Wheelchair lifts for swimming pools

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

Public parks and swimming pools located in neighborhoods are not privately owned, dummy. Hotels, resort, water parks, yes. But you keep going on about stuff that no one else is talking about in this discussion.

I have already said I am not addressing that, and it is fine for those owned by the public. But they ALL have to fall under the same uniformed regulations

So, what you are actually trying to say is that the requirement for wheel chair lifts and ramps inside a pool have nothing to do with the businesses that own them?

You do know the DOJ is withdrawing its' position on this wheelchair law for now right? You do know the DOJ has admitted to overreacting to this unnecessary regulation?

 

[Disgustipated]

Johnny, scooch over, I need a nap now too.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I have already said I am not addressing that, and it is fine for those owned by the public. But they ALL have to fall under the same uniformed regulations

So, what you are actually trying to say is that the requirement for wheel chair lifts and ramps inside a pool have nothing to do with the businesses that own them?

You do know the DOJ is withdrawing its' position on this wheelchair law for now right? You do know the DOJ has admitted to overreacting to this unnecessary regulation?

Don't you hate it when the Executive picks and chooses which laws it will enforce and which it will ignore?

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's the law of the land. I'm a law and order kind of citizen. Me and Vetteman are simpatico.

 

[Johnny_Ray_Wilson]

First, the law was passed already. In 1992.
Second, you are yammering on again about some NSPF. Nobody gives a rat's ass about that. We are talking about the Americans with Disabilities Act. So stop saying, NSPF. Just excise it from your thought process.
Third, the ADA isn't a person or agency. It can't oversee or run anything.

I've been worn down to a nub here and think I shall take a nap now.

Why yes, thank you. Any business operating an aquatic and swimming pool facility already know of the '92 law and has to comply with it. Any Certified Pool Operator (a little over 280,000 of those certified people in the US the past 40 or so years) is well aware of their responsibilities to the handicapped and disabled within the pool area under their care. We have to comply with the ADA as well.

It is not as difficult a thing as everyone here makes it out to be. It is very simple and straightforward. I know I am talking about. Very easy. It is only difficult for people who do not understand such simplicity of how things really work sometimes.

Here are some links to help you better understand the NSPF's role in ensuring those regulations are adhered to:

http://www.nspf.org/en/home.aspx

http://www.nspf.org/en/cpo.aspx

 

[Disgustipated]

It's like talking lawnmower laws with Killswitch.

 

[Ishmael]

When you get Drixxx outside of a couple issues, he's a smart poster with a cutting wit.

This thread is awesome. Right from page one, it has the usual suspects plugging their ears and going "Lalalalalalalalala!"

So, you agree that every pool in the nation that has 'public' access should be effected by this law?

Ishmael

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

It's like talking lawnmower laws with Killswitch.

Apt comparison. When you only know about one thing, you milk it.

 

[miles]

So, you agree that every pool in the nation that has 'public' access should be effected by this law?

Ishmael

If this helps only one person, it will be worth it!

 

[mercury14]

So, you agree that every pool in the nation that has 'public' access should be effected by this law?

Ishmael

Unless it would be difficult for the pool owner to afford. Then there's an exemption. That bit of the law was unclear so the entire regulation is on hold until it's clarified. That's "OMG Poolmageddon" for the dramatic/fear-mongering types.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm still working out why handicapped people would even consider getting near a pool.

 

[Ishmael]

Unless it would be difficult for the pool owner to afford. Then there's an exemption. That bit of the law was unclear so the entire regulation is on hold until it's clarified. That's "OMG Poolmageddon" for the dramatic/fear-mongering types.

And who determines that?

Pools will be shut down nation wide, period. Not so much for the upfront expense, but because of the long term expense and liability exposure this 'law' forces the owners/operators into.

I don't have a problem with municipally operated pools. The cost isn't particularly that great and every one that I've seen has life guards on duty while the pool is open. Consequently there is no more long term expense or liability beyond that which they have already taken on.

Congress needs to intervene with a little bit of common sense on this one.

Ishmael

 

[mercury14]

You do know the DOJ is withdrawing its' position on this wheelchair law for now right? You do know the DOJ has admitted to overreacting to this unnecessary regulation?

Pretty much. They hinted that their 60-day hold for this law is going to turn into a 6-month one while they figure out how to water this sucker down.

 

[mercury14]

And who determines that?

That's the problem. So the federales put this regulation on hold.

Pools will be shut down nation wide, period.

Oh no, Ish is using his "period!" power play! Just like Aetna and United Healthcare are going out of business in a few months, PERIOD! And the USA is sitting on oil reserves that dwarf Saudi Arabia's, PERIOD!!

Not so much for the upfront expense, but because of the long term expense and liability exposure this 'law' forces the owners/operators into.

I don't have a problem with municipally operated pools. The cost isn't particularly that great and every one that I've seen has life guards on duty while the pool is open. Consequently there is no more long term expense or liability beyond that which they have already taken on.

Congress needs to intervene with a little bit of common sense on this one.

Ishmael

No pool will be closed because this regulation will never come into effect. It's already been put on hold in order to be reconsidered for feasibility.

 

[Ishmael]

That's the problem. So the federales put this regulation on hold.




Oh no, Ish is using his "period!" power play! Just like Aetna and United Healthcare are going out of business in a few months, PERIOD! And the USA is sitting on oil reserves that dwarf Saudi Arabia's, PERIOD!!




No pool will be closed because this regulation will never come into effect. It's already been put on hold in order to be reconsidered for feasibility.

#1, it was NOT put on hold because of any ability to comply provisions. It was put on hold because the Feds did an about face over a 24 hour period of time as to whether portable of fixed lifts were required. Portable was acceptable up until a few days ago that then fixed lifts became the only means of compliance.

#2 Many operators have already made plans to shut down their spas/pools, there is no issue with regard to the hold that is going to alter those plans.

That's about it. The operators are going to make individual decisions based on long term cost versus benefit and act accordingly. Upscale destination operators will more than likely go to the expense so as to remain competitive, the travel operators are more than likely going to shut down their pools/spas (as many have already so stated) and go with lower rates as the competitive advantage. Local health club operators will make their decisions based on their local clientele.

Ishmael

 

[JohnnySavage]

As a point of clarification here; the law was not put on hold. The regulations addressing public pools was.

The ADA requires reasonable accommodation be provided for people with disabilities in public places. That's why we have curb cuts and light switches that are 42".

The regulations provide a safe harbor. That is, if someone is complying with the regulations, there is a presumption they are in compliance with the ADA.

With or without the regulations, a suit could still be brought by a disabled person against a pool operator alleging a violation of the ADA for the pool not being accessible.

 

[Bert Notorius]

I suckled off the A.D.A. tit for 15 years. Nothing like having the government mandate your product.

 

[Ishmael]

As a point of clarification here; the law was not put on hold. The regulations addressing public pools was.

The ADA requires reasonable accommodation be provided for people with disabilities in public places. That's why we have curb cuts and light switches that are 42".

The regulations provide a safe harbor. That is, if someone is complying with the regulations, there is a presumption they are in compliance with the ADA.

With or without the regulations, a suit could still be brought by a disabled person against a pool operator alleging a violation of the ADA for the pool not being accessible.

Which is a 60 day window for the ambulance chasers to find a 'victim' and race to the court house.

Ishmael

 

[JohnnySavage]

Which is a 60 day window for the ambulance chasers to find a 'victim' and race to the court house.

Ishmael

Here in the DC area there is a group called The Lawyer's Committee for Equal Justice that has architects on staff. They exist solely for the purpose of going to apartment complexes and other public places with their architect "experts" to measure sidewalks and door openings, for the purpose of filing suit.

Under the ADA you don't need a particular victim. A public interest group can bring suit in its own name.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Threads like this are why I find lit so much fun. I don't run into wackadoodles like these guys in real life.

Agreed.

“Fortunately, the new provisions allow for ‘safe harbor’ for elements that were required under and comply with the old 1991 Standards for Accessible Design,” Patrick Mayock of HotelNewsNow.com explains.

He continues:

If a hotelier previously moved the light switch in a single-user, lobby bathroom down to 52 inches above the finished floor in order to comply with the original ADA regulations for Title III, for example, that hotelier would not have to then move the switch down to the revised 48-inch requirement as under the more stringent 2010 standards, he said.

“If you comply with the 1991 standard, which might be slightly different, that would qualify for this safe harbor,” said Doug Anderson, a partner with LCM Architects.

The new regulations signed off by Eric Holder will apply only to, say, hoteliers who modify or renovate after 15 March 2012 — the deadline for the new ADA regulations.

The 2010 ADA rules stipulate that swimming pools must have a lift or a slope, wading pools must have a slope, and spas must have a pool lift, a transfer wall or a transfer system. The 2010 ADA standards are actually quite detailed.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where a swimming pool has less than 300 linear feet (91 m) of swimming pool wall, no more than one accessible means of entry shall be required provided that the accessible means of entry is a swimming pool lift complying with 1009.2 or sloped entry complying with 1009.3.

2. Wave action pools, leisure rivers, sand bottom pools, and other pools where user access is limited to one area shall not be required to provide more than one accessible means of entry provided that the accessible means of entry is a swimming pool lift complying with 1009.2, a sloped entry complying with 1009.3, or a transfer system complying with 1009.5.

3. Catch pools shall not be required to provide an accessible means of entry provided that the catch pool edge is on an accessible route.

 

[Ishmael]

Here in the DC area there is a group called The Lawyer's Committee for Equal Justice that has architects on staff. They exist solely for the purpose of going to apartment complexes and other public places with their architect "experts" to measure sidewalks and door openings, for the purpose of filing suit.

Under the ADA you don't need a particular victim. A public interest group can bring suit in its own name.

Understood, but for a quick in and out it's a lot easier if you have a wheelchair bound 'victim.' Let's see, the fine is $50K so you bring suit for $50K and take a $15-$20K settlement. It would cost the operator that much in attorney fees to take it to trial and no matter how bogus the suit they'd still end up looking like ogres beating up on a cripple.
Juries are notable capricious, no one would want to take the chance on the $50K plus all attorney fees.

Ishmael

 

[JohnnySavage]

Understood, but for a quick in and out it's a lot easier if you have a wheelchair bound 'victim.' Let's see, the fine is $50K so you bring suit for $50K and take a $15-$20K settlement. It would cost the operator that much in attorney fees to take it to trial and no matter how bogus the suit they'd still end up looking like ogres beating up on a cripple.
Juries are notable capricious, no one would want to take the chance on the $50K plus all attorney fees.

Ishmael

That's exactly what happens. As a practical matter, there's really no governmental enforcement. Enforcement is done by private litigation or the threat of private litigation.

 

[Ishmael]

That's exactly what happens. As a practical matter, there's really no governmental enforcement. Enforcement is done by private litigation or the threat of private litigation.

Which brings us full circle back to my "bone to the Trial Lawyers Association."

Ishmael

 

[Drixxx]

Understood, but for a quick in and out it's a lot easier if you have a wheelchair bound 'victim.' Let's see, the fine is $50K so you bring suit for $50K and take a $15-$20K settlement. It would cost the operator that much in attorney fees to take it to trial and no matter how bogus the suit they'd still end up looking like ogres beating up on a cripple.
Juries are notable capricious, no one would want to take the chance on the $50K plus all attorney fees.

Ishmael

This has already been dealt with.

Jarek Molski, 38, is a bit of a legend in legal circles. Disabled in a 1985 motorcycle accident that left him a paraplegic, he has filed 400 lawsuits against businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging access violations. He was dubbed a "hit-and-run plaintiff" in 2004 by a federal judge and barred from filing any more lawsuits. Molski, of course, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally rejected his case on Nov. 17 without comment. Molski must now petition the Central District Court of California and all state courts first before filing any new lawsuits.

www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1866666,00.html#ixzz1pKYELlvs