Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Amusement park in the south discriminating obese? How can they be more fair?
Replies
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »Its down to Engineering limitations and cost and as stated they can't please everyone.
Physics is discrimination against the overweight!5 -
I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.1
-
I don't think "disability" should have any kind of moral implications.5
-
I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
6 -
I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Don't get me wrong, I have both empathy and sympathy for people who have made mistakes. But I would think poorly of a someone removing their oxygen mask for a quick smoke, or drinking on their new liver. Or just claiming they are stuck with obesity and expecting society to accommodate that.
And I'm not sure if it's fair to put work injuries on that list. Sometimes things go wrong despite every effort to do them safely. Definitely not like eating, drinking or smoking until permanant damage.
Maybe my opinion is a bit harsh.. But I am obese, and I do have a spinal injury. And I hold myself to the same standard.0 -
I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Don't get me wrong, I have both empathy and sympathy for people who have made mistakes. But I would think poorly of a someone removing their oxygen mask for a quick smoke, or drinking on their new liver. Or just claiming they are stuck with obesity and expecting society to accommodate that.
And I'm not sure if it's fair to put work injuries on that list. Sometimes things go wrong despite every effort to do them safely. Definitely not like eating, drinking or smoking until permanant damage.
Maybe my opinion is a bit harsh.. But I am obese, and I do have a spinal injury. And I hold myself to the same standard.
I guess I would ask what is the significance of you thinking poorly of someone? I mean, you're free to think poorly of all types of people (I know I think poorly of some people). Do you think that should have any impact or significance on their lives except for how it may impact them to know you aren't thinking well of them (assuming you decide to let them know)?
Do you think your feelings about them should have any other impact on their lives or the options that are available to them?3 -
Old_Cat_Lady wrote: »What is the solution?
The rider losing weight.7 -
I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Sports permanent injuries
Shift workers at a largely increased risk for several chronic diseases
Sun tanning and skin cancer
Pilots and flight attendants and radiation exposure
0 -
I took a trip to Alaska. They had weight restrictions on the airplane rides over the glaciers. I didn't feel offended at all when they wouldn't take me on that plane ride. Came home and went on a diet.5
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Don't get me wrong, I have both empathy and sympathy for people who have made mistakes. But I would think poorly of a someone removing their oxygen mask for a quick smoke, or drinking on their new liver. Or just claiming they are stuck with obesity and expecting society to accommodate that.
And I'm not sure if it's fair to put work injuries on that list. Sometimes things go wrong despite every effort to do them safely. Definitely not like eating, drinking or smoking until permanant damage.
Maybe my opinion is a bit harsh.. But I am obese, and I do have a spinal injury. And I hold myself to the same standard.
I guess I would ask what is the significance of you thinking poorly of someone? I mean, you're free to think poorly of all types of people (I know I think poorly of some people). Do you think that should have any impact or significance on their lives except for how it may impact them to know you aren't thinking well of them (assuming you decide to let them know)?
Do you think your feelings about them should have any other impact on their lives or the options that are available to them?
lol Honestly, in the grand scheme of things I doub't my opinion counts for anything at all. But here we are on the internet, and you have the pleasure of reading it anyway. All I said was that I feel comparing obese people with what I consider to be genuinely disabled people to be in poor taste. And in the context of the thread we are talking in, that means I don't think society owes obese people anything at all. For the vast majority of Obese people it's a fixable problem. So they should fix it.. Not be getting discounts because of it. HTH.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Don't get me wrong, I have both empathy and sympathy for people who have made mistakes. But I would think poorly of a someone removing their oxygen mask for a quick smoke, or drinking on their new liver. Or just claiming they are stuck with obesity and expecting society to accommodate that.
And I'm not sure if it's fair to put work injuries on that list. Sometimes things go wrong despite every effort to do them safely. Definitely not like eating, drinking or smoking until permanant damage.
Maybe my opinion is a bit harsh.. But I am obese, and I do have a spinal injury. And I hold myself to the same standard.
I guess I would ask what is the significance of you thinking poorly of someone? I mean, you're free to think poorly of all types of people (I know I think poorly of some people). Do you think that should have any impact or significance on their lives except for how it may impact them to know you aren't thinking well of them (assuming you decide to let them know)?
Do you think your feelings about them should have any other impact on their lives or the options that are available to them?
lol Honestly, in the grand scheme of things I doub't my opinion counts for anything at all. But here we are on the internet, and you have the pleasure of reading it anyway. All I said was that I feel comparing obese people with what I consider to be genuinely disabled people to be in poor taste. And in the context of the thread we are talking in, that means I don't think society owes obese people anything at all. For the vast majority of Obese people it's a fixable problem. So they should fix it.. Not be getting discounts because of it. HTH.
