Should cruise ships have lifeguards ???

[DirtyDawg]

At risk of banging my head pointlessly at this particular brick wall, you don't need an informed legal opinion to allocate blame. Moral blame but not legal blame - very different things. You need an informed legal opinion to allocate the costs/compensation later, but I'm sure that's not the issue. Yes it is. The question I asked was a legal one. A parent whose child drowns because said parent was inattentive is not going to come away relieved from court thinking "not my fault, nothing to do with me" because the parent will feel at fault whatever the court says. Agreed.

 

BTW, my comment "I have heard of children drowning in Spanish hotels, and I've never heard of the hotel being legally liable. So in this case, in Spain at least, maybe the law is right". was not intended it to be read as meaning that I knew everything about all legal settlements re. drownings in Spain. I thought the word "maybe" might have been sufficient to imply doubt. I am sorry that you misunderstood. I might have read too much into your comment there, I apologize.

 

Have a nice evening. Sorry, morning! :)

Edited January 10, 2015 by DirtyDawg

[Karysa]

The days of some people parenting are gone too. The mother who got mad at the security guard for the way he handled her son's theft of a watch with no blame for the son's steeling is more prevalent that we would like.

 

I'm really proud of DD and SIL as they are pretty strict with their 3 year old triplet sons. However, if they weren't relatively strict, they would soon be outnumbered!! (we spoiled DD a lot more as she was an only child but she was still well behaved).

 

So should cruise lines just get rid of security guards then? That seems to be the rationale around here.:D Parents yell at staff so they will yell at lifeguards and not listen or obey the rules or expect their children to do so. Therefore, just don't bother hiring lifeguards. I think this argument is very thin.

 

In a way by sticking with this reason to not have lifeguards you are accepting the bad behaviour and actually encouraging it.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Karysa

[luddite]

So should cruise lines just get rid of security guards then? That seems to be the rationale around here.:D Parents yell at staff so they will yell at lifeguards and not listen or obey the rules or expect their children to do so. Therefore, just don't bother hiring lifeguards. I think this argument is very thin.

 

In a way by sticking with this reason to not have lifeguards you are accepting the bad behaviour and actually encouraging it.

 

Please. Stop.

[Karysa]

Please. Stop.

 

If you think that I am out of line and against cc rules then present your argument to the powers that be. Just because I present an argument that you can't defend and you or others try to bully, criticize or embarrass me I will not.

[luddite]

If you think that I am out of line and against cc rules then present your argument to the powers that be. Just because I present an argument that you can't defend and you or others try to bully, criticize or embarrass me I will not.

 

C'mon. You presented one of the worst analogies I've ever read.

Do you not understand what the purpose od security personnel is?

[Aquahound]

So should cruise lines just get rid of security guards then? That seems to be the rationale around here.:D Parents yell at staff so they will yell at lifeguards and not listen or obey the rules or expect their children to do so. Therefore, just don't bother hiring lifeguards. I think this argument is very thin.

 

In a way by sticking with this reason to not have lifeguards you are accepting the bad behaviour and actually encouraging it.

 

Wow. You totally missed the point on this one.

[iheartbda]

Please. Stop.

Slim chance.

 

The horse is dead but I think its name is Lazarus.:D

[navybankerteacher]

So should cruise lines just get rid of security guards then? That seems to be the rationale around here.:D Parents yell at staff so they will yell at lifeguards and not listen or obey the rules or expect their children to do so. Therefore, just don't bother hiring lifeguards. I think this argument is very thin.

 

In a way by sticking with this reason to not have lifeguards you are accepting the bad behaviour and actually encouraging it.

 

It is simply silly to link the life guard issue (which seems pretty clearly to result from the lines' determination that not having them reduces cost while also limiting liability) with the undeniable necessity of having security guards.

[Karysa]

It is simply silly to link the life guard issue (which seems pretty clearly to result from the lines' determination that not having them reduces cost while also limiting liability) with the undeniable necessity of having security guards.

 

The posters that I was referring to said that parents and children do not listen to other staff or yell at staff doing their job, such as security guards so let's not add to that by hiring lifeguards. I understand about the liability issues and have probably been the harshest critic towards parents who don't abide by the no unattended children in the pool rule. I said and stand by tossing those parents and their children off at the next port. I have no sympathy for crappy parenting. I do however think that protecting children even if it is from their own parents, is the right thing to do.

 

 

Perhaps educating the children on board is the way to go. A colouring book from the Red Cross on pool safety could be handed out to small children. The status quo is simply not working.

 

Another idea would be to have parents of young children sign a waiver much like the health form. The waiver would include safety rules and what penalties or punishment would occur if they are caught breaking these important safety rules.

 

Finding the perfect solution to make everyone happy and keep the children on board safe is not going to be easy but I feel that the cruise lines need to try a little harder in this department.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Karysa

[navybankerteacher]

The posters that I was referring to said that parents and children do not listen to other staff or yell at staff doing their job, such as security guards so let's not add to that by hiring lifeguards. I understand about the liability issues and have probably been the harshest critic towards parents who don't abide by the no unattended children in the pool rule. I said and stand by tossing those parents and their children off at the next port. I have no sympathy for crappy parenting. I do however think that protecting children even if it is from their own parents, is the right thing to do.

 

 

Perhaps educating the children on board is the way to go. A colouring book from the Red Cross on pool safety could be handed out to small children. The status quo is simply not working.

 

Another idea would be to have parents of young children sign a waiver much like the health form. The waiver would include safety rules and what penalties or punishment would occur if they are caught breaking these important safety rules.

 

Finding the perfect solution to make everyone happy and keep the children on board safe is not going to be easy but I feel that the cruise lines need to try a little harder in this department.

 

I like the idea of the waiver - every adult bringing a child under, say, sixteen should be required to sign a form acknowledging awareness of the lack of life guards, agreeing to monitor their children, and absolving the cruise line of responsibility - certainly in and around pools, and perhaps generally.

 

This would protect the line but, more important, would make it abundantly clear to the parents/accompanying adults that they are expected (and have agreed) to act responsibly

 

At the end of the day, it should always be the parents who are expected to care for children ----- Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village" notwithstanding.

[luddite]

Slim chance.

 

The horse is dead but I think its name is Lazarus.:D

 

Thanks!

Now I hafta clean beer off the monitor.:)

[Karysa]

I like the idea of the waiver - every adult bringing a child under, say, sixteen should be required to sign a form acknowledging awareness of the lack of life guards, agreeing to monitor their children, and absolving the cruise line of responsibility - certainly in and around pools, and perhaps generally.

 

This would protect the line but, more important, would make it abundantly clear to the parents/accompanying adults that they are expected (and have agreed) to act responsibly

 

At the end of the day, it should always be the parents who are expected to care for children ----- Hillary Clinton's "It Takes A Village" notwithstanding.

 

Another place where a waiver is used is for the rock climbing walls so it wouldn't be new to the cruising industry.

[hubofhockey]

On some lines, kids take over pools, throw things around and make it impossible for others to enjoy the pool. Maybe lifeguards, who protect lives, could also make the experience better for all. In any case, comparing home pools, which usually require fences and homeowner liability, aren't comparable to cruise ships with 3,000 people, where many sea days center around the pools. Makes sense to have lifeguards.

[Karysa]

On some lines, kids take over pools, throw things around and make it impossible for others to enjoy the pool. Maybe lifeguards, who protect lives, could also make the experience better for all. In any case, comparing home pools, which usually require fences and homeowner liability, aren't comparable to cruise ships with 3,000 people, where many sea days center around the pools. Makes sense to have lifeguards.

 

I wonder what the percentage of adults not travelling with children actually use the pool on a regular basis? DH and I definitely spent a lot more time in the pool when our DD's were young and cruising with us. We prefer swimming in the ocean and rarely swim in the ships pools or hotels to be honest.

 

Perhaps you are right though and poorly behaved children spoiling the experience keeps a lot of adults from enjoying the pools on board. If that's the case then you would think that adult cruisers would welcome the addition of lifeguards at the pool so that they can spend more time doing something that they enjoy while on vacation.

[HiCSailor]

The debate continues. The Today Show just posed the same question:

 

http://m.today.com/parents/why-do-some-cruise-ships-lack-lifeguards-watch-children-2D80584226

[donaldsc]

No. You need to take the responsibility for your own kids.

 

DON

[shealea]

Especially not 190 degree ones that should be served at a much lower temperature. I mean 3rd degree burns and you still think that is OK ???

 

I watched a show on the McDonald's incident, and this woman was so horribly burned. It made me sick to see. Horrible, horrible burns. The coffee should have never been to that temperature. It's very common for folks to place their drinks from fast-food restaurants between their legs while they juggle their other food. Very common! That poor woman was burned so badly that she had to have repeated surgeries. Never should that happen from coffee served to a patron!

 

Back to the original topic: I would like to see lifeguards at the pools. While on a cruise with my granddaughter, there was actually a girl her age (10 years old) swimming in the pool while her parents were out and about doing other things. She ran all around the cruise ship alone the entire cruise. All day.

[antas901]

Are there reliable statistics of the number of instances when someone either drowned or was in some kind of significant distress on a cruise ship that would help to justify this? Generally speaking I don't think lifeguards should be a requirement.

 

The Today Show reported this story this morning. http://www.today.com/parents/why-do-some-cruise-ships-lack-lifeguards-watch-children-2D80584226

According to this story 1.5 million children cruise each year and there have been 6 drowning in the last 2 years. Sadly, that's 6 deaths in 3,000,000 children passengers. I'm sure someone will correct my math but as a percentage, isn't that 0.0002%? Asking the industry to change over 0.0002% seems odd, especially when the parents admittedly turned away "for a minute".

Also, countless resorts and hotels across the country (and the world) have swimming pools and no lifeguards. Should there be lifeguards on duty at every Marriott, Hilton, etc?

It would seem that if land-based resorts aren't required to have lifeguards on duty, then floating resorts don't need them either.

[dsrdsrdsr]

I watched a show on the McDonald's incident, and this woman was so horribly burned. It made me sick to see. Horrible, horrible burns. The coffee should have never been to that temperature. It's very common for folks to place their drinks from fast-food restaurants between their legs while they juggle their other food. Very common! That poor woman was burned so badly that she had to have repeated surgeries. Never should that happen from coffee served to a patron!

It may be very common, but it's also very stupid. I realise stupid people need protecting from themselves, but not at the expense of me please. Why didn't the car driver point out what an idiot she was being and refuse to move off until she sorted herself out? When I make my own tea at home, I use water heated to 212 degrees, and pour it out when it's about 211 degrees. Should that be allowed? Or should I be banned from having a kettle in case I choose to carry my boiling cup of tea on my head?

 

Warning to everyone listening - don't squeeze flexible cups of hot liquid between your legs in a moving car. It's a very very stupid thing to do. Also, don't sit on the roof of the car having a picnic while steering the car with your feet. That's also a very very stupid thing to do. (That one might even be worth three verys.)

[cruzeluver]

Back to the original topic: I would like to see lifeguards at the pools. While on a cruise with my granddaughter, there was actually a girl her age (10 years old) swimming in the pool while her parents were out and about doing other things. She ran all around the cruise ship alone the entire cruise. All day.

 

Those are some sorry excuses for parents! But that is no reason to have lifeguards on board. Nope.

[navybankerteacher]

For much less than the cost of lifeguards, cruise ships could have forms printed up and distributed to all passengers with their cruise documents providing essentially the following:

 

1)There are no lifeguards on the ship.

2)Passengers use pools at their own risk.

3) Any person under the age of 16 using a pool without the presence of a responsible adult will be removed to a safe location and that person and the irresponsible adult who was not present will be removed from the ship at the next port without any compensation

4)By signing and returning this form I accept full responsibility for myself and any minors travelling with me.

 

Not only would such required acknowledgement (or something comparable) save the cruise line money, it would incentivize many parents to behave responsibly, thereby achieving the desired goal of reducing the likelihood of drownings.

[dsrdsrdsr]

For much less than the cost of lifeguards, cruise ships could have forms printed up and distributed to all passengers with their cruise documents providing essentially the following:

 

1)There are no lifeguards on the ship.

2)Passengers use pools at their own risk.

3) Any person under the age of 16 using a pool without the presence of a responsible adult will be removed to a safe location and that person and the irresponsible adult who was not present will be removed from the ship at the next port without any compensation

4)By signing and returning this form I accept full responsibility for myself and any minors travelling with me.

 

Not only would such required acknowledgement (or something comparable) save the cruise line money, it would incentivize many parents to behave responsibly, thereby achieving the desired goal of reducing the likelihood of drownings.

 

No need to make it 16. The three children quoted in that article were aged 4, 4 and 6. There are many 15 year olds (and 10 year olds) who are capable of swimming alone in no more danger than an adult.

 

The mother of the boy who died came up with the solution at the end of her interview. If you aren't happy that the ship doesn't have lifeguards, don't travel with them. Choose another line. Don't go to a hotel without lifeguards, don't go on a cruise without lifeguards, don't go to a beach without lifeguards, don't go to a river or lake without lifeguards. (Alternatively, keep an eye on your little children.)

[Capt_BJ]

I can't remember the last time I saw a lifeguard at a hotel pool (although this was a decent job when I was in HS) {exception being a hotel that had an attached indoor water park . . . kalahari resorts}

 

Most beaches in Brevard County FL (Port Canaveral area) have no lifeguard and for most beaches that DO, they are seasonal . . .

 

When you book a hotel do you look to see if they have a lifeguard at the pool? I don't recall seeing that on any hotel web-page .... EVER.

[navybankerteacher]

No need to make it 16. The three children quoted in that article were aged 4, 4 and 6. There are many 15 year olds (and 10 year olds) who are capable of swimming alone in no more danger than an adult.

 

 

I wasn't just thinking about young childrens' safety, but the enjoyment of other passengers as well. Unaccompanied young people in pools are often somewhat antisocial, and parents should be reminded that their responsibility for their children extends beyond just keing them from drowning.

[DirtyDawg]

For much less than the cost of lifeguards, cruise ships could have forms printed up and distributed to all passengers with their cruise documents providing essentially the following:

 

1)There are no lifeguards on the ship.

2)Passengers use pools at their own risk.

3) Any person under the age of 16 using a pool without the presence of a responsible adult will be removed to a safe location and that person and the irresponsible adult who was not present will be removed from the ship at the next port without any compensation

4)By signing and returning this form I accept full responsibility for myself and any minors travelling with me.

 

Not only would such required acknowledgement (or something comparable) save the cruise line money, it would incentivize many parents to behave responsibly, thereby achieving the desired goal of reducing the likelihood of drownings.

 

I wasn't just thinking about young childrens' safety, but the enjoyment of other passengers as well. Unaccompanied young people in pools are often somewhat antisocial, and parents should be reminded that their responsibility for their children extends beyond just keing them from drowning.

 

You forgot a couple of things;

 

5) the cruise line will provide, free of charge, a pair of handcuffs and a gag for use on each child under the age of 16 - you are strongly advised to use them!

 

6) Henceforth, the sportcourt area will be turned into a kiddies Guantanamo Bay facility for the kiddies who dare to be kids.:rolleyes: