We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, May 29. 2012
If you are too disabled to get into a swimming pool or hot tub, what are the odds that you will drown once you are dumped into it by a hydraulic lift? Lawyers win on both sides of this recent government absurdity.
Or is requiring Braille for drive-up ATMs dumber? Buzzkill Obama Pi$$es in the Water – New Regulations Will Force Public Pools to Close.
So I will ask this insensitive and disgusting question: Would you enter a pool or hot tub into which disabled people are being lowered by cranes?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Disabled persons are mostly obese, so should float okay.
Your a smart guy and a great commenter but that was the dumbest thing anybody could have said about the disabled.
Moving the handicapped spaces further from the stores would help, too. These people need exercise.
There are people with real disabilities - then there are the fatties who ride around the grocery store in a scooter shopping for cookies. Unfortunately they get the same treatment.
And then there are fatties who really are disabled, ride around in scooters, and wouldn't bother with crane lifts. Like me, for instance. Polio, 1944; thank your maker if you're not disabled.
Bird Dog ... Interesting question. rhhardin--don't generalize so much about disabled people. Some of us are quite svelte, others are obese. Disabled military have worked themselves into maximum efficient use of whatever of their skills are left to them. Take a look at the mountain bikers with whom former President Bush goes biking.
We do the best we can with what we have left....
" Would you enter a pool or hot tub into which disabled people are being lowered by cranes?"
Not only no, but fuck no.
I wonder what the exact regulations will say. Besides difficulties while getting into and out of pools we must look at slides and diving boards. Will lifts be mandated to position the disabled on those?
Most pools have a deep end and a shallow end. The water in the deep end cannot be safely accessed by people who can't swim. Thus they are denied use of much of the pool. Are they disabled? Should deep water be allowed?
Marianne is right. Disabled people can be in excellent condition. And the buoyancy of water certainly helps some.
Off topic ...
Bird Dog you should have a post about this documentary I saw for the first time tonight:
Imagine, a PBS documentary with a conservative premise.
You could also have a way to contact the moderators with suggestions.
Hardin's was a joke folks, I think. Nonetheless, don't let it distract from the idiocy of this regulation. As, in all likelihood, pools will close, in abundance, except for the larger and more expensive resorts, you know, the kind that Ofuckhead prefers, and unlike us 99%, can afford.
Well, it is true. We looked into this when it was first proposed as we have a semi-public pool in the condo complex. At first, the Association attorney seemed to believe that we would be exempt from installing such a device as this is a co-operative organization and not "public" if you will so the pool would not be included.
Subsequently, we've received information that indeed, if this actually becomes a fact (and this is still up in the air by the way - it is by no means set in stone), then we will have to have a permanent lift installed on the clubhouse pool. Which means that the pool will have to be retrofitted at significant cost. A portable device will not be sufficient.
I'm of two minds on the matter to tell the truth. On the one hand I can see what they are getting at, but on the other, how many disabled folks require access to a public pool at any given time that the requirement couldn't be filled by the use of a portable machine?
I think this is going to blow up in their faces much like some other rather odd decisions made by his administration.
On a related note, with this decision (and others by the way - this is not the by all, end all of stupid pre-election decisions made by the President and the Administration), I'm starting to wonder if President Obama is trying to throw the election - as in lose. The pressure is starting to build, more and more questions are being asked and there is a growing suspicion that Barack H. Obama got into the Ivy league based on his being a foreign student and not because of his grades - in other words, an affirmative action quota entry instead of academic merit. Based on the comments of his fellow instructors at the University of Chicago, it would appear that that is the case.
Be interesting that's for sure.
This is a microcosm of what is wrong with government regulations.
When we have a government run by lawyers, why should we be surprised that regulations are a big rock candy mountain for the parasitic wing of the legal profession?
I wonder which is the bigger drag on the economy, the welfare/medicaid recipients or the legal profession? If I was to wager I would not bet that it is the welfare class.
Sure, I can see what they're getting at too, I'm not unsympathetic. But where does it end? How many miles of disabled curbs, lowered urinals, stainless hand holds, widened doorways, special busses, etc. can we build and at what cost. Will ROI as to actual use ever enter into the equation? I suppose I'm a cold hearted bastard for even bringing it up.
Well, one last point to establish by credentials as an evil heartless bastard... handicapped parking. Talk about a concept that has been utterly abused.
I don't know, it's a tough issue.
Why not? I don't see how that would affect my enjoyment of the pool, at least for the near future. But once the first such disabled person drowns in an unattended pool, you can be sure the next step will be for the government to require all pools to have life guards on duty. That might be affordable (and legally well advised) for many large hotels and public facilities, but I can see how it could be a costly burden for others. Down the line, pools are going to close. "Swim at your own risk" is going to go the way of the 5$ Coca-Cola.
Disabled people should sue to be in the NBA, NFL, and the regular Olympic Games.
After all, think of the children.
That made me picture hydraulically lowered baskets for the wheelchair bound, that must then be raised for the others.
