I started diving off of starting blocks when I was eight years old. I am now 51, and train at the Y, almost always alone, as there is no Masters program in the county where I live, or in any of the immediately adjacent counties. (There are several age group programs.) I want to work on my starts, but none of the Y's where I swim will let me use the blocks - saying that a national Y policy prohibits anyone from using the blocks unless a team/club coach is on the deck.
I have never heard of anyone suing a YMCA because of an accident on a starting block.
Yes, perhaps a coach would be valuable to me in this regard, but I'm not looking for a coach - I need and want a cooperative facility. The age groups' program schedules are not conducive to my schedule, and besides, the age group coaches already have enough on their hands during those times with lanes full of kids working their programs. I also am not excited about having to dodge those kids to do the work I need to do.
Anyone find a way to conquer this litigation-fear-induced insanity yet? Thank you.
Geek, the remedy suggested (lowering the temperature by 10-20 degrees), still leaves you with hot coffee that can burn you. But it greatly reduces the chances of serious burns, without compromising quality. Why wouldn't you do that, or at least educate people that your coffee is hotter/more dangerous than any other coffee out there?
I am amazed at how many people are taking the stance that "reducing unreasonable and unnecessary risk" is equivalent to "eliminating any and all risk". Everyone is agreed that hot coffee can cause scalded tongues and minor burns if spilled. Should I expect (with normal use) the risk of $10K - 100K hospitalization due to an 89 cent product, when there is no reason for it?
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts.
This came up, because someone used it as an example of frivilous lawsuits. Some of us have stated, once all the facts are in, this case in not frivilous. (You can still think the outcome was wrong, without thinking the case had no merit.) I've made an effort to stop posting, but others have persisted (which required a response :) .)
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
A pool has a clearly posted policy that says: "Starting blocks may only be used in otherwise vacant lanes by certified swimmers." Only 4 of the 6 lanes are in use. Swimmer #5, who has a certification badge on his suit, informs the lifeguard that he is going to be practicing starts in one of the empty lanes. Why shouldn't this be allowed?
What do you mean by certification? Like those Red Cross swimming courses? That would provide a means to let the lifeguard know that the swimmer has passed a certain level of competance, without requiring a guess. On the face of it, that would seem to be reasonable (to me). Anyone to play Devil's Advocate? :)
Geek, the remedy suggested (lowering the temperature by 10-20 degrees), still leaves you with hot coffee that can burn you. But it greatly reduces the chances of serious burns, without compromising quality. Why wouldn't you do that, or at least educate people that your coffee is hotter/more dangerous than any other coffee out there?
I am amazed at how many people are taking the stance that "reducing unreasonable and unnecessary risk" is equivalent to "eliminating any and all risk". Everyone is agreed that hot coffee can cause scalded tongues and minor burns if spilled. Should I expect (with normal use) the risk of $10K - 100K hospitalization due to an 89 cent product, when there is no reason for it?
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
I don't see how McDonald's coffee is part of this argument, which is about competitive swimmers being allowed to use the starting blocks to practice their starts.
This came up, because someone used it as an example of frivilous lawsuits. Some of us have stated, once all the facts are in, this case in not frivilous. (You can still think the outcome was wrong, without thinking the case had no merit.) I've made an effort to stop posting, but others have persisted (which required a response :) .)
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
A pool has a clearly posted policy that says: "Starting blocks may only be used in otherwise vacant lanes by certified swimmers." Only 4 of the 6 lanes are in use. Swimmer #5, who has a certification badge on his suit, informs the lifeguard that he is going to be practicing starts in one of the empty lanes. Why shouldn't this be allowed?
What do you mean by certification? Like those Red Cross swimming courses? That would provide a means to let the lifeguard know that the swimmer has passed a certain level of competance, without requiring a guess. On the face of it, that would seem to be reasonable (to me). Anyone to play Devil's Advocate? :)
