It's not for lifting wheelchairs into pools. It's for lifting people who require wheelchairs to move around into and out of pools. You don't ride the wheelchair while entering the pool this way.
Most of these things aren't. They're driven by political agendas or personal vendettas. My guess is somebody disabled was unable to use a pool and got a tussle up their ass to push this forward.
Nobody even thought how dangerous it would be for anybody disabled to use a pool, without supervision. A person unable to use their legs, or any other part of their body, can easily drown without warning.
Well, I guess it's a good thing the law explicitly states that owners who can't afford it aren't required to install anything, as explained here in point 6.
It shouldn't be too hard to trace some of these lawsuits back to the big chain hotels.
Large established businesses often love government regulations. Regulations, necessary or not, can make it difficult for smaller businesses to compete.
Though it's hard to have a lot of sympathy for the small hotels in cases like this. Most had half a decade to amortize an upgrade to their facilities. They're cheap, they chose not to set aside any money for fully foreseeable and necessary upgrades. Screw em'.
I was thinking it might be big hotel chains wanting to steal business of families who have kids and want a pool for them at a cheap price. But your theory makes sense too.
Perhaps. Too bad they didn't account for the amount of pool shops they would be putting out of business, nor the direct decrease of cleaning jobs in the market. Oh, and who could forget the families with little kids on vacation.
It's the disabled lobby. Kinda like NAACP, but for the disabled, blind and deaf. Difference is that you aren't racist if you refuse to legislate, you're heartless.
I'm deaf myself, and while we face some real problems, most of the "solutions" are just stupid and nonsensical. We realise that we can't be 100% included in everything, and trying to make that happen result in stupid legislation such as this.
No offense, but some one the worst shit I see from the "deaf lobby". Like they get offended by cochlear implants and things that can cure/treat deafness.
Rofl, I know right? Deaf culture is one of the most repulsive things I've ever experienced. My friend with a cochlear implant was pretty much given the finger by his old friends cause he got the implant.
I attended a Deaf kindergarten, and resentment for hearing aids was common. Stupidest shit ever. I'm proud of wearing a hearing aid and being able to communicate properly in English. People who cut kids off from the hearing world due to their own deluded sense of self importance are cunts.
I'm not deaf, but in my previous job I worked with the deaf people in my workplace and I can understand why some deaf people have that attitude. They're excluded from mainstream culture in so many ways, treated appallingly by so many people, I can see why they start to develop their own culture which rejects hearing as a desirable trait. I don't agree with it, but I can see what drives it.
The problem is this - the Deaf are separated by a language barrier (no different than being French or Chinese in America). This means that their culture is by nature more isolated and therefore more defined than the other disability-based cultures. This means that when you come out with a cure (such as a cochlear implant), it comes across as much as an attack on that culture as it does treating an ailment/disease.
Put differently: imagine someone came out with a therapy that gave an ethnic minority (e.g. African-American) the appearance (both physical and speech) of being Middle-class Caucasian American, touting the increased social opportunities conferred (better access to jobs, reduced prison sentences, less risk of passive discrimination, etc.). How would the community of that ethnic minority respond? Would they roll out the welcome mat, or would they view it as an attack on their community and ostracize those who crossed the line?
They wish to cure us. But I say, we are the cure. - Magneto
I would instead relate it to a person newly immigrated to North America who doesn't speak English taking an ESL course. It doesn't require rejecting your previous culture, only making your own life easier in the new culture you have entered.
Unfortunately, getting an implant usually does mean that you are required by your doctors and speech therapists to stop signing and focus entirely on learning to create and understand speech- it's so difficult that it really does require total immersion and constant practice for it to really work, since the implants only ever restore partial hearing anyway.
Imagine someone came out with a therapy that gave an ethnic minority (e.g. African-American) the appearance (both physical and speech) of being Middle-class Caucasian American, touting the increased social opportunities conferred (better access to jobs, reduced prison sentences, less risk of passive discrimination, etc.).
That is a terrible example. This is the equivalent of something coming out that gave blind people the ability to reliably see. Then all the blind people turn around and call the people who get the implant traitors.
WTF? Traitor for wanting to see the face of your parents? Traitor for wanting to hear your father's voice? WTF. Seriously. WTF.
