Jump to content

Knotts now will be enforcing a Chaperone policy


Recommended Posts

Should be every night, simply to avoid confusion.

I believe Knott’s is the first Cedar Fair domino to fall. Wouldn’t be surprised if we see more with the start of next season, or even at Haunt this year.

What are your thoughts on these policies? Do they actually improve safety? Do they hurt the business? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want KI to implement it.   I witnessed a situation with a large group of “teens” when I was at KI on a Sat night about a month ago… let’s just say it was like watching a storm brew… then all heck broke loose.   Thank God security and Mason police were quick to act - but it was literally terrifying to watch.

I may be saying too much, but there’s something odd going on in general.  Places like parks and malls etc are the new targets of trouble-makers of a certain dynamic.  Until drastic measures are taken to ensure that they cannot attend in groups/congregate, they will keep trying to lay claim/ownership as part of their turf war. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hate for this to happen, I as an avid Kings Island visitor along with my younger sister would be shut out from visiting the park together as I am between 18 and 20 years old, (Meaning I could come in but cannot be a *Chaperone*). The lack of such a system is why I love Cedar Fair parks. My hope is that this is just something mean't just as a band aid solution for Knotts, rather than a stepping stone for other parks in the chain, my assumptions are that since Knotts is located in California they naturally have higher operating costs such as staffing. With the recent events taking place there then likely adding more security is not economical so this decision was likely the only solution they could do for the time being. Again, all just my assumptions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is sad to see such a policy from Cedar Fair. Knott’s Berry Farm is punishing the people that do behave. I wonder how many people on this site would feel if they were a well-behaved 17-year old who couldn’t go to Kings Island by themselves.

This could very well be a test. Notice how Knott’s Berry Farm said this policy is in effect until further notice. Cedar Fair is probably going to see what the effect is of such a policy is and evaluate it from there.

I am hopeful that this policy stays far away from Kings Island. After last May, Kings Island invested a lot into new security protocols when they could have also put a chaperone policy in place. The problem has gotten better, and I hope Kings Island steers clear of implementing a chaperone policy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this is a case of a few bad apples spoil the bunch.

My mom effectively used Kings Island as a free babysitter for me when I was growing up, crazy to think about now, but she'd drop me off at Kings Island with $20 when I was as young as 10 years old.

Movie theatres, malls, now KI is going to have chaperone policies because people don't know how to behave.  Crazy to think about how far we've degraded as a society in just 20 years.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that parks want/ need to do something after incidents like this and want as little media attention as possible, but after seeing the Disney melee last week- the issue is not just a teen thing.

I think parks should put these people on blast.  Let it be known for everyone to see what happened & that the result will be lifetime expulsion and the world will see why.

It's far from a perfect solution & I'm not sure if there is one.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 above!

I have said it before and will say it again LOL:

People can say all they want about Kentucky Kingdom, but when they put out a statement like this and gets media attention, it stops or the incident rate drops off tremendously...Will we ever see CF post a pic of a banned person and say don't be like him LOL...

https://www.wave3.com/story/35658459/kentucky-kingdom-shares-photo-of-now-banned-coaster-rider-with-his-phone/

And they also need to improve their accountability. A ban is useless if they allow anyone to purchase a pass and use a fake name...

https://www.wlwt.com/article/fake-name-on-gold-pass-leads-to-charges-being-dropped-in-kings-island-brawl/36623191#

Now granted the KK incident above is from 2017 and you can find incidents there in 20 and 21, so of course there is always a bad apple that doesn't care - look how many laws are broken daily!  Despite how stringent rules or laws or regulations are, there will always be that person that doesn't care. 

But It took 3 years for a serious enough incident to happen to make the news.... and most of us would file that under the results of the COVID shutdown and most of the population forgetting how to interact in public.

But as long as there are ZERO consequences, whether it be line jumping, smoking, fighting, it will continue to get worse.  Publicly announced consequences will be a deterrent to all but the worse offenders. 

Who knows how many more instances KK would have had without public shaming....

And yet we get a couple news stories a season about fights and fair amount of other issues like vaping in line and line jumping on social media at KI and the stories never conclude as to what the outcome was (ban, etc.).  Until a large percentage of the park going population see that there are consequences, it will continue.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of this is the result of increased media/social media coverage versus a growing number of incidents?

