Disney Bans Selfie Sticks 177
New submitter albimaturityr writes with a story from the Orlando Sentinel that Disney is banning selfie sticks from its parks, starting with Disney World (as of Tuesday) but continuing with its other parks in California, Paris, and Hong Kong. Says the report: The issue has been building at Disney. Previously, the sticks were prohibited from its rides, and "no selfie-sticks" signs were at select rides, such as Big Thunder Mountain Railroad at Magic Kingdom. Cast members have given verbal warnings to rule breakers.
Several incidents preceded the change, but officials have been discussing the rules for some time, Disney said. This week at Disney California Adventure park, a roller coaster was halted after a passenger pulled out a selfie-stick. The ride was closed for an hour.
Aww hell. (Score:1)
What are us narcissists supposed to do now?
Re: (Score:2)
Hold their phone at arm's length.
Re: (Score:3)
>People tend to be quite attached to their arms.
Well, at least until the accident...
In reality though, most rides these days seem to go out of their way to make sure that there's nothing actually dangerous within reach of anyone in the cars. Even if you slip out of your seat and stand up, etc. Sure, you'd have to be a grade-A dumbass to do such a thing, but even grade-A dumbasses getting themselves dismembered on your ride tends to make or bad publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, that would be dangerous too in a roller coaster. You should keep you arms inside the carriage... But a ban on bringing your own arms around on the ride could be a little difficult to enforce. People tend to be quite attached to their arms.
It wouldn't be dangerous per se: it would only make it more likely that the person drops the phone, and depending on the height, end up breaking or otherwise damaging it. Although on the rides, paying attention to the photos as opposed to the rides is more dangerous. If you have someone in your party who's not on the ride, have him/her take the photo from the ground - or preferably, a video, so that he doesn't have to struggle w/ the correct positioning wrt you.
Re: Aww hell. (Score:1)
You guys bring your arms on the roller coaster with you? Is Disney land getting that dangerous??
Re: (Score:2)
Disney is just testing the waters for a rollercoaster/shooting gallery. Your ride picture at the end has your accuracy stats.
You really only need to be armed for the parking structures and the ball road/disneyland drive intersection.
Re: (Score:2)
Burned thru LOTS of 22 shot gallery loads at WDW when I was young - the gallery in Frontier Land used *real* guns and *real* ammo.
Was rather disappointed to see they were replaced with cheap cheesy fakes that "shot" light ...
Re: (Score:2)
You guys bring your arms on the roller coaster with you? Is Disney land getting that dangerous??
Small arms only!
It makes you look a bit like a T-Rex though.
Also, forget about using them to eat a hamburger afterwards...
Re: (Score:2)
They could go back to posting on-line about how they're not sheep because they have an Android phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Taze yourself, Guaranteed to get far more likes and clicks than any selfie you can take.
Re:Aww hell. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aww hell. (Score:4, Informative)
Photos still stuck in... (Score:3, Informative)
Problem is that these photographers are still stuck in the 20th century, and will give you a printout. They may sell you a CD if you pay more. That's my biggest turn-off: I don't keep photo albums any more, and don't want a folder cover for a slaughtered tree photo. I have my tablets, laptops, phones, and can even get an electronic photoframe if I wish where I can store any number of photos w/o taking up more space.
I don't mind paying for the ride photo services if they take electronic photos and t
Re: Photos still stuck in... (Score:1)
All the pictures they take are available on the web. They absolutely do not require physical pictures. Been that way for years
Re:Photos still stuck in... (Score:4, Informative)
They changed the photo business in the biggest attraction park in the Netherlands, quite recently. They used to charge EUR 10 or so for a single printout. Now they sell you a 4 GB USB stick for EUR 20 which you can load with up to 15 (?) photos and which you can re-use on a next visit until some expiration date. And afterwards, you can use it as any other USB stick. I thought it was pretty reasonable. It was the first time ever I paid for photos in an attraction park.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many photographic "papers" today are actually solid polyester.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea dude, super old news but the on-ride photos at Disneyland can now be emailed to you. You just type in your email on a touchscreen at the end of the ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hurray! (Score:3)
The new rule doesn't apply to selfie drones!
