Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've had lifeguards tell me the same thing. They require that the life vests are coast guard approved. Stupid rule and I don't agree with it.
At the same time, I'm not going to be a dick about it. I've questioned their policy and argued with them, but in the end I've complied. It's their pool and their rules. Damn, I'm becoming a conformist in my old age.
Ban floaties and only criminals will have floaties.and we need to make as many criminals as we can to support our criminal injustice system. freaking everything should be a crime.
I don't support the cops being involved - the pool personnel should have been able to remove her and the kid from the pool themselves - but she caused that to happen - she is just another spoiled brat who thinks that the rules don't apply to her. People will try to spin this as "discrimination" - it is not. The rules are in place for safety and you don't get special treatment because your child has cerebral palsy.
In principle, I agree with you. But what are the lifeguards to do? If they physically remove the woman and her kid, they could be charged with assault in this idiotic society.
I suspect that the pool doesn't allow "water wings" because if the kid isn't a competant swimmer they are not a lifesaving tool. They instill a feeling of confidence, but are in no way a life jacket. If mommies boy had drowned she'd probably be all over the same LG for letting her kid swim with those things on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weedsnake
Not a chance. The pool rules allow for specialized flotation devices for handicapped. The "floaties" can hardly be considered specialized flotation devices.
exactly. IMO, mom is a spoiled idiot that wants to ignore basic safety rules, and by doing so, put her own kid in danger.
The life guard was asking the woman to leave due to a violation of the rules. She refused to comply. What was he supposed to do? Jump in the pool and physically remove her?
Not a chance. The pool rules allow for specialized flotation devices for handicapped. The "floaties" can hardly be considered specialized flotation devices.
For this child though, they were functioning as a mitigator to his disability. Sunglasses aren't specialized devices for just handicapped people, but a lot of blind and visually impaired people need to wear them because of the nature of their eye condition. Should they be allowed to, even though sunglasses aren't specifically handicapped devices? Honestly, I don't think this mother was asking for a very large accommodation, and would consider floaties a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA. That said, if I were her, I would have taken my business elsewhere, on principle. I wouldn't want to give my business to someone who isn't willing to even slightly accommodate a disabled customer. If I were her, I would have found a pool facility that was flexible enough to allow her son to use the floaties. I know pool facilities that will even assist disabled customers into the pool and pools that have specific devices where wheelchair users can be transferred onto a seat, which then lowers into the pool. This lady should find a pool that will let her son swim the way he needs to, and be allowed to use any sort of devices as a disability aid he needs in order to swim safely. The irony is that the floaties are banned for safety reasons, and this customer was wearing floaties...for safety. Their rules may perhaps work on principle for able-bodied customers, but sometimes "safety" takes another shape and form when it comes to disabled people. A facility that doesn't understand this isn't worth patronizing.
I've had lifeguards tell me the same thing. They require that the life vests are coast guard approved. Stupid rule and I don't agree with it.
At the same time, I'm not going to be a dick about it. I've questioned their policy and argued with them, but in the end I've complied. It's their pool and their rules. Damn, I'm becoming a conformist in my old age.
This thread makes me shocked, and very appreciative that the pools I've gone to have always let me swim, even despite being totally blind. I'm glad they didn't just see me as a risk but rather, a customer like any other, who wants to enjoy myself and pays for their services. They even let me wear my sunglasses in the pool, even though they're not "specialty handicapped devices." Thank God everyone isn't uptight.
I don't agree with what happened, but there will be no payday for breaking the rules...
Not only that, but water wings are NOT considered a safety device. If the stupid woman had put a life jacket on the kid, then she'd have a case. Oh wait, no she wouldn't. Life jackets are allowed in the pool. No case.
For this child though, they were functioning as a mitigator to his disability. Sunglasses aren't specialized devices for just handicapped people, but a lot of blind and visually impaired people need to wear them because of the nature of their eye condition. Should they be allowed to, even though sunglasses aren't specifically handicapped devices? Honestly, I don't think this mother was asking for a very large accommodation, and would consider floaties a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA. That said, if I were her, I would have taken my business elsewhere, on principle. I wouldn't want to give my business to someone who isn't willing to even slightly accommodate a disabled customer. If I were her, I would have found a pool facility that was flexible enough to allow her son to use the floaties. I know pool facilities that will even assist disabled customers into the pool and pools that have specific devices where wheelchair users can be transferred onto a seat, which then lowers into the pool. This lady should find a pool that will let her son swim the way he needs to, and be allowed to use any sort of devices as a disability aid he needs in order to swim safely. The irony is that the floaties are banned for safety reasons, and this customer was wearing floaties...for safety. Their rules may perhaps work on principle for able-bodied customers, but sometimes "safety" takes another shape and form when it comes to disabled people. A facility that doesn't understand this isn't worth patronizing.
There isn't always a choice.
One of my closest friends has CP. He's 30 years old and has progressively lost function. Luckily his local pool has both a lift for his wheelchair (if he needs to use it) and allows him to use a pool noodle to keep his head above water while he exercises his lower body. However, if they DIDN'T accommodate him, he would have nowhere else to go. He lives in a city, has no family (was abandoned into the foster care system and, because he has those special needs, was never adopted), and has no way to get from place to place. His whole world is limited to the few blocks around his apartment unless his best friend (my boyfriend) or I can pick him up - we're the only people in his life with cars and I work full time.
You're right, the floaties are reasonable accommodation. I wouldn't even think to *ask* a pool if it was OK for my child to wear floaties - they're so commonplace. When my friend was a kid, that's what he used. You know who told him to use floaties and (now) a boogie board or pool noodle? His DOCTOR and OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