So it would be accurate to say you believe that society owes things to some types of disabled people (those who were disabled through no fault of their own based on your determination) and doesn't owe things to other types (those who could have prevented their disability by either taking a set of actions or not engaging in a specific type of behavior). Please correct me if I've misunderstood your argument.
In policy terms, how would this be enforced? Would you have some type of panel issuing certificates based on the history and development of a specific individual's need for reasonable accomodations?
What if the disability could have been prevented by the action of a third party, like one's parents? If the disability was "chosen" by anyone (including another party), does it relieve society of any obligations?2 -
You have indeed accurately captured the flavor of my opinion. However I was rather specifically targeting the obese because their condition is not static. The vast majority of obese people are not stuck that way. Quadriplegia for example is not fixable. No matter how someone came to be a quadriplegic, they are now very much stuck with it.
So that's the line that I've drawn and the difference I see here. And don't get me wrong, I don't think society owes quadriplegics anything either. But I feel inclined to accommodate them because they are stuck with it, and I appreciate when society does accommodate them accordingly.
My question to you is, if we count the obese as disabled, should we not count heroine addicts as well? Should junkies get priority parking and discount entry?1 -
I am not aware of discount entry being a common thing unless a disability means they won't be using most of the services involved.
Regarding priority parking, I think anyone should get it who is actually disabled. So if someone has become disabled due to being obese (and being in a wheelchair, for example), or if someone has an OD on heroin and ended up unable to walk, both are disabled. Merely being fat or a drug addict of course does not make you disabled and should not entitle you to special parking, but the parking is for people with mobility issues, whatever the reason, not just for people we think deserve our sympathy.
And yes, obviously if someone is obese to the point of it being disabling, that's extra reason why they should work on losing weight, but also probably means that person is far enough gone that it will be difficult (and the lack of mobility is a factor that makes it more difficult). But then again, it might mean they have more motivation and "hit bottom" such that they will make the changes needed to lose weight -- depends on the person. Health issues are a common motivator, but becoming disabled would not be the first such issue.
Regarding workplace accommodation, I don't see them as about "feeling sorry" for a disabled person, but because it is socially in everyone's best interest if disabled people (and fat people who are disabled as a result) are still productive. And probably good for that person too, of course.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Don't get me wrong, I have both empathy and sympathy for people who have made mistakes. But I would think poorly of a someone removing their oxygen mask for a quick smoke, or drinking on their new liver. Or just claiming they are stuck with obesity and expecting society to accommodate that.
And I'm not sure if it's fair to put work injuries on that list. Sometimes things go wrong despite every effort to do them safely. Definitely not like eating, drinking or smoking until permanant damage.
Maybe my opinion is a bit harsh.. But I am obese, and I do have a spinal injury. And I hold myself to the same standard.
I guess I would ask what is the significance of you thinking poorly of someone? I mean, you're free to think poorly of all types of people (I know I think poorly of some people). Do you think that should have any impact or significance on their lives except for how it may impact them to know you aren't thinking well of them (assuming you decide to let them know)?
Do you think your feelings about them should have any other impact on their lives or the options that are available to them?
lol Honestly, in the grand scheme of things I doub't my opinion counts for anything at all. But here we are on the internet, and you have the pleasure of reading it anyway. All I said was that I feel comparing obese people with what I consider to be genuinely disabled people to be in poor taste. And in the context of the thread we are talking in, that means I don't think society owes obese people anything at all. For the vast majority of Obese people it's a fixable problem. So they should fix it.. Not be getting discounts because of it. HTH.
I agree with you about discounts to amusement parks, but nobody needs to visit amusement parks. I might disagree if we were talking about something important.
Keep in mind that while obesity can be reversed, it's a slow process. A 400 pound person might be able to do something someday, but probably not tomorrow.
As a hiker, I see a lot of debate over free rescue services for all. Some people think this shouldn't be available to those who are in trouble I'm ways that are especially their own fault. The counter argument is that fire trucks show up even if the fire was set when somebody fell asleep with a cigarette.0 -
You have indeed accurately captured the flavor of my opinion. However I was rather specifically targeting the obese because their condition is not static. The vast majority of obese people are not stuck that way. Quadriplegia for example is not fixable. No matter how someone came to be a quadriplegic, they are now very much stuck with it.
So that's the line that I've drawn and the difference I see here. And don't get me wrong, I don't think society owes quadriplegics anything either. But I feel inclined to accommodate them because they are stuck with it, and I appreciate when society does accommodate them accordingly.
My question to you is, if we count the obese as disabled, should we not count heroine addicts as well? Should junkies get priority parking and discount entry?
Even if I categorized heroin addiction as a disability, not every disability requires the same reasonable accomodations. For example, I have a sister with a disability that doesn't impact her ability to walk. She doesn't get priority parking spaces because there's no reason for her to have to park closer.
Even if one argued that an addiction was a disability, it doesn't follow that one is arguing addictions should receive every single accomodation that we associate with all the different types of disabilities.
Do quadriplegics get discount entry to amusement parts? I'm not aware of this being a thing, but it could just be something I am not aware of.1 -
i'm thinking the 200 lb weight limit aimed specifically at women, but not men, might have been trying to take into consideration hip size. When I was my largest - and loved park rides, it was a tight squeeze at the hips. the harnesses and seatbelts had quite a bit of room for bellies, but fitting even moderately wide hips in the molded seats was tight, and I was 10lbs shy of being obese. Of course, not all women are pear shaped...but the ride seats tended to be narrow...not a problem for a "beer belly". I'm not saying that justifies their wording. if there's hip width limit, that's the info they need to give.3
-
alwaysbloated wrote: »Aren't most people over 200lbs though? Would make more sense for the weight limit to be closer to 250lbs. Maybe they should make some rows of seats for bigger people, and some for smaller people.
Or, people who are 200+ lbs, who are obviously an unhealthy weight, could just lose weight, instead of expecting the world to change for them.3 -
coreyreichle wrote: »alwaysbloated wrote: »Aren't most people over 200lbs though? Would make more sense for the weight limit to be closer to 250lbs. Maybe they should make some rows of seats for bigger people, and some for smaller people.
Or, people who are 200+ lbs, who are obviously an unhealthy weight, could just lose weight, instead of expecting the world to change for them.
But we're talking about weight limits for the ride. If the ride has a weight limit of 200 lbs it doesn't matter if it's healthy or unhealthy weight, if you're over 200 lbs you're too heavy.
No moral judgement required.2 -
alwaysbloated wrote: »Aren't most people over 200lbs though? Would make more sense for the weight limit to be closer to 250lbs. Maybe they should make some rows of seats for bigger people, and some for smaller people.
Nope, the average weight of an American male is 196, women are 169.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/average-weight-american-men-15-pounds-20-years/story?id=41100782
It's not just the size of the seats. For coaster and other thrill rides there is a lot of physics and engineering involved to ensue safe operation. Have you ever been on a small plane and the crew had passengers move around to balance the weight or actually had to ask for volunteers to get off because the plane was overweight? Could you imagine that as some 17 year old tries to balance the load as 50 people are trying to get on?3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I find the mere suggestion that obesity is a disability to be in particularly poor taste and an insult to anyone who lives with an injury or birth defect they truly cannot change. Sure, it fits the dictionary definition, but I will never recognize someone with a self imposed limitation as being on a par with a person who lives their life in spite of severe limitations that they can't control.
while I agree obesity as a disability irks me...self imposed limitations are all over the disability issue.
smokers/oxygen tanks
drinkers needing new livers
dangerous work injury
all self imposed but...disability.
Don't get me wrong, I have both empathy and sympathy for people who have made mistakes. But I would think poorly of a someone removing their oxygen mask for a quick smoke, or drinking on their new liver. Or just claiming they are stuck with obesity and expecting society to accommodate that.
And I'm not sure if it's fair to put work injuries on that list. Sometimes things go wrong despite every effort to do them safely. Definitely not like eating, drinking or smoking until permanant damage.
Maybe my opinion is a bit harsh.. But I am obese, and I do have a spinal injury. And I hold myself to the same standard.
I guess I would ask what is the significance of you thinking poorly of someone? I mean, you're free to think poorly of all types of people (I know I think poorly of some people). Do you think that should have any impact or significance on their lives except for how it may impact them to know you aren't thinking well of them (assuming you decide to let them know)?
Do you think your feelings about them should have any other impact on their lives or the options that are available to them?
lol Honestly, in the grand scheme of things I doub't my opinion counts for anything at all. But here we are on the internet, and you have the pleasure of reading it anyway. All I said was that I feel comparing obese people with what I consider to be genuinely disabled people to be in poor taste. And in the context of the thread we are talking in, that means I don't think society owes obese people anything at all. For the vast majority of Obese people it's a fixable problem. So they should fix it.. Not be getting discounts because of it. HTH.
I agree with you about discounts to amusement parks, but nobody needs to visit amusement parks. I might disagree if we were talking about something important.