Re: (Score:2)
What were they thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are lucky, you bought a cheap crap stick, and it will snap(and not send a sharp end into anyone's eye) before some part of your body does; but that's not really a gamble you want to take just for a lousy picture of yourself.
The little racket of selling pictures of the riders, taken by fixed cameras installed at strategic points, probably helped contribute to this decision, doing well by doing good and all that; but what a stupid idea.
Do people also take care to wear ponytails and/or ties when near rotating equipment? And dangle loose clothing over any exposed gears and belts they find? Or do we have people who've never met a machine more dangerous than an iPad or a minivan and just don't think?
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're in a world where everyone is constantly being told to do whatever the fuck they want, and everyone else is told to deal with it. People smoke while leaning on no-smoking signs, people drive through streets clearly labeled as private streets, people scream in libraries, yap on their phones in theaters, and take flash pictures in zoos scaring the animals away and there is fuck all reasonable people can do about it.
So now you have a rule in an amusement park that some idiots don't think apply to them (as usual), and its actually really important. You think they'll get it, after being able to ignore every other fucking rule they were ever subject to?
No, they won't. They'll treat the "No selfie stick sign" the same way they will every other damn sign they ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they'll get thrown out of the park and admission is not at all cheap.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be honest that selfie stick rule has absolutely nothing to do with what happened on the ride, that is the excuse. The real problem with selfie sticks is a little more subtle. New digital cameras, unlike old film cameras, can take shot, after shot, after shot with bad ones deleted not costing quite a bit of money each and every time the button is pushed. So old film camera, near enough, good enough. New camera, hmm, didn't like that one, lets try again and again and again, how about trying this or thi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not expecting civility here; but even relatively dumb animals learn to avoid aversive stimuli; and the slightly smarter ones sometimes even anticipate and avoid them.
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:4, Interesting)
People don't try to understand why rules are there. "Don't park there" could be because the snow truck has low visibility and risks ripping your car off. "Don't jaywalk" has a pretty fucking good reason behind it. Ignoring non-smoking signs isn't just being a dick head. My condo complex has a no BBQ rule, because its a group of historical buildings that are basically dry firewood close to each other. I don't think anyone aside me does NOT have a BBQ. Someday everyone will roast alive.
Thats my point: people cannot make the difference between just being a dick head and putting themselves and others genuinely at risk. Rules are meant to be ignored, no matter how important they are, to these people.
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Don't jaywalk" has a pretty fucking good reason behind it.
It does? The UK doesn't have a "don't jaywalk" rule, and there don't seem to be any adverse effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking a raw statistics one might argue that lack of a "don't jaywalk" rule has lead to increased safety of pedestrians in the UK compared to the USA.
In reality it has probably more to do with stricter driving tests, structurally safer roads; I am primarily referring to far fewer intersections and far more roundabouts, and on average smaller cars than the USA. However I imagine road safety as taught to children probably plays a part as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? The speed limits on UK streets are broadly the same or higher compared to those in the US. Having driven for many years on both I really don't see much difference other than US streets are typically wider and the highways are considerably slower. I drive 30-40 on typical (sub)urban streets in both places.
There's no enforcement of jaywalking laws in plenty of the US too (e.g. NYC). It's not about safety (to my mind) but about indicating whether the car or the person has priority in that city. The UK and
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds like an issue with the laws surrounding driving cars, not an issue with crossing the road.
Aside - while I have no stats to back it up, my bet would be that it's far less dangerous to jay walk in the UK than it is to cross at one of America's crossings attached to a huge light controlled crossroads (mostly due to right turn on red, but partly due to just the sheer number of things drivers must concentrate on). Speaking as a European living in the US, America's road designs are utterly and thorou
Re: (Score:3)
However, the reason to not jaywalk is simply because the vast majority of people take the longest possible route to cross the street (i.e. diagonal) rather than straight across which exposes you to more traffic and thus a greater chance of being hit.
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's good reason to be skeptical of rules. Too often, rules are not honest. The usual tactic is to not give any explanation. When that won't fly, safety is the #1 excuse for a rule. But so often, it turns out that someone profits from a rule, and that is the real reason for it. Even when there are genuine safety concerns, there is often also a profit motive. That seems highly likely with this particular Disney rule. Why couldn't people use electronic devices or carry nail clippers on planes? Why did so many cities try red light cameras? Why can't people bring their own food and drink to the movie theaters? Why can't we play movies on our computers' DVD drives?
