Height restriction - who was BU?

[TigerOnTour]

I went to a thing today and there was a simulator/game that visitors could go on. I was accompanied by person A who was 146cm and person B who was 136cm tall. You had to be 140cm to go on it. A and B measured themselves and only A was allowed on by the ride operator. B was upset. B said A should have not gone on it because B wasn't tall enough. Should I have stopped A going on to save B's feelings?
WIBU to let A go on the ride?

YABU use of “person A” should be banned..

I would not have gone on if we were doing stuff together

Agree!

A person should be denied doing something just because another person isn't safely able to do so?

That's not how life works.

Is "person B" a child?

If it’s your children, we often let DC1 ride on rides that DC2 can’t go on. Equally we queue for rides that DC1 thinks are too childish. So they both get picks.

Not unless A and B are conjoined twins.

Are these your children, OP?

age restrictions, height restrictions etc etc all part of life as a child and an adult. would you say that the taller/older child couldnt learn to drive until the younger child was of an age when they could as well? of course you wouldnt. my children learned early on that there were some rides they couldnt go on because they were too small, too young or in some cases too old. its a matter of waiting patiently for the other child to have their fun knowing that round the corner you will be the one having the fun and your sibling will be waiting for you. Teaches kids not to be selfish and to wait.

For somewhere like Alton Towers, we just didn't go until all the DC were tall enough to be able to do all the rides.

Both must be children given the heights. I’m very short and I’m still over 150cm. I’m guessing they are 8/9yo and a 10/11 yo.

Haha, yes they are children and have reached neither their full heights nor their full emotional maturity (I hope)!

I agree about @SpringBunnies approach but there wasn't another thing to go on in return.

Siblings... you can't restrict the older child because the younger child is smaller

Taking your child and their best friend... do stuff together

but there will be other days and other trips out where things will be reversed? nip the entitlement and selfishness in the bud. if they arent teens yet its only going to get worse if you dont.

The elder child should not have to miss out on things because the other doesn't meet the safety criteria

Are A & B children you were responsible for? If so, and it was the only activity of the day, then as you hadn't checked it before, it was on you to come up with a different activity for both to enjoy. If A & B are adults I'd expect one of those situations where the one says 'I won't do it either then' and the other responds 'don't be daft, why should you miss out?' Followed by a bit of to ing and fro ing in this vein until a decision is made one way or the other.

Your smaller child needs an entitlement check ASAP. Life isn't always exactly fair.

It was in a museum and I hadn't anticipated this simulator, I would have avoided it if I'd known! We avoid a whole theme park nearby because about 60% of the rides have a restriction between their heights!

@5128gap it was just a tiny bit of the whole day. I didn't know it was there.

@Aquamarine1029 I agree. He needs to face up to this as part of life but I think he is finding it hard recently as his brother gets a lot more freedom now he's a bit older.

I let my 7yo on rides at theme parks my 4 yo is to small for, and he sits through some 'to small' rides she likes. He'll also still be getting dragged along to the same place when he's older and dc2 is still in target age, so it evens out.

Is the taller child older than the shorter one? Of course they shouldn't be restricted only to rides for younger children just because they have a younger sibling. Obviously it's annoying for the younger one that they can't join the older one, but it's normal and expected that older kids will be able to do some things that younger kids can't.

If they're the same age and one kid is just shorter, then obviously that's a bit tougher on the shorter kid - but it's also not the taller child's fault and I don't think the taller child should miss out. I don't think it's right to teach children that the way to deal with unhappiness is to make everyone else unhappy as well.

I think it’s just part of the mundane disappointment we sometimes face in life. My only child is annoyed if he can’t go on some rides but I can’t stop everyone else riding to spare his disappointment. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have let the older one on it - otherwise where does the prescient end, you won’t let the older one drive/ drink/ leave home until the younger one can learn too. Unfortunately it’s the luck of the sibling draw (saying this as a youngest sibling).

The older/taller one shouldn't be prevented from doings just because their younger/shorter sibling can't do them yet.

The younger/smaller one needs to learn that they can't always get their own way.

@KreedKafer the older one is taller and to be fair to him he didn't boast about it afterwards and was nice to his little brother. But brother was still upset, not in a screaming and shouting way but in a silently crying way.

I think this is one of those unavoidable unfair things for siblings. But as we all know life isn’t fair. I say that as the younger one in my family. The good news is that you can now use this as an example when other more subjective things come up between them.

Is Person B 4-8 years old? If so, it might vaguely be reasonable for them to be upset. Otherwise, unreasonable.