In other words, are people actually misbehaving worse at the parks, or are we just more aware of it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the addition of sunday is a good idea. At KI I do notice more of the teenage groups in the park on Sundays as opposed to weekdays. Can't speak to Fri/Sat as I tend to be there only Sun thru Wed. Now I know this not a KI policy (although I can see it happening) but I would imagine the same issues are happening there on Sun also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, I’m not sure how the graduated licensing system works in California, but let’s say a teen in 16 can drive alone at some point during that year. We have a situation where kids are responsible enough to be on the roads but yet can’t visit a theme park, I’m sure teenagers are a huge part of revenue for the theme parks, especially at Wonderland.

Doesn’t anyone not see this as absurd and discriminatory, so if 1 teenager over thousands who visit the park and behave and act like responsible people, all of them must be punished? Gotta love the attitude of collective punishment, we all experienced this in school where one kid was bad and we were all forced to put our heads on our desks.


I’m sure the two murders which did occur on Wonderland property, one on Mother’s Day in 2003, and in after a day during a very crowded Halloween Haunt in 2014 were NOT committed by minors.

 

Business is a lot different than government policy, and hopefully this blows up in their face. But temporary government policies are almost never temporary, there was a time not too long ago where a Canadian or US citizen could cross the border with just a verbal declaration or showing their driver’s license….

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws and rules and policies are almost always the result of someone doing something they shouldn't...it has been that way since the beginning of society....

Contrary to your opinion, the park has indicated the policy has been so well received that they have extended the policy to additional days...

And your argument about being old enough to drive is kinda weak...In the states a child is considered a minor until their 18th birthday, so Knott's saying no minors is an acceptable policy.

Your argument has tried to be used regarding at what age one can buy a pack of smokes and alcohol...At 16 they can drive alone to a store to purchase those, so does that mean they should be allowed to purchase smokes and beer?

I am sure the metrics are showing a park full of families makes more money than unruly teens...Parks have been catering more to family events and some have even got rid of their respective Haunt events in favor of family-friendly events....You go where the money is...

Now you want to add the murders at Wonderland into the mix - those arrested in both incidents were under 21, so maybe the policy should be adjusted to age 21 following your logic?  Hey they serve alcohol, so no minors allowed LOL. And keep in mind, the security and polices put in place since these incidents should greatly reduce the risk of a gun or knife within the park itself.

We get it, no place is 100% safe and stuff can always happen, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have some law and order either.  The best a business can do is adjust and evaluate and develop additional policies to try to prevent/minimize it the next time.

Probably the biggest complainers are those that were the unruly ones anyway.  If parents would actually parent their child and have discipline and consequences, then maybe this stuff wouldn't happen (well it still would because there is always that bad apple)...

Here is a thread where some mom went to the news media saying "not my child" and her montage of images of her child at KI were rule breaking images (not of the incident in question, but did provide self-incriminating evidence alone that would be worthy of a ban)....

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the argument you’re making, I visited Wonderland with my brother and my nephew so he could do some rides and spend time together. As a thirty something, I had no problems whatsoever with teenagers in the park, I did not see any misbehaving.

Also, you are making a BIG assumption, which would be discriminatory by any other metric. You say that teenagers cause problems, that is only teenagers cause problems or ALL teenagers cause problems. For the very small minority of teens that do cause problems, maybe it’s time for park security and if need be local police forces to take action rather than the laissez-faire approach seen in the parks. By action, I mean line jumping will get you thrown out, no exceptions, no kidding.

You using the argument for adult oriented places like casinos and places that serve alcohol to create a chaperone policy, these places you mention are for adults, very different, a theme park for bloody sake is a place for kids to have fun. How many families are inclined to ride the thrill rides together? something that Paramount installed many of at the cost of traditional family rides at Wonderland. I mean I don’t exactly imagine families riding Delirium together.

 

As for driving, it’s arguably one of the most dangerous activities we do daily, by your logic, if a few teens caused some bad crashes by distracted driving, the reactionary measure would be to strip all 16 and 17 year olds of their license. Driving a car carries a lot more risk than two idiots fighting in a theme park.

How many of the teenage associates are Kings Island drive to work, I’m sure a majority do.

That’s also funny come to think of it, a teenaged ride attendant can work at the park but can’t actually visit the park during their off time without mommy and daddy.

 

As for the murders, Wonderland’s most serious incidents caused by guests, all the perpetrators except one in the 2003 murder would have been able to attend the park anyway if there was a chaperone policy in place, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. What I was pointing out was that the most serious of incidents at Wonderland, the perpetrators were all legal adults.

I visited the park myself a few times with one friend from high school when I was 16/17, and we caused absolutely no problems, and I swear that’s the absolute truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't make the assumption, the park did by implementing the policy...  

The park obviously has stats that suggest that it is the teens causing the largest percentage of problems.

I agree with your statement "maybe it’s time for park security and if need be local police forces to take action rather than the laissez-faire approach seen in the parks. By action, I mean line jumping will get you thrown out, no exceptions, no kidding." 

In theory it sounds great, but the reality and practicality can prove difficult.

The park has decided that security cannot be everywhere at every time, so they decided to implement a chaperone policy to potentially prevent it on the front end...much easier to enforce that policy at the front gate and deny entry and then because of that policy have the ability to stop any group in the park without a chaperone to confirm said chaperone is still on park premises than it is to staff, monitor and enforce no fights, line jumping, etc. policy within 300+ acres...

Regarding the driving age, there have been talks about raising the age to 18 due to very things you outline...

My point on the murders were that everyone involved (victim and perps) were 21 or under....so in all likelihood they were probably there in groups of people that would not have been present with a chaperone policy in place... But even if not, I was being a little sarcastic that given they were under 21, maybe the parks should go with no minors since they serve alcohol...thus my LOL on the end of my statement.

Are there totally behaving minors in the park - absolutely.  Are their mis-behaving adults in the park - absolutely.  Rule-breakers come in all ages.

But when the park analyzes that data and the majority of security calls are with minors, that is how and why they are targeted for policy and enforcement....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, disco2000 said:

Contrary to your opinion, the park has indicated the policy has been so well received that they have extended the policy to additional days...

I agree with you except on this point. In actuality this could been the plan all along and part of a graduated rollout to test the waters/minimize blowback from guests. I think it's actually likely given the speed in the change. 

 

45 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

As for driving, it’s arguably one of the most dangerous activities we do daily, by your logic, if a few teens caused some bad crashes by distracted driving, the reactionary measure would be to strip all 16 and 17 year olds of their license. Driving a car carries a lot more risk than two idiots fighting in a theme park.

This is not an equal comparison. Teens drive to go to work and school. For some driving is close to a necessity for them to carry out their lives. On the other hand,  no one needs to go to an amusement park.

Driving is a basic privilege granted by the state/province. Amusement parks are entertainment sold by a business. This is about as far from a right as you can get.

You can disagree with the chaperone policy on principle, but they are well within their rights. Minors do not have the rights adults do, but they also have protections adults do not.

The only legitimate gripe would be that they have changed the terms of the contract midway through the season. What if a (behaving) teen had only been coming/able to come at the times when a chaperone is now required? Now they have in effect had their pass revoked. That I can see being a problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KI Guy said:

I agree with you except on this point. In actuality this could been the plan all along and part of a graduated rollout to test the waters/minimize blowback from guests. I think it's actually likely given the speed in the change. 

 

I totally agree LOL.  It is why I worded it the way I did.  It could be the spin they are putting on it.  One positive comment sent to the park can be used to say they have received positive feedback.  Notice their statement said nothing about negative feedback...nor did it mention attendance comparisons or number of security calls for comparable before and after chaperone policy days.

But as you correctly pointed out, this is a private business and an amusement park is not a right or a given, so they can implement whatever legally allowed policy they want.  As a consumer, you can chose to spend your discretionary income there or elsewhere.  The park believes that any lost revenue due to the policy will be offset by increased revenue due to guests coming that are in favor of said policy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The policy is so well but it is after all opinion. We’ve all heard that well known quote that democracy is but two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper. Is the policy necessarily just, this is the problem I have.

Amusement parks may be a private business, but I seem to remember a certain baker getting in big trouble because he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. I’m not necessarily saying I agree with this but there is a tough gap when rights between the person and the business clash. 
 

Driving is a privilege, and somehow those same students got to school during their earlier years of high school. Technically by that logic a teen doesn’t need to be allowed to drive as much as they need to be allowed to visit a theme park.