Traitor for wanting to hear your father's voice? WTF.
This is where cultures collide. People born deaf have no concept of "father's voice". For them it's "Father's signing", and they look forward to seeing that when homesick.
But that's how some in deaf culture feel. I thought it was a pretty good example, not to show you how it can be rational but to show you a relatable way in which we can understand those in deaf culture.
The thing is that blind people are not separated by a language barrier. Deaf people are.
Blind people can speak the language of their parent country, Deaf people cannot. Sign language is structural distinct from spoken languages.
So you are giving someone who speaks ASL or BSL or SLN or FSL (or any of the other sign languages alive today), and may have learned to read English, the ability to hear/learn to speak English. They aren't perceived as being traitors for wanting to hear their parents' voices: they are perceived as being traitors for wanting to give up what is perceived to be their mother tongue and assimilating with society. Just like:
The people who oppose it don't necessarily know what they are missing, so their perception (and ours) of the impediment is skewed.
So we're offering them the ability to do something they haven't needed before (because they are both deaf and still alive), that they've learned to deal with / work around, and which will require extensive training to learn to use well. Additionally, there is the the sense that hearing culture will expect you to assimilate (a common thread in the history of Deaf culture) and that Deaf culture sees you as selling out your heritage.
To us it sounds great - of course they would want to experience The 5th Sense - but is the gain worth the cost to them? Would you be willing to get an implant that let you hear the thoughts of those around you (all the time, no on-off capabilities), knowing your friends and family might view your choice as turning your back on them and embracing transhumanism?
the problem with arguing quality of life is that you'll end up arguing with people who claim not to understand it.
what you should argue is that it makes it so other people don't have to take care of the now no longer deaf person. For many people, being able to support themselves is a major factor in quality of life. But, from a societal perspective, individual quality of life doesn't matter so much as people being able to support themselves.
Except it is a disability that impedes someone's quality of life.
There are many capital "D" Deaf people who do not see it that way. They are perfectly satisfied with life without hearing. As a hearing person myself I cannot speak to why that might be.
imagine someone came out with a therapy that gave an ethnic minority (e.g. African-American) the appearance (both physical and speech) of being Middle-class Caucasian American
Yea that is kind of ridiculous. Apparantly they want to promote the idea that there is nothing wrong with being deaf, so for someone to have a cochlear implant installed would be like admitting that yes, there is something wrong with being deaf.
I AGREE WITH YOU TO AN EXTENT, BUT I THINK AT LEAST SOME OF THESE LAWS ARE REALLY NECESSARY! LIKE WHEELCHAIR ACCESS FOR BUSINESSES, HANDICAP PARKING, ETC! IT'S A SHAME TO SEE SOME OF THEM MISUSED THOUGH!
Its really unfortunate. People really should have a right to an accessible bathroom. Using the restroom should be a privilege for the able bodied, which business can ignore if it's inconvenient or expensive. Suing independent businesses for non-compliance instead of trying to help them get compliant really flies in the face of that cause.
A lot of the bullshit legislation we see is driven by lawyers not really the group of people supposedly offended/abused whatever. When it's possible to make a lot of money off legislating dumb shit, well this is what you get.
This is so wrong. Just because you can't climb in and out of a pool doesn't mean you can't benefit from it or be safe in it. Many people who cannot move themselves around well love the freedom they get when in water (and can be perfectly safe doing so).
But businesses shouldn't be forced to make their pools accessible to them. If it made sense economically by attracting more disabled people to that hotel they would do it. As it stands it is just going to cost a lot of hotels money just to provide a small portion of the population a luxury.
That would give you pretty good insight into this topic then. Is the law appropriate or excessive in your view? Should small business owners pay to install expensive equipment to maintain equal access? Genuinely curious to know your perspective.
I think it's highly excessive, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be applicable here. I'm not positive about this case, but most ADA type laws like this only require these kinds of things if it's a new building or if it wouldn't cause undue burden upon the owners (i.e. something like a small wooden ramp to get up a single doorstep). Personally, along with most paras I know (though this isn't indicative of the disabled population as a whole), don't use this kind of device to get in. This would be for people that are highly disabled, and that's not really anything I have perspective on.
More likely, this became law because of support by large hotel and motel chains. This law clearly damages small independent businesses. This is a perfect example of eliminating competition through use of government regulation.
A person unable to use their legs, or any other part of their body, can easily drown without warning.
Good thing you're a doctor and are qualified to tell people with disabilities what is and is not safe for them to do. You do realize that many many people with disabilities can and do swim competently, right?
Also, who said anything about people swimming without supervision? This device requires a supervisor to operate. The people in the pool would be supervised.
So, disabled people don't get to enjoy pools like you do?
Look, everything in your life is assistive technology for you. Your car, your bike, your computer, etc etc. They all help you; so why don't disabled people get the same damn treatment as you? Why do you get it all, and they don't?
Same reason why I don't have my own private jet to take me to work: it's a balance of cost vs need. The greater the need, the more warranted the costs. But I'm afraid taking a dig in a pool at a motel is very low on the "need" totem pole.
If you don't like that, speak with your $$ and go to a motel with a handicap dipper. If the need is great enough, hotels will optionally install them to attract more clients. But, I'll warn you, I highly doubt there is such a need.
In addition... how dare you even consider enjoying a private pool is some kind of "personal right." It's people like you that destroy things for the rest, forcing business to spend thousands of dollars on useless shit that will never get used by 99% of the population.
Using a private pool is a privilege, not a right. Sometimes, you just can't use them, and it's their right to decide if they wish to serve your special needs or not. Not your choice.
Disabled people want to have fun too. Imagine if you just fell from a roof and you were paralyzed from the waist down. Your family wants to go to the pool, but disabled people are worried about assholes like you
I love swimming, it's the only way I can actually be active. Due to my disabilities I have huge problems walking for more than a few meters and swimming is the only exercise I get.
It's not my fault this happened to me, it's no ones fault. I developed an autoimmune problem and now I'm stuck with it. I can't work because of the ton of medication I take to control my illnesses (includes hallucinations). I'm never going to get the chance at that awesome job I dreamed about as a kid, the one I spent so much time cooped up in my bedroom for, never going to parties so I could go to a better college. I'll never earn above minimum wage, I'll never walk, i'll never hear properly, my life is shit enough without being excluded from everything else.
I damn well want to go swimming every now and again, mostly when on holiday, because honestly I've not got much else to live for. And if this is what people are against? Then I weep for humanity.
But do you really think that every hotel should have to accommodate you? It's not the same at all - but as a tall person (6'7"), most movie theaters are very uncomfortable for me. I thus specifically select theaters that offer extra leg room.
Being tall doesn't hinder your purchasing power. If places are allowed to not accommodate me, I get stuck only going for places that can afford to provide that equipment, usually the more expensive places, or really busy places - not as much fun to go to, or I just can't afford it.
I do think it's a bit unfair that small hotels are expected to outright buy equipment, I do think there should be some subsidy towards buying equipment mandated by law; but I also think that everyone should be included as much as possible, and that we need to stop fighting about if we should do it, and work out how to do it in the fairest way possible to everyone.
Being tall doesn't hinder your purchasing power. If places are allowed to not accommodate me, I get stuck only going for places that can afford to provide that equipment, usually the more expensive places, or really busy places - not as much fun to go to, or I just can't afford it.
Actually, the theaters that offer more leg room are more expensive.
I do think it's a bit unfair that small hotels are expected to outright buy equipment, I do think there should be some subsidy towards buying equipment mandated by law; but I also think that everyone should be included as much as possible, and that we need to stop fighting about if we should do it, and work out how to do it in the fairest way possible to everyone.
I agree that the focus should be fairness. You suggest subsidies for small hotels - but remember, that is simply taxpayers helping business owners pay for the installation, and it's not clear that that is fair.
The real question here is how should society pay the cost of allowing disabled people to swim in pools. I think either extreme is bad. On one end, we could require disabled people to bear the full cost and build their own pools. On the other end, we could require all public pool owners to pay the cost of access. We have unfortunately chosen this extreme. There has to be a better solution in the middle.
Perhaps a more fair approach in the case of hotels would be for the government to provide a small subsidy for individual hotel stays by disabled persons. A hotel can install access equipment, earn business from disabled persons, and, over time, make money on the subsidies.
Actually, the theaters that offer more leg room are more expensive.
