Why no life guards??

[Charles4515]

I can't find any cruise line that has lifeguards, although I don't know about Disney? Nor can I find any home owners association, condo's either. As soon as you have a lifeguard, you accept the liability for the swimmers. By warning of no protection, they have done pretty well. The swimmer and the parents of children swimming are the responsible party.

I think they would close the pools before they provide lifeguards. Same reason they either drain the pools at night or put nets over them.

 

Our condo has lifeguards.

[bguppies]

In our litigious society, our liability for pool accidents would have been much higher if we had a lifeguard stationed by the pool when something happened, and our insurance premiums would have been higher as well. Blame it on a lawsuit happy society..

 

Robin

 

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't blame companies for doing whatever is best to protect themselves from ridiculous lawsuits.

 

Everybody yearns for how things were from their youth.

 

Yet they forget that when they went to a friend's house to play and fell off the treehouse and broke their arm, or fell while rollerskating in their friend's driveway, their parents did not sue their neighbors for a simple accident, like people do today.

 

I find it ridiculous that my inlaws had to install a locking fence for their backyard, because if some kids decided to violate their yard and go swimming illegally, they would be liable if a kid got hurt, while tresspassing in their yard to swim.:eek:

 

It's sad the money companies have to spend, to look for every tiny thing that somebody might sue them for and find a way to protect themselves from it...

 

It all trickles down in the end...

 

If anybody feels bad that there are no lifeguards to protect the pools, blame the folks who sued swimming pools out of existence in many places, for a quick payoff for their own kids accident.

 

Bill

[Charles4515]

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

If anybody feels bad that there are no lifeguards to protect the pools, blame the folks who sued swimming pools out of existence in many places, for a quick payoff for their own kids accident.

 

Bill

 

Not having lifeguards does not protect pool owners from liability. Having lifeguards makes them less liable. Having or not having a lifeguard is cost decision. Not wanting the expense. That is why the cruise lines don't have them.

[garycarla]

Not having lifeguards does not protect pool owners from liability. Having lifeguards makes them less liable. Having or not having a lifeguard is cost decision. Not wanting the expense. That is why the cruise lines don't have them.

 

Not a lawyer, but not going to agree on this one. Not having one may not totally protect them from liability, but it will help.

 

Some good thoughts here if anyone wants to read.

 

If something happens at a pool, the first person they will go after is the person in charge - meaning the lifeguard - which really means the employer - which then means their insurance with deep pockets. It comes down to who is responsible for whatever happened. Once they add a lifeguard, they take on MORE responsibility.

 

Back to real life - the lifeguard would be spending an insane amount of time 'baby-sitting' and be so distracted, he/she could not safe anybody.

[Fishbait17]

Not having lifeguards does not protect pool owners from liability. Having lifeguards makes them less liable. Having or not having a lifeguard is cost decision. Not wanting the expense. That is why the cruise lines don't have them.

 

This was definitely not true in the case of our hotel.. Having a lifeguard put us at more liability risk than having the basic equipment nearby and a sign that says basically "swim at your own risk".

 

Robin

[martyandjanice]

I can see why cruise lines do not provide lifeguards. They would just be used as baby sitters. It is a huge liability. They put the responsibility on the parents because so many people just leave their kids unattended. Some parents think their kids are responsible enough to be left without their supervision, then want to blame someone when something happens. Kids are kids. Mine are grown and I don't want to be responsible for yours on my vacation. Doesn't the Kids club take them to the kids pool? I don't know anything about that, but I would think that's why they are there, to provide supervision when parents want time to themselves.

[carol54]

Our condo has lifeguards.

 

Yes. But your condo can control who goes in and out of the pool. They can control children at a pool without parents. The same isn't true on a cruise ship. Many parents mistake a lifeguard for a babysitter.

[Ilovesailing]

My absolute FAVORITE thing I have read on this board ever! Why oh why do some parents go on vacation and leave the other guests to watch their kids?!!!! This happens at a land resort we go to a lot as well. It may just be one of my biggest pet leaves!:mad:

 

Exactly they use the cruise as a baby sitting service and think that it is just fine.

[Ilovesailing]

That is your opinion that they are not needed. Others have a different opinion.

 

 

Well if you think they need life guards then maybe you shiould invest in an adult one of these, see pic.

[Charles4515]

Yes. But your condo can control who goes in and out of the pool. They can control children at a pool without parents. The same isn't true on a cruise ship. Many parents mistake a lifeguard for a babysitter.

 

Children under 12 are not allowed in the pool area without an adult in our condo pool. The baby sitting argument is a red herring. A child can drown even if eagle eyed parents are there. Also adults can drown. Surprising how many don't take into consideration that people, both adults and children can drown in pools. I guess every pool and beach should just put up a disclaimer sign, not have lifeguards, and let people drown. Apparently many think its ok for people to drown as long as there is sign saying there is no lifeguard....

[carol54]

Children under 12 are not allowed in the pool area without an adult in our condo pool. The baby sitting argument is a red herring. A child can drown even if eagle eyed parents are there. Also adults can drown. Surprising how many don't take into consideration that people, both adults and children can drown in pools. I guess every pool and beach should just put up a disclaimer sign, not have lifeguards, and let people drown. Apparently many think its ok for people to drown as long as there is sign saying there is no lifeguard....

 

That's exactly my point. Your condo can control children under 12 at the pool without a parent. That is not possible on a cruise ship.

[Fishbait17]

Children under 12 are not allowed in the pool area without an adult in our condo pool. The baby sitting argument is a red herring. A child can drown even if eagle eyed parents are there. Also adults can drown. Surprising how many don't take into consideration that people, both adults and children can drown in pools. I guess every pool and beach should just put up a disclaimer sign, not have lifeguards, and let people drown. Apparently many think its ok for people to drown as long as there is sign saying there is no lifeguard....

 

That's cruel, assuming that people think it's okay for people to drown! Yes, people can drown, or be injured, whether parents, a lifeguard, or anyone else is present - I know, I've seen it happen. People are just stating the facts from a legal liability standpoint, certainly not saying its just dandy if people drown...

 

Robin

[Charles4515]

That's cruel, assuming that people think it's okay for people to drown! Yes, people can drown, or be injured, whether parents, a lifeguard, or anyone else is present - I know, I've seen it happen. People are just stating the facts from a legal liability standpoint, certainly not saying its just dandy if people drown...

 

Robin

 

Of course they are not saying it is dandy if people drown. What they are doing is making excuses for the cruise lines not having life guards that could prevent drownings. Legal liability is an excuse. The only way not to have any liability is not to have a pool. The cruise lines figure it is cheaper not to have lifeguards, and cheaper includes not just the cost of lifeguards but the cost of any liability. If someone drowns they will send a sympathy card.

[Charles4515]

That's exactly my point. Your condo can control children under 12 at the pool without a parent. That is not possible on a cruise ship.

 

On the contrary part of being a lifeguard is enforcing the pool rules. Kicking out anyone unsafe. That includes adults. It certainly is possible to have lifeguards on a cruise ship. Just like there are lifeguards at beaches.

[roger001]

I think the whole ship should be enclosed in steel mesh netting, because more people have gone over board than have drowned in cruise ship pools........has anyone ever drown in a cruise ship pool?? ...as in dead drowned???

[ColinIllinois]

I think the whole ship should be enclosed in steel mesh netting, because more people have gone over board than have drowned in cruise ship pools........has anyone ever drown in a cruise ship pool?? ...as in dead drowned???

 

 

As opposed to drowned and still alive? LOL

[triptolemus]

Of course they are not saying it is dandy if people drown. What they are doing is making excuses for the cruise lines not having life guards that could prevent drownings. Legal liability is an excuse. The only way not to have any liability is not to have a pool. The cruise lines figure it is cheaper not to have lifeguards, and cheaper includes not just the cost of lifeguards but the cost of any liability. If someone drowns they will send a sympathy card.

 

It's more about a hazard/risk assessment. Yes, those are two different things.

 

The hazard of a meteor strike is death, but since the risk is so low we don't bother installing meteor shields all over the place. The hazard of drowning in a cruise ship pool caries with it such a relatively low risk that a lifeguard simply makes no sense.

 

Besides, you're purposefully ignoring the multitude of ship's staff (as well as other pax) around the pool at any given time, many of whom I would venture to guess are trained in first aid/CPR.

 

Your final sentence about the "evil corporation" and their sympathy card is utterly pointless. But if it'll make you feel better, we can ask NCL to place cardboard cutouts of David Hasselhoff at all the pools.

 

Edited August 6, 2013 by triptolemus

[Sauer-kraut]

we can ask NCL to place cardboard cutouts of David Hasselhoff at all the pools.

 

Maybe if NCL put cardboard cutouts of Pam around the pools Dads would take a more proactive role in watching their offspring in the pool.:D;)

[triptolemus]

I gotta say I agree.

 

What the hell was I thinking?

[yakdaddy42]

Because the lifeguard won't have any place to sit because a chair hog will have put a towel and a book on the lifeguard's seat at 6am.

 

 

 

Sent from my DROID4 using Forums mobile app

 

How true

[yakdaddy42]

I don't think some of you understand what a lifeguard really does. Sure they will pull someone out of the water, but anyone can do that. It is what they do once they are out of the water, thats what counts. Did the person hit there head?, are they not breathing?, are they in shock? All of these things are what a trained lifeguard will be able to spot and react to quickly. Sure there may be someone on deck who can help or they can rush the ship doctor to the pool, but in alot of situations it is seconds that will count, not minutes. There is no doubt that there should be a visible lifeguard around the pools.

 

Skeeter has my vote for volunteer lifeguard for every cruise he is taking that I'm on. Thanks Skeeter.

[Fishbait17]

Personally, even with the liability risk, I think having lifeguards on ships is a good concept, I just don't think it's very realistic, and certainly nowhere near as simple as guarding a condo pool. You would need to place a guard chair right next to each pool, with physical and visual paths that must be kept clear to all water venues (including hot tubs) - and keeping those physical paths clear would be a nightmare, and the visual path would be even worse. Then each chair would have to have a minimum of two guards, one to take care of all the constant annoyances ("Do you know if that chair is taken?", "What temperature is the pool?", " Is this salt or fresh water?", "Have you seen a little boy with blond hair and a green suit?", "Where can I get a towel", etc etc etc) and the other one to actually keep watch. Then you would need replacement guards for each of those, for rotating and breaks. So basically, I think you're talking about a minimum of eight to twelve guards staffed on each ship, and probably a minimum of 300-500 sf of deck space dedicated to them (with visual paths it could be four or five times that amount), not sure how well that would go over with already annoyed and overcrowded guests. Add to that the increased pay for the extra personnel and much higher liability costs, plus the complaints by guests, and our cruises could easily increase by a recognizable amount. I'm sure there has been given much thought to risk assessment here, and the decision to not have guards was not made lightly.

 

Robin

[rvsullivan]

If the inability to enforce any rules, clothing in the dining rooms, kids in the hallways, chair hogging, etc is any indicator, it would be a nightmare trying to enforce any pool rules.

In the days that I was a life guard and any public pool around here that has lifeguards, you act up and your kicked out. Rules are enforced, i.e. no running, pushing, cannon balls, etc. 1 warning and your sent home and or banned.

Try that on a ship, the hotel director would have lines outside his/her door complaining little Johnny/Jane would never do that and I paid $16,000 dollars for this cruise and you can't do this.

Parents want baby sitters, but don't want their little precious to have anyone scold them. Heaven forbid you want to hold their child accountable for their actions.

One of the other posters got it right when they said there are more deaths from overboard than ships pools. Search the web and see how many ships pool drownings you can find!

The cruise lines have got it right, each individual is responsible for taking care of their families when at the pool.

[jaja]

If the inability to enforce any rules, clothing in the dining rooms, kids in the hallways, chair hogging, etc is any indicator, it would be a nightmare trying to enforce any pool rules.

In the days that I was a life guard and any public pool around here that has lifeguards, you act up and your kicked out. Rules are enforced, i.e. no running, pushing, cannon balls, etc. 1 warning and your sent home and or banned.

Try that on a ship, the hotel director would have lines outside his/her door complaining little Johnny/Jane would never do that and I paid $16,000 dollars for this cruise and you can't do this.

Parents want baby sitters, but don't want their little precious to have anyone scold them. Heaven forbid you want to hold their child accountable for their actions.

The cruise lines have got it right, each individual is responsible for taking care of their families when at the pool.

 

 

Like:)

[jackparts]

Pamela Anderson made a great lifeguard. She could never drown, problem was she never needed any flotation devices, just said, grab onto something and hold on.