Pool rules - just a vent - Page 2

[VisionaryMom]

Originally Posted by lifeguard

The majority of adults are well aware of their own limitations. Children can be a lot less cautious - especially the younger ones.

At 2, sure, but at 8?

[sapphire_chan]

What happened to the days when you got to go in the deep end alone when you could swim the length of the pool twice?

[JL83]

Our local pool has the 8yo rule. No more than 3 children under age 8 to each adult and they are given wrist bands when you pay and have to be within arm's reach.

They give 1 warning when they catch a child not near their parent and then kick people out.

I have no issue with this. While there are plenty of kids that age (we go on Friday evenings and Saturday afternoons) they are well supervised and it makes for a really pleasant pool atmosphere.

[Girlprof]

We had our son's b-day party at the Y in the pool. The kids had to take a test. If you didn't pass, you got issued either an adult or a coast-guard approved floatation device. This actually worked perfectly well. My son and his BF could swim and passed the test. Everyone else donned a life jacket.

[Belia]

I think this rule sucks.

What about hotel pools?? I've never seen a hotel pool (like your average Holiday Inn- not a resort) with a lifeguard. Why is a hotel not fearful of liability with a much-less supervised pool than a rec center??

I'm all for requiring an adult to be on premises, and even restricting the adult-child ratio allowed. But staying within arm's reach?? What's the fun of that??? For some reason this really has me

[JL83]

Originally Posted by Belia

I think this rule sucks.

What about hotel pools?? I've never seen a hotel pool (like your average Holiday Inn- not a resort) with a lifeguard. Why is a hotel not fearful of liability with a much-less supervised pool than a rec center??

I'm all for requiring an adult to be on premises, and even restricting the adult-child ratio allowed. But staying within arm's reach?? What's the fun of that??? For some reason this really has me

Most hotel pools require adult supervision for children under 12 or 16 (I've seen both). That means an adult in the room. And those pools are generally really tiny. Most of the pool is within "arm's reach" of any adult sitting around it.

[Linda on the move]

The rule at our local Y for kids that age is that they would have to an adult with them in the pool area, but the adult could be dressed and sitting next to the pool. I'm not sure if there is a limit to how many kids per adult.

They have to pass a swim test to go to the deep end.

Once they are over a certain age (may be 10) they can be in the pool area without an adult if they have passed a swim test.

[TCMoulton]

Originally Posted by Belia

I think this rule sucks.

What about hotel pools?? I've never seen a hotel pool (like your average Holiday Inn- not a resort) with a lifeguard. Why is a hotel not fearful of liability with a much-less supervised pool than a rec center??

I'm all for requiring an adult to be on premises, and even restricting the adult-child ratio allowed. But staying within arm's reach?? What's the fun of that??? For some reason this really has me

Hotels also have signs posted that there is no lifeguard on duty and that no one under 16 is allowed in the pool without adult supervision. Usually the sign also states that you swim at your own risk.

[velochic]

I think that having a test is fine. But just because you are over a certain age (an adult, for example), doesn't mean you should be swimming unsupervised. I guess that is my point. My dh can't swim, but because he's "old" enough, he can go into the pool unsupervised? My dd is a strong swimmer, so it's just very backwards to have HIM watching HER... it makes no sense to me. Where dd wants to swim, dh would not be able to go. She likes to frolick in the deeper parts, go on the water slides (that spill into the deep water), and the diving boards (into deep water). Dh can't even tread water... he'd drown trying to keep up with her. It.just.doesn't.make.sense. I'm sure there are many families where the parent is the weaker swimmer.

Needless to say, we won't be going to this rec center... probably ever even for general swimming... and keep our swimming activity to the summer at our favorite pool where they have lifejackets available for the less able swimmers and trust the parents to put one on their kids if it warrants it and not if it doesn't.

Luckily, I have learned my lesson LOOOOONG ago and didn't mention this idea to dd until I checked it out, so she is unaware that I was even thinking of having her party at the rec pool.

[sapphire_chan]

I think the age thing for tests is based on who can be held responsible if someone can't swim. If you're obviously old enough to travel to the pool yourself, you should know if you can swim or not. 15 is generally old enough that you can definitely yell at someone for going into the deep end when they can't swim.

[Jessy1019]

That's ridiculous!

Children should be SUPERVISED, but arm's reach? Even expecting the parent of a 9 year old to be IN the water with them is a bit much (and in most pools, it seems like it would be easier to get to a kid if you weren't in the water, in a different section or something). My daughter will go in no matter how cold it is, and she'll stay in for ages after I'm done. She's a strong swimmer, and I feel perfectly comfortable letting her swim around the whole pool while I sit on the edge and watch.

At our health club, they have "kids night out" and the kids 7+ are allowed to go swimming for part of the time. There are life guards.

I wouldn't be comfortable with my 4 year old swimmer doing something like that, but by 7, with lifeguards and other supervisors there? Fine by me.

[Belia]

And to make my whole irritation about this post worse.....

When I mentioned this rule to DH, his response was, "Yeah, that's ridiculous. Just like THOSE PEOPLE who won't ever turn their kid's carseats around."


Ummmm..... I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

[pigpokey]

Sorry. One county whose facilities we visit has the strictest rules I have had to deal with: under 6 need to be in arm's reach. They kind of enforced it the summer I had a 4 and a 3 year old (on the 3 year old) but by the next summer I didn't see any enforcement. I'm lucky to have tall kids.

[Tjej]

Our area pools have an "arms reach 7 and under" rule, and while I don't particularly like it, I get it. Have you had a kid go underwater and not know how to get up? I did it when I was 5 or 6. My DD fell in the water at our cabin this summer (she's 3). Of course we were both being watched and were fine, but water stuff happens so fast and can be so silent. If a pool is busy it could be very hard for a lifeguard to see every little body in the water all the time. Older kids can be more responsible for themselves.

Tjej

[34me]

I will probably be the lone voice of dissent here. Here onDC you are "preaching to the choir". you are all involved parents who wouldn't dream of putting your children in danger. I work at a city rec center with a pool. Our rule is 8 and under within arms reach with the exception of the slide. It was 6 until a 6 year old drown in our pool within arms reach of her dad who wasn't paying attention. I never want to see that again.

[velochic]

Originally Posted by 34me

I will probably be the lone voice of dissent here. Here onDC you are "preaching to the choir". you are all involved parents who wouldn't dream of putting your children in danger. I work at a city rec center with a pool. Our rule is 8 and under within arms reach with the exception of the slide. It was 6 until a 6 year old drown in our pool within arms reach of her dad who wasn't paying attention. I never want to see that again.

Well, this somewhat exemplifies my point. My dh wouldn't be inattentive, but if dd got into trouble and it was dh that was in arm's reach, she'd still drown because he can barely keep on his feet in water, let alone swim. He would likely drown trying to save her. So to arbitrarily say "an adult" is a ridiculous rule because the adults are not required to prove they can swim. Dd would be MUCH safer in the water with him on the side, watching and alerting a lifeguard if he noticed she was in trouble. I think a better rule is adult present and attentive to children (i.e. not reading a book, or sleeping, or off at the concession stand).

[Tjej]

Originally Posted by velochic

Well, this somewhat exemplifies my point. My dh wouldn't be inattentive, but if dd got into trouble and it was dh that was in arm's reach, she'd still drown because he can barely keep on his feet in water, let alone swim. He would likely drown trying to save her. So to arbitrarily say "an adult" is a ridiculous rule because the adults are not required to prove they can swim. Dd would be MUCH safer in the water with him on the side, watching and alerting a lifeguard if he noticed she was in trouble. I think a better rule is adult present and attentive to children (i.e. not reading a book, or sleeping, or off at the concession stand).

But as your DH is a responsible adult he is likely quite capable of assessing his abilities and not going in too deep or refusing to be responsible for something he cannot handle. He is an adult making the decision, not a small child.

Tjej

[expecting-joy]

Wow. It is such a tough situation. We had a girl die here last year at our pool. I just don't know what the rule should be. I do think the rule the OP quoted sounds absurd. I grew up going to the pool alone with my siblings starting at 6. They had lots of lifeguards, though, and we were very strong swimmers. The lifeguards seemed much more attentive then, too, though. Here they'll have one or two lifeguards on deck and sometimes no one is paying any attention.

[elus0814]

Not excessive. It seems over the top to someone whose children are good swimmers but most children of that age are not. It may also be their insurance. It could be that the only way they are able to keep their prices reasonable is to have such a rule. I have worked as a lifeguard, swim instructor, water safety instructor, and a swim coach at two different pools. One pool had a waterslide which had a height restriction because of the insurance. It was tough to tell a ten year old who held state swimming records they were not allowed to go on the slide because they were too short when they saw tall seven year olds who could barely doggie paddle going.

I've seen lots of parents who feel the lifeguards should be watching their kid every moment. Lifeguards have lots of kids to watch and they are not perfect. You never know when the lifeguard on duty is tired or is new to the pool/job or just barely passed. To be certified as a lifeguard you don't have to have any experience at all 'guarding' a pool, you only need to pass the test. Some pools train their lifeguards beyond that and some don't.

I know you feel your child is a great swimmer but even the best swimmers at eight years old can suddenly get tired while in the deep end, can play too rough, or can get splashed and inhale water and panic. They are still good swimmers but cannot be responsible for themselves while in the water.

It's harsh but having been a teacher of all red cross levels I think you should know that they don't mean very much. There is a checklist, if your child does a skill once - even with a huge amount of difficulty - they pass that skill and can pass that level. Numbered red cross levels for kids are not certifications and do not require any skills be mastered and therefore wouldn't prove anything to a pool manager.

Giving each young swimmer a test would be a lot of work for the people running the pool and wouldn't matter to their insurance company. Plus it would be expensive to keep someone there all the time to give these tests, which would raise prices for everyone. I once had a child in a swim class who had been in lessons for years then nearly drowned at a party, he was seven and after neing in the hospital came back terrified of water.

Please, just hop in the water with your kids and keep them close!