 

But you using the argument that teens cause problems opens a Pandora’s box that we shouldn’t open. You’d find some inconvenient truths if you looked at FBI data regarding crime. But reference that data and you’ll be called all sorts of names. Heck I risk my reputation by even making a comparison. But the basic question is, if a certain type of people mostly causes problems, should we ban those kind of people. Doing so would be hugely discriminatory and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way more than anyone asked for but...

One of the reasons minors are not protected from age discrimination from businesses is that contracts with minors are not legally enforceable. Yes, a minor can void a contract at their say so, (the only exception is contracts for essentials-- food, clothing, shelter.

A store can sell a kid a bike (a contract). The kid can destroy or lose said bike and is entitled to getting their money back from the store. 

This is to discourage contracts between adults and minors so as to protect the minor from being taken advantage of by an adult.  An adult has life experience, an understood or implied trust or authority, not to mention a fully-developed brain.

This law is barely ever talked about because it's bad for business, and to a lesser degree we as a society have tended to prefer to teach older minors,  (those who would be more inclined to enter into a contract), responsibility for their actions (outside of egregious cases) so as to prepare them for adulthood.

For this reason and others you can't protect a minor from discrimination in the way you alluded to.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2022 at 6:03 PM, FUN&ONLY! said:

It is sad to see such a policy from Cedar Fair. Knott’s Berry Farm is punishing the people that do behave.

I think it’s more of a PR thing. They want to let people know that they’re responding to the issue. While it does make it difficult for those who obey the rules, they have to prevent things from getting worse from those who don’t. All and all they’re trying to make the park safer for all guests who enter, whether they follow the park rules or not.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSG1 said:

The policy is so well but it is after all opinion. We’ve all heard that well known quote that democracy is but two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper. Is the policy necessarily just, this is the problem I have.

Amusement parks may be a private business, but I seem to remember a certain baker getting in big trouble because he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. I’m not necessarily saying I agree with this but there is a tough gap when rights between the person and the business clash. 
 

Driving is a privilege, and somehow those same students got to school during their earlier years of high school. Technically by that logic a teen doesn’t need to be allowed to drive as much as they need to be allowed to visit a theme park.

 

But you using the argument that teens cause problems opens a Pandora’s box that we shouldn’t open. You’d find some inconvenient truths if you looked at FBI data regarding crime. But reference that data and you’ll be called all sorts of names. Heck I risk my reputation by even making a comparison. But the basic question is, if a certain type of people mostly causes problems, should we ban those kind of people. Doing so would be hugely discriminatory and you know it.


Like KI Guy said, minors are not protected from discrimination. This is well established in the law. Even the government does it. That's not ever going to change.

I'm not for a chaperone policy, except as a last resort, but there is nothing wrong with saying that teens cause trouble. There's a big difference between talking about the well established differences between teen behavior and adult behavior and talking about racial differences or whatever it is you are implying.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DoomPlague said:

I'm not for a chaperone policy, except as a last resort, but there is nothing wrong with saying that teens cause trouble.

It should also be noted that as minors, their legal guardians are responsible for their actions.

Quote

Parents can be held legally responsible for their minor children’s actions in both civil and criminal court. 

Source- from a California law group

A chaperone policy is, in a sense, making the parents/chaperone’s more accountable for the minor’s actions, hopefully discouraging any wrongful behavior from continuing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t want to have to open Pandora’s Box but I will regarding this and the kind of fallacies that are being used. 
 

Take this situation regarding NYC cabbies in which the article says only 6% or so are American born.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nyc-cab-drivers-blacks_b_6116602/amp
 

These cabbies have a bad experience with black people, and therefore choose to shun all rides from black people who request rides.

Somehow, our society has deemed that to be totally racist and it is bad I agree, but why as a society can we similarly stroke the brush and say all teenagers are bad, that they can’t go to Knott’s without mommy or daddy, can’t go to a fast food joint without their parents. 
 

I ask you all this, when did you first wander off in Kings Island by yourself, I don’t necessarily mean being dropped off by your parents with a friend. But suppose you split up from your family while there, (as you have much younger siblings) all these activities are now illegal in Knott’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do you need to be told....

A policy against race is discrimination and illegal.

A policy prohibiting minors is not discrimination and is not illegal.

In fact, employer law says age discrimination is only for age 40 and over.

