Slashdot Mirror


Disney Bans Selfie Sticks

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.

177 comments

  1. Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What are us narcissists supposed to do now?

    1. Re:Aww hell. by Xenx · · Score: 3, Informative

      For safety.. because honestly, that's totally unsafe. The potential savings from preventing injury is worth more than the earnings from the photos.

    2. Re:Aww hell. by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Hold their phone at arm's length.

    3. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    4. Re: Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell keeps their arms inside a roller coaster? You're supposed to hold your arms up the entire time.

    5. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People tend to be quite attached to their arms. until they take a selfie. I think that was his point.

    6. Re: Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You guys bring your arms on the roller coaster with you? Is Disney land getting that dangerous??

    7. Re:Aww hell. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      >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.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Aww hell. by unixisc · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:Aww hell. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      They could go back to posting on-line about how they're not sheep because they have an Android phone.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re: Aww hell. by Adriax · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    11. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Use their selfie sticks at their bedrooms as it was meant to be used.

    12. Re: Aww hell. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    13. Re: Aww hell. by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      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 ...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    14. Re:Aww hell. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Taze yourself, Guaranteed to get far more likes and clicks than any selfie you can take.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    15. Re:Aww hell. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, are they for narcissists? I thought they were courtesy items carried by selfie-takers to allow annoyed bystanders to beat them to death. I have personally beaten at least five selfie-takers to death with their own selfie sticks. If you go to the large fountain in Buda Castle, the one that people like to take selfies in front of, and look for the blood stains on the cobbles, that was me.

    16. Re: Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would cost too much for real guns and with options available they went the cheap route.

    17. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay for the insanely priced on-ride photos. Why do you think that ban is in effect?

      -1, troll

      The Disney shills are numerous and well paid, I see.

    18. Re:Aww hell. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Remember Selfie Sticks make perfectly good lightening conductors surely Disney should just let natural selection take its course

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    19. Re:Aww hell. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Get a life....

    20. Re:Aww hell. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Thank You.

    21. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I wish they would ban is those god damned double wide strollers by hipster/yuppie moms pushing around without consideration to anyone else around them. Those things are like fucking tanks.

    22. Re:Aww hell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, it might be more dangerous than that.
      The end of the stick could hit an obstacle and drive the stick back sort of along its axis, penetrating any body part in its way.
      Or the stick could be jarred loose from the narcissist's hand hold and then hit bodies behind the holder.
      Or the phone/camera could be hit and then become a projectile.

  2. Slashdot: News For Soccer Moms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Slough that matters.

    1. Re:Slashdot: News For Soccer Moms... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      When 'stuff that matters' gets a higher comment count than stuff that doesn't, it'll turn up more often. Think before you bitch.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  3. Hurray! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    The new rule doesn't apply to selfie drones!

    1. Re:Hurray! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want to be riding during testing; but the combination of tight quarters and fairly substantial air currents from passing coaster cars in an enclosed roller coaster would be a pretty neat challenge to watch a drone work through. Extra credit for drones capable of exploiting passing cars(riding their air currents in some controlled way, maintaining position immediately behind them if a relatively static trapped air region is available, 'roosting' on a beam and using regenerative braking on their rotors to recharge the batteries, etc.)

    2. Re:Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the area and Disney, Universal and Seaworld are all restricted airspace. So while technically you could, I would not want to get caught as the offense is not just local or state, but federal.

  4. What were they thinking? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I imagine that there are parts of a given ride where you can safely deploy a 'selfie stick'; but what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls, beams, etc. that the pole can catch on? Roller coasters are designed not to subject you to unsafe levels of acceleration or deceleration; but that does not include sticking to speeds that are safe it a modestly rigid pole abruptly couples your moving, and squishy, body to an immobile structural element.

    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?

    1. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but what kind of idiot

      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.

    2. Re:What were they thinking? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Then they'll get thrown out of the park and admission is not at all cheap.

    3. Re:What were they thinking? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The difference is that merely being a dickhead is relatively low risk, so it's annoying but not surprising that people do it when it suits them. Waving a selfie stick around is an excellent way to lose a phone, at minimum, and potentially do yourself some actual damage.

      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.

    4. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The difference is that merely being a dickhead is relatively low risk

      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.

    5. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the story about a wooden roller coaster where riders were instructed to keep their hands in the car at all times. It wasn't just a passing mention either; the people in charge were very clear about it. Well, some guy decided to ignore the instructions and he raised his hands high before the coaster entered a tunnel...the tunnel's ceiling was lower than the guy's hands.