Yeah. Don't blindly trust The Rules.
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. But instead we're in a world of "blindly distrust the rules". And that is just as stupid. (also, in a lot of the cases you mentioned, its a private entity dictating what to do on their own property, which they're fully allowed to)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a problem. With so many unjustified rules around, they become background noise. Then a rule that has a very good justification gets ignored.
Re: What were they thinking? (Score:3)
There really oughta be a rule banning all these unjustified rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He runs Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What brand of DVD player do you have that crashes at all, let alone blue screens?
Re: (Score:2)
What brand of DVD player do you have that crashes at all, let alone blue screens?
I'm guessing this might be a "Whoosh" moment, and the GP was referring to (CRT) TVs, VCRs, and (some?) DVD players that will show a solid blue screen when there's no signal. This obviously varies by brand.
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulation, you just created a police state, where we have to put enforcement on every fucking thing because we can't expect people to be civil.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulation, you just created a police state, where we have to put enforcement on every fucking thing because we can't expect people to be civil.
Welcome to the UK!
Re: (Score:2)
There are two factors at work. 1) People are seriously fucking stupid, largely because of shit parenting. MY parents (well, parent, really) taught me to stay the fuck out of the street, keep my arms inside the roller coaster and so on. 2) People hate their lives. Who cares if they die? Life sucks, then you die, right? Especially teenagers. When I was 15 I didn't expect to live to 30. Who cared? The world was going to hell in a handbasket.
Re: (Score:2)
Just this comes to mind : https://youtu.be/oeT5otk2R1g [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
1) If you treat people like children, they will start behaving like them.
2) If you make tons of unreasonable rules, people will start breaking them in protest, and start breaking the reasonable ones as well, especially if it's hard to tell the two apart ("You can't bring your
Re: (Score:2)
Half the world is intent on making rules for everything, just because "there ought to be a law" against anything remotely risky or unpleasant. And the other half lashes out by ignoring those rules an doing what the hell they want.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The way that you deal with one of those types of people, who I deem "assholes", is a simple idea that is hard for many people to do: Be an asshole in turn.
Assholes are not going to listen to reasonable people, to polite requests. Certainly try these first, but do not expect them to work and be ready to up the ante. See someone throw a cigarette butt on the ground? Ask them to pick it up. They refuse? Pick it up and stick it on them.
Nice people
Re: (Score:2)
You nailed it.
We're subjected constantly to rules and laws that make no sense and most of them aren't enforced; Even the cops often don't know what the laws are and they're supposed to enforce them. It makes me think of the cop who was writing tickets to everyone with a GPS. It was a stupid law but he decided to enforce it and caught hell for it, but isn't that what we want? Don't we want cops to enforce the actual laws regardless of their own opinions? But instead, we've all come to accept an environment
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind of shallow, vain, social media obsessed person who carries around a damned selfie stick in the first place?
This isn't people thinking "gee, this could be stupid and dangerous", it's people thinking "I'm so putting this on Instagram".
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
... but what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls,...
There are many, many people ion this planet who are so self-absorbed, so oblivious to the world around them, that they regularly put others at risk.
.
At least those who walk into streetlight poles while texting hurt only themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the risk of whacking the rider in front of you in the head when the apparent gravity shifts, a poorly secured phone getting loose and hitting someone behind you (with great force if the phone rebounds off of a fixed object first), or simply losing your grip on the stick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them a good 51% of the human population are idiots.
This is from personal observation and working a few years when I was young at an amusement park. the bulk of people are really morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Narcissists, that's who. And unfortunately, they are becoming more common. People these days are incredibly entitled, and it's not the younger generations, it's everyone.
Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Selfie sticks are, at best, narcissistic nonsense, but the person who whipped one out on a rollercoaster was risking injury to himself and his fellow riders. How much of a grip can you have on a stick with a weight on the end while hurtling through twists and turns? And if you lose your grip, the best case scenario is that your phone falls and shatters below. Worst case scenario is it hits into someone and injures them. All because he "needed" to get a photo of himself.
Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.
Re: (Score:1)
Selfie sticks are, at best, narcissistic nonsense, but the person who whipped one out on a rollercoaster was risking injury to himself and his fellow riders. How much of a grip can you have on a stick with a weight on the end while hurtling through twists and turns? And if you lose your grip, the best case scenario is that your phone falls and shatters below. Worst case scenario is it hits into someone and injures them. All because he "needed" to get a photo of himself.
Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.
Selfie sticks are not always narcissistic nonsense. My mum loves to get photos of my wife our child and myself. Its not always practical to get some third person to take a photo of us as a group. Thats where the selfie stick comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are 4 of you, then there is no reason that one of you can't take a photo of the other 3, and for the all of you photo, call a bystander. This is if y'all are outdoors, maybe touring some place. If you are indoors, it's not all that difficult to set up the timer mode on the camera, and in 10 seconds, get the shot of all of you.
The only people for whom they're really useful is a single person, or a single person and his/her kid, w/ the kid too young to take a pic. But even then, using the t
Re: Dangerous (Score:2)
Or ask. I got to confuse some German bikers in France once. Got out of a car with a GB plate at the top of the Col d'Iseran and asked in German for them to take a photo of me by the sign. Saw them on and off for the next 100 km or so - always got a wave.
Re: (Score:2)
If there are 4 of you, then there is no reason that one of you can't take a photo of the other 3, and for the all of you photo, call a bystander. This is if y'all are outdoors, maybe touring some place. If you are indoors, it's not all that difficult to set up the timer mode on the camera, and in 10 seconds, get the shot of all of you.
The only people for whom they're really useful is a single person, or a single person and his/her kid, w/ the kid too young to take a pic. But even then, using the timer mode, or holding it at arms length makes it easy, particularly since you can see how you look before clicking!
2 plus a baby, can we please use a selfie stick without being labelled narcissistic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your mom, your wife, your baby and you. Makes it 4, of which one of you can't take photos.
You aren't getting it. My mom is in another country, she hasn't met the baby and wants photos of us all as a group. Its nice for her. Understand now?
Not everyone who uses a selfie stick is using it to just get a narcissistic photo of *themselves*.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of timers?
and carry a tripod?
oh so a tripod is less narcissistic than a monopod?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because you're always taking photos in secluded spots with no one around.....
Yes most of the time actually
Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Informative)
Having worked at one of these parks, I can speculate as to what happened:
A worker monitoring the cameras on the ride saw the rider with the selfie stick and did as they were instructed, to hit the emergency shut off. This stops the ride, and halts all the cars/trains at their next safety stop point. Once that happens, the only way to get the ride going again is to reset it and do your opening procedures over again. The computer for the ride won't allow the ride to operate unless those checks have been performed and passed. Sometimes it might even require one of the engineers from the park to give their sign-off as well.
But to even begin, you have to evacuate everyone that is currently on the ride. So you have to go out on the track to where they are, release them from the ride, and escort them back to the exit. If there is anyone with mobility issues in any of the cars, that could become a very complicated task. IMO, an hour is very quick to do all of that.
Re: (Score:2)
While the long recovery process is going on, they should set up a long roped-off corridor running all the way through the park, for the person with the selfie stuck to walk out through. Every other person in the park, particularly those who were inconvenienced and didn't get to ride the coaster that day, could see and/or possibly say a few things to the moron with the selfie stick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Goofy web site (Score:1)
I was unable to watch the video as an ad started playing first. Then, a second advertisement video overlayed that video and started playing, too, covering the entire screen.
I'm going to assume the reason is nasty teens are trying to shove the sticks up the Mickey Mouse costume guy's rear end?
Now if only the US government could do it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I appreciate the right of people to look like idiots walking around talking to their camera. Documenting their journey for no one who cares to see.
Why they think that they are what is worth filming is beyond me. Or that talking while filming is a good choice.
My wife and I love to sail, and watch sailing videos on you-tube. The good ones take pictures of things AROUND them, things I actually want to see. They also either do voiceovers post-production, or use a separate microphone to eliminate wind noise.
The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.
In our motorcycle group, I've witnessed people just vomit their pictures up to the web, with no care taken to edit or even select only the few that are worth posting. No pride in what they have taken, just a regurgitation of what's in their camera.
Selfie sticks are just more of the same. I'll admit they have some valid uses.
Too bad most people appear to be ignorant of what those uses are.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest are mostly just crap, only of value to the people that shot them. Not really worth sharing to the public.
You mean like most vacation photos ever taken?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is kind of the point isn't it? I'm not usually taking pictures for the enjoyment of the public, I'm taking them so that I can someday enjoy the memory more clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, when we go on vacations, it is useful to have photos of ourselves along w/ those surroundings. Otherwise, any video of that place that's publicly available would have been adequate, and people wouldn't bother taking cameras w/ them. Having ourselves in those pics is a part of what creates the memories. Also, while those pictures are mostly of value to them, they are really shared w/ friends and family. What makes it look like it's being shared w/ the 'public' is that too many people a
Re: (Score:2)
Don't project your distaste for shots of yourself onto others. They may not have the same hangups or fixations.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People were okay with them having a Gay Pride Day years ago and celebrating homosexuality in an environment largely dominated by children, and they're only now worth fucking because they dared fire American workers
Might be because these things are only comparable if you've got the intellectual capacity of a moth.
Re: (Score:2)
"a Gay Pride Day years ago and celebrating homosexuality in an environment largely dominated by children"
Even worse, they have 364 days per year celebrating heterosexuality in an environment largely dominated by children!
Just because your politics are normative does not mean you don't have any politics.
banning it from the whole park? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One possible reason is enforceability - You have one or two people operating the ride, hundreds of customers, and then one jackass with a selfie stick. How many ways can the employee divide his attention?
Another concern is the number of different places the selfie sticks could cause trouble. They find a new place, they make a new rule. They find another new place, they make another new rule. Or they could just have one park, one rule.
Re:banning it from the whole park? (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. Any Disney Park employee will take your photo for you with your own camera, if you just ask them. Even the people they litter around the parks who are paid solely to take your photo so they can sell it to you later for $15 each.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you haven't gotten your Disney parks mixed up? Widely available churros are at Disneyland, while widely available electric scooters carrying large people are at Disney World :-)
Not strictly for profit (Score:2)
Can't wait for the backlash (Score:2)
When they tell someone with a walking stick they can't have it anymore either.
Guessing Disney forgot that you can buy walking sticks with camera mounts [amazon.ca] (no endorsement intended on the link - just the first returned result for "walking stick with camera mount")
Re: (Score:2)
You can't see someone masturbating in the "it's a small world" ride?
You haven't been on the internet too long, have you?
Re: (Score:3)
They already do. https://mydisneyphotopass.disn... [go.com] Yes, the price is actually $15 per photo, or $200 for unlimited photos.
However, those same people will also take your photos with your own camera as well if you ask them. As will any other employee at the park you interact with.
Re: (Score:2)
"like i want to risk someone dropping my $700 phone"
The subject is people waiving their $700 phones around at the end of a stick. The risk of dropping has already been discounted.
Re: (Score:1)
I think Disney will clarify their statement -- "You can still use a selfie stick, as long as it's bought from a country overseas at a cheaper price."
I was thinking more -- "You can still use a selfie stick as long as its a Disney branded one that you bought inside the theme park (at outrageously inflated prices)."
Re: (Score:1)
I think Disney will clarify their statement -- "You can still use a selfie stick, as long as it's bought from a country overseas at a cheaper price."
You obviously don't know how Disney operates. They will allow the use of selfie sticks (now called "Mickey Sticks") that you buy from the park at a massively overinflated prices, maybe $200-$300, and of course you must use "Disney Dollars" to buy them because regular dollars aren't "fun".
Re: (Score:2)
When 'stuff that matters' gets a higher comment count than stuff that doesn't, it'll turn up more often. Think before you bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely large numbers of quality, low-weight cameras is a new phenomenon. A one pound SLR on a 6 foot pole would require a strong wrist and a sturdy pole.
Re: (Score:2)
A one pound SLR on a 6 foot pole would require a strong wrist and a sturdy pole.
That's what she said...