Disney Access??

[IcanGlide]

I know that this subject has been discussed on several fronts, but I was planning a trip to Disney World this spring so I thought I would ask them about handicapped access with a Segway. Here is their response:

Thank you for contacting the Walt Disney World Resort.

Two-wheeled Guest vehicles, no matter the type or usage, are not
permitted on our transportation systems, or inside our Parks. This
includes the Downtown Disney and Disney's Wide World of Sports areas.
Within our Resorts, and on other parts of our property, two-wheeled
vehicles are only permitted on established bike paths or other areas
that allow the use of recreational bicycles.

At the Walt Disney World Resort, the safety of our Guests is our number
one priority. Unfortunately, the layout of our Parks and Resort areas,
as well as the large number of Guests, makes us unable to accommodate
two-wheeled vehicles. In most circumstances, maneuverability would be
limited and other Guests may not easily see or avoid these vehicles,
creating a potential safety concern either to the Guest themselves or
others. In addition, we have no methods to restrain or contain
two-wheeled vehicles on most of our transportation systems, or in
attractions areas.

Epcot and other areas of our World recently began using Segway HTs, as
part of a pilot program across our property. Segway units will be seen
in use by our Cast inside of our Parks or resort areas where Guest use
in not permitted. There may also be cast-facilitated experiences with
the Segway HTs, as on the Disney Cruise Line that are specifically
approved for Guest participation. Cast Members may only utilize a
Segway HT in performing their job responsibilities, after completing a
comprehensive training program. This training covers topics such as
safety, operation and handling, and locations/circumstances where Segway
HTs are not permitted. We feel confident that our training program
uniquely qualifies our Cast to operate a unit inside our Parks and
Resort areas.

I am planning on contacting DRAFT to see if they have tried anything from the Federal Law aspect of it. As has been mentioned before, litigation is expensive. Perhaps a better approach is contacting our representatives in Congress on a massive scale. Any ideas?

Frank

[Desert_Seg]

...Two-wheeled Guest vehicles, no matter the type or usage, are not permitted on our transportation systems, or inside our Parks.

...At the Walt Disney World Resort, the safety of our Guests is our number one priority. Unfortunately, the layout of our Parks and Resort areas, as well as the large number of Guests, makes us unable to accommodate two-wheeled vehicles.
This is why they can get away with the ban. They are banning ALL two-wheeled vehichles, not just Segways, and, if you are using the Segway as a mobility aid, they provide an alternative at no cost.
...Cast Members may only utilize a
Segway HT in performing their job responsibilities, after completing a
comprehensive training program. This training covers topics such as
safety, operation and handling, and locations/circumstances where Segway
HTs are not permitted. We feel confident that our training program
uniquely qualifies our Cast to operate a unit inside our Parks and
Resort areas.

They then provide justification for their staff using the Segways and they make clear that it is in non-guest areas and only in the performance of their duties.

Their regulations don't state that a Segway is banned, only that it falls under the two-wheeled vehicle ban and this is your out. Adding a third wheel, even a non-functional wheel, gets you use of the Segway. Make the wheel obvious, take the letter with you, and then work your way into the park. Any attempt to stop you would be in violation of their own regulations and, in and of itself, discriminatory as you met their requirements and now they are once again banning you.

Steven

[fredkap]

I am not certain that Steven's thoughtful third wheel will work.

I can assure everyone that DRAFT is working extremely hard on this particular issue.

-Fred

[Timezkware Tim]

Does anyone remember the 3 wheeled Morgan? It was able to beat a tax in England on "4-wheeled vehicles" that was targeted at cars.

Steven, that was very astute of you. A third wheel will probably work, but as soon as the 3 wheel people start arriving, Disney will re-write their policy.

I can just see Alan now installing a third wheel, lol...

Tim

http://www.mognw.com/images/misc/194x%20%20Morgan%20Threeweeler-1=mwb=a.jpg
A 1930 Morgan 3-wheeler

[Desert_Seg]

I am not certain that Steven's thoughtful third wheel will work.

I can assure everyone that DRAFT is working extremely hard on this particular issue.

-Fred

Two ways to defeat a discriminatory stance are:

1. The power of the law
2. The power of the press

By banning all two-wheeled vehicles Disney, for now, has provided themselves with basic protection from the law and the press. After all, they haen't created a class of people (a basic tenet of discrimination) nor have they made compliance with the ban onerous.

Now, add a third wheel and you have a slightly different scenario. Yes, Disney can still ban the Segway but on what grounds? It is no longer a two-wheeler, which are all unilaterally banned. So, what happens if they don't allow you in? Why they have now created a class because we have seen pictures of folks on three-wheelers in Disney. Having a class of people who are being discriminated against, Segway gliders with an additional wheel on their unit, is all that is needed to raise the discrimination issue.

I know you shouldn't have to add a third wheel to your Segway in order to use it as a mobility device but...sometime you have to adapt to the rule in order to chagne it.

Steven

[drmarty]

This subject is difficult. I had thought of Steven's approach. I have been thinking about it and am about ready to try it.

Let's see.
Dear Disney, You say these are unsafe BECAUSE they have two wheels. Well I am just agreeing with you. See. Now my Segway is no longer unsafe because I took your advice and made it NOT at two wheeler.



OK. It seems to me that for this to really work we need to reply to their reply and say alright we will not bring a two wheeled vehicle but we want to make sure your letter means that a three wheeled vehicle is OK. Once they reply I will help everybody make little wheely things that hang off.

We've all seen scooters at the park that have those extra little wheels sticking off so they can't tip over.

I don't know but they sure get my goat. But not my dollar until I can glide in.

Heck maybe I'll put one off the front and one off the back. 4 wheels. Think of it. Hey look I'm a wheelchair.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

...