A policy on age impacts EVERYONE regardless of race or nationality or sex or any other protected class.

A policy on race only impacts that race.  That is where discrimination comes in.

Whether you agree or not is your opinion, but it is the law.

Re-read the Knott's policy....Chaperones must accompany their party during entry, remain with their party at all times during their visit to the park, and be available by phone throughout their stay.

It is a grey area and poorly worded, but one could argue that available by phone means they just need to be in the park because why else would they need to be available by phone if they are all together?

And times have changed, so comparing something x number years ago to now is different....when KI opened they didn't have to worry about flying phones on rides as an example...

Laws, policies, regulations come into effect as technology and society behavior change that warrants a need for said policy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law not too long applied to the first statement too as NOT being discrimination, but the law got changed for that.

Again, there are things that are for adults, like casinos, to compare a theme park to such a place regarding accompaniment is outrageous.

 

As for the policy, I guess the third example covers when 17 year olds want to go on the big roller coaster, but can be granted the freedom to stand in the queue without mommy or daddy. But park security most know where the parents are, since park security are a bunch of knuckleheads who can’t do their real job at quelling trouble.

So as a society, are we going to treat kids like babies up to 17 years old and 364 days, and when they become 18, that they simply magically know better, it doesn’t work that way.

 

I started university as a mature student a few years back and my fellow students weren’t magically behaving like first year adults, if anything, first year felt more like Grade 13. There wasn’t this magical gain of wisdom or maturity just because they crossed the number 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Somehow, our society has deemed that to be totally racist and it is bad I agree, but why as a society can we similarly stroke the brush and say all teenagers are bad, that they can’t go to Knott’s without mommy or daddy, can’t go to a fast food joint without their parents. 

Remember that a person of a different race didn't choose that race.  They were born that way.  Children (including teenagers) have the ability to learn and adapt for the most part.  They are a product of the environment which they are brought up in and, for the most part, parents are responsible for that.  If there is a high school party at a home with alcohol involved the parents of that home are held responsible.  Teens can choose whether or not to follow rules.  A person of color can't choose to be caucasian.  

At one time you could buy beer at 18 in Ohio.  They changed the law to 21.  To be sure not everyone who was under 21 was drinking irresponsibly.  Most laws that are made are to protect the greater good but are usually made because of a minority of people.  For the most part these laws are put into place because of data.  For the whole part they are put in by our elected officials.  That is democracy. 

Several things are not legal in the US that are ok in other countries.  In France you can drink alcohol at 16 in public with your parents.  Jaywalking is not legal in the US, but it is in Canada (In us motor vehicles have the right of way on roads but it's the other way around up north).  And most famously Kinder Eggs (chocolate eggs with toys inside) have to be sold differently in the US as no foreign no food object can be contained inside a food.  For the longest time they could not be sold in the US.  Finally their design was modified to make a half egg/half toy holding hybrid.  Now the object in the chocolate would only be a danger to small children or people who don't read yet everyone in the country (including teens and adults) were affected by this law.

When I was growing up I never went to KI unattended.  Mostly because my parents thought it to be dangerous (stranger danger, etc.)  However with the advent of cell phones and corporations making sure to maximize profits to put one in every 7 year old's hands things have changed and I appreciate that (although my children never had a cell phone until they could drive).  That being said, If this trend keeps going without something being done by the parks, you may reach a point where more people decide not to go to a park because of unchaperoned teens than teens not going to the park because they cannot be chaperoned so where to draw the line?

Most recently talks have been going on about raising the driving age.  It's 18 in 11 states and 17 in 18 states.  So in 39 of the 50 states you have to be over 17 to have a full license.  (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/driving-age-by-state)  More interestingly in NO state can you be under 20 and rent a car.  Do you think a 16 year old should be able to rent a car? how about 18?

2 of my three children had accidents between the age of 16 and 18.  I still can't understand how kids that are new drivers are sometimes encouraged to drive to school.  Kind of like having all the new drivers in the town converge on the same destination.  Kind of defies logic.  And further more if a minor has a car accident that results in a death the parents can be held responsible.  Seems more appropriate to raise the age to 21 for driving since then they are considered an adult, but that would affect car sales, gas sales, insurance companies (who charge higher for younger drivers) etc.  

Just my 2 cents. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...