My community pool also has a therapy pool. The therapy pool is used half the week by local physical therapists. They have a portable hydraulic lift to get non-ambulatory patients in and out of the pool. It works quite well.
The 2 pools are only about 15-20 feet apart. When this new regulation begins (supposed to be June 15, but now postponed until after the election - gee, I wonder why) the portable lift won't be good enough, so both pools will be forced to close or install these $15,000 lifts on the edge of both pools.
It's a boon to the lawyers who like to sue institutions for non-compliance with ADA regs. Disgusting.
Enforcement of the rule has been delayed, and they are looking at the implementation to take into account concerns of pool operators.
Under the ADA, those facilities that can't afford the lifts can't be required to have them installed. For those who have trouble entering a pool, they are a significant aid. One day, people will wonder what all the fuss was about, and conservatives will pretend they were for it all the time.
I concur fully, and go further by pushing for a mandate that all public facilities, including National Parks and Seashores be re engineered to meet the same standards for accessibility that said "private" operators will be under...
The ADA requires reasonable accommodation.
"The U.S. National Park Service is committed to making all practicable efforts to make NPS facilities, programs, services, employment, and meaningful work opportunities accessible and usable by all people, including those with disabilities."
If you would only actually read your links. For example, "In choosing among methods of providing accessibility, higher priority will be given to methods that offer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate. Special, separate, or alternative facilities, programs, or services will be provided only when existing ones cannot reasonably be made accessible"
My contention is that "reasonable" = "all", thus Seashores, Parks, and all Federal sites must have equal access. Why deny one the opportunity to dip into the frosty surf @ Acadia NP? The warm waters of South Beach? Perhaps the massive rolling waters off LaJolla?
Because of my Reynaud's Syndrome, I demand heating of the Cape Cod ocean beaches. I can't wait for Global Warming.
Even right wing people apparently fancy themselves to be members of a morally sanctioned interest group to force other people to behave as they're not otherwise inclined to.
It makes more sense, at least, for the disabled, because the disabled vote. I mean, you can understand the political trick, if not why right wingers would fall for it.
If you need help, get help from somebody who wants to give it to you. It's not hard.
Jess: My contention is that "reasonable" = "all", thus Seashores, Parks, and all Federal sites must have equal access.
Well, that may be your contention, but those words have different meanings. ADA requires reasonable accommodation. Not sure your point.
Obviously, his point is that reasonable is one of those amorphous words lawyers love, i.e. means different things to different people. Lawyers get rich writing laws with such words sprinkled liberally throughout, then litigating the amorphous words in those laws ad infinitum.
The concept of reasonableness is thoroughly embedded in law; such as reasonable force, reasonable doubt, reasonable person, reasonable care, reasonable search and reasonable cause.
"embedded" =/= defined. I'm going out on a short limb here that you haven't run across much law in action.
My "point" is simple - the use of undefined terms leaves much open - and is often taken to the full use of the term.
In this case, the issue is simple - if privately built pools open to the public are liable, then why not the balance of publicly owned facilities?
Jess: "embedded" =/= defined.
The Bill of Rights, which guards "against unreasonable searches and seizures", is meaningless? While reasonableness may require delineation, that is not the same as being undefined. Some things are clearly unreasonable, some things are clearly reasonable; and where there is ambiguity, courts have developed standards to help make those decisions.
Jess: In this case, the issue is simple - if privately built pools open to the public are liable, then why not the balance of publicly owned facilities?
False premise. Public facilities ARE required to make reasonable accommodation. Private pools ARE NOT required to make unreasonable accommodations.
And exactly which court decision has established the definition in cases such as this?
My premise is wholly based on yours, nothing more. BTW, your reading comprehension is faulty, as I refernced what the proposal actually covers: pools open to the public. I'm simply pointing out that this also covers such pools built w/private funds...
Jess: And exactly which court decision has established the definition in cases such as this?
You can find a few such court cases in the footnotes here.
Some things are clearly unreasonable, some things are clearly reasonable, so if such a case ends up in court, then the result is likewise clear. As for pools, there is no final rule in place, so there is no court case to decide, but the general principles apply.
Jess: BTW, your reading comprehension is faulty
Thought it was clear. Publicly-owned facilities ARE required to make reasonable accommodation. Privately-owned pools open to the public ARE NOT required to make unreasonable accommodations.
So you freely admit this is something that would wind up in the courts, and furthermore don't understand the basics of what you pretend to support.
Jess: So you freely admit this is something that would wind up in the courts
Of course it could end up in the courts. It could end up in the courts when an employee makes unreasonable demands, or when employers refuse to make reasonable accommodations. Those cases are easy to decide. Or it could end up in the courts due to ambiguities in the notion of reasonableness, and then the courts are called on to establish standards. The same thing happens when courts have to decide what is meant by reasonable force, reasonable doubt, reasonable person, reasonable care, reasonable search and reasonable cause. After time, precedents are established, as has already happened with ADA case law. (Or new administrative standards could be set, as is happening with pool access.)