We've all seen scooters at the park that have those extra little wheels sticking off so they can't tip over.

I don't know but they sure get my goat. But not my dollar until I can glide in.

Heck maybe I'll put one off the front and one off the back. 4 wheels. Think of it. Hey look I'm a wheelchair.

Marty

As I sit here watching rain and thunder wreak havoc on the hapless drivers out there (and our satellite system!) I was thinking about this topic and had come up with exactly what Marty suggests....hang one little wheel of both the front and the back of the platform, making the Segway a "tip-free" device and, at the same time, a four-wheeled mobility device.

There is now way in hell that Disney can stop it then....after all, what about all those wheel chairs, golf carts, etc.

BTW, like Marty and others I won't give my money to Disney until such time as they allow the use of Segways as mobility devices for those in need of them. I hope others follow suit.

Steven

[gbrandwood]

Would this same approach work for bicycles with one or two stabilisers added? I don't think so. You'd simply be stopped on the way in.

[Tarkus]

I am not certain that Steven's thoughtful third wheel will work.

I can assure everyone that DRAFT is working extremely hard on this particular issue.

-Fred

Fred is correct, this is a subject that is being worked on at the moment.

It will though take some time.

The people on Capitol Hill found Disneys policy "great interest".

We will keep you posted.

Be Big,
ALan

[polo_pro]

This subject is difficult. I had thought of Steven's approach. I have been thinking about it and am about ready to try it.

Let's see.
Dear Disney, You say these are unsafe BECAUSE they have two wheels. Well I am just agreeing with you. See. Now my Segway is no longer unsafe because I took your advice and made it NOT at two wheeler.



OK. It seems to me that for this to really work we need to reply to their reply and say alright we will not bring a two wheeled vehicle but we want to make sure your letter means that a three wheeled vehicle is OK. Once they reply I will help everybody make little wheely things that hang off.

We've all seen scooters at the park that have those extra little wheels sticking off so they can't tip over.

I don't know but they sure get my goat. But not my dollar until I can glide in.

Heck maybe I'll put one off the front and one off the back. 4 wheels. Think of it. Hey look I'm a wheelchair.

Marty

Ditto...I definitely share your views, I'm local and I'm ready to join you. Just let me know when and where you need me (and of course, make an extra third wheel).

OPTA - Did the policy say anything about polo mallets? I find the park personel pause momentarily before confronting a person with a polo mallet in hand.

[Tarkus]

I used both a 3 and 4 wheel Segway to gain access and to be totally honest the extra wheels will not work at Disney.

Period.

Sorry, that's just the facts. I fooled the little but that won't work with Disney.
They are "dug in" to their policy, as illegal as it may be.


http://forums.segwaychat.com/gallery/albums/segchat/Tarkus/DSCF0001.JPG

The top of the photo shows the 4 "Wheel Setup".

We will work through education and maybe a little political pressure, we will see.

Be Big,
Alan

[Desert_Seg]

Alan,

Couldn't see the the extra wheels in the picture. However, my point was more from a legal standpoint.

My understanding of the ADA (and I admit that I might not be as well versed in it as you) is that so long as reasonable measures are made to accommodate a person with disabilities the venue / institution can impose certain guidelines. Therefore, my understanding would be that so long as Disney provides you with an alternative form of mobility then they can ask that you park your Segway, which is a two-wheeled vehicle something that is completely banned in their parks. BTW, if they try to charge for the use of their alternative form then they are most definitely breaking the law.

2. In the letter they sent they mention that all two-wheeled devices are banned and, therefore, the Segway is banned. Are three-wheeled vehicles banned? No. Therefore, adding an extra wheel to the Segway makes it compliant with their regulations and they have no legal stance to ban it.

Yes, they can still say "we aren't going to let you in on that thing" but as soon as they do that, even if they offer you an alternate form of mobility they are creating a class a people (mobility impaired people on a three wheeled vehicle who are not allowed access) and this is discriminatory.

Again, they may not let you in but the ruckus, fuss, and weak legal position are what you need.

Fighting the two-wheeled ban is a long battle and while you may win the law appears to be, unfortunately, on their side since they aren't necessarily violating the ADA by banning all two-wheeled vehicles.

Steven

[Tarkus]

Alan,

Couldn't see the the extra wheels in the picture. However, my point was more from a legal standpoint.

My understanding of the ADA (and I admit that I might not be as well versed in it as you) is that so long as reasonable measures are made to accommodate a person with disabilities the venue / institution can impose certain guidelines. Therefore, my understanding would be that so long as Disney provides you with an alternative form of mobility then they can ask that you park your Segway, which is a two-wheeled vehicle something that is completely banned in their parks. BTW, if they try to charge for the use of their alternative form then they are most definitely breaking the law.

2. In the letter they sent they mention that all two-wheeled devices are banned and, therefore, the Segway is banned. Are three-wheeled vehicles banned? No. Therefore, adding an extra wheel to the Segway makes it compliant with their regulations and they have no legal stance to ban it.

Yes, they can still say "we aren't going to let you in on that thing" but as soon as they do that, even if they offer you an alternate form of mobility they are creating a class a people (mobility impaired people on a three wheeled vehicle who are not allowed access) and this is discriminatory.

Again, they may not let you in but the ruckus, fuss, and weak legal position are what you need.

Fighting the two-wheeled ban is a long battle and while you may win the law appears to be, unfortunately, on their side since they aren't necessarily violating the ADA by banning all two-wheeled vehicles.

Steven

I agree on much, but the wheel ban is ilegal, period and they know it.

Yes, their "alternate" device will cost you, they have charged for it and it's against the law.

ADA also states that any "Danger" a device may present must be that of the device not the operator, and that danger must be real not perceived.

