legal issues Archives - Fun Fitness After 50

A Letter to the College of Western Idaho About Going to Class Barefoot

February 10, 2015 by Laura Blodgett 1 Comment

My 18 year old daughter gave me her permission to publish these letters that she wrote and received from the College of Western Idaho about being allowed to be barefoot on campus. The first letter is from her, the second is a response from the college, and the third is from her. She had been going barefoot to campus for nearly the whole fall semester, when during the last two weeks of class, a guard felt duty bound to require shoes. He was polite and somewhat apologetic, but felt he was doing his job. She asked for verification that it was “necessary” and at first no one could find it! Unfortunately, they kept trying and got back to her with it. She took time during her winter break to write this letter. She has not gotten any final resolution yet. There will be a funny side story at the end of the post.

Dear Mr. Shellberg,

Executive VP, Instruction & Student Services

It has recently come to my attention that there is a policy in the CWI dress code stating that, “Regulations prohibit any individual from entering any campus building barefoot.” I have been predominantly barefoot for the last two years for multiple reasons, including wanting to have healthy strong feet. Being barefoot allows me to be more aware of where I am walking and keeps me from tripping over things that I would if wearing shoes. When barefoot, I am less at risk of injury than other people wearing shoes, because I am more aware of where I am placing my feet. I am able to keep my balance, and my muscles and feet are not confined to only a few motions. I ask that you would consider revising this policy to allow for being barefoot in CWI buildings. In the Student Handbook, the dress code does not clarify what “regulations” are being referred to as a reason for disallowing individuals to be barefoot in CWI buildings. There are no state health codes or laws requiring footwear to be worn, so it cannot be due to any law.

For the last two years, I have run almost exclusively barefoot, up to thirteen miles on different terrain, including gravel and rough roads. I have walked and run over broken glass without injury and my feet have been strengthened both muscularly and with a leathery protective skin. To me, shoes are comparable to gloves. They may protect from some things, but in the end you can’t use your hands for normal tasks or have the reasonable sense of touch which is required for almost everything we use our hands for. I am perfectly aware of and willing to accept the perceived consequences of being barefoot and will not hold CWI responsible in any way for any harm that might come to me as a direct result of my being barefoot. One person being barefoot does not in any way endanger or harm others and is much safer than many of the shoes that are accepted in the dress code.

You may have concerns about cleanliness and appropriateness. I can assure you that my feet are washed much more regularly than any shoes and do not have inconvenient cracks that carry mud and dirt around in them. My feet also do not stink, as they are hardly ever confined in sweaty shoes. As for appropriateness, if the school dress code allows for flip flops and other sandals, there can be no question of bare feet being less appropriate. Just as much of the foot is visible when wearing flip flops, save under the straps on top.

Most accepted shoes have artificial extrusions from the foot, and or are not securely attached to the foot, making it much more likely for people wearing them to trip than someone who is barefoot. As a student who is hoping to attend CWI for at least two more semesters, being required to wear shoes in campus buildings is not only inconvenient, but quite uncomfortable. Aching feet are an unwelcome distraction when one is attempting to study.

I have a sister currently attending BSU who is regularly barefoot on campus and in buildings without any problems or being required to wear shoes. My mother recently ran all but two miles of a marathon barefoot. I am a member of the Barefoot Runners Society. The Society for Barefoot Living is an open organization that provides support for barefooters. These resources make clear the benefits of being barefoot.

thebarefootbook.com
barefooters.org
thebarefootrunners.org
What About a Scientific Study on Barefoot Running/

Sincerely,

Carlie Blodgett

Good evening Carlie –

My name is Kevin Jensen and Mr. Shellberg forwarded your message on to me for some research, etc. First, thank you for the very thoughtful and thorough explanation of the situation and excellent presentation of your questions. I appreciate the time you took to outline the issues in such detail and you’ve certainly given us some important things to think about.

In the coming days, I will be doing some additional research on exactly why our dress code specifically prohibits students from entering campus buildings barefoot and will be seeking an opinion from our institutional risk manager as well as others. We may also need to seek additional opinions from legal counsel and insurance representatives in order to asses potential liability/risk to the college in the event of an injury, etc.

At any rate, I did want to let you know that we will be looking into your questions and hope to have additional information, one-way or another (whether that be a revision to our policy, affirmation of the policy, or an exception to the policy) to you soon. That being said, I do anticipate that it may take a little bit of time for me to compile our official response.

While we are looking into our policy in light of the observations you’ve made, please be sure to follow the existing policy and wear appropriate footwear for now. Again I certainly appreciate the thoughts you’ve outlined below so I will certainly make every attempt to move quickly on this matter.

If you have any questions while we are researching, please don’t hesitate to contact me!

Kevin

Kevin Jensen, M.B.A.
Dean of Enrollment and Student Services
College of Western Idaho

e: kevinjensen@cwidaho.cc
p: 208.562.3251 f: 888.562.3216

Mr. Jensen,

Thank you for your kind reply to my letter. As you research and look into these possibilities, you may wish to take into account the liabilities of other clothing and footwear that is considered normal and safe. When compared to the lack of requirements outlining the types of shoes that can be worn, or the possibility of slipping due to a wet tile floor, this rule seems very restrictive. It might seem absurd, but asking students to wear shoes for liability issues is comparable to requiring everyone to wear a helmet in the event that they should fall or run in to something.

Although shoes are considered a “normal” piece of equipment to wear, they present just as many if not more opportunities for injury than being barefoot. People trip, slip, and fall far more often while wearing shoes than when they are barefoot. Shoes also reshape feet as a cast would by molding the foot to fit the shape of the shoe. Here are some sources that I hope will help you during your research.

barefooters.org/faq
barefooters.org/key-works/case_for
unshod.org

Thank you again for your considerate reply and for taking the time to research this.

Sincerely,
Carlie Blodgett

[box]Funny story: Within a very short time of receiving the appreciative reply from the college administrator, Carlie (and the whole class) was also told by one college professor at the start of the spring semester that all of them were stupid and he would not accept any of their papers without them going through the Writing Center on campus for editing and corrections. This would take up time from studies and work commitments and had Carlie discouraged. I suggested she could try to politely show the correspondence above to said professor and offer that “the college administrators seem to think I can write well.” She did so, and the requirement was waived for her.[/box]

Carlie getting finally getting her "high school" senior pictures taken while actually in her freshman year of college, courtesy of her older sister, who is a graphic arts major at BSU. — Carlie getting finally getting her “high school” senior pictures taken while actually in her freshman year of college, courtesy of her older sister, who is a graphic arts major at BSU.

Laws of the Road for Runners and Other Pedestrians in Idaho

November 5, 2013 by Laura Blodgett 3 Comments

If you are like me, your running paths include a lot of ~~public~~ government roads, which seem to all be categorized as “highways” in the Idaho State Code. Activity on all government roads is subject to state law, unless the roads are under city jurisdiction. County highway districts function under the Idaho Transportation Department. I tried to look at codes for the city of Nampa, but couldn’t find anything specific to pedestrians. The city of Boise has a few more guidelines, but they are pretty much just a repetition of Idaho state laws regarding pedestrians.

Runners, a subset of pedestrians, do not have as much right of way on roads, or anything associated with roads, as you might think. Thanks to the government, the basic arteries that connect us all are heavily biased toward automobiles. I like my car as much as the next person, and I have no problem using gasoline to get me about, but I still find this emphasis by the government ironic when they spend so much time telling us we should drive less and walk more. I see very little in the laws to make pedestrian locomotion easy or enjoyable, except possibly if very confined city spaces.

Again, I’m not advocating laws “in favor” of pedestrians, so much as I’m advocating they just stop making so many laws regulating everyone in general. I’m wishing for days gone by when walking (or running) along a road was considered normal and part of what roads were really for. I remember the fun of being part of a crowds on foot in Taipei and Shanghai, where they ruled the roads they were on by sheer numbers. And I see more benefits of private roads, where the owners can arrange usage according to customers, instead of rules being imposed by the few who manage to obtain power to rule-making. Most “law makers” have long since abandoned making laws that maintain freedom for the rest of us.

Here is a summary of how the government thinks you should go about using the road system if you are on foot, or using any device that helps those with limited foot power:

obey any applicable instructions where you are
sidewalks must be used when available and practical
use the shoulder of the road as far as practical if there is no sidewalk
stay as far to the edge of the road as practical if there is no shoulder, always yielding to all vehicles
on a 2-way road, proceed only on the left hand side
if you are facing a circular green light, you may cross with care, unless it is otherwise prohibited
if you are facing (only) a green arrow, no crossing allowed
if you are facing a yellow circular light, be warned that you may have insufficient time to cross
if you are facing any red light, you may not cross
when you enter an intersection, you must yield to vehicles already lawfully in the intersection, even if you have a “walk” signal (but, let’s face it, who wants to play chicken as a pedestrian versus a motorized vehicle?)
if the pedestrian signal changes to “don’t walk,” you may continue to proceed through an intersection if you are already in it
you must use a crosswalk if you are between two adjacent intersections with crosswalks
if you are crossing somewhere other than where there are crosswalks, you must yield to all vehicles

Obviously the practicality of how you get along on foot on the road is subjective. However, I don’t think they mean what you think is practical, but what they think is practical. If we could only read their minds. As far as being barefoot on the roads, the road mix they scatter all along the edges and shoulders is not the most pleasant surface to run on for me yet, although I am getting better at it. It goads me some that they are basically spiking the surfaces with sharp tacks. They probably think shoes would be practical. Some of us know running with bare feet is very practical for our joints and enjoyment of running.

Fortunately, there is not that much traffic where I run and the local folks are nearly all pleasant and willing to share the road with me. Possibly they understand that even with shoes, the loose gravel and skidding that would go on on the shoulder of the road are impractical for the pedestrian. It would be easy to twist an ankle. Or there is the issue that the shoulder appears and disappears and it is impractical to be constantly weaving on and off of the road. I will do some of my running on greenbelt paths, especially during times of more traffic, but sometimes I will be running on the roads. In the most practical way, of course.

Helpless Female Reviews Idaho Bicycle Laws

October 31, 2013 by Laura Blodgett Leave a Comment

I’m afraid of moving vehicles, including the ones I’m powering. Still, I like to ride my bicycle and I thought it would give me some confidence on the road if I actually knew the laws for riding my bike on the road. I expected it to be overwhelming, given the propensity of lawmakers to make complicated laws. However, for bicycles, it is pretty straight forward. There were a few surprises, in the favor of making bicycle transportation more enjoyable. Here is my summary.

Bicyclists have the rights and duties of any vehicle, unless something doesn’t have an application to a bike.
Bicyclists are required to be careful. Duh.
Stop signs mean a bicyclist must only SLOW down enough to determine safety, and to yield right of way if necessary.
Red traffic lights must be stopped at, but you don’t have to wait for a green light to proceed if it is safe for all involved.
The bike must have an attached seat.
Only the number of people the bicycle is designed for may ride it. This does not include young children secured in a proper pack.
Riding should be done as close to the right hand side of the road as is “practical,” except to pass, or when turning, or to avoid hazards(which can include roadside gravel and uneven roads).
Two riders abreast is the limit on roads.
Don’t impede normal or reasonable flow of traffic.
Never try to carry so much that you can’t have at least one hand available to control the bike….
Signal turns at least 100 feet ahead, unless you need both hands to maintain control of the bike.
No racing on roads allowed except for approved events.
Reflectors or lights with visibility up to 500 feet are required for nighttime riding.
Give audible signals when overtaking and passing pedestrians in places designated for them to walk.
Pedestrians have the right of way on sidewalks.
There may be special areas where bicycles are prohibited.

If you want to read all the Idaho bicycle laws for yourself, they can be found here. Keep in mind that they might be different if you visit different states. For instance, I ran across an article saying that bicyclists in San Francisco wish they didn’t have to come to a full stop at stop signs. Cities can have certain codes to learn about, depending on where you ride. They seem to be more variable in downtown areas.

Most motorists and some policemen don’t know the details of bicycle laws. (I say this admitting that I just looked them up for the first time.) I have heard of incidences locally and afar where officers wrongly cited or intimidated bicyclists, thinking they were doing their duty. Many motorists think the roads are only for cars and bike riders have no business being there and they can be pretty vocal about it. Seeing as they are driving something that can smash a cyclist, this puts the bicyclist at a definite disadvantage. But, then, people generally have trouble getting along and communicating. Why should it be any different just because bicycles are involved? However, I now feel less helpless about going out for a ride. I will always ride with some fear because I know that bikes are just harder to see on the horizon and the memory of my face plant (you can read how it happened here) lives on vividly in my mind. At least now I know what is expected of me by the legislature.

(Here is the link for a bicycling organization in the Nampa area. I have ridden with them occasionally and benefitted from their experience on the road.)

(This link is for Nampa City bicycle codes – under Title 6 Chapter 5 in the side bar, click on Police Regulations to see the whole list drop down)

Handling Public Barefoot Confrontations – Lies and Intimidation at Nampa Winco

October 15, 2013 by Laura Blodgett 25 Comments

The way the agitated grocery store manager was talking, I was wondering if I should be expecting two bulky security guards to appear and grab me by the elbows. No, I hadn’t seen any sign at the entrance. (I checked on my way out and items stacked for sale were partially blocking it from some angles.) No, I had never heard it was illegal to be walking bare footed. (It isn’t. I came home and did research to verify this.) And, no, I’m not interested in a creative rendition of government health codes regarding customers’ bare feet. (Double checked afterward to be nonexistent.) A mantra of “no shirt, no shoes, no service” was rapidly recited to me, then quickly restated. The manager seemed to get embarrassed at the no shirt clause (I was wearing one….), and modified his accusation. He was coming across as panicked, caught between treating me as a customer and a criminal (from his misinformed perspective). I said I would like to at least finish my grocery shopping (I was about ¾ of the way done with a major grocery shopping effort). He glanced nervously at my cart and asked, “Five minutes?” “More like 10,” I replied. My request was granted and I wondered if I was going to be shadowed for the remainder of my time there.

I understand the whole private property thing. I know that going around with bare feet is not all that common, but I am ready to have intelligent conversations about it. What gets under my skin the most is the bold faced lie of a sign at the store entrance and the way this affects other people’s view of me. I’m pretty sure it was another customer that “turned me in,” judging by the way the first employee ran up to me to tell me I couldn’t have bare feet. The sign claims that it is “the law” that shoes are required. At first, I gave Winco the benefit of the doubt. I did some follow-up research to find good resources about the law and I emailed their corporate offices. I described my experience and included the links about the lack of laws about foot wear or feet. Their response made it clear that they know it is a lie. They fell back on the liability argument.

There is no logical reason to be concerned about bare feet as a unique liability issue. There are more potential problems with bare hands. Do they monitor whether customers are washing, using clean techniques in bulk bins, or not smashing fingers? Hands are much more at risk in a grocery shopping experience. That doesn’t even include factors like spreading germs. What about dirt under my fingernails? Is it their responsibility to monitor everyone who comes in the doors for potential contagious germs? How many times have you seen a sick person in a grocery store? Why don’t they tell them to go home for public health and liability reasons? What about the liability of selling certain foods to people who, according to health codes, should be losing weight? (I’m sorry, miss, our lawyers advise us that we can only sell you lettuce and carrots)

It is like saying they might be liable if I drive too fast in their privately owned parking lot. This excerpt from A Case for Bare Feet, as published on barefooters.org, gives an idea of the weakness of this concern:

In fact, business owners who post signs requiring footwear in their stores for “liability reasons” might be opening themselves up for “duty of care” lawsuits. These signs could be interpreted as the business owner proclaiming a duty of care in assuring the safety of a customer’s footwear (by deeming one type of footwear unsafe and not allowed, the business owner has taken under his or her wing the whole range of possibly unsafe footwear). If a customer on high heels or platform shoes were to severely sprain their ankle because of their shoes, the business owner might be liable, since he or she has proclaimed by his or her sign a “duty of care” interest in customers’ footwear.

If these were real issues, there should be a shoe inspector at the door. What about the problems caused by shoes? If the whole foot cannot be used well, the customers are at risk of everything from falling to long term back injury. Is this the store’s responsibility? There are many other “what IF’s” that could be talked about. What IF I’m not dressed “right” for the weather and catch a chill? What IF my legs are showing and I get cut by … something. What IF something falls against my arms or someone runs into me with their cart and my knees get banged up? The fact is, sandals are not going to protect feet from much, IF anything. (Ever had a rock get into your sandal?) And shoes will give you fungus! The world is not a safe place.

If it is a matter of corporate aesthetics, any sort of sandal should be considered “gross” since pretty much the whole top of the foot can be seen. The same part that is seen when someone has bare feet. Why not a uniform that everyone puts on when they come in the door, so that touchy customers won’t be offended by the fashion choices of other customers. Maybe we should all wear sacks on our heads, with little peep holes for eyes, so that any potentially dirty or unkempt hair is under wraps. (Have you seen everyone on windy days?)

Back to the issue of businesses lying about bare feet being illegal. I am not claiming any “right” to go bare foot. I don’t believe government laws about discrimination help anyone in the long run. Any government codes about business practices make prices go up simply by the fact that there must inherently be an army of regulators paid to monitor everything (and the effectiveness of that oversight is dubious). One could argue that it is because of such regulations that many people have wrong ideas about whether it is legal to have bare feet at all! It is because there are SO many such laws and regulations that no one can keep track. And some other customer can be misled into turning me in, like we live in Nazi Germany or something!

However, just because a business is free to make a choice about providing service on private property based on hat style, choice of breath mints, or waist size, does not make it good. Just because they are free to discriminate, doesn’t mean it is wrong for me to be irritated by it. It is not wrong for me to expose their lies and demonstrate how they are misinformed.

I have been in other places, in my town, in other places in the USA, and other countries, where people with bare feet are welcomed. There is something mistakenly arrogant about excluding people who want to have bare feet. It reminds me of someone who has moved up in the world putting on airs to prove their superiority, when it only proves they are snobs. If someone thinks wearing shoes makes them a better person, they probably have some other strange ideas about the real worth of people.

[box]Looks like I already need to mention that comments that are rude, name calling, or just generally mean spirited will be deleted. We can discuss facts, concerns, and opinions, but if it isn’t done with consideration for others, then it will not stay in the thread.[/box]

6 Good Traits of Fake Sandals that Dress Up Bare Feet for Public

October 8, 2013 by Laura Blodgett Leave a Comment

A little foot decoration is often all it takes to overcome some people’s prejudice against bare feet in public. Or to make a person feel more comfortable about being “skin to ground” around the town. If you can afford to hang a few beads or criss cross some leather over the top of your foot, maybe you aren’t a dirty, vagabond after all! In previous centuries, being obviously well fed was a sign of prosperity. Now, it is associated with low quality food choices that supposedly poor people make. Maybe there is also hope that one day shoes will be seen as a sign that someone is making unhealthy decisions. Even if that happens, I suspect that foot decoration will be always be in style. People just like to do that sort of thing, one way or another.

My mom and I were recently doing some research on what are referred to as barefoot sandals. She had read an article about how shoes inhibit normal foot mechanics and realized on a new level that she could be free from shoes with more than a free conscious. It is better for her. With barefoot sandals the fashion potential of feet could be tapped into without creating trouble for joints or leading to balance issues.

Ironically, after looking a many options, she chose some barefoot jewelry that one of my bare foot society friends has and had told me about. (Follow the BRS Stomp of Approval link in the sidebar to find this friendly barefoot runners forum) I had looked at them a few times myself, but had wondered how the beads would feel. I was really looking forward to seeing my mom’s order. Here is what she told and showed me about them:

They came in a very small package! They are in reality small strings of beads that take up no space and weigh next to nothing.
barefoot sandals have no soles
The toe piece was unnoticeable, according to my mom. I couldn’t try them on, being that my feet are significantly larger than my mom’s, but I do know that she is very sensitive about how things fit her feet
easier than putting on a necklace
The clasp had 2 options, so that the sandal could be hooked on from whichever side of the foot was easiest.
The back “strap,” or section that sits on the back of the ankle is soft and elastic. Unlike a shoe strap, it doesn’t have any work to do holding a heavy shoe or thick sole in place, so no pressure is felt. It just sits there.
the elastic back strap sits gently on the ankle
The sandals are pretty enough for evening wear, but will still blend with everyday outfits.
The bead design is ageless. There is nothing about it that makes the wearer feel childish or matronly.

I am strongly leaning toward ordering something similar from that website. I am also brainstorming about making something less elaborate in with a leather, bohemian air. I will keep you posted on how these sandals last and feel for long term wearing.