ive been in a lot of arguments before about these things, what do you think of the validity of fat people being denied exit rows or seats on some carnival rides. is that a rare time it is to protect people?
My policy is this: based on the limits created by the manufacturer we need to protect ourselves.
Carnival rides have saftey limits and while missing out sucks I'm not gonna risk my life. That said: a modern ride should take a variety of sizes into factor.
Fat people aren't the only ones excluded from rides either, they have height limits and limb requirements. The problem is the manufactures make rides for the bell curve crowd, it takes money to be inclusive and the more people talk about the issue the more pressure they feel to try to make inclusive rides. It's possible they just have to see the money in it. (Remember how car manufacturers used thin average cis men as their test subjects for DECADES when crash testing? And how its only begun to change so other drivers can actually be safe?)
Limits and requirements should be POSTED clearly in line. And staff need to be informed and not push the saftey of riders. It's embarrassing, it's isolating, it pisses me off but we can advocate for inclusive design while also keeping ourselves alive. Current designs are exclusionary and discriminatory against many groups of people. We are just more common and thus encounter it more often.
As for exit rows on planes I read the reasoning, hey air lines, why are you even having passengers help. Your staff should be able to manage the physical aspect alone. Given that the population is aging the pool of people who can push or lift 30 - 60 pounds is lowering by the year. A major flaw in this whole discussion.
"The seat belt extender is a tripping hazard" fair enough. Since yall wanna be so cheap and wont replace seat belts that roll back up like a car seat belt you have the ones that just flop around. But so are high heels. And flip flops. Not an awful policy but maybe be more consistent about tripping hazards in an emergency. A double standard.
Actually I didnt even see it mentioned that exit row/emergency exit customers had to be wearing closed toed lace up shoes. That should be policy in general if it isn't.
"the seats are more narrow" totally fair, some of us can squeeze in but it hurts like hell. This is a design limit, it falls under manufacturer limit.
"You have to be able to push/pull 30 - 60 pounds" thin people can't all do this either. Its a fair requirement and doesn’t actually logically disinclude fat people. Holley Mangold would be more than qualified to handle the door but would be excluded because of narrow seats and belt issues.
So this is a real mixed bag. The tripping hazard is a double standard 100%.
The narrow seats are part of the saftey plan which is morally neutral imo. The way the tray is put away narrows the seat space. Unless you want to completely remove access to trays I can't think of a better approach.
The strength requirement is what it is, we don't want easy open Boeing doors. This too I'm saying is neutral.
So mixed bag. Things definitely could be better. Things can be better. Rides blatantly discriminate against certain riders, planes are a hellscape but at a minimum need less double standards.
Remember yall keep yourselves alive, advocate for change and dont tolerate fools who say "just loose weight".
-mod squirrel