Disney the segway and the ADA

[Gwinfred]

Where have I said that Disney should not allow Segways for disabled people? Please show me where I have stated that. All I have said is that the ADA law is flawed, in that it does not allow Disney to be able to adequately determine if someone is actually using a Segway for a disability or joyride. That is true, isn't it? The law is written so that if they allow Segways it is all or nothing, no legal way to keep non-disabled Segways out of the parks. I'm pointing out that the LAW needs to be modified to protect BOTH the disabled person and the right of Disney to not allow joyriding Segways and ECVs. And no one has explained how taking a safety class is of no benefit to the disabled person on a Segway. If that were true, why would folks that have been driving for years get better insurance rates for taking a driving safety course. After all, I've been driving for 30+ years with no major accidents...same logic.

I think that the issue with your position is simply this. People with disabilities who are using Segways have the expectation that they should be treated precisely like those using other assistive devices.

If Disney requires everyone using a power wheelchair or scooter who shows up there to take a safety course and that's permissible under the ADA then people with disabilities who use a Segway should be required to do so as well.

Can Disney adequately determine if someone is actually using a Segway for a disability or a joy ride? I think they can or at least I think I could but the better question would be to observe the individual and if they were a problem and exhibited dangerous behavior than they could be ejected.

There was a great deal of debate about this issue when the ADA was passed and it was determined that requiring certification of people with disabilities and requiring them to carry credentials would make them the only class of people in the United States which were required to carry credentials. This notion was so offensive to many that it was rejected.

But it's really not an all-or-nothing kind of situation, those with any training should easily be able to discern the authentic from the suspect.

 

[eternaldisneyfan]

I do think that qualified and trained people with disabilities should be allowed to use Segways. The problem is defining "qualified and trained." I think a certification/competency test is a great idea. Handicap placards numbers are in a system that links the name to the person. My hospital (UCSF) gives free parking to people with disabilities. You give them your placard, they write it down, and your first initial and last name. They check the system to see if it's you. Now what if Disney had the user bring their disability placard & an ID. Then no one could use another person's placard. Then show proof of purchase of the Segway (with date). A certification-'license ' would be ideal but I'd say 6 months use should be enough. Finally, the guest signs a waiver saying they don't hold Disney liable for their injury and take legal responsibility for the injury of other park goers.

(from my post above)

 

[Chuck S]

I think that the issue with your position is simply this. People with disabilities who are using Segways have the expectation that they should be treated precisely like those using other assistive devices.

If Disney requires everyone using a power wheelchair or scooter who shows up there to take a safety course and that's permissible under the ADA than people with disabilities who use a Segway should be required to do so as well.

Basically, yes, it is hard to ignore the fact that ECVs/scooters don;t even have the potential to reach the speeds that Segways can.

Can Disney adequately determine if someone is actually using a Segway for a disability or a joy ride? I think they can work least I think I could but the better question would be to observe the individual and if they were a problem exhibited dangerous behavior than they could be ejected.

And you expect Disney to hire how many people just to monitor the Segway users, especially when a training certificate would cheaply and quickly solve the problem.

There was a great deal of debate about this issue when the ADA was passed and it was determined that requiring certification of people with disabilities and requiring them to carry credentials would make them the only class of people in the United States which were required to carry credentials. This notion was so offensive to many that it was rejected.

So it's really not an all-or-nothing kind of situation, those with any training should easily be able to discern the authentic from the suspect.

But proving it to deny access to the joyriders? What if a Disney employee innocently makes a bad determination and either a) allows a dangerous joyrider in the park -or- b) wrongfully does not allow a disableed person into the park. Major lawsuit, which again, a simple training card, would solve. Segways were not in the picture, nor were ECVs being used as status symbols when the ADA was initially drawn up. The law must be flexible for changing times and new technologies.

 

[Gwinfred]

Different terrain, yes. More difficult terrain. But Disney has much more crowded conditions with guests.

I think that you would agree that you've seen areas of the San Diego zoo just as crowded as any areas of Disney. I mean you can't put any more people in a 10' x 10' space than can actually stand there can you?

It's just as crowded at the San Diego zoo with a hundred people standing shoulder to shoulder in a given spot as it is at Disney.

Isn't that correct?

So the question is do you have a higher probability of causing injury to others when you're using a device such as the Segway in a crowd at Disney or in a power wheelchair which you've rented?

 

[Gwinfred]

See Below

 

[Gwinfred]

And you expect Disney to hire how many people just to monitor the Segway users, especially when a training certificate would cheaply and quickly solve the problem.

A training certificate would not solve the problem of bad behavior.

The Segway without question is the safest of all of the assistive devices. It's also probably the easiest to learn to operate. There's a whole lot of reasons for that but the most notable one is that its footprint is roughly the size of an adult human being. People who operate scooters (particularly rented ones) typically aren't familiar with where their wheels are and run over someone's foot or because they're out of someone's eye level tripping someone who's unaware that they've come in to close proximity to them.

Your concern with the Segway is its ability to travel at a faster rate of speed than the scooter. While the Segway doesn't travel as fast as a human being I will agree that it has the ability to travel faster than most scooters. It also has the ability to travel at a variety of speeds from zero to 12 1/2 miles per hour.

So your concern is that someone would exhibit bad behavior and operate the Segway faster than they should in a crowded area. The solution for that is if they are exhibiting dangerous behavior they're ejected.

Training does not prevent bad behavior.

 

[asquare]

I am 45, have Parkinson's, and have owned a Segway for over a year. It is a part of my everyday life and has given me the opportunity to continue to live an active life. I take it all over Atlanta, whether shopping, going to my son's school or to church. The State of Georgia doesn't consider the Segway a "motorized" vehicle. I have been to Las Vegas twice and gone to all casino's (and was only banned from MGM). Everyone else was very accomodating. I have also been to San Diego and taken it all over the zoo and wild animal park(up and down all of the hills). I have taken it through the Atlanta airport (the world's busiest) during the peak travel times and have yet to run over or injure someone. I ride it to the plane door and check it. It is approved by the FAA as a mobility device. I use only the black key (lowest) because I know my limitations and I also have my blue handicapped placard displayed.

I am going to Disney World next month and staying at Ft Wilderness. I was told today by the resort that I may use my Segway on the Ft Wilderness grounds. However, I will have rent a scooter at the parks because I cannot push a wheelchair, and it will cost me approx $40/day, which I do find discriminatory.

I called the Justice Dept over a year ago and was told by their rep that in the ADA there is no approved list of medical mobility devices. I was also told that it had not been approved by any federal agency as a mobility device. The last time I looked, the FAA was federal.

I believe ignorance about the Segway is our biggest enemy, and that it can only be fought through advocacy and education. If we have the technology, why shouldn't we use it? I would think more people have been injured or killed on Disney rides than the Segway.

Thanks for this discussion.

 

[Chuck S]

A training certificate would not solve the problem of bad behavior.

The Segway without question is the safest of all of the assistive devices. It's also probably the easiest to learn to operate. There's a whole lot of reasons for that but the most notable one is that its footprint is roughly the size of an adult human being. People who operate scooters (particularly rented ones) typically aren't familiar with where their wheels are and endocrine over someone's foot or because they're out of someone's eye level tripping someone who's unaware that they've come in to close proximity to them.

Your concern with the Segway is its ability to travel at a faster rate of speed than the scooter. While the Segway doesn't travel as fast as a human being I will agree that it has the ability to travel faster than most scooters. It also has the ability to travel at a variety of speeds from zero to 12 1/2 miles per hour.

So your concern is that someone would exhibit bad behavior and operate the Segway faster than they should in a crowded area. The solution for that is if they are exhibiting dangerous behavior they're ejected.

Training does not prevent bad behavior.

But a training certificate WOULD prevent folks renting one for a few days or hours to joyride through the parks, especially if those classes were free (or maybe a nominal $5 fee) ONLY at a disabled or senior community center, for disabled and seniors, and the free classes required the person being certified to live in the general vicinity (same or adjacent county) of the place that has the free classes. Able bodied folks could pay an safety course fee from an authorized service center, much like auto safety classes. And it never hurts to have additional training, no matter how experienced someone may be, it would be of benefit, just like a driver safety class. Again, a win-win situation.

 

[SueM in MN]

My current job is in the area of something called "Performance Improvement". A good part of Perfomance Improvement is looking at the process the way it is, or the way you want to change it to be. You look at all the parts of the process (whether it is baking a cake, doing surgery, or bringing Segways into WDW) and the places where the process can/could/maybe fall apart or fail. Those "what ifs" are the things you need to take into account if you want success.
So, those who want to see Segways in places like WDW have a better chance of success if you understand the "what ifs". Understanding them allows you to prepare for when they are brought up and also to suggest some ways to deal with them.
At least that's IMHO.

 

[tarkus]

But a training certificate WOULD prevent folks renting one for a few days or hours to joyride through the parks, especially if those classes were free (or maybe a nominal $5 fee) ONLY at a disabled or senior community center, for disabled and seniors, and the free classes required the person being certified to live in the general vicinity (same or adjacent county) of the place that has the free classes. Able bodied folks could pay an safety course fee from an authorized service center, much like auto safety classes. And it never hurts to have additional training, no matter how experienced someone may be, it would be of benefit, just like a driver safety class. Again, a win-win situation.

There is a part of me that tends to agree that what you said above would work.

The problem is the original point that Disney is in violation of the law.

The best I've heard is that they can't comply because Disney is so large it's to hard to control.

That doesn't change the law.

I'm not a big fan of the Federal Income Tax laws but does that mean that I don't have to pay my taxes ?

When the ADA was first implemented my buisness did what we needed to do to comply with the law, and it cost me plenty out of pocket but I understood the need for the law.

As stated in my original post I don't, and still don't, understand why a company with the visability of Disney has not come into comliance.

Regards,
Alan

 

[Gwinfred]

My current job is in the area of something called "Performance Improvement". A good part of Perfomance Improvement is looking at the process the way it is, or the way you want to change it to be. You look at all the parts of the process (whether it is baking a cake, doing surgery, or bringing Segways into WDW) and the places where the process can/could/maybe fall apart or fail. Those "what ifs" are the things you need to take into account if you want success.
So, those who want to see Segways in places like WDW have a better chance of success if you understand the "what ifs". Understanding them allows you to prepare for when they are brought up and also to suggest some ways to deal with them.
At least that's IMHO.

"What Ifs" Are illegal.

Is it the opinion here that we only need to follow the laws we agree with?

 

[SueM in MN]

"What Ifs" Are illegal.

Is it the opinion here that we only need to follow the laws we agree with?

I didn't say "What Ifs" are legal or anything about only following laws we agree with (and I don't think anyone said that we should).
I said if you want to succeed you need to understand the "What Ifs".

Whether or not "What Ifs" are legal doesn't really matter. They are going to come up. If you are trying to persuade Disney to let Segways be used in the parks, it is much more persuasive to have considered things from their point of view and have considered some possible solutions to what they see as problems. If you don't bring them up, they will.

If you are talking about ADA lawsuits, the "What Ifs" will be there too. Maybe not out in clear view, but I'm betting part of their defense would be that they have a responsibility to make a safe park experience for their guests. So, the "What Ifs" will be there too.

 

[tarkus]

I didn't say "What Ifs" are legal or anything about only following laws we agree with (and I don't think anyone said that we should).
I said if you want to succeed you need to understand the "What Ifs".

Whether or not "What Ifs" are legal doesn't really matter. They are going to come up. If you are trying to persuade Disney to let Segways be used in the parks, it is much more persuasive to have considered things from their point of view and have considered some possible solutions to what they see as problems. If you don't bring them up, they will.

If you are talking about ADA lawsuits, the "What Ifs" will be there too. Maybe not out in clear view, but I'm betting part of their defense would be that they have a responsibility to make a safe park experience for their guests. So, the "What Ifs" will be there too.

Sue, it's all about the law.

Any errossion in the rights afforded by they ADA should concern all, what other laws is Disney allowed to break?

As far as the "what if's".......Do you think that one day the FDOT, or FAA, etal, just one day said "you know, it's time to look at that Segway thinggy" ?

No, that was done by people who understand the "what ifs".

The only thing that Disney needs to do is to come into compliance. Nothing persuasive about.

If it's law than it must be followed until it's no longer thw law.

Alan

 

[SueM in MN]

No, that was done by people who understand the "what ifs".

That part is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying the "What Ifs" will come up, no matter what. I'm not saying only obey the laws you agree with. I'm saying whether the "What Ifs" become a factor in the discussion/situation or not doesn't depend on the law. They are going to come up regardless. That's a lot different than saying "Disney doesn't have to obey the laws" , which seems to be what you think I am saying.

And there are situations when the "What Ifs" are not against the law. For example, a hospital can't say "No service animals allowed." They can say "There are specific areas in the hospital where service animals are not allowed" because the risks of outweight the benefits (for example in surgery, or a sterile preparation area - whether it is a patient, visitor or worker). That's all based on "What Ifs".

 

[Gwinfred]

That part is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying the "What Ifs" will come up, no matter what. I'm not saying only obey the laws you agree with. I'm saying whether the "What Ifs" become a factor in the discussion/situation or not doesn't depend on the law. They are going to come up regardless. That's a lot different than saying "Disney doesn't have to obey the laws" , which seems to be what you think I am saying.

And there are situations when the "What Ifs" are not against the law. For example, a hospital can't say "No service animals allowed." They can say "There are specific areas in the hospital where service animals are not allowed" because the risks of outweight the benefits (for example in surgery, or a sterile preparation area - whether it is a patient, visitor or worker). That's all based on "What Ifs".

Sue

In an earlier post Chuck S wrote that he believed that the ADA was a flawed law. I agree with him, the ADA is flawed, but not for the reasons he thinks that it is. The flaw in the ADA is that the penalties for violating it are not severe enough. In corporate America many are not driven by doing the right thing but only by doing the bottom line thing.

If people did the right thing there would have been no need for the ADA to have been passed at all. But the Segway is a perfect example of people not doing the right thing. With absolutely no evidence that it's dangerous to anyone they reject its use inside their parks by the very people that it could help the most. People who have difficulty walking.

And to add insult to injury they allow their cast members to ride around on a device with eight hours of training in front of someone who has been forced to rent a $40 a day scooter to replace their Segway which they've used for eight hours a day for the last two years. They'll even allow you to take a tour (if you're again willing to pay the freight) on one of these "dangerous" devices.

The Disney Corporation has become so Not "Walt Disney".

Walt Disney said about Epcot "It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed, but will always be introducing and testing and demonstrating new materials and systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise."

Unfortunately the Disney Corporation has cast aside Walt's desire for ingenuity and imagination and improving the quality of life for the American public.

It's a shame really, when you boil it down it's more about doing the right thing, than the legal thing.

One last quote from Walt "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing."

 

[Chuck S]

I thought the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation" for disabled devices, etc. It boils down to whether courts would consider opening the parks to all Segways, whether the person had any training or not, a "reasonable" accomodation or a safety issue for all guests, doesn't it?

You still never addressed the issue of how Disney could legally tell the difference.

 

[Gwinfred]

I thought the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation" for disabled devices, etc. It boils down to whether courts would consider opening the parks to all Segways, whether the person had any training or not, a "reasonable" accomodation or a safety issue for all guests, doesn't it?

You still never addressed the issue of how Disney could legally tell the difference.

Perhaps you can bless us with your evidence that the Segway presents a "safety issue for all guests".

Now remember under the law, you can't imagine it or contemplate it, you must have actual evidence of it. And that danger must be associated with the use of the device not the behavior of the operator.

So with that I'm all ears. (So to speak)

 

[Gwinfred]

You still never addressed the issue of how Disney could legally tell the difference.

They can ask.

 

[Chuck S]

They can ask.

People lie, and we have evidence of that with the ECVs.

The device itself, are you serious? ANY device, in and of itself, isn't dangerous, a car isn't dangerous sitting there parked, a segway isn't dangerous sitting there parked, nor is a gun dangerous sitting on a shelf. It is the use and actions of the owner/user that make any device dangerous...the law may be able to seperate fully the device from the use and user, but I don't think a court would be able to at all. All devices rely upon the behavior of the operator.

 

[Gwinfred]

People lie, and we have evidence of that with the ECVs.

The device itself, are you serious? ANY device, in and of itself, isn't dangerous, a car isn't dangerous sitting there parked, a segway isn't dangerous sitting there parked, nor is a gun dangerous sitting on a shelf. It is the use and actions of the owner/user that make any device dangerous...the law may be able to seperate fully the device from the use and user, but I don't think a court would be able to at all. All devices rely upon the behavior of the operator.

Just as I thought nothing but conjecture, c'mon with the internet at your fingertips can't you at least find one example?

Helen Keller may have said it best:

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."