Wow a 5 inch tall woman. That's gotta be a record.

The Salvation Army carries clothes in a wide range of sizes/lengths. The hooks need to be high enough off the ground to keep longer things from brushing the floor.

The mirrors themselves are probably donations, too. I wouldn't be surprised if another dressing room had a smaller mirror and a much lower hook. Someone probably gave the directive "install the hook above the mirror" never considering the variety in play here.

hmmm... slow news day?

I dunno...a 5-inch tall woman?

I blame Larson for this...

A 5" woman whose arm reaches 6"...

Seriously, if I were in a wheelchair or I were a little person, I'd be extremely aggravated. There are standards in place for mounting heights of hooks, mirrors, paper towel and soap dispensers, etc., to make them universally accessible.

Umm, peeps, it's a **Salvation Army Thrift Store**, not Nordstrom's. Seriously. You get what you pay for. Until recently our local Sally's didn't even have a dressing room.

ElizabethD, thrift stores are still legally (and morally) obligated to abide by building codes and accessibility guidelines. I would especially expect a charity like Salvation Army to be mindful of the needs of people with disabilities.

WalMart is certainly on a different level than Nordstrom's -- should they be have to make their stores accessible to people with disabilities?

Thank you, Elizabeth. What's next, complaining that they don't serve champagne to patrons?

The hook's a little high at Salvation Army? Mention it to somebody there and maybe they'll pay a homeless guy five bucks to change it. Is it really bloggable indignation?

I understand the idea of standards for the placement of items like soap, paper towels, and perhaps mirrors...but I wouldn't think there would be a standard for hook height. Other items listed are nessicary items. A hook to hang clothes in a dressing room really isn't. It is more convienece. (This coming from a guy who throws his clothes over chairs and such at home). Hell, if they don't want me to have an accesable hook, I'll just throw the clothes on the ground when I'm done trying them on.

"The Salvation Army carries clothes in a wide range of sizes/lengths. The hooks need to be high enough off the ground to keep longer things from brushing the floor."

Uh ... so do virtually all clothing stores?

And yet they manage to put the hooks where people can reach them.

Yep, Altered Beast, there's actually a mounting height standard for hooks (maximum 48" according to ANSI A117.1 - the current standard accessibility guidelines).

Some people might ask, "well, why do we need to change to accommodate the special needs of such a small minority?" Like changing the height of a clothes hook is such an onerous task? And if they want a high hook to hang long clothes, hang two hooks -- one high and one at or below 48".

People need to get serious about accessibility. Why? Because our population is aging. Because each of us is one bad car wreck away from being in a wheelchair. And because it's the law.

What acambras said.
While they probably grandfathered out of having to abide by the Americans with Disabilities act, they should probably acknowledge that they're going to have disabled patrons and at least put in a couple lower hooks for them. Also, I'm only 5'4" and think I'd have a pretty tough time reaching a 6'5" hook.

A hook mounted at 48" seems kinda dangerous to me.

I'm 6' tall and can easily touch a 9' ceiling. Using an admittedly unscientific ratio of 2:3 height/reach, a 6'6" hook should be reachable by anyone 4'2" tall or taller.

This is a dumb post.

bigoldgeek, your arms are over 3' long?

Well, they say a when arms are stretched out, from finger tip to finger tip is the same as a person's height. So if someone is 5', they should be able to reach (subtrating for their head, and width from shoulder to sholder) should be just under 6'.

Sorry, my math was off...someone 5' tall should be able to reach between 6' and 6.6' w/o stretching.

OK, and what about the people under 5' tall or in wheelchairs? The minority, to be sure, but how hard would it be to use a little common sense and not hang the hook at over 6'?

It seems to me that the only place it would make sense to hang hooks at 6'-6" is in an NBA locker room.

Just remove the hooks entirely. Ta-da, "accessible".

"WalMart is certainly on a different level than Nordstrom's -- should they be have to make their stores accessible to people with disabilities?"

Pretty sure anyone shopping at Walmart has a disability.

acambras

Im not defending the hook height. Just stating what I estimate.

Man, this site is fun to read. There's always someone griping that a story is too boring to have been posted.. after THEY were the one that clicked on "ThisIsDumb: 6.5 Foot High Clothes Hooks" in the first place.
Then there are those saying that because it's not exactly a 'high-class' establishment, its patrons shouldn't expect the ability to hang up garments.
I'm frankly amazed nobody has shown up blaming the customers for being short in the first place.

People need to get serious about accessibility. Why? Because our population is aging. Because each of us is one bad car wreck away from being in a wheelchair. And because it's the law.

And because lawyers need to buy a new Jaguar, even if it means making things prohibitively costly for a non-profit charitable organizations.

Just tell the homeless people who won't have a shelter to stay in, that the $1,000,000 was better spent compensating some midget who was angry that a hook was too tall.

Don't you dare try to help someone in the U.S. of good ol' A. unless you plan on being sued! Makes me glad to live in Canada!

AcilettaM, my arm plus the boost I get on tiptoes, yes.

@Rex

First, the term "midget" is pejorative. Like if I called you a douchebag.

Second, it would not cost a million dollars to lower the goddamn hook.

By the way, non-profits are not exempt from the Americans With Disabilities Act. I've worked for non-profits and we got good at the poormouth routine. But we're not talking about "prohibitively costly" compliance measures here. It would only get expensive if they completely flouted the ADA and then were successfully sued.

And I would think non-profits would be particularly concerned with accessibility. If a group like the Salvation Army purports to serve people in need regardless of race, color, creed, etc., what about disability?

Oh, and when your smug ass is crossing the street in Canada, be careful -- you might get hit by a Jaguar, being driven by a "midget" lawyer. And you might end up a wheelchair. Gee, I sure hope there's a Canadians With Disabilities Act.

As someone who was in the commercial remodeling industry ADA law appies to ALL establishments. The only reason that this particular store has non-compliant hangers is because a)Someone who has no understanding of the law and its requirements installed it. Or b) The store has had no modifications made since the hanger was installed PRIOR to the implimentation of the ADA in the early 90's.

There is a height requirement for EVERYTHING. There is also a requirement that these things only stick out from the wall a certain distance. So the rest of us hopefully don't go banging into these things.

Also the only enforcement action that can be brought is by a disabled person making a complaint or suing for non-compliance. The only inspection that occurs to ensure buildings are in compliance is when the building is first built or remodeled. That inspection is usually by the state or local fire department. This has to be done before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. Other public places like, shopping centers, hotels, etc, get a fire department inspection yearly. ADA deficiencies can noted then as well, but usually aren't.

In my experience (primarily hotels) the moment a disabled guest makes a complaint every effort is made to accomodate them so that they don't escalate the issue.

There, more than you ever wanted to know about the ADA

"Midget" is only a pejorative because of American style political correctness. Much like "cripple" became a bad word when you adopted the term "handicapped", and then "handicapped" turned into a bad word when you adopted the term "disabled", and and now even the term "disabled" is becoming a pejorative with terms like "physically challenged", or "differently abled" taking their place. However, Midget was traditionally the proper term for "little people" (which is totally inaccurate, because a non-dwarf and non-midget can be a "little person"... just ask any three year old), and is only a pejorative because of modern rules of American political correctness that say it is offensive to name a physical condition by it's traditionally recognized name. For example, the proper term for doughbag would be "Feminine Hygene Product" :).

But back to the matter at hand of the American with Disabilities Act and the American propensity for lawsuits and big settlements: Do you think life for handicapped (er, I am sorry, "disabled", no, that isn't the right term, "Differently Abled") person is significantly worse in Canada, or France, or Germany, who have far more reasonable and modest rules regarding handi--- differently-abled access? Do you think things are terribly worse for differently-abled people in Europe, or Canada, were there isn't the same amount of tort abuse as the U.S.? Did it ever occure to you that maybe there might be a hidden agenda of profit in the American system? That maybe when George Bush signed in the ADA into law, his agenda wasn't as benevolent as it might fist appear?

Rex -
If it's so prohibitively expensive for a Salvation Army store to lower some hooks, I will drive out there and lower them myself. Seriously, we're talking about $1.50 worth of hardware. Sure, the tort system is a little messed up, but it doesn't mean stores intended for people who are less advantaged shouldn't, you know, make their stuff usable for those with disabilities.
I would bother to explain why "handicapped" is considered derogatory, but that's neither here nor there.
Also, I know our bits can get a little yeasty, but I would imagine a doughbag would just make things worse.