      I bet you can figure out what happened next. (Hint: The tunnel insisted that he put his hands down in order to obey the laws of physics)

    6. Re:What were they thinking? by quetwo · · Score: 1

      Just this comes to mind : https://youtu.be/oeT5otk2R1g

    7. Re:What were they thinking? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine that there are parts of a given ride where you can safely deploy a 'selfie stick'; but what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls, beams, etc. that the pole can catch on?

      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".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:What were they thinking? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rules are meant to be ignored, no matter how important they are, to these people.

      How about -- rules are just guidelines, unless they are enforced.

    10. Re:What were they thinking? by bzipitidoo · · 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.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    11. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought we were constantly being told not to do anything, because it's all dangerous. You even cite the No Smoking signs, private street signs, etc..

      The real issue is that we've blown out our sense of risk. When something like this comes up, we've got the volume turned way down.

    12. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 4, 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)

    13. Re:What were they thinking? by Shados · · Score: 2

      How about -- rules are just guidelines, unless they are enforced

      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.

    14. Re:What were they thinking? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, 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.

    15. Re:What were they thinking? by sjames · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:What were they thinking? by sjames · · Score: 4, 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.

    17. Re:What were they thinking? by JaredOfEuropa · · 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.

      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 gun on the plane because of terrists, but you also can't bring your bottle of water for the same reason"). Unjust, unreasonable or petty laws endanger all of the law.

      Now, having a rule against using selfie sticks in a roller coaster is reasonable, but people choose to ignore that law, or tell others to, because of a whole range of other laws that are silly. And because of the way those laws are enforced (instead of treating them as a means to an end, they are treated as a goal in themselves).

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    18. Re:What were they thinking? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't people use electronic devices ... on planes?

      That's weird, I don't recall there ever being a time when you couldn't use electronic devices on planes. During takeoff and landing, the most likely times for something to go wrong and thus require your undivided attention, sure. But not using them at all? Well, that's just not the case.

      Why can't we play movies on our computers' DVD drives?

      We can, or do programs like WinDVD and PowerDVD just not exist? I was watching DVDs on my computer's DVD-ROM drive back in 2002.

      Yeah. Don't blindly trust The Rules.

      How's 8th grade working out for you?

    20. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't you play movies on your computer dvd drive?

    21. Re: What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has he tried turning it off and on again?

    22. Re:What were they thinking? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      How about -- rules are just guidelines, unless they are enforced

      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!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    23. Re:What were they thinking? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      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!!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    24. Re: What were they thinking? by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      There really oughta be a rule banning all these unjustified rules.

    25. Re:What were they thinking? by ancientt · · Score: 1

      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 where it's practically impossible to follow all the laws all the time, not to mention all the rules. We're literally being trained to ignore the rules.

      And of course, people act like the solution is to make more rules.

      Observe all warning signs.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    26. Re:What were they thinking? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      He runs Linux.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    27. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything not forbidden is compulsory!!

      Comply with all rules!!
      Do not comply with this rule!!

    28. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The UK doesn't have a "don't jaywalk" rule, and there don't seem to be any adverse effects.

      You can't drive as fast on UK streets and they're maze-like, including the strange walkways, but I'm not really convinced that you're doing well to avoid that rule. I do like the markings that help remind people which way the traffic comes from, though.

    29. Re:What were they thinking? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      "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?"

      There's a "hall of fame" of sorts at my old highschool of kids not paying attention to exactly this. One was nearly scalped by a drill press due to his ponytail, my second day in that class some kid reached into the lathe and it sucked him in by his long baggy sleeve. Thankfully they keep the belts loose so that no arms can be ripped off, he was still pretty banged up though.

      Everyones first reaction is always to blame the school or the class teacher. I can easily tell you every accident could have easily been avoided if my classmates payed attention to the first three weeks of class detailing safety, including pictures of previous students.