It will take time, that's for sure but as I said those on The Hill find it very interesting.


Be Big,
Alan

PS-Better pic of "4th Wheel" its to the left.

http://forums.segwaychat.com/gallery/albums/segchat/Tarkus/DSCF0002.JPG

[Timezkware Tim]

Steven is correct from a legal standpoint (based on the information in this thread), but that doesn't mean Disney won't risk being sued by someone with a Segway sporting training wheels.

Tim

[Desert_Seg]

Unfortunately, the only way litigation of this type "wins" is via the bad publicity that the defendant (Disney) would garner. Their deep pockets would virtually assure either a confidential settlement or a long and protracted battle.

The plaintiff would have to be willing to a) fight the good fight and b) be willing to get their name dragged through mud if they choose not to settle. However, based the letter posted earlier the battle lines are clear and the plaintiff has a very solid defense / argument.

Steven

[drmarty]

The fact that they didn't let you in at some point in the past is not terribly relevant. What we have here is a ban and the letter stating why. What we propose then is to remove the problem. I agree they will not let us in. That is what we hope. I don't want to ride around with stupid little wheels. I want to prove they don't want Segways, period. So if they say this is the problem and we fix it and they still don't let us in that gives us a huge amount of ammo at least in our opinion. When we try to get action against them we can show that they are capricious (hmm is that the right word?) that is selecting us for no reason.

We keep hearing that SOMETHING is going on from DRAFT but see no proof of this. I am sorry and I appreciate all that anyone does, but they just keep saying something is coming. We can't say anything. Yada yada yada. So if there is something and for some reason it needs to be kept quiet then Draft should let some other people "in on it" and just ask for cooperation. We all want similar things. Maybe not the same but probably close.

I expect this is not what some want to hear but there it is.

Marty

[BillPaxton]

I know I'll get hammered for this but: They aren't violating any ADA legislation. My wife (at the time fiance) lived in Longwood (about 15 minutes from Epcot) until we married. We had annual passes and went either there or Islands of Adventure just about every week. The facts are, the ADA guarantees a "reasonable" accomodation to disabled Americans. If you approach on a Segway, they will stop you (same as if you show up with a pet, or a bike, or whatever) and tell you that it may not enter their grounds. If you choose to state that you are disabled they will (I have seen firsthand) immediately offer you a wheelchair, at no cost to disabled people (different story for non-handicapped motion deprived people such as broken leg in cast or pregnant, they must rent them) and off you go. Each and every ride / store / restaraunt is accessible and they even in most cases will wheel you to the front of the line and stop the ride for you to embark/disembark.
Everyone here realizes that the Segway is a better mobility tool and gives our disabled the ability to be upright, mobile, self-sufficient and more in control of themselves than if they were in a wheelchair. But the ADA does not guarantee you the right to use the best tool available, it just guarantees that they must provide a reasonable accomodation to you, which any ADA lawyer will tell you they absolutely do (I work for a large lawfirm that specializes in Labor law and we have discussed this a few times).
So they don't have to let you use a Seg as long as they offer a free ride in their chair. But Why don't they allow them? I speculate it is the height. Disney was built mainly for kids. Lots and lots of kids there - so much so that I will flatly refuse to go to Magic Kingdom ever again regardless of the circumstance. Like it or not, even a slow moving person of average height on a Segway is still perceived as a 300 lb giant, particularly if your vantage point comes from 4 feet from the pavement as your average child. If I were walking down a cobblestone street and what appeared to me to be a 15 foot tall metal and plastic device came at me at 6 mph, and I couldn't anticipate which way I thought it was going to turn, I would probably duck and cover, even if the operator yelled down to me that it was perfectly safe and it couldnt hurt me. That's what it must look like to a kid with his $14 ice cream cone dribbling down his arm. I think that perspective is why Disney says no.
Personally, I think on average, the majority of things that operate on two wheels do not belong in a crowded theme park. I don't think a seg is one of them, but I know I would be totally ticked if some teenager grazed my arm at 12mph as he skates by me on his blades. I get bumped enough by peds there (and yes, once I was actually knocked out of line by an inattentive electric wheelchair operator). A wheelchair may be slower and shorter, but it also doesn't cause people to stop in their tracks or knock into someone as they try to get out of the way. We've all seen that reaction, I saw it just last night as I went to get the mail and although I slowed and went from the sidewalk to the grass the peds in front of me walked in an arc through the grass on the other side of the sidewalk because they weren't familiar with my extent of control or limitations of my device.

[polo_pro]

1. Disney is being hypocritical by having guests use segways in the park as part of one of their "rides". I understand their argument about "supervision", however IMO it boxes them into a corner. By allowing the use of segway under some condition should open the door for any disabled guest to demonstrate compency and be offered "equal access". Now, this may result in Disney only changing their policy so that disabled guests on their own segway can participate in only that one "ride", but I think this is a big leap forward (down a slippery slope for Disney, eh?).

2. If DRAFT is doing something already along these lines, I see no reason that others shouldn't take their own steps in pursuing a change to Disney's policy. I for one am not disabled, and thus DRAFT doesn't necessarily look out for my interests. Thus, I should probably pursue my own legal action so that as Disney caves under DRAFTs pressure, they go one step further and allow all segway riders access to their property (perhaps under the condition that their "guides" verify our gliding abilities in tight spaces/crowds...and I wouldn't mind paying a fee for that service).

ps - One consequence that all of this may have is Disney might stop their segway "ride". I'm sure folks at Segway INC would not like to see that happen, since perhaps 10% of all sales for the last 5 years originate from Disney's segway "ride". However, as usual, Segway INC is silent on the matter, so I feel we have every reason to push ahead. Hopefully, they'll chime in before considerable expense has been spent in the courts.

OPTA - Maybe if I pursue this matter legally, Disney will try to buy me off by creating a new type of segway "ride". The Segway Polo "ride"! Of course, they'll need someone to organize, teach and even lead this...OK, maybe this is more of a OPFA (Obligatory Polo Fantasy Attempt)...I don't have a cast-member "personality". 8^) 8^) 8^)

[Timezkware Tim]

...Why don't they allow them? I speculate it is the height. Disney was built mainly for kids. Lots and lots of kids.

Like it or not, even a slow moving person of average height on a Segway is still perceived as a 300 lb giant, particularly if your vantage point comes from 4 feet from the pavement as your average child...

Disney imagines the worst case scenario: a 12 year old grabbing a Segway and fatally running over some toddler. They don't allow bikes, so the able bodied may be out of luck for a while, but DRAFT has a case, I'm sure they will be ready to challenge Disney at some point soon if Disney doesn't change their policy. JMO.



Tim

[BillPaxton]

1. Disney is being hypocritical by having guests use segways in the park as part of one of their "rides".
I disagree. The park offers four glide times for their two our ride; the hours of operation are prior to the opening of the park. The last time (9:30) has its final hour circling the World Showcase which does not open until noon. Their concern is likely from lawsuits of peds who have been struck moreso than gliders who are injured (and signed a waiver of indemnity no doubt), so if there is no one to hit there is no disparity. I think you are right that the best you could hope to get is that they would allow you to enter the park for a reduced rate (say $65 as opposed to the $85 they charge) for a two hour tour period on your own Segway, provided you check out of the park on or before the last time that their tours end.
I don't see the hypocrisy. I do see the need for a Seg Polo ride!!

But again, legally I don't thing you have a wheel to balance on.

[BillPaxton]

but DRAFT has a case,
What is the basis of their case? Disney provides a reasonable accomodation...I can't see any violation except of ticking people off that want to be self-reliant. I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong.

[Desert_Seg]

Bill,

You are partially right. Non-mobility impaired individuals have no chance to ride a Segway within the park, regardless of a two-wheel ban or not. There is no inherent right to glide.

However, on the ADA side, the story is completely different. According to the letter from Disney (if it stands as their justification) they have established a clear line in the sand. Their Segway ban is based (according to the letter) on it being a two-wheeled vehicle, nothing more. If you had a third wheel it then no longer falls under that descriptor and, therefore, can no longer be banned under the two-wheeled reasoning.

Yes, Disney can then set a new bar BUT they cannot do so by creating a new class of people (that is discrimination). They can only do so for documented safety reasons and / or by establishing a regulation that does not unfairly burden a person who might normally use a Segway (a mobility impaired person, that is).

Since we know that they allow three-wheeled vehicles as mobility aids then a Segway with three wheels has to be allowed, even if they offer the glider a free alternative form of transport. They cannot ban a Segway "because"...they have to have firm, documented, and supportable arguments.

Also, I doubt they will ever offer / allow the non-mobility impaired Segway owner to bring their Segway into the park. Liability is just way too high and there is no reason for them to endure the risk. I, for one, think it would be a stupid move, much as I think allowing non-mobility impaired individuals to ride in malls is a foolish idea.

Steven

[BillPaxton]

However, on the ADA side, the story is completely different. According to the letter from Disney (if it stands as their justification) they have established a clear line in the sand. Their Segway ban is based (according to the letter) on it being a two-wheeled vehicle, nothing more. If you had a third wheel it then no longer falls under that descriptor and, therefore, can no longer be banned under the two-wheeled reasoning.
Banning two wheel vehicles is not an ADA violation, and if they randomly said they were banning vehicles with fewer than 8 wheels it still would not be discriminitory and not actionable against the ADA as long as provision was made to assist the disabled..You are not "creating a new class of people" by saying "with two wheels", you are just establishing a standard to which less than the standard is cause for restriction. You can't say Disney is discriminating against short people for having signs of Dopey the Dwarf saying "you must be this tall to ride". You also can't assume a right exists because it is not implicitely denied, for example, you most likely would be denied entrance if you try to enter on a 10-speed equipped with training wheels. The training wheels do not alter the base construction of a device which is banned. That would be like trying to enter a civil court carrying a large knife and trying to tell the bailiff it is a cooking utensil and not a weapon.


I, for one, think it would be a stupid move, much as I think allowing non-mobility impaired individuals to ride in malls is a foolish idea.

StevenAnd I totally agree with you

Bill

[Tarkus]

What is the basis of their case? Disney provides a reasonable accomodation...I can't see any violation except of ticking people off that want to be self-reliant. I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong.

OK gentleman,

Time for us is of the essence and we are extremely busy fighting these types of battles on Capitol Hill, where true change can be brought about, to play "Legal Eagle" time after time on the Internet.

So if this post offends anyone, so be it.


There is little doubt in the views of most attorneys who we have discussed the issue with, including those in civil rights divisions of several agencies of the federal government, including Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, EEOC and many others that Disney's policy is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.



The telltale sign of someone who lacks a real knowledge of the ADA, especially an attorney or someone who espouses to know the ins and outs of the provisions and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act, is the moment they utter the phrase "reasonable accommodation" in connection with the protections afforded in Title III of the ADA.



Reasonable accommodation is a concept which is used in conjunction with employment protections offered in Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It has little or no application to Title III issues.



In Title III of the ADA the concept which is used is, reasonable modification of policies, practices, and procedures, by the place of public accommodation, Disney in this instance, which requires them, not people with disabilities, to modify their policies practices and procedures to accommodate people with disabilities.



Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, LLC decision not to permit the use of Segways by qualified people with disabilities within their parks is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in the case of those venues located within the State of California, the UNRUH Civil Rights Act.

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, LLC requirement of the use of motorized wheelchairs or scooters for guests with mobility related disabilities does not satisfy the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act nor the UNRUH Civil Rights Act.

The motorized wheelchair is a medical device and a mobility device which is necessary and appropriate for those with disabilities when prescribed by a physician.

Its use by many of those with disabilities which are mobility-related in lieu of a stand-up mobility device is neither appropriate nor safe unless prescribed by a physician, and only then when designed specifically to accommodate their body shape and size.

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, LLC requirement that people with mobility related disabilities use the motorized wheelchair or scooter provided, in lieu of a stand-up mobility device, not only is a violation of the ADA and UNRUH, but also violates state and federal law with regard to the practice of medicine without a license.

The Segway is among the, if not the safest, mobility device on the market today. There is not in existence today one single reported incident of a person with disabilities using a Segway as an assistive device having caused injury to any other bystander. The same claim cannot be made about the use of other assistive devices such as power wheelchairs and scooters, even in Disney’s own Parks.

It is not permissible under federal law for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, LLC to imagine or contemplate a danger. The use of the Segway by their "cast members" inside their Parks is clear and convincing evidence that the Segway presents no danger to others when operated properly.

It's all in the ADA, but you need to read all of it and understand what "terms" refer to each title.


So ,with that I will bid this portion of my show adieu. If you like you all can keep "hashing out the what if's" and I will concern myself with instituting the change as seen by the agencies mentioned above.


Be Big,
Alan

[polo_pro]

Excellent Alan! Thank you for spending a fair amount of time going over this in detail for the members of SC. ( I know we could go over to DRAFT and probably find alot of this...but I'm not sure if it'd be explained so concisely in all in one place.)

Rep points for you!

ps - Does JohnM ever chime in on matters relating to disabled use of the segway? I'm wondering if we're likely to hear more excellent discussion on this matter.

[drmarty]

I am amused by all the opinions. Although I can't see where on Earth he came up with his opinion that it is the height of Segways that bother Disney, Bill at least it has a brand new opinion I haven't heard before.

Moving on, I wonder why he thinks DL "was built mainly for kids." I have no idea but feel Ole Walt was a way better businessman than that. Kids have no money. Guess who they make pet food appeal to? Not pets. Pets have no money.

I don't have a clue why DL won't allow Segways or how DL was built or who it was built for.

I like it when we know something and don't have to guess. They say Segways are banned because they are two wheeled. I just don't really believe them and that is why I say put hteir feet to the fire. If that's the reason then (God forbid) a "Q" should be OK (Whatever that Segway knockoff with 4 wheels is called) Maybe we should buy one of those to try. I might know a Segway owner that bought one of those before a Segway.

Marty

[Timezkware Tim]

What is the basis of their case? Disney provides a reasonable accomodation...I can't see any violation except of ticking people off that want to be self-reliant. I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong.
I once thought that mobility devices for disabled people had to be an approved disabled device and labled as such. Alan and a few others here brought me up to speed on some of the DRAFT laws. According to the ADA, devices for the disabled do not have to be a specific approved device.

That's why I think DRAFT has a case with Disney. It may be a privately owned business, but it is considered a space that is generally open to the public, with provisions for disabled people that are required by law. Even if they provide a wheelchair, unless they provide someone to push it around all day, they are singling out the disabled person who chooses to use a Segway to get around, instead of pushing a manual wheelchair.

It's not a slam dunk for either side (Draft and Disney). This thing will wind up in court at one point. There is a lot of grey area in resolving this issue.

Tim

[BillPaxton]

Excellent Post Allen! You are right, I work at a law firm and speak with the attorneys frequently about these issues but I was clearly unaware of the legal definition of "Reasonable Accommodation" and I stand corrected. So let me ask you for more info...The ADA enables a business to justifiably exclude an otherwise qualified individual with a disability because that person poses a “direct threat” to the health and safety of him/herself and others. But there is also a split among Circuits regarding which party bears the burden of proof on the presence or lack of a “direct threat” and there is no resolution on the horizon. Despite the split in Circuits, the Supreme Court recently declined to review a decision by the Tenth Circuit that a former police officer with post-traumatic stress disorder who sued under the ADA had the burden of showing that she did not pose a direct threat to others’ health or safety. Can Disney claim that Segways are a "Direct Threat"?

BTW Doc, the height thing was sarcasm, as was the $14 ice cream cone.

-Bill

[drmarty]

Whew.

Marty

[Tarkus]

Excellent Post Allen! You are right, I work at a law firm and speak with the attorneys frequently about these issues but I was clearly unaware of the legal definition of "Reasonable Accommodation" and I stand corrected. So let me ask you for more info...The ADA enables a business to justifiably exclude an otherwise qualified individual with a disability because that person poses a “direct threat” to the health and safety of him/herself and others. But there is also a split among Circuits regarding which party bears the burden of proof on the presence or lack of a “direct threat” and there is no resolution on the horizon. Despite the split in Circuits, the Supreme Court recently declined to review a decision by the Tenth Circuit that a former police officer with post-traumatic stress disorder who sued under the ADA had the burden of showing that she did not pose a direct threat to others’ health or safety. Can Disney claim that Segways are a "Direct Threat"?

BTW Doc, the height thing was sarcasm, as was the $14 ice cream cone.

-Bill



III-3.8000 Direct threat. A public accommodation may exclude an individual with a disability from participation in an activity, if that individual's participation would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The public accommodation must determine that there is a significant risk to others that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by reasonable modifications to the public accommodation's policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of appropriate auxiliary aids or services. The determination that a person poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability; it must be based on an individual assessment that considers the particular activity and the actual abilities and disabilities of the individual.