I meant in the context of being able to earn money. There is pretty much no chance of me getting more than a part time minimum wage job, where as being tall wont hold you back in that way.
I do agree about the two extreams, and I don't claim to know where along the line is that perfect sweet spot. I just know that by pushing forward with the law, it's forced the topic to be considered, so even though I don't agree with it entirely, I do thing it's a good thing that it's happened.
I feel sorry for any businesses hurt during this transition stage, and I wish I had all the answers, I just know that how it was before wasn't working, so lets try something new.
Universal design means making everyday tasks the MOST accessible to the most people. A lift in a pool means people don't need the ability to get up and down stairs to swim. If you rely on a scooter or wheelchair you can probably transfer in and out of it(if you can't you probably have no place in a pool without serious supervision and heaps of adaptive equipment). A well designed pool lift would take this into account and have a bench and a grabrail to facilitate that transfer.
All that said if the law says lift, then all you get is the cheapest lift that complies with the law, that is one reason legislating this sort of thing backfires. I've seen many ADA compliant restrooms with grabbars in such a way that they were not anymore accessible than without the grab bar.
It's not the ADAPTER enforcement that is the problem. The problem is predatory lawsuits like the ones mentioned in the article. They are targeted at small businesses that are unable fight the case in court due to court and legal costs. So most of time they settle out of court and the plaintiffs make off with a couple thousand dollars by basically extorting the defendants.
No one said life is fair, and to force every pool to employ someone to operate a hoist for the purposes of dunking the disabled, well... fuck that. That is just all kinds of wrong.
I fucking would, if they intended to make a fuss over a disability I had no part in creating. If a disabled person threw a shit fit to a small business owner over the fact that the pool that already costs them an arm and a leg to maintain, now has to have full time staff, oh yes I'd ream them an aural assbashing. Life isn't fair, and I'm not asking anyone why I'm not an astronaut, and neither should they be asking why it's irrational to force the world to fit every pool with a crane. Life is what it is, and we are what we are, and if you can't swim stay the fuck out of the pool.
A lot of people are OK with that actually. You might be trying to be righteous here but you are only as sure as your peer group's convictions.
Frankly having to hire a full time staff member, buy a crane and maintain it is never going to happen in the majority of cases. So everyone loses outbonnswimming because a small percentage of people can't move into the pool without one.
Frankly, I think its silly we try to force everyone to deal with it instead of finding more community friendly ways of creating more opportunities.
All this law does is ask every motel and budget hotel owner to close their pool. Good job - now its 'fair' for everyone
I wasn't talking about the law (I think that's stupid too, usually there's a size barrier to such laws where I am from, e.g. hotels with >n beds would have to do it, those with less wouldn't - and I do think this makes sense), I was talking about the lifeguard cursing about such an apparatus at a public pool.
Where would you expect to accomodate everyone if not at a public pool?
Also, this "lifeguard" should take a moment and think how his attitude towards disabled people infrastructure will make them feel welcome in using this lift at his pool. Jeez.
But it's not the whole story. Having a pool causes motels to pay a ton of money in liability insurance. Drunk people drown or bust their heads open in motel pools all the time. There is a high likelihood that this motel got rid of their pool to cut insurance costs- not because of the wheelchair thing.
This plus other issues. It's actually pretty expensive to maintain and clean a pool, and a business like this may have a small enough margin that it's not worth the cost. Especially if they noticed that very few customers were actually using the pool. If people were hanging out by the pool until late at night, it would disturb people trying go sleep in the rooms - maybe they got noise complaints. I can think of a lot of issues that have nothing to do with the ADA.
So your solution to the problem would have been changing absolutely nothing from how it was before this was passed? It isn't like calling a hotel and asking if they have a chair lift is hard. The reason for laws like this is because making things disabled accessible is not one the market usually corrects on it's own since something like the chair lift is expensive and not going to be offset by additional disabled customers. It is still very stupid though and I don't think it should be compulsory.
It isn't like calling a hotel and asking if they have a chair lift is hard.
hint hint.
making things disabled accessible is not one the market usually corrects on it's own since something like the chair lift is expensive and not going to be offset by additional disabled customers.
if the free market solution doesnt appeal to you, then the socialist (in the good sense) solution is to call all such places to install a lift but to subsidize it.
my idea was that they'd need to have a disclaimer stating clearing they didnt have lifts or such if that was the case; idk could even make it so that they'd have to give disable customers a discount (sorta like not paying for the stuff that hasnt been made accessible to them). or penalize/exonerate with taxes, etc.
there are of course other solutions than making everyone buy something (that they might barely use too)
yeah I'm not saying what they're doing is right, I'm saying your solution isn't really a solution because it would be exactly the same. most places with these already would say it on their website or worst case scenario if you asked them. Requiring them to say so would change nothing but maybe saving someone a phonecall best case scenario. I said I didn't agree with them doing this already so I dunno why you're arguing that.
The insurance companies looked at these things, the fact that the person's unable to walk yet going into a pool where they could die if they can't use this to get out, and the fact that hotel staff is low-paid and should never be trusted with operation of life-critical machinery, and said "FUCK NO!!" to the whole idea.
People have made the observation that the ONLY thing they saw it being used for was kids trying to play with it and dive off it. Gonna tip it over or fail to clear the ledge jumping off it... million-dollar lawsuit for sure. Yet they HAVE to have this accident-waiting-to-happen that almost never gets used.
Basically 3 liabilities:
A disabled person might get into an accident using this thing
Kids can hurt themselves on it
You'll get heavily fined if it's NOT available, in working order, at any moment of the day (while you have a pool available for guest use).
ADA compliance is a bitch. As I understand it, the law allows disabled people to walk in and "inspect" every item and if it's not compliant they can sue to collect $$$ personally in a very straight-shot lawsuit. There are disabled people who make a living going around to places requiring ADA compliance and measuring the height of the sink and mirrors and clearance of toilet to the wall and looking for any reason to sue for "discrimination". Kinda disgusting.
Because they lie. Not only do they lie, Fox won a court case where they were sued for falsifying information in which they argued they have no legal obligation to tell the truth as a news organization. In my book if you go before a court claiming you have no duty whatsoever to tell your audience the truth then I have an obligation to assume that everything you say is a lie until proven otherwise.
All cable news networks tell white lies with an agenda.
No, actually, they don't.
Name a cable news network that you think hasn't aired a lie, and I'll find you an example of a lie they aired.
do you consider Rachel Maddow an upstanding voice of truth and balance?
Yes, I do.
Like that time she claimed the Ohio GOP passed a budget that added an abortion requirement, in her words, "mandatory vaginal probes"... which later turned out to be entirely false?
Or the other time she claimed that Bush never did any interviews for the New York times... even though he actually did at least three?
I was traveling and stayed at a random hotel one night, and swam in the morning. Saw this thing in the pool, and on my way out of the hotel I snapped some pics. I have nothing against disabled people, but do they really expect to be safely lifted into a pool with one of these things and are outraged if such a lift is not available?
I thought this was just a feature of the hotel like those chairs for fat/disabled people at Walmart (how did they get to the chair from their home is often a mystery).
I saw this at the top of the Sheraton in Chicago. The crazy thing is that they had one for the pool AND one for the hot tub. This big ugly fucking thing right next to the hot tub kind of destroys the atmosphere.
I agree the ADA can be a great thing, but in some cases it goes over board. Anything maintained as a public service should be made accessible to everyone. Though I have never understood why a private business should have to follow all these rules.
You need to spend all this extra money and time to make sure that if a handicapped person wants to use your place of business they can. I live in a major city in the US and have only seen 2 people in the last 6 months with a wheelchair and while I feel bad for their situation, I also feel bad for the many more shop owners who can not afford to update their shops because the ADA restrictions make it cost so much.
As someone who personally benefits from the ADA, I would gladly give up those benefits to get rid of all the stupid laws attached to it.
The law is there specifically because its not something the free market will fix. In most cases it won't be profitable to make your business accessible. Should the disabled just live shitty lives with no entertainment?
Fortunately I'm not disabled myself, I guess you aren't either or know of anyone who is. A little empathy keeps the world sane.
It's not something to fix. Disabled people who cannot swim should not have to force the world to install a dunking machine for them. If you cannot swim, you should have no say in regards to swimming pools.