Keep in mind that while obesity can be reversed, it's a slow process. A 400 pound person might be able to do something someday, but probably not tomorrow.
As a hiker, I see a lot of debate over free rescue services for all. Some people think this shouldn't be available to those who are in trouble I'm ways that are especially their own fault. The counter argument is that fire trucks show up even if the fire was set when somebody fell asleep with a cigarette.
I completely agree.. I even understand how hard it can be to get back to healthy from being at an unhealthy weight. I'm working on it right now.
I've done a lot of hiking and climbing in my life. I even worked in vertical rescue for some years. And I'd be the first to agree, it's frustrating to know that someone stupidly set off into the wilderness without appropriate clothing or provisions. Got lost straying from a well marked path or simply misjudged the challenge and got out of their depth in some way. But really, the alternative to rescuing them is what.. just leave them there, serves them right lol?
Interestingly, many people who do get into trouble are experienced hikers/climbers, who fall victim to a sudden weather change or simply their own overconfidence/need for a new challenge.
I don't have it in for obese people, I don't mean them harm or wish ill upon them and I'm all for helping people who need a hand.2 -
@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.0
-
The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.5 -
explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.3 -
One of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.8 -
This is another example of trying to justify that too many people are obese and make companies cater to it cause its “the average population”
IMO, the question shouldn’t be how the park needs to be more fair but how can we can change the average population?5 -
explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.3 -
@janejellyroll The thing I like about your answer is that clearly you've drawn a line as well.. It's just slightly over a bit from mine.
I don't think I've drawn a line -- we may have had a miscommunication.
I was pointing out that even if one argues that heroin addiction is a disability, they'd still have to connect to why they were requesting specific accomodations. Being disabled doesn't entitle one to every single accomodation made for people with disabilities, it entitles one (if one is entitled at all, this will depend on local laws and/or customs) to accomodations that are related to the specific disability.
So if I did argue that heroin addiction was a disability, it wouldn't follow that I was necessarily arguing for access to handicapped parking or reduced entry fees for amusement parks.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.
And yet... the example given is of a male rider. Not that it can't happen for a female rider, but my point is that if the park chooses to exclude riders based on gender rather than on what the actual physical limitations are, it's sexist and they're risking a lawsuit.0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »explodingmango wrote: »The problem with this isn't a weight limit for rides - that's a safety thing. Sure, it would be better to design rides to accommodate a wider (no pun intended) range of potential guests, but small local places don't always have the means to do that like Disney and Six Flags do.
The problem with this is that there's a different weight limit for men and women. From an engineering standpoint, 200 pounds of woman does not put any unique strains on a ride that 200 pounds of man doesn't.
Make the limit the same regardless of the gender of the rider, and there you go, it's as fair as it can get without endangering guests.
200 lbs of woman vs 200lbs of man is significantly different in the average woman.
Most women are not tall...so a 200lb woman will be "wider" per say...vs a man.
That does put limitations on a lot of rides that have a bar coming down over the belly area.
My husband currently weighs about 200lbs...he looks slim and wears a 34 jean...he is 5 ft 11. When I was 200lbs I wore a 38 jean and I was much bigger around than he is...aka fat.
If the ride has limitations beyond weight, those should be posted separately. Many rides have height restrictions that are in addition to any weight restrictions. If the issue is torso or hip circumference that's not the same as weight. As a six-one woman I would be irritated if I wasn't allowed to ride at 200 lbs and my same-height husband was.
and I agree that there are exceptions to the rules...butOne of the most terrifying moments of my life was when I was placed next to an obese 'solo rider' on a ride with one lap restraint because I was in an odd number group. When they pushed down the restraint he said to me 'sorry I have a bit of a belly' There was about 4 inches between me and the restraint! The ride wasn't an overly dangerous one but I was sliding around all over the place and clinging on for dear life.
The comfort and safety of all passengers need to be considered.
read the above...this woman was actually probably in some danger...so a 200lb "averaged height" woman would do the same to a smaller man/woman/child...
unacceptable.
And yet... the example given is of a male rider. Not that it can't happen for a female rider, but my point is that if the park chooses to exclude riders based on gender rather than on what the actual physical limitations are, it's sexist and they're risking a lawsuit.
so what if the example had a male.
My example is still valid. A 200lb woman who is of average height will present the same danger. And you missed the part where it also said size 18 and up...so it's not just weight it is size based...
I also suspect that the people excluded look like they will cause a dangerous situation.
For example when I was 200lbs...no one knew it...most thought I was about 160-170...
I am taller as well.
There will be no lawsuit unless they soften the rule and a smaller person/child gets hurt do to the lackness of the rules.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions