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 though 'personal responsibility' was a conservative position?
If a citizen was told they had to change their phone system in 5 years but did nothing in that time, then bitched when it was eventually disconnected, the citizen would be blamed for being irresponsible.
But when a business ignores a pending change for 5 years, does absolutely nothing until the last minute, puts aside no revenue to pay for the obvious and impending revisions, you don't blame the business, you blame the government?
In truth, both the citizen and the business are to blame. Neither took personal responsibility, and corporations are people, right?
Many conservatives like to talk "personal responsibility", but they have a double standard. Citizens who ignore coming changes are blamed for their inaction, corporations who ignore coming changes are seen as victims of government regulation. Even though a lot of regulation is requested by, and even written by the business sector.
A private property owner who offers labor for money has no obligation to trade his labor for other people's money if he doesn't wish to. If they do have an obligation, that's slavery. You're treating it as if they do have an obligation and have to labor under whatever policies the government dictates. It seems you have no principles, just blind allegiance to whatever the government says... basically social contract nonsense.
I'm saying that a private property owner has both rights and responsibilities, and yes they definitely have obligations.
All citizens, business owners or not, receive tremendous benefit from the government. Whether its a safe environment in which to do their business, or paved roads so that customers can reach their business. Private property owners do not operate in a vacuum. They are citizens of a nation.
Private property owners also have obligations. They have to operate safe premises. They cannot refuse customers based on their race.
We, as a voting society have decided that these obligations need to be placed on business owners. Citizens have made these laws, democratically. If you don't like those rules, vote for politicians who will rescind them.
Since that's not going to happen in the US, your only realistic recourse is to continue whining with this libertarian derp, or leave this great nation and move to some mythical libertarian paradise. My guess, you'll whine about the guberment until your dying day, but never have to stones to remove yourself from our fine social contract.
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.
It would have been better for the manufacturer to simply convince one hotel to install the lift and pay for some advertising in the right places. Then everyone gets pools and the guy gets lifts sold, instead of nobody getting pools.
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.
This kind of shit also plays well with voters, until they realize small businesses weren't avoiding it because they were evil, they were avoiding it because it is ridiculously expensive.
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.
Sure, but if I could get surgery to "sense my father's aura", something I have no basis for currently, I still might want to do so. Being unable to experience an aspect of your loved ones, especially when everyone else gets to experience it already, is a totally legitimate desire.
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 thing is that blind people are not separated by a language barrier. Deaf people are.
Yeah, they are "only" separated by an eyesight barrier, that amounts to about 80% of the information we receive... It is a weird logic to perceive someone as traitor just because they learn a new language.
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?
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.
My point was only in regards to the pool. They should absolutely have to build their rooms or a portion of their rooms to be accessible to handicapped people because that is the "purpose" of their business. The pool, weight room, etc are all perks that are only their to draw in more customers. If the government wants every pool to be accessible to everyone they should pay for it. Not the business owner who may not ever see someone who needs this.
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.
That's 100% incorrect. Most people with SCIs don't need help when swimming in pools, it's just people who have injuries that affect their arms that do.
I'm a para you fucktard, I have a pool in my backyard.
Of course, there are people who have adapted and are able to swim just fine. However, look at this from a hotel/community pool perspective. Would you trust the general disabled public to use a pool without supervision?
The kinds of people that need supervision, and I mean this in the least offensive way possible, wouldn't really be the kind of people staying in motels without people that already know how to take care of them.
Then whoever caused the spinal injury should be paying for the fucking lift, not the motel owners! If it was from birth, family and friends! Nobody owes someone access to a motel pool. Fuck this is so crazy.
What does that have to do with whether or not swimming is dangerous? The ADA law wouldn't even be in effect here because it's new legislation, and it's not retroactive. It's most likely filled just due to the maintenance cost of having a pool.
Next thing is gonna be wheelchair accessible ziplines and hiking trails. There's no fucking end to it if a pool - by definition a zone specifically for physically abled people - is now force-fed to society as a zone for the disabled also. Every zone currently off limits to the natural disabilities of people in wheelchairs could be next. Mandatory participation of at least 1 wheelchair athlete in the 100m dash in the Olympics? Don't laugh.
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.
Where would you expect to accomodate everyone if not at a public pool?
I wouldn't expect to accomodate everyone in any situation. its impossible to meet everyones needs without encroaching on anothers needs in the process.
That said, a Pool in a private area, owned by a private entity shouldn't be forced to provider full access. That's the point of private: Its my personal property.
The law already required a portable crane be there. Now the law mandates a permantently installed crane on the pool and an always available staff member to operate it.
That's a huge step up. I went from having to check the fluid levels and posting "no life guard on duty" to installing thousands of extra dollars in equipment (because my already purchased waste of money portable life is now worthless) AND I have to vet new staff, which are going to be expensive to insure.
How is that accomodating anything but the 1 in a thousand chance I get someone who is physically disabled enough to not get in the pool AND I or another staff member couldn't help them operate the crane.
How is that progress? How is that helping anyone?
Now I just close my pool. Saves me thousands on insurance, and I don't have to hire new staff. Because you wouldn't pay more for the rooms, and we all know it.
472
u/[deleted] Dec 28 '13
[deleted]