Why no life guards??

[Karysa]

Well if they are so young that they cannot read a "swim at your own risk" sign , then they should be with a parent or guardian who can read that sign , and then keep an eye on them.

 

Some children are not as fortunate as others. Some need help from society.

 

For instance it is known that second hand smoke is dangerous. To protect minors here in Ontario there is a LAW that came into effect in 2009 that states that smoking in a car with a child under the age of 16 is prohibited.

 

Most children under 16 are in a car with a parent or guardian. Sometimes children need society to help protect them. I think that having lifeguards on cruiseships would protect our most vulnerable, the children. How can that not be worth the money or inconvienience or potential lawsuits?

[rvsullivan]

Some children are not as fortunate as others. Some need help from society.

 

For instance it is known that second hand smoke is dangerous. To protect minors here in Ontario there is a LAW that came into effect in 2009 that states that smoking in a car with a child under the age of 16 is prohibited.

 

Most children under 16 are in a car with a parent or guardian. Sometimes children need society to help protect them. I think that having lifeguards on cruiseships would protect our most vulnerable, the children. How can that not be worth the money or inconvienience or potential lawsuits?

 

Although many on here would like to create even more of a "nanny state" than we already have, here is who is responsible to protect the children. The parents/guardians, not me, not the cruise ship, not the government. There are laws for child abuse, this does not seem to fit that mold. Sad situation, but it is not for the cruise lines to fix, it is for the responsible parents/guardians. There are drownings every day, both adult and child, in ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans and swimming pools. Who is responsible for stopping them?

Can you imagine the outrage when a child is banned from the pool by a lifeguard and the parents are in an Owners Suite/Garden Villa, first, do you know who I am, then, I want to see the Hotel Director, next, I'm suing the cruise line. You cannot legislate parenting. Let the responsible parents take care of their kids.

[Karysa]

Although many on here would like to create even more of a "nanny state" than we already have, here is who is responsible to protect the children. The parents/guardians, not me, not the cruise ship, not the government. There are laws for child abuse, this does not seem to fit that mold. Sad situation, but it is not for the cruise lines to fix, it is for the responsible parents/guardians. There are drownings every day, both adult and child, in ponds, lakes, rivers, oceans and swimming pools. Who is responsible for stopping them?

Can you imagine the outrage when a child is banned from the pool by a lifeguard and the parents are in an Owners Suite/Garden Villa, first, do you know who I am, then, I want to see the Hotel Director, next, I'm suing the cruise line. You cannot legislate parenting. Let the responsible parents take care of their kids.

 

So it's better to let kids drown on cruiseships because their parents are bullies who believe the rules don't apply to them?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Karysa
Added. On cruiseships

[babyher]

Some children are not as fortunate as others. Some need help from society.

 

For instance it is known that second hand smoke is dangerous. To protect minors here in Ontario there is a LAW that came into effect in 2009 that states that smoking in a car with a child under the age of 16 is prohibited.

 

Most children under 16 are in a car with a parent or guardian. Sometimes children need society to help protect them. I think that having lifeguards on cruiseships would protect our most vulnerable, the children. How can that not be worth the money or inconvienience or potential lawsuits?

 

 

I agree there is a need for some of these laws . Some children do need protection, sometimes from their own parents sadly enough.

 

But there is some point where you can't just expect society or the government to hand hold, wet nurse and wipe everyone's behind for them.

[Karysa]

I agree there is a need for some of these laws . Some children do need protection, sometimes from their own parents sadly enough.

 

But there is some point where you can't just expect society or the government to hand hold, wet nurse and wipe everyone's behind for them.

 

I wish such laws and rules weren't needed but children need protection and sadly some need more than others. Cruiselines cater to kids so I think that they should HELP protect them.

[cle-guy]

Personal responsibility is great for the over 12 crowd.( ok,(edit): should start as toddlers and progress with age) The drowning and near drowning victims in this case were passengers that weren't old enough to read the "swim at your own risk signs".

 

You're right, but the responsible adult who accepted responsibility for the minor child upon boarding certainly CAN read those signs (and frankly shouldn't have to be reminded by a stupid sign to supervise their kids), certainly can keep the kid attached to their hip, can avoid the pool deck so he kid can't dart away, can get in the pool with the minor child while the child wants to swim so they can supers the minor child, or leave the minor child at home if the adult can not or does not want to supervise the child.

 

If the adult supervising children wants a carefree vacation, they should have let the kids spend a week with grandma so they could have a carefree vacation. However bringing the kids brings a set of responsibilities that may not allow for a carefree vacation.

 

Adding a lifeguard won't stop all the drownings. Closing the pools will. So what do we do?

[babyher]

I wish such laws and rules weren't needed but children need protection and sadly some need more than others. Cruiselines cater to kids so I think that they should HELP protect them.

 

They do help ....they fence in an area , they put signs up. A child on a cruise or at a hotel obviously isn't alone they are with some type of parent or guardian. They need to step up too.

 

What people are really looking for is someone with deep pockets (cruise line, hotel chain etc) that they can blame and sue for their failure to take personal responsibility

[Barb Nahoumi]

Will this lead to cruiselines disallowing small children, under a certain height, from using the main pool? Staff will need to insist that little ones use the kiddie pool only, with adult supervision.

 

The main pool, even at its shallow end is too deep for small non swimming kids.

[NLH Arizona]

NEVER intimated anything, but you sure like to assume :mad:

Just as you assumed that you know how people vote, based on their responses to this!!! :mad:

[Karysa]

You're right, but the responsible adult who accepted responsibility for the minor child upon boarding certainly CAN read those signs (and frankly shouldn't have to be reminded by a stupid sign to supervise their kids), certainly can keep the kid attached to their hip, can avoid the pool deck so he kid can't dart away, can get in the pool with the minor child while the child wants to swim so they can supers the minor child, or leave the minor child at home if the adult can not or does not want to supervise the child.

 

If the adult supervising children wants a carefree vacation, they should have let the kids spend a week with grandma so they could have a carefree vacation. However bringing the kids brings a set of responsibilities that may not allow for a carefree vacation.

 

Adding a lifeguard won't stop all the drownings. Closing the pools will. So what do we do?

 

You do make a lot of sense to me. Don't for one minute think that I support less than stellar parenting. Preventable deaths of children such as drowning on a cruiseship are certainly heartbreaking to anyone with a heart and worthy of a discussion and efforts to prevent such a tragedy in the future. Why not a pilot project with Lifeguards for 2 years and then reassess? Closing pools would be a last resort to me.

[Charles4515]

Will this lead to cruiselines disallowing small children, under a certain height, from using the main pool? Staff will need to insist that little ones use the kiddie pool only, with adult supervision.

 

The main pool, even at its shallow end is too deep for small non swimming kids.

 

Perhaps that would be a viable solution. If they enforced it.

[newbe dave]

So it's better to let kids drown on cruiseships because their parents are bullies who believe the rules don't apply to them?

 

Interesting wording. You could also word this as "So it's better to let kids drown on cruiseships because their parents choose not to watch them".

 

Lets stop the emotional lying. What is needed is for cruise lines to require parents to read and sign a form clearly stating their responsibilities for watching their children. It should state that there is no lifeguard present, that alcohol is not for minors and that aggressive/disruptive behavior will cause punishments of some kind to both minors and parents. Make it clear (keep the lawyers away) and concise so that all parents on the ship must know and accept their responsibilities for their children.

 

I am sure all this is in the legal forms that is part of the ticketing process. But it needs to be restated clearly.

[Karysa]

They do help ....they fence in an area , they put signs up. A child on a cruise or at a hotel obviously isn't alone they are with some type of parent or guardian. They need to step up too.

 

What people are really looking for is someone with deep pockets (cruise line, hotel chain etc) that they can blame and sue for their failure to take personal responsibility

 

Really. You think someone would let their child drown on a cruiseship or hotel so they can sue and get a winfall. My mind just does not work that way!

[sharecruises]

Some children are not as fortunate as others. Some need help from society.

 

For instance it is known that second hand smoke is dangerous. To protect minors here in Ontario there is a LAW that came into effect in 2009 that states that smoking in a car with a child under the age of 16 is prohibited.

 

Most children under 16 are in a car with a parent or guardian. Sometimes children need society to help protect them. I think that having lifeguards on cruiseships would protect our most vulnerable, the children. How can that not be worth the money or inconvienience or potential lawsuits?

 

Some people need to spend the extra money and go on Disney IMHO

 

I truly think it would put kids at greater risk if they had lifeguards - these same reckless irresponsible parents would use it as a baby sitter

 

I think a huge part of the problem is that the "tipped" workers are too afraid to rile up cruisers - and honestly a lot of them are not all that comfortable telling off a passenger in English or enforcing rules

 

A few good examples - family banned from pool....family confined to cabin for rest of cruise...family put off the ship....would work. Millions of people on cruises - millions of kids - a few sad incidents.

 

 

IMHO a 4 year old and 6 year old should not be alone at the buffet let alone a pool. If you have a lifeguard you will see more little ones at the pool by themselves and what if the lifeguard doesn't get to them in time or realize they are alone??

 

Why not be proactive? Next cruise - kids in the adult hot tub , go to security and insist they are removed - remind them of the drownings. Kids with no parents running around? Again go to security

[Karysa]

Interesting wording. You could also word this as "So it's better to let kids drown on cruiseships because their parents choose not to watch them".

 

Lets stop the emotional lying. What is needed is for cruise lines to require parents to read and sign a form clearly stating their responsibilities for watching their children. It should state that there is no lifeguard present, that alcohol is not for minors and that aggressive/disruptive behavior will cause punishments of some kind to both minors and parents. Make it clear (keep the lawyers away) and concise so that all parents on the ship must know and accept their responsibilities for their children.

 

I am sure all this is in the legal forms that is part of the ticketing process. But it needs to be restated clearly.

 

Read the post that I quoted my post was in direct response to that posters comments.:)

 

Edit: read the last paragraph of the quoted post on # 281 of this thread ( top of the page) to see what comments I posted on. :)

Edited February 8, 2014 by Karysa

[Karysa]

Some people need to spend the extra money and go on Disney IMHO

 

I truly think it would put kids at greater risk if they had lifeguards - these same reckless irresponsible parents would use it as a baby sitter

 

I think a huge part of the problem is that the "tipped" workers are too afraid to rile up cruisers - and honestly a lot of them are not all that comfortable telling off a passenger in English or enforcing rules

 

A few good examples - family banned from pool....family confined to cabin for rest of cruise...family put off the ship....would work. Millions of people on cruises - millions of kids - a few sad incidents.

 

 

IMHO a 4 year old and 6 year old should not be alone at the buffet let alone a pool. If you have a lifeguard you will see more little ones at the pool by themselves and what if the lifeguard doesn't get to them in time or realize they are alone??

 

Why not be proactive? Next cruise - kids in the adult hot tub , go to security and insist they are removed - remind them of the drownings. Kids with no parents running around? Again go to security

 

Remember I suggested a Big Bouncer -type Security Guard along with lifeguards. The "security" staff would do the talking with the parents so that the lifeguard could do her or his job and keep the pool safe.

[sharecruises]

Interesting wording. You could also word this as "So it's better to let kids drown on cruiseships because their parents choose not to watch them".

 

Lets stop the emotional lying. What is needed is for cruise lines to require parents to read and sign a form clearly stating their responsibilities for watching their children. It should state that there is no lifeguard present, that alcohol is not for minors and that aggressive/disruptive behavior will cause punishments of some kind to both minors and parents. Make it clear (keep the lawyers away) and concise so that all parents on the ship must know and accept their responsibilities for their children.

 

I am sure all this is in the legal forms that is part of the ticketing process. But it needs to be restated clearly.

 

Exactly - they put wristbands on all the kids...the parents should be made to sign a detailed form...and also be given list of consequences

 

Then - a few non tipped staff one at each pool - to enforce this

Kid security like Princess has - also can go after kids who are running wild at night or wandering the ship alone

 

One offense - Parent/family put on probation - maybe stopped from using pools etc....2nd offense - put off the ship

 

let that happen a few times and the parents will get the picture - leave the kids at home, put them in kid club, or put their drink down and watch them themselves JMO

 

Unless a cruise line wants to be like Disney, super expensive and kid oriented, I think they should just enforce their own rules. Much of the problem is that the staff is so afraid of riling up a paying/tipping customer.

Also it is not up to other cruisers to watch other people's kids. I am sure all the poor people at that pool feel horrible but really not their fault

what sort of parent/guardian really would let a 4/6 year old in a pool themselves without being right there with them? Let's get real here

[NLH Arizona]

 

IMHO a 4 year old and 6 year old should not be alone at the buffet let alone a pool. If you have a lifeguard you will see more little ones at the pool by themselves and what if the lifeguard doesn't get to them in time or realize they are alone??

 

Have to agree, some parents will think that the lifeguard is a built in babysitter for them.

[cle-guy]

Why not a pilot project with Lifeguards for 2 years and then reassess? Closing pools would be a last resort to me.

 

While This sounds like a great idea, the truth is how would you measure the success of the pilot program? There have been something like 4 or 5 ship drownings that come to my mind in the last couple years. Maybe more but that's my quick recall.

 

The reality is the number of drowning deaths that occur in Cruise Liner pools is soooooo minuscule, you'd really have no really useful or reliable data to compare with such a small comparison sample.

 

Could also be thought that as city pools and hotels have done away with lifeguards already, it's already been determined that the lifeguards don't have a strong enough impact on things to justify the cost in city budgets.

[babyher]

Really. You think someone would let their child drown on a cruiseship or hotel so they can sue and get a winfall. My mind just does not work that way!

 

 

I didn't say that at all.

 

But once it happens it doesn't take long til the the lawsuits start. Some times the victim isn't even buried yet and you get the calls from the lawyers.

 

Some of them go to the wake and hand the family a business card along with their condolences. SAW IT HAPPEN MYSELF

 

Too many years working in Emergency services to have my mind work anyway but.

[biker@sea]

Will this lead to cruiselines disallowing small children, under a certain height, from using the main pool? Staff will need to insist that little ones use the kiddie pool only, with adult supervision.

 

The main pool, even at its shallow end is too deep for small non swimming kids.

 

Little kids don't belong in the big pool area . Or near the cigarette smoke there .

[cle-guy]

Interesting wording. You could also word this as "So it's better to let kids drown on cruiseships because their parents choose not to watch them".

 

Lets stop the emotional lying. What is needed is for cruise lines to require parents to read and sign a form clearly stating their responsibilities for watching their children. It should state that there is no lifeguard present, that alcohol is not for minors and that aggressive/disruptive behavior will cause punishments of some kind to both minors and parents. Make it clear (keep the lawyers away) and concise so that all parents on the ship must know and accept their responsibilities for their children.

 

I am sure all this is in the legal forms that is part of the ticketing process. But it needs to be restated clearly.

 

So how many parts of the contract do we need to reprint and have people re-sign and re-agree to? Is having them re-agree once enough. perhaps we should make them sign 3 times just to be triple sure?

 

All the above is already in the contract we agreed to. If we made people sign yet another form at embarkation, do you think anyone is going to really read it or just sign it when stuck under their nose like most do with most things they sign when traveling?

 

Frankly, I think it's inherent once you have a child you accept full responsibility for their supervision, safety and well-being and shouldn't have the need for cruise lines and other to reiterate those responsibilities to a parent. But our litigious society has forced companies to reiterate individual responsibilities to writing these days.

 

If a cruse line is ever held financially responsible for a child's drowning, should the parent that was also there be held criminally responsible for manslaughter?

[luddite]

Have to agree, some parents will think that the lifeguard is a built in babysitter for them.

 

Too many already think the SHIP is the babysitter.

[sharecruises]

Remember I suggested a Big Bouncer -type Security Guard along with lifeguards. The "security" staff would do the talking with the parents so that the lifeguard could do her or his job and keep the pool safe.

 

 

Sorry I am not willing to pay a lot more for lifeguards/legal liability and most are not. It is not like there is an epidemic of drownings - and the few so far the parents/ guardian were NOT with the kids. The poor little boy on Carnival 6 years old was in the main pool and his 10 year old brother was watching him...unbelievable

 

 

Really as long as we are willing to allow this it will happen - and lifeguards won't stop it. The same sort of irresponsible parent could allow a kid to drown in the bathtub of a Haven suite.

 

When the parents who let kids roam or swim on their own are confronted and given restrictions and consequences then others will make better choices.

[Karysa]

Sorry I am not willing to pay a lot more for lifeguards/legal liability and most are not. It is not like there is an epidemic of drownings - and the few so far the parents/ guardian were NOT with the kids. The poor little boy on Carnival 6 years old was in the main pool and his 10 year old brother was watching him...unbelievable

 

 

Really as long as we are willing to allow this it will happen - and lifeguards won't stop it. The same sort of irresponsible parent could allow a kid to drown in the bathtub of a Haven suite.

 

When the parents who let kids roam or swim on their own are confronted and given restrictions and consequences then others will make better choices.

 

What is "a lot more" to help prevent a child from losing their life? I think this is a good discussion to have.