    30. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is that kids aren't thought to think critically about rules in a proper fashion. Since most education on rules is ether follow the rules or don't ever follow the rules. Both of which are not logical and too inflexible to be usable.
      Ask your kids about rules try to get them to see rules something to follow but that can be broken at times:
      1. Who does this rule benefit?
      2. If everyone breaks this rule what would the results be?
      2.2. I would I feel about other people breaking this rule at times that were inconvenient to me?
      3. How likely is it that the people who made this rule have more knowledge and experience than I? What are the potentially hidden consequences of breaking this rule?
      4. What event caused this rule to be created? (Best if you teach your kids how to research this) This can also tell you that some rules are totally BS created by bureaucrats so they look like there doing something about something they can't really control like freak accidents.
      5. Consider the rules cost/benefit analyses. For example we could all drive cars that were speed limited to 30 mph with big foam front ends. But would the reduction in deaths and injuries be worth while?

    31. Re:What were they thinking? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    32. Re:What were they thinking? by radish · · Score: 1

      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 NYC both have large pedestrian populations which other parts of the US do not - those tend to be where jaywalking is frowned upon.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    33. Re:What were they thinking? by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      >what kind of idiot waves a pole around when moving at nontrivial speed near walls, beams, etc. that the pole can catch on?

      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.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    34. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason was to promote car use (and make walking less attractive). Before "jaywalking" was invented the streets were for fucking pedestrians.

    35. Re:What were they thinking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Selfie sticks on an amusement park ride are just crazy dangerous. If you must claim that Disney's consideration is money, include in that money the number of hundred-million dollar lawsuits for death, blindness, dismemberment, punctured organs, etc.. Disney would be negligent if selfie sticks were allowed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:What were they thinking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      FUD. I use Linux to play DVDs. It's different from using a dedicated DVD player, because Linux never bluescreens, unlike my dedicated players.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    37. Re: What were they thinking? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Private streets are frequently maintained by the owning entity. Unlike public streets, your taxes aren't paying to support them. You should be pleased that they aren't a burden on your life.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    38. Re:What were they thinking? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      What brand of DVD player do you have that crashes at all, let alone blue screens?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    39. Re: What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.
      See http://halifaxbloggers.ca/builthalifax/2015/03/the-urban-horses-of-halifax/

    40. Re:What were they thinking? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      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.

    41. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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.

      It didn't happen in the UK, but in the USA my dad was hit by a car. It had a real effect on his life.

    42. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      In Houston this came to it's logical extreme. Cars started ignoring street lights about 1% of the time.

      While that might seem like a pretty low number, when I was a child, it was more like 0.001% of the time. The large increase led to a large number of pedestrians killed by car, bicyclists killed by car, and for some strange reason drivers cannot follow traffic rules within 200 feet of one of our street grade light rail trains.

    43. Re:What were they thinking? by beelsebob · · Score: 2

      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 thoroughly fucked.

    44. Re:What were they thinking? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      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 this or etc.. Now if you ask someone else to take the photo, gain limits on how many tries and near enough is good enough.

      Basically people taking shot after shot are causing traffic flow problems are around the park. People are blocked from seeing popular places or cough taking their own photograph there. Flows to concessions stands are slowed because people are in the way. It is not one shot with a selfie stick it is hundreds be each selfie stick aficionado.

      Realistically the park wants selfie sticks, free advertising as the photos travel around (millions of dollars worth), problem is, they are causing real traffic flow problems as people are not stopping for a say around a minute for a single shot, they are being awkward repeating that shot again and again and again until they get it right and they are not doing just at a couple of locations but all over the place. Also I am sure the park could or already has photo taking concessions. You know pay a buck and get a quick photo emailed to your phone (sneaky huh, money for the concession and email and contact details and photographs on record, taking that into account the can really, really squeeze down the price of the shot).

      You can do some smart stuff with the photo taking. Fixed point photo spots, linked to a pre-registered phone. Walk around the park offer of a 10 cent auto shot from a fixed well sited camera, based upon phone proximity (again other revenue opportunities). Toss in a 10 second video for a buck.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    45. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > At least those who walk into streetlight poles while texting hurt only themselves.

      Think of the streetlight poles, you insensitive bastard!

    46. Re:What were they thinking? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      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.

    47. Re:What were they thinking? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Hi, this is a rule established by a business. They can do pretty which whatever the heck they want. You violate their rules and they can throw your ass out of there. Have a nice day.

    48. Re:What were they thinking? by tofarr · · Score: 1

      A classic example is with air travel: None of your own drinks past this point. People who pay more get to board first. Wedge yourself into that spot and no moving around the cabin. When a rule that is really important comes along, people are so jaded that they no longer trust the people whom have paid to look after their safety, and there have been deaths as a result. (An example being cases where people deliberately inflate their life jackets before a plane crash lands in water, and then are stuck at the top of the cabin when it fills with water and cannot get to the exits.)

