while you can't prosecute the parents what course of action should be taken, can some of the problems with children these days be traced to parents that don't educate their children in the difference between right and wrong and I am not too comfortable with the concept of parents letting their children roam free around an amusement park unsupervised....thats how kids can go missing....children do need boundaries and to understand that they can't always have what they want and to cheat and deceive is the wrong path to take, after all the rules and height restrictions are there for the childs safty If a child is found to be under the height requirement but had worn high heels or whatever in order to decieve the operators then they are solely (pardon the pun) responsible for their own actions unless there was a deliberate act placing that person's life in danger. For example, a burglar is injured by a trap set especially to trap burglars then they may sue but if they fall from a window whilst trying to break in then they will have done this at their own risk and so have no recourse. Moreover, if the child wearing high heels contributes to the injury of others or to a mechanical malfunction then the park and the injured parties can seek damages from the child's parents or the responsible adult. The rules are there for safety and no other reason, they are not there because the park charges a lower admission for small children. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
Guy N. Heels Posted June 8, 2009 Posted June 8, 2009 If a child is found to be under the height requirement but had worn high heels or whatever in order to decieve the operators then they are solely (pardon the pun) responsible for their own actions ... Moreover, if the child wearing high heels contributes to the injury of others or to a mechanical malfunction then the park and the injured parties can seek damages from the child's parents or the responsible adult. The rules are there for safety and no other reason, they are not there because the park charges a lower admission for small children. I think your answer is spot-on! Safety should always be the top priority! But X-ray equipment for shoes??!??! Somebody's got a screw loose somewhere! Why not just ask the youngsters to remove their footwear and then check to see if they "measure-up"? If not, then show 'em the exit! Since I am not a legal-eagle to start with, I'll make no comments about lawsuits in England; or is it Britain; or perhaps United Kingdom? Keep on stepping, Guy N. Heels
Dawn HH Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Why not do as they do on the McDonalds play equipment? Have the children place their shoes in a cuppy bin and have them retrieve them when they leave the ride. Cheers--- Dawn HH High Heeled Boots Forever!
Puffer Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Without getting into too much technical or legal detail, please bear in mind that: 1. The issues here are almost entirely civil, not criminal; 'prosecution' is the wrong concept outside the narrow field of breaching health and safety legislation (which is essentially a matter for the operator). 2. The park could impose certain clothing rules as a condition of entry, e.g. no high heels on children (and/or adults!). Failure to comply = breach of contract = no entry or no ride. 3. A child suffering injury through his/her own misadventure will have to bear the consequences; the park operator will not be liable unless negligent (e.g. providing unsafe rides). The park does have a duty of care, hence its safety checks, warnings and height/clothing restrictions etc which should demonstrate that the duty is met to the appropriate standard. 4. A child causing injury to another through negligence will be personally liable (for damages). (Fancy suing a fourteen year old with few assets beyond pocket money?) The parents or others will not be liable merely because of their position; they would have to actively encourage or otherwise participate in the wrongdoing (but failing to control or restrain a child when that was clearly necessary might lead to parental liability). Criminal liability will only arise if harm is done intentionally or through gross negligence, e.g. action for manslaughter (culpable homicide). Best to forbid the child from going to the park at all but leave the entrance money handy on the table! Personally, I think that a handful of deaths or serious injuries from leisure activities generally is totally acceptable: it not only serves as a warning but keeps things in proportion. No activity is 100% safe and we spend (waste) far too much time and money trying to achieve the impossible, and stifling freedom and pleasure in the process. The best analogy I know is the mail order company which has 3% of its shipments damaged in transit: anything more is unacceptable (bad service); anything less indicates that the packing is overdone.
Recommended Posts