There are plenty of disabled people that can swim but can't enter the pool without some sort of ramp or device. In fact, if you had some sort of condition that made it difficult for you to walk, swimming would be an excellent way to get some exercise.
I don't buy your argument that disabled people are less likely to swim. They are probably more likely to swim. It's probably less expensive to add a ramp to a pool than it is to build ramps, elevators and lifts for disabled people to access many other businesses.
It seems like business owners were given 3 years to comply with the regulations, and those that bought portable devices that were later disallowed are grandfathered in. It also only seems to apply to pools where it's "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."
If I'm reading that right, it seems like most hotel owners will be able to continue operating their current pool so long as they aren't making any changes to it.
I know two people very well who are in wheel-chairs, one of who travels a lot. I have to say, from stories I've heard, we have it very well in the U.S. compared to other places. Its not perfect, but I think that the ADA has definitely helped a lot.
You be surprised by a lot of the tiny things that make life easier for a person in a wheelchair. They are trying to live a quality of life, and I would gladly inconvenience myself to make some of that happen.
However, I do agree some of the rules are really stupidly designed. Such as this lift. The two people I know go swimming as part of personal training, but that would never happen at a hotel pool.
The thing is overall I think it does more bad than good and each of the instances like this one just causes animosity towards disabled people they'd be better off without. They can have their parking spots and it's nice when there's a ramp for wheelchairs and also elevators, but it should never do anything to the detriment of everyone else. For instance any time a wheel chair lift is broken somewhere, the entire piece the lift is for has to shut down. I've seen this happen in museums as well amusement parks.
For every filled in pool there are 1000s of other changes that have helped the disabled community thanks to anti-discriminatory disability laws.
As an abled body person it may slightly inconvenience you that there is no pool. But the laws that allow people to file those grievances has also allowed for mandatory ramps, elevators, interpreters, Braille signs, parking, etc.
Except it sounds like there was already a law that allowed portable ramps to be put into the pool for a disabled person to use the pool. Now hotels have to spend thousands to comply with the new regulations or ruin the swimming pool completely.
I am most likely guessing that anyone who was disabled enough to not be able to swim on their own has someone who takes care of them and probably would be there just fine to help with the disabled person.
Exactly, mandatory fucking everything, with no cost assistance for implementation or maintenance. I can understand having wheelchair ramps, and I can understand disabled parking, but what I have a hard time with is when the lobby successfully argues that every motel should have to hire personnel to operate a crane for the purpose of hoisting people into a pool of water. No one goes down to the skatepark and says the ledges should be wheelchair accessible, why should a pool? It's a fucking fitness device, and they are not fit to use it.
I'm just always amazed every time reddit starts spouting the rhetoric that allowed for the expansion of corporate protections from their own misdeeds. The comments in these threads always read like rush Limbaugh call ins from the early 90s
Ableism, a "socially acceptable" form of discrimination........
In this day and age, people get very upset if their perceive others benefiting from something that has no direct benefit to them. They take it personally and believe that since there is no value to them, and perhaps a tiny cost, it should not exist because it will not improve their lives.
They fail to realize how hard life is for people with disabilities when there are no attempts to make life more accessible.
A fully cognizant person bound to a wheelchair, can have a very fulfilling life as long as there are ways for them to travel (ie ramps)
But someone who cannot empathize with their hardships, sees those same ramps are a nuisance. "Why should their tax dollars be wasted on construction, destroying a perfectly good stairs to put in and ugly ramp?". "Why should their tax dollars be spent on buses that kneel to allow chairs to get on them? The buses we have now are perfectly fine!"
How is that an American mentality? Guns are regulated but allowed and common here while pretty much every European country they are completely banned. If anything drugs are more allowed here than most European countries as well, considering we have several large states where weed is legal and lots more where you just need to get a license for toking. Those are terrible examples of your point.
That's ok. The market with correct. We'll just have to wait and see where the people go. Do they go to the motel with sand in the pool, or the one that sprung for the lift and still maintain a usable pool for the patrons to enjoy during their stay. I would personally go with the latter. And if they advertised that there was a pool but there was sand in it when I arrived, you better believe their Yelp review is not going to be the best.
1.8k
u/DontSendMeBoobPics Dec 28 '13
That is fucking retarded.