    49. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither does Boston . . . yet visiting New York drivers have NO problem seeing where the issue lies . . .

    50. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if I bring my gun on the plane we won't have to worry about terrists.

    51. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we're actually living in a society where everyone else wants to tell everyone else what to do. So when we want to do something we just do it anyhow.

    52. Re:What were they thinking? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Someone's hunch finally paid off. According to this BBC article from last year, the number of pedestrians in the U.K. is half that of the U.S.

      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.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    53. Re:What were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think jaywalking laws stop you from fucking pedestrians in the street.

    54. Re:What were they thinking? by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      While I'm against selfie sticks, what's the difference between using them versus blocking traffic & interrupting the flow while taking normal pictures?

    55. Re:What were they thinking? by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      there is fuck all reasonable people can do about it.

      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 don't want to be assholes, of course. This is a good thing. But the only way to deal with people like this, from the guy who cuts in line to the fanatic priest that wants to legalize stoning adulterers, is to puff up your chest, boost up your voice, and lean right back into them. Asshole and evil people get away with a lot today (and in history) because reasonable people don't want to be assholes themselves. But reasonable people need to be willing and ready to be a calculated asshole, causing grief only to those who already cause grief, or those assholes will continue to shit all over us.

      Maybe groups of friends should have a designated asshole. Like a designated driver, the designated asshole is the one who steps to the front when someone in the group is faced with regular assholes. Someone who can turn it on and off as needed.

  5. dafuq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting seeing these "selfie sticks" popping up the last couple of vacations. These things are pretty obnoxious. What's so hard about asking someone to take your picture? Why have cameras been around for decades but only now these "selfie sticks" are being used? Just another step in the continuing anti-social trends of our society.

    1. Re:dafuq? by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Fully agree! I had gone for years missing taking pics of myself. But recently, when I had my kid over for vacation and was taking him around, I asked someone to take our pics. Aside from that, in the mall, I managed to take a reasonably good picture of both of us just holding the phone at arms length.

    2. Re:dafuq? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Why have cameras been around for decades but only now these "selfie sticks" are being used?

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:dafuq? by turp182 · · Score: 1

      A one pound SLR on a 6 foot pole would require a strong wrist and a sturdy pole.

      That's what she said...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
  6. Dangerous by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great work on Disney's part shuttig down the ride until that selfie stick was confiscated.

      More likely they confiscated the selfie stick in 10 minutes, and kept the ride shut down for 50 extra minutes to make a point about selfie sticks.

    2. Re:Dangerous by adamstew · · 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.

    3. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:Dangerous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      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!

    5. Re: Dangerous by oobayly · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Dangerous by Bing+Tsher+E · · 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.

    7. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or just have someone follow them with a bell.

      SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! *DING!*

    8. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      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?
       

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:Dangerous by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Spanking line!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Your rebuttal isn't. I hate to break it to you, but you are a narcissist. If it is not practical to get someone else to take the photo.... then don't take the photo. Don't swing a club at eye level just so you can get what YOU want - a photo for your mom. Don't shift the blame to her to justify your narcissistic behavior. Or buy the new Samsung wide angle thing that lets you be a narcissist without need the stick.

    11. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      They shut it down mid-ride? Did they have the guy drop it?

    12. Re:Dangerous by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No. That was easy.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Dangerous by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Yeah because you're always taking photos in secluded spots with no one around.....

    14. Re:Dangerous by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could be followed by a dour woman in a full wimple, ringing a large hand bell, chanting 'Shame. Shame. Shame.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    15. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Yeah because you're always taking photos in secluded spots with no one around.....

      Yes most of the time actually

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    16. Re:Dangerous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Your mom, your wife, your baby and you. Makes it 4, of which one of you can't take photos.

    17. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      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*.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    18. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of timers?

    19. Re:Dangerous by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Never heard of timers?

      and carry a tripod?

      oh so a tripod is less narcissistic than a monopod?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    20. Re:Dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you narcissist. Just because you deny reality doesn't mean we need to humor you.

  7. Goofy web site by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  8. Who would take vibrators to a Disney park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you going to "take a selfie" there? No? Then leave the sex toy at home.

    1. Re:Who would take vibrators to a Disney park? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Now if only the US government could do it. by johnlcallaway · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    2. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad most people appear to be ignorant of what those uses are.

      The King of Cameras has spoken. At long last we have the Valid Uses of The Camera etched into stone tablets, and ALL WILL OBEY.

    3. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by ancientt · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    4. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      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 are all too happy to add a gazillion people as their friends on FaceBook

      But I do agree w/ you about the selfie sticks.

    5. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have uploaded about 100 videos on YouTube now and I am not on any of them. :D Except from some cameos.

      My favorite creations

    6. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with these being banned in an increasing number of places, especially after our last museum visit where I nearly got hit in the face by one being wielded by a particularly careless user.

      I don't mind people getting the occasional ones but on our last vacation we were running into some people multiple times and every time they were taking multiple selfies, with different poses and expressions, like they somehow had reserved the area for their private photo shoot. Why do you really need to be in every photo? I guess she was afraid their Facebook "friends" would not believe that they went there otherwise. Take your damn photo and move on so that everyone else here can have a chance to get a picture of the thing you're standing in front of.

    7. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    8. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Don't project your distaste for shots of yourself onto others. They may not have the same hangups or fixations.

    9. Re:Now if only the US government could do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      w/

      You fucking prick.

  10. Disney = POS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since Disney did the IT workers dirty, I have lost all respect for this POS company. But hey they made record profits....

  11. Actually, you can use a selfie stick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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."

    1. Re:Actually, you can use a selfie stick... by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      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)."

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Actually, you can use a selfie stick... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 0

      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".

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:Actually, you can use a selfie stick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disney is one of the few parks that (excluding alcohol, I'm assuming for legal liability reasons--anywhere with an alcohol license is responsible for all liquor related problems, even if the customer got drunk on bootlegged booze) never bans customers from bringing in their own stuff, even when it is sold inside. You can even bring soft sided coolers with an entire picnic spread in full view of bag check if that's how you want to enjoy your day.

      Most parks are shitty the way you describe, but Disney is NOT one of them. The fee to enter is exorbitant, but once inside, if you pack a stroller full of lunch/dinner/drinks, you won't need to spend a dime.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. $$$ DIsney will have low priced photos to sell you by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0

    i bet they will have photographers all over the park asking you to take family photos and sell them back at $15 each

  14. banning it from the whole park? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    It is reasonable to ban them from roller coaster rides. But the whole park? What gives?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever spend any time at a Disney park lately? Disney has no concept of "the park is too crowded for people to enjoy themselves so we're not letting people in now" anymore, so it's just one rage-inducing parade of morons with no sense of personal space, self control, or anything remotely resembling social behavior. When I go lately I get bumped into, my foot run over by strollers and electric vehicles with 300 lbs of blubbery churro-munching human cargo, and of course children with parents exercising no control whatsoever.

      I really like the idea of the parks, but I have no love for the way they've been mismanaged the last couple of decades. Still, as much as I think they're a bunch of greedy selfish jerks who can't take proper care of a good idea, I sincerely don't believe that selling more photos has anything to do with this. People with selfie sticks simply can't behave themselves. It's not because of the sticks--it's the inherent personality traits of the target market that purchases them.

    2. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't want to enforce the rule in specific due to cost and/or aggravation, so a blanket stop rule makes it easier and cheaper to do it at the gate. People will find ways to slip them past, they always do, but with luck they'll get caught and stopped before they make trouble for others.

      I don't really have a problem with them, to me they're no worse than setting up a camera tripod, as long as the person using them uses them well. For those who don't, oh well, there's no law against being unskilled at something when it comes to your own private use.

      I think those who are so vehement against them should ask themselves first how they'd feel if their phone was taken by someone when you asked them to use it to take a picture of you, instead of employing a selfie stick and keeping it under your control.

    3. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you so narcissistic that in your photo album you want nothing but pictures of your own face, with maybe a little bit of the park in the background, as opposed to taking normal-ass photos of things like the various rides and attractions?

    4. Re:banning it from the whole park? by adamstew · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      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 :-)

    6. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have kids why the hell would you go there and the ban is in an amusement park not the entire country so you still have loads of room to be an arrogant dick.

    7. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GoPro photos are the worst. A wonderful wide-angle lens that allows for immersive photos rather than just a narrow slice of the surroundings, but most photos taken with one are selfies. The narcissistic love the camera because it's wide-angle lens means that they can take these sorts of photos without the use of a selfie stick, as arms-length is sufficient to get a fair amount of the surroundings in the photo as well as their face, and if they use a selfie stick, they can get their entire body in the photo. So that's about all you see when you search for GoPro photos. Sometimes people shoots some interesting video from a first-person point of view, but rarely does anyone take non-selfie photos with the camera.

    8. Re:banning it from the whole park? by I_Lost_My_Puppy · · Score: 1


      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.

    9. Re:banning it from the whole park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already banned from the roller coaster rides. It's too hard to prevent people from carrying them around with all their other stuff when they want to go on the rides.

      And it's not just roller coaster rides they should be banned from anyway. Imagine what the monkey in the Pirates of the Caribbean ride is going to do when he sees you got yourself a selfie stick - not to mention the ghosts from the Haunted Mansion!

    10. Re:banning it from the whole park? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The attachment of a stick does not stop me from taking the phone and beating you with the stick. Hell, the stick attachment makes it more likely that I am going to steal your phone if, you know, I decide to start stealing phones. I am going to take your phone and you precious stick and beat you with it (again, assuming I decide to start stealing phones but I just can not imagine why I would do so) and you will not have even had the chance to ask me to take the picture for you in the first place. I'd be like, 'give me that stick you stupid son of a bitch' and stuff. I would, too... If I were, you know, going to steal phones. The stick would just be an added bonus.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:banning it from the whole park? by houghi · · Score: 1

      I am sure that if you ask anybody, they will happily do it for you, not only the emplyees.

      And this will work anywhere in the world. If you ask; the chances of getting a bad person who runs away with your camera are minimal if you pick them.

      Also: stop taking pictures and look around. Most of the pictures you take are a: never looked at by anybody and/or b: of a subject that you can doanload. No need to take a picture of the Disney Castle as many already have and you can download one that is better than what you will take.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:banning it from the whole park? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm having a hard time seeing how "narcissism" hurts anyone.
      Should we ban mirrors too?

  15. I thought that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    selfie sticks were something they sold at Ann Summers shops.

  16. Re:$$$ DIsney will have low priced photos to sell by adamstew · · Score: 2

    They already do. https://mydisneyphotopass.disn... 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.

  17. Re:I'm boycotting Disney after IT fiasco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize they reversed that decision, right? http://www.nasdaq.com/article/disney-reverses-a-stupid-hr-decision-cm490866

  18. Death By Selfie Stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many obsessive, self-absorbed people will fatally impale themselves with a selfie stick on a ride this year?

  19. Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was at Disneyland in April selfie sticks were selling like hotcakes at all of the shops pedaling official Disney merchandise. Flooding the market prior to banning an item seems a bit Machiavellian even for Disney. Perhaps this ban only applies to their Floridian properties?

  20. Photos still stuck in... by unixisc · · Score: 2, 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 then deliver it to us in a way of our choosing - either email, WhatsApp, iMessage or any other medium of our choosing, not theirs.

    1. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the pictures they take are available on the web. They absolutely do not require physical pictures. Been that way for years

    2. Re:Photos still stuck in... by hankwang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Problem is that these photographers are still stuck in the 20th century, and will give you a printout.

      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.

    3. Re:Photos still stuck in... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      slaughtered tree photo

      Many photographic "papers" today are actually solid polyester.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Photos still stuck in... by Narcocide · · 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.

    5. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And surrender my personal data to the gubbamint? In case you dunno, sheeple, Disney Corp is part of the shadow gubbamint.

    6. Re:Photos still stuck in... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      You can fit several thousand photos in a 4GB stick. It would be useful for taking not just stills, but videos of the customers as well, while they're on the rides.

    7. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Did you pay cash to get into Disney? And buy everything inside the park with cash? If you used any kind of card to pay they already have your personal data, so there is no reason not to use the touchscreen.

    8. Re: Photos still stuck in... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Its a big park and facial recognition tech has come a very long way. Also, in California, FastPass as well as various police agencies have been (possibly illegally) logging license plate numbers and processing them with licence plate recognition tech for some time now. Chances are even if you DID pay for everything in cash they still know who you are within a few minutes of entering their property, unless you drove your own car and parked it in their lot, in which case they know as soon as you approach the gate.

  21. Not strictly for profit by Varenthos · · Score: 2

    Some people are saying that they're only doing this to boost sales of their overpriced ride photos, but that's not the case. I was there last summer and brought a GoPro with me. I had it [securely] strapped on for every non-dark ride that we went on in plain view of the ride operators and not a single one of them said a word to me about it. That got me on-ride video of practically every ride that we went on, and they didn't care in the least. Most theme parks won't let you take a GoPro on the rides no matter how securely it's attached to you, period - including Universal Orlando, which is just a few miles away from Disney. Granted, we also bought their photo package last year, which cost $149 at the time and got us digital copies of every photo that was taken on rides and by the park photographers for the entire time we were there. Compared to the astronomical prices you'd pay for an individual photo, that works out to be a really good deal. Obviously, the ride operators had no way of telling that I had purchased that package, so that wouldn't have been why they let the GoPro slide. Personally, I'm glad they're banning selfie sticks. They tried to accommodate them by only prohibiting them on the rides at first, but people chose to be idiots, so now they're not allowed at all. It's definitely a safety issue. I've never used a selfie stick, so I don't know how securely the mechanism is that holds onto the phone, but when you're talking forces exerted on a roller coaster, would that prevent the phone from flying off? I don't know for sure, but there's a good chance it won't. Now you've got a projectile flying at non-trivial speeds. They tried, and people proved that stupidity will prevail, so now they're not allowed at all. Good riddance.

  22. Re:Dangerous? Both the act and the logic seen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Its not always practical to get some third person to take a photo of us.

    On a rollercoaster, I'd bet that's damned near impossible. XD

  23. selfi sticks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about banning narcissistic people that need to document every second of their lives with pictures.

  24. First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking "selfies" is just stupid! Only narcissistic idiots (or iDiots) do such things. I had never even heard of "selfie sticks" before reading the summary, and then I had to look them up to see what they were. Taking "selfies" on amusement park rides is an unsafe practice at best, and you could lose your phone/camera and a hand or arm. These "selfie sticks" are a way to multiply the number of people possibly injured, maybe even killed. After all, at the speeds some roller coasters get up to, part of a broken "selfie stick" could easily be driven through someoneâ(TM)s chest, neck, or other parts of the human body that are best left un-punctured!

    I can easily understand why Disney, Six Flags, etc...would want to completely ban these silly things from being brought into their parks.

  25. Re:I'm boycotting Disney after IT fiasco by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. Re:$$$ DIsney will have low priced photos to sell by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0

    like i want to risk someone dropping my $700 phone

  27. Re:I'm boycotting Disney after IT fiasco by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "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.

  28. Re:$$$ DIsney will have low priced photos to sell by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    "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.

  29. selfie stick (groan) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The person/s who coined the phrase "Selfie" and "foodie" should be beaten over the head repeatedly with a "selfie stick". Language is becoming the perview of morons and lowbrow hollywood talking heads.

    It's like the people naming things are getting all their ideas from 5 year olds. doggie the dog, catty the cat, shoey the shoe and another one... "scalions" derp!? what's that! ok well call them "green onions" now because scalions is just too hard to remember!!!!

  30. New strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I will board the ride in one seat, and my friend will board the ride in the seat in front of me. I'll hand him my camera, and during the ride he will turn around and take a photo of me!

  31. Re:Dangerous? Both the act and the logic seen here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have thought that attempting to take a selfie, stick or not, on a rollercoaster was a damfool thing to do. Chances are the phone (and the arm holding it) will be subject to some serious forces, with a good chance of said phone becoming a projectile.

    I don't care if the phone gets destroyed (serve them right), but I do care about the innocent bystander / employee who might get struck by the projectile.

  32. Obligatory xkcd gallery by rpstrong · · Score: 1
  33. Can't wait for the backlash by anyGould · · Score: 1

    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 (no endorsement intended on the link - just the first returned result for "walking stick with camera mount")

  34. Hello... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi We here at /. are dumb. We have a slow news day, and we havent published stoopid crap today..
    So with out further adue, may I introduce this pile of steamy, hot, crap for your edification..
    We here at slashdot, with the power and might of our new overlords, we see to find the most ridiculous hyperbole we can fill your empty cranium's with..
    today's example is of a slow day, we have nothing, and are unable to identify somethign of true interest..
    That being said, on to why Disney is banning Selfie stix. Such a world shattering revelation.. /. MUST REPORT!!!!!!!!!!

    thank you for your time and attention, or rather lack thereof,

  35. evil capitalist pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil mega corp taking my rights away! This is why we need socialism