Why should hotels be forced to install mechanical chair lifts.

Requiring handicapped ramps for building access is one thing. Requiring mechanical lifts for pools is just retarded.

Let business owners make their own decisions for (*)(*)(*)(*) sake.

This nanny state (*)(*)(*)(*) is getting over the top.

 

What, and Laos is?

No, it's a "get the government out of my (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business" society. I know that's hard for Euros to grasp, but we prefer to make our own decisions.

 

No, it's really not. It's just another sign that special interests and ambulance chasers run this system. Old people have way too much time on their hands.

 

Well, in a way, yes. But it's also true that this is bad for the public who must now pay more for hotel rooms if there's a pool, or for hotels that will be forced to close the pools due to this law. It's the same thing all over the place -- the law sounds good but it affects a lot of people negatively and has very little positive impact. I've never even seen a disabled person poolside, let alone attempting to get into a pool -- so I would imagine that this lift would be used maybe once or twice a year, but must be maintained all year and must be inspected as well. $10,000 for a device that might be used once a year is stupid.

As for the diabled themselves -- again, how many disabled people are swimming at the days inn? Have you ever seen one? Is this really a major issue with the disabled? It would be one thing if there were lots of people being harmed by the lack of a lift -- people who want to swim should be allowed to swim. But when it comes down to a person deciding whether to put in a major piece of equipment, it's not unreasonable to ask whether it would even be used.

 

You have more serious problems if you believe a wheelchair lift at hotels is neccessary for you to have a life.

 

Kinda torn with this one.......I can see the point of disabled people feeling that the fact of being disabled should not stop them doing what they think they should be able to do...and I can see the argument behind businesses making those businesses, and the amenities contained within them, accessible to all for their own profit.....but I can't see any justification for forcing businesses who can't afford the money for installation and maintenance to install and maintain facilities just in case at sometime, someone might want to use them.

Disabled people will have the choice not to frequent an hotel which doesn't provide the correct facilities.....a business which does have the correct facilities can not force a disabled person to use those facilities in preference to the hotel down the road which also has them. Are disabled people booking hotel rooms completely incapable of checking out the facilities available, and opting not to decide on the one in the area without a mechanical lift.

I agree that public facilities should do everything necessary to ensure everyone liable to use it, as in any member of the public, has access to everything on offer....because the taxpayer will foot the bill in one way or another, and the disabled are taxpayers the same as everyone else.....but I fail to see why private individuals and private companies should have to spend money on a just in case basis, even where that is not cost-effective for the individual or the business.

As far as I know, the UK still goes the "reasonable steps" route. Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers only need to make changes that are 'reasonable'. These might include simple changes to layout, improved signage and information and staff training which can improve accessibility to disabled customers.
It's about what is practical to the service provider's individual situation and what resources they may have. They will not be required to make changes that are impractical or beyond their means

The disabled person unable to access a facility is always at liberty to take the business to court.

And that is an element of choice in the country where nanny-stateism is an all-pervading way of life.....just check out the building regulations.

 

It sounds like we need this "reasonable steps" clause in our legislation as well.

 

Has it not crossed your mind that the reason disabled people don't go to pools without equipment to help them in and out, is because that equipment isn't there?

 

They don't go rock climbing either. Should the Grand Canyon have a scaffold system for people in wheelchairs?

 

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there isn't a lot of need for this. Not only have I never seen a disabled person on the poolside, honestly I've never heard of people needing these things even at a tourist destinations like beachside resorts. I've never seen this at a waterpark either -- so exactly how many people do you invision coming out of the woodwork? I mean if this isn't even an issue on the coast, how exactly is it that it's a huge national issue? Show me even 10 people who are complaining about the lack of lifts at a hotel in Milwalkee.

 

How do you get a disabled person with no legs out of the pool then?

 

I am 64, and have health problems. I don't expect to be able to do the same as a healthy 64 year old, far less a healthy 30 year old.......and sure as hell I don't expect anybody but the entity to which I pay my taxes to do anything about financing my attempts to forget I have limits due to my health.

If a business doesn't perceive that it will be cost effective to make their services 100% accessible to people, most of whom, in the great scheme of things are unlikely to use private facilities anyway....why should any Government force them to just because the Government might get a few votes out of it?

In the UK they already force businesses to ensure disabled people can work in and access their properties, even if very few or none ever will, and force individuals with no disabled family members and/or friends to ensure that any house they build has a ramp system and doors wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs (at least they do in Scotland, even if you live in the middle of a field with no wheelchair access for hundreds of yards before you ever get anywhere near to the ramp).

Seems to me that if folk who build houses want to reduce their resale prospects and businesses want to reduce profits......that is their option.....it is not the purpose of Government to dictate the actions of private individuals and businesses. As long as the public and essential services are fully accessible by the disabled...why would they assume that private individuals and businesses should be obliged to fund their perceived entitlements. Much better if the Government didn't reduce their benefits so they can fund them themselves, don't you think?

I can do bleeding heart with the best....but I don't do rank stupidity...and the concept that every single person in the UK is entitled to do what every other person in the UK can do just because they think that it is discrimination because they can't..even if they are not capable of doing it is....imo, rank stupidity.

 

The same way that you got them in?

 

How is that then? Say their carer is a 30 year old woman who cannot lift their full weight? Or they are on their own in their wheel chair?

 

A classic case where a real media in the USA would be nice. At the state and local level, 99 times out of 100 the politician supporting the bill just so happens to be the brother of the owner of the ONLY chair lift manufacturer. It would be interesting to see the lobby or details behind the scene of this.

 

A handicap person with a wheel chair shouldn't go into pools or climb mountains or a lot of other things as well.

 

Why not? Because you say so? Don't be so silly. They have every right to go into a pool if they want to. You cannot bar them from pools because the pool does not have a crane,it is up to the pool to get one for them just like all the shops have to provide ramps for wheel chairs so that disabled people are included in society not excluded because they cannot get anywhere.

 

So why don't you get them a crane so they can climb mount everest too then?

 

I see maybe 2 disabled persons a year checking into my property. This is ridiculous.

 

So a civilized and prosperous society intentionally sacrifices an amenity or service for the entire society if that amenity or service cannot be provided for every single person in that society?

WTF ever.

 

They use their arms. If you don't have the use of your legs, you tend to strengthen your arms, so they can help you get around. Haven't you ever seen a person with no legs walking with their hands?

 

We\are talking about places where the public go on a daily basis and that they need to be able to access. We are not talking about climbing mount everest. It just shows how weak your argument is that you even bring that into it. You want to exclude disabled people from society.

 

Its nice that you seem willing to discriminate against those who have a disability. People without the use of their legs CAN climb mountains, in fact, they have before. YOu cannot tell them they can't, especially if you refuse to provide the necessary equipment for them.

However, I do agree with you, in part. Installing wheelchair access for pools will cost a lot of money, and if you get a dozen disabled people through the doors in a year, you will never make up for the costs of installing the lifts, unless you charge more for food and beds.

 

What if they have withered arms? MS?

 

Exactly. There are many shops in which you have to step up to get in the door. There is no ramp, so disabled people cannot access the store, which I think is unfair.