So let me get this straight. It is your contention that the gym should buy you whatever piece of equipment happens to catch your fancy, no matter what the cost to the gym and no matter how few customers would use it? Because there is no way your complaint makes sense otherwise.
It sounds to me like there is no way for the lat pulldown machine to be safely used by somebody with your limitations. That is unfortunate. But presumably the gym is full of machines that you cannot use. Treadmills, stationary bikes, ellipticals, leg press machines, etc. Why not complain about those? You said the new gym didn’t have a hand-cycle for you to use for cardio. Isn’t it time to sue them for that?
The gym never had the lat pull-down equipment that was usable for jamie. However, he worked around the problem and came up with his own exercise, which required a couple of helpers to lift him up in the chair to access it. The gym initially allowed him to do this exercise (I believe jamie mentioned that he had been doing this for a couple of years?), but eventually they decided that the exercise could not be permitted. (New management decision, based on potential liability?) Anyway, jamie’s take on the situation is that the gym is required, based on ADA laws, to either provide him with the handicap accessible equipment that he requires or continue to allow him to do the work around exercise that had previously been permitted.
As I understand it, this is the entire basis of his complaint, in a nutshell. Please correct me if I am mistaken in this interpretation.
I need to put this whole thing on pause for one second because this has nothing whatsoever at all period to do with Jaime and everything to do with what you just said…The thought of someone on a wheelchair trying to use an elliptical just made me laugh out loud a little, at work. In my head, it was a cartoon image and they were Velcro’d in to it (like Jaime doing his pull ups), the chair was sort of balanced on the back end and their legs and arms were kind of flailing around comically while trying to maintain some sense of balance and control…it wasn’t working.
I was imagining a wheelchair on a treadmill. Just tie a rope from the front of the treadmill to his wheelchair and he could literally go for miles and miles and not break a sweat. Just imagine how much that would inspire the other gym goers.
Um, not to derail the snarking, but the word ‘accessible’ means ‘useable’, as well as ‘reachable’, and a wheelchair accessible thing would be useable by someone who uses a wheelchair. I’m not sure why everyone seems to think that it just means you can wheel up alongside and you’re sorted.
You wouldn’t describe a place as wheelchair accessible because it had a ramp to the door if it also had door handles way up the top of the door, which would not be within reach of a seated person, and the same idea applies for any other equipment. I’m not going to comment on the case here, but I work as an assistant for a disabled person, admittedly in the UK, where the regs are different, and I know how our similar laws are implemented (badly, for the most part).
I’m not sure if you didn’t read the Safe Harbor link from upthread but it states that they “must remove architectural barriers to elements” Which makes sense. In this case they say that the health club must make it possible for Jaime to get to the machine. A law forcing the the health club to mirror each piece of equipment with another piece of equipment that every person with every type of handicap could use would be just silly…and it would be so ridiculously expensive to own a health club I don’t think you’d see many of them around any more.
I didn’t actually read the law, just noticed the fact that some people were using the phrase ‘handicap accessible’, or just ‘access’ and then saying that just meant ‘able to get to the machine’.
Though if that is what the law requires, that sounds a bit silly to me. What’s the point of making it possible for people to get really close up to stuff they then can’t use?
Because there are much, much more specific laws (glance though the ADA for things like toilet and sink requirements) regarding actual use of said elements. But in some places it’s, honestly, just plain silly to expect a facility to find a way to allow someone in a wheel chair to be able to use everything.
Look at what we’re talking about right now. A lat-pull down machine. What, exactly, do you expect the club to do in this case. Should they be forced to run out and by a new machine that can accommodate a wheelchair? Should they (and every health club) have to mirror each piece of equipment with a similar piece that can accommodate a wheelchair? What about other injuries?
Because handicaps differ. There’s Jamie, on the one hand, in his wheelchair with full use of his upper body. Another person may have a problem with their arms, but have perfect use of their legs. Another person may just have a cane or a walker. Another person by have tremors or balance issues but be otherwise unimpaired. All these people have different needs and abilities vis a vis gym equipment.
The end result is, as long as there are no physical barriers to getting at the equipment, a lot of people can use some of the equipment (in fact, Jamie can use most of the equipment, or at least, most of what he wants to use). It is simply not the case that the gym must make it possible for all people to use all the equipment. As soon as you think about it rationally, you realize that such a requirement would immediately put all gyms out of business.
The specific requirement to require gyms to provide a route passable in a wheelchair to a machine which is not operable by someone who uses a wheelchair strikes me as a silly token gesture. As well as potentially expensive.
The example of someone who has full use of their legs (or walks with a cane etc) is a bit of a red herring, as they would not be using a wheelchair, and wouldn’t be affected by the regulation anyway.
Money would be better spent in buying some accessible machinery, rather than providing a wheelchair route to a treadmill. A requirement that all new equipment bought can be used by someone in a wheelchair, when reasonably practical (which can in a lot of cases be used by people not using a wheelchair too, why would you need mirror equipment?) wouldn’t necessarily be prohibitively expensive. No-one’s suggesting the gubmint should force every gym to buy two copies of every single bit of equipment, not even Jamie.
I’m not sure why you’re on about wheelchairs. It the Americans with Disabilities Act, not the Americans in Wheelchairs Act. All those people I mentioned, have disabilities and are able to use a subset of the exercise equipment with the required accomodations - a different subset than Jamie is able to use. To comply with the Act, you provide a clear space to the equipment, allowing those who can use the equipment, to use the equipment. You do not have to provide every possible form of equipment for every possible form of disability.
It’s not just access to things, it’s also access around things. The goal is not necessarily only that the treadmills should be wheelchair-accessible, but also that a person in a wheelchair can freely access all areas of the building and facilities - and can get out of those areas as well, say in case of an emergency.
But I believe (I am not a lawyer or a disabled person, so this is only my understanding) that the ADA only requires reasonable accommodations to be made - but that reasonable is not well defined. moving existing freestanding machines around to widen aisles is probably reasonable. Other solutions might not be.
This is true. “Handicap accessible” in terms of exercise equipment, means that a person with disabilities can use the equipment in the proper, safe manner in which it was intended. The idea that every single piece of equipment in a gym must have a “mirror-image” version accessible for the disabled is not true. There are versatile machines, like a Cybex, that can be used in the place of many non-accessible machines/equipment (such as a standard lat-pulldown machine). This one piece of equipment could serve as the “handicap-access” to much of what a gym must offer the disabled population.