In a message dated 00-09-06 11:21:08 EDT, Tracie Evans wrote:
<< Okay, may I'm missing something here. The whole issue is that while
someone
was walking through your museum they were not watching were they were going
and fell over a stroller who was doing nothing wrong. Because of this the
stroller was banned? That person could have just as easily backed up over
a person with a walker would they have then been banned? >>
Yes, you missed the point--syntax aside--that the child in the stroller was
*injured*. That apparently was the rationale for the Kimall's restriction.
I think that the way an adult might trip against a low-to-the-ground stroller
and be unable to regain his balance because of the horizontal configuration
of the "bulky, heavy, cumbersome" vehicle would frequently create a greater
hazard than simply backing into a standing child. I have often run into
small children in our crowded museum--or they ran into me--but I didn't fall
down and no one was hurt. It's obvious to me that a collision with a "bulky,
heavy, cumbersome" stroller would represent a higher risk of injury to both
me and the stroller occupant.
It would be nice if people in public places could be trained to watch where
they're going and be prohibited from backing up, but until museums install
traffic lanes and traffic cops, pedestrians are going to be unpredictable.
Mixing people on foot with people in rigid or semi-rigid vehicles in public
spaces clearly entails some risk.
<<As far as "strollers being for the connivance of the parents" that is
bologna. Yes parents are using strollers so they don't have to carry their
child constantly but strollers are rarely convenient. They are bulky, heavy
and cumbersome, but when you think about carrying a child for several hours,
they are worth it. Also, from a parents point of view, you can strap a
child into a stroller and not have to worry about them touching everything
plus you can provide entertainment for them in their own space.>>
I'm being misquoted here. I never suggested that parents were conniving. :-)
Oh, all right, maybe they're conniving at convenience, but "convenience" is
not "bologna". Yes, strollers are "bulky, heavy and cumbersome" (and that's
why they can be hazardous), but once you've got the kid in the stroller it
certainly IS more convenient to push the stroller than it would be to carry
him or her for several hours. Let's not quibble about semantics. My point
was precisely that it's inconvenient to carry a child for an extended period,
so a stroller is, by comparison, more convenient. A parent might consider it
essential for the long haul, but it's certainly not essential equipment when
compared to a wheelchair needed by a person who can't walk at all. By
contrast, the stroller for the woman with the back problem was MORE essential
and the normal restriction against strollers should have been relaxed.
To extend the gastronomic metaphor from cold cuts to fruit, I think some
folks have been mixing apples and oranges. The issue of handicapped access
and ADA considerations is simply separate from that of able-bodied parents
with able-bodied kids who want to use strollers for *convenience* (I'll say
it again).
Although I love museums and museum-going, perhaps I'm not as dedicated as
those intrepid souls who want to push children in strollers through museums.
When my son was using a stroller, I took him for walks, but I didn't take him
to crowded stores or crowded museums. Too darned inconvenient, and possibly
risky.
David Haberstich
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