The individual assessment must be based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical evidence, or on the best available objective evidence, to determine --


1) The nature, duration, and severity of the risk;


2) The probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and


3) Whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate or eliminate the risk.


Such an inquiry is essential to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear, while giving appropriate weight to legitimate concerns, such as the need to avoid exposing others to significant health and safety risks. Making this assessment will not usually require the services of a physician. Sources for medical knowledge include public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institutes of Health, including the National Institute of Mental Health.

End.



So the answer to the question is no, Disney may not claim the Segway as a direct threat, but may be able to claim a particular person is.

So the blanket "Segway Ban" still doesn't fly, and as I've said a million times, Disney knows that.

Be Big,
Alan

[polo_pro]

Alan, once again thanks for clarifying and educating us. Too many of us don't take the time to visit DRAFT and learn these things. I appreciate that you take the time to give us excellent information regarding segways and disabilities.

I read SC just for threads like these (where informed individuals chime in giving definitive answers).

[IcanGlide]

Thanks Bill for your last post, I read your earlier posts and got a bit bent out of shape, but had to leave before Alan and the others posted replies, and they all helped me to calm down a bit. Now the issue at hand and the reason I started this thread is this: access for handicapped individuals with Segways. All I have ever known is the handicap that I have now, the result of viral encephalitis at the age of 18 months. Life has been a struggle of varying degrees but I have, with great determination, earned my own living. Walking has always been very frustrating for me and when I first saw a Segway, I knew I would own one for myself. I now do, and my entire life has been transformed. I can go practically anywhere just as easy as everyone else and I don't get the "freak" stares anymore, they have been replaced by the "cool" stares. Unless you have a disability you have no idea what it is like trying to get around this fast paced world. To try and identify with us would be like Donald Trump telling a homeless person that he "feels their pain". It's also like trying to compare cheese to chalk.

It is also frustrating for someone to jump in with the "12 year old Seg rider tearing around the park analogy". Again, cheese to chalk. I'm 46 years old, I've had my Segway since May of '06, and no one has ever had to dodge me, nor a child have to run from me because he could not tell which direction I would be going. I operate at walking speed when I am in a crowd, because that is what I have wanted to do all of my life, keep up with people.

Now for the part that really angers me. To infer that WDW or DL has satisfied the requirements with the ADA by "accomodating me with a wheelchair" smacks of the same treatment of having black and white water fountains, restrooms, or "you can ride the bus, you just have to sit in the back". They were accomodated then, but it was wrong. Every fiber in my body has resisted a wheelchair and I refuse to be forced into one. Like Alan has said, there is no other more controllable mobility device on this planet than a Segway, and disabled people should be allowed to use one as a mobility device. I'm not talking about rollerblades, rollerskates, skateboards, bicycles, or Aunt Lucy's Edsel, I'm only talking about Segways. I have no desire to motor around dodging butt-cracks all day.

I'm new to this forum and until, my Wal-Mart incident, never had a problem. It has been resolved and I have gone into that same store twice since then with no problem. Having that problem has opened my eyes to the people of DRAFT and the hurdles they have already overcome for people like me. I am now a part of DRAFT and my intent with my original post was to find out what to do next. I can write letters, dial a phone, and YELL very loudly. The same determination that has got me this far wants to join forces with everybody else and win this thing in a logical and legal manner. I just simply want to know what to do and where to sign up. If someone can't see the issue from a handicapped person's perspective, then they have their oar in the wrong boat.

The issue remains access to handicapped people with Segways.

Frank

[Tarkus]

Frank,

Your thread has allowed an open conversation of a complicated subject.

We at DRAFT promote self advocacy. That's not to say we won't or don't get involved on a "case by case" basis, but as an all volunteer 501c our time and resources are limited.

It is our goal to work from the top down while providing the documents and information to help each of us with our access issues.

Your work at your local WallyWorld is proof of how much each of us can do.
Well done.

We are all our own best advocates and you have shown that well.

So if we all make ourselves visible and are prepared for the inevidable questions we will "tear down the wall" one stone at a time.

You can rest assured we are doing all we can on this from a controlled, well thought out course of action.

When dealing with this type of matter that takes some time.

Write letters to Disney, can't hurt.

If you would like to have some fun and do some educating at the same time, find a local Mall run by Simon and try your hand there.

Results have varied wildly !

Be Big,
Alan

[IcanGlide]

Thanks Alan, I appreciate it. I have already sent a response to Disney World, but it will be a few days before I get a response. Next week I will be taking it to the next level, however, I will not be chaining myself to their gates. It just gets frustrating at times for some to take off to the "nth" degree with something like this. I'm not dropping this, and I will keep you informed.

Thaks for your work.

Frank

[BillPaxton]

Thank you both for all of the input - I am really not being negative, just trying to understand. Allan makes great points, ones that I never thought of. Happy to be wrong in this case!

Bill

oh, and I am sorry to have upset anyone, it was not my intent!!

[Tarkus]

Thank you both for all of the input - I am really not being negative, just trying to understand. Allan makes great points, ones that I never thought of. Happy to be wrong in this case!

Bill

oh, and I am sorry to have upset anyone, it was not my intent!!

Bill,

I never took your comments as any kind of personal or negative attack.
As I said this , as all legal issues, are complex. More then I could handle without help from our legal team.

I appreciate the open conversation.

Be Big,
Alan

[drmarty]

The more we hash things out here, the better prepared we will be if and when we need to respond outside of this forum. If we don't understand it we can't help anyone else understand our problem or position.

Good discussion.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Bill,

I think we are saying the same thing but you're missing my point.

In very simple terms, when you make a rule or establish a standard based on a "class of people" you are being discriminatory, either against that class or against the people not in that class.

But, if you create a rule that creates no unique class of people than you are, in most cases, not discriminatory.

I believe that Disney has tried to skirt the ADA by using the "all two wheeled vehicles are banned" justification. This means that they have not burdened a specific and unique group of people (e.g. people riding Segways can't come into the park) but rather have created a rule based on ????? of all two-wheeled vehicles.

The ???? is Disney's justification as to why two-wheeled vehicles are banned. My guess is that they will use safety as their weapon of choice. Yes, we, the frequent gliders, know that the Segway is extremely safe BUT there are enough bans / restrictions placed on the Segway the Disney can get away with it and, if I were a betting man, I'd guess that they would likely win in court.

Now, by adding a third or fourth wheel (which after more thought and some discussion around the table last night we've decided that it has to be functional) the Segway no longer falls under the blanket two-wheeled ban imposed by Disney.

Yes, as I, and you, have said, this is a stretch but if the wheels are functional (and they would need to be both fore and aft) then Disney has no leg to stand on. BTW, you can't use the analogy of the knife as you haven't made a material change to the knife, just tried to change it's name.

Again, to be clear, I don't support Disney's Segway position as it applies to people with mobility issues but strongly support their position as it applies to anybody else.

Steven

[Tarkus]

We just need Disney to abide by the law.

See post 24 of this thread.
No smoke, no mirrors.

Be Big,
Alan

PS-I case anyone missed it, please read the "gliding the Halls of power" thread in this section, it will give some idea of what we are up to. Thanks again Will.

[Desert_Seg]

Alan,

Title III of the ADA allows an institution to provide alternative aids which I believe that Disney does by offering you (I've been told) a FoC wheelchair.

Do I think this is the right approach? No. But do I think that Disney is in compliance with the law? Yes, providing that they are uniform in applying their stance and provide an alternative for those they "kick off" their Segways.

This is a critical, and interesting, "battle" as the outcome could set the standard for many organizations, from malls to other parks.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

We just need Disney to abide by the law.

See post 24 of this thread.
No smoke, no mirrors.

Be Big,
Alan

I agree 100%...and I should read all posts before I start posting!

Steven

[KSagal]

I agree with Alan (Tarkus) on this, and have come to realize the validity of his position thru the education that I have been receiving on this thread and others, but an interesting tangent has come up that I would like to explore.

The comment was made regarding trying to negotiate around the "rule" about a ban on all 2 wheel vehicles. (Let's set aside that that rule has no bearing on the ADA compliance...)

Comments were made about the fact that in trying to get around this law, wheels would have to be added, both fore and aft. Also that they should be functional.

I would ask, why? We have all seen large tractor trailers, that have a "Hanging axle" that only engages when a certain payload is used, and spend most of their time off the road. Would anyone argue that they are not legitimate parts of the truck? What about airplanes? THey have wheels that retract, because when the airplane is acting like an airplane (Flying) they are not needed, but when acting like a bus (taxiing) they are. When retracted, are they not part of the plane?

I bring up these arguments for a specific purpose. I saw a modified segway several years ago, that had a seg seat and was designed for a person who had severe mobility issues. This design had casters, or rollers or small wheels, what ever you want to call them, but they were several inches above grade, and to my knowledge, only ever would touch anything if the seg ran out of power. This was back in the NiMH days, and my guess is that the glider presumed they may not be able to get off in time, in the event of an unexpected emergency shut-down.

So, having wheels somewhere, but not on the road, may or may not have anything to do with complying or not complying with this rule which may or may not have any bearing on this or other argument....

[Desert_Seg]

Karl,

Those wheels you mention are functional, just not integral to the operation of the Segway. The wheels I'm thinking of are similar to those you describe, that only become "activated" when the Segway either leans too far forward or too far aft.

Steven

[cmonkey]

Any wheels added to the segway could prove potentially more dangerous.

If you added casters in a fixed position (fore & aft), you could seriously impede hard braking capability.

If you could only tilt back, say, less than a third of the tilt angle you would use in a normal braking maneuver (if the casters were set too low), it would take you a much longer distance to come to a complete stop.

If you were to put casters on a segway, they should be high enough so they wouldn't impede normal function.

Oh ya, and you'd have to remeber that you could never go over a bump that had any significant slope because if the casters touch the ground you could find yourself accelerating off of it, or down a steep hill.... of if you go off a curb, you'd faceplant.

just my 2 cents

[polo_pro]

I think the easiest and cheapest solution is to get a Q, bring it with your segway to Disney's front gate along with your "2 wheel only" letter and then ask, "OK, which one will it be?" I mean, how much do those Q's cost now? 10 cents?? 8^) 8^) 8^)

Now if you want the more expensive solution, I suggest having the casters spring loaded so they can be pushed upward during the extreme tilts of hard stopping and starting where they actually touch the ground. Hopefully this would minimize the impact on the segway's performance.

ps - Has anyone thought to send a followup letter to Disney asking if the letter about "2 wheels" is the complete policy (for the moment as of Feb 3, 2007)? I'd hate to see someone spend a dime on this project only to have Disney say, "oh, no....there's more to the policy about scooters that we forgot to send you...here's the part that covers 4 wheel scooters".

[Desert_Seg]

Ah, but you then don't get what I call "shock law". That's when you use the power of the shocking event to get the law enforced. It works best when the press gets involved and the rights of the someone are being violated.

BTW, we know there isn't a fixed policy on three- or four-wheeled scooters...haven't you seen the pictures that have been posted showing the contraptions that are allowed?

Steven

[Sven]

I'm drawn to this forum because of topics like this. Having carefully read every post, in my view only those by Tarkus and the one by IcanGlide titled "On Topic" stand out. I suggest everyone reread these posts as they speak to the heart of the Disney ban issue. As a disabled person who has to walk the walk on this issue, I have little patience for musings about three or four wheels. It is obvious that those who ponder such "solutions" are only talking the talk. The botom line for me in this matter is the aswer to a basic question: Is Disney's policy right, fair, just? If it is not, then the battle is a noble one, regardless of the law or its interpretation.

[drmarty]

Alan,
That is our fervent hope, to make Disney abide by the law. The purpose of the wheels is to prove to others, not disney and not us as we already know, that Disney is against Segways as Segways. When we show up with what they say is the problem corrected then they have 2 choices. IN or Out. If they let us in we lose. Then what? We all get little wheelie things. I hope not. But I predict they will still block entry and we can prove they don't want Segways. You could do as I mentioned (and others) and get a "Q" or you could get one of those little ride on scooters and put an extension on the handle bars so you could stand up. They already allow those so If we arrived on them but standing then what.

God knows the solution is the law. We thought. That isn't/hasn't worked. Maybe if we hold their feet to the fire at least others but maybe even someone in Disney will see the error of their ways.

David,
No one is suggesting putting anything on a Segway that would be a problem. It is not intended to touch the ground ever. Only to meet the requirement for a wheel. Those little scooters have wheels in back that don't touch. They just keep them from tipping over backwards. We could attach little wheels 10 inches off the ground even with the platform that are "there in case it leans forward (or backward) to stop it just like the other wheels. Are they going to bring out an enginner and tell us they won't work? Quien Sabe.

Marty

[drmarty]

Plo,

See my post #6

This is what I said:

"OK. It seems to me that for this to really work we need to reply to their reply and say alright we will not bring a two wheeled vehicle but we want to make sure your letter means that a three wheeled vehicle is OK. Once they reply I will help everybody make little wheely things that hang off."

Exactly my point. Get them to commit before you show up or they will always keep shifting the field, changing the rules.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Sven,

You might have missed the point. Based on the current information we have, Disney is within their right to say no Segways allowed. To whit:

1. Segways have two wheels
2. No two-wheeled vehichle is allowed
3. Disney provides, FoC, alternative to mobility impaired individuals who are on a Segway

While this might be hard to swallow, based on the above information Disney has not created any form of discrimination.

Now, to test the waters you add a wheel or two to the Segway. Functional wheels that serve to keep you from tipping over, as Marty mentions above. Next, you glide up to the entrance, letter in hand, and try to get in. When they say no, as I believe they will, THEN and only then, do you have a real case.

I'm not mobility impaired but my daughter is. No, I don't walk the walk but she, sometimes very painfully, does. I, on her behalf, push the envelope as much as I can.

Steven

[IcanGlide]

I have been out all day, so this comes a bit late. Bill I didn't take your comments in a negative or personal way either, it just seemed to voice perhaps the mindset of Disney on this issue. My intention was to express how it feels to actually be turned away with no regard to my handicap. I felt this first-hand already, and it was not pleasant at all. The wheel thing is really amusing, but as Alan has already said, Disney needs to follow the law.

I was a bit strong with the latter part of my "ON Topic" post and I apologize for that. We all need to stick together through this. If those of you without a handicap will continue to show how safe and easy to operate a Segway is, we would all be the better for it.

This wall will come down one day, but it will take all of us working together.

Frank

[drmarty]

Frank and Sven,

The point of the extra wheels is to not have to use them. It is not as a joke and not meant to amuse. Sorry. It is to try to focus attention on what is going on to effect change. We are a country of laws. We should follow laws. I agree Disney knows what they are doing or should (Maybe their attornies are telling them something different) and we all just want them to follow the law.

But laws aren't always the solution. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. So far we keep hearing what is being done "behind the scenes" and "on the hill" and who met with whom or whatever. The wheels of Justice turn slowly. Well Disney isn't/hasn't changed after years.

My knees aren't getting better. My grandson is getting older. I want to take him to Disneyland TODAY. Not when Joe Lieberman gets around to us. I want to go around the park with him and ride the rides and not have to say "Wait up, Isaac." or "Let's sit down awhile." His mom remembers me dragging her around Disneyland when I could. I am not ever going to let him see me in a wheelchair. Not because someone at Disneyland for some unfathomable reason won't let me use a Segway.

The wheels are not a joke. I hope to God they don't let me in. That is the worst outcome. Then I have to start a business selling you guys Segwheels. No. Seriously, I believe they still won't let us in and their true colors will come out. This will be more ammunition to get them but especially others to re-evaluate their position and how and why they got there. Even more to show the lawmakers to prove how arbitrary they are being. Right now it just seems they have their heels dug in and they are saying "We are Disney. Inside these walls, we are King and God and do as we please.

No I hope they don't let us in, but the wheels are a serious idea.

Marty

[BillPaxton]

I have been out all day, so this comes a bit late. Bill I didn't take your comments in a negative or personal way either, it just seemed to voice perhaps the mindset of Disney on this issue.
While not trying to offend, being the devil's advocate was actually my intent. Kind of. Most of us here are not disabled and there is positively no way we will ever be able to relate to the daily trials that a disabled person goes through. BUT you also don't want people rushing off to file unwarranted lawsuits and getting attention that turns out to be negative either, so I voiced my concern that although we don't think its fair they may not be breaking a law. I have learned also that sarcasm, when typed, isn't really conveyed very well so I am trying to stop that, but the point is if you file a suit every time you feel slighted America just looks that much more litigious than we are already perceived.
Now after having said this, I also think Alan is correct, but there are different ways we can support him. You can file lawsuits, challenge authority, or write to your congressmen, to name a few. I like the last option because I personally don't like the other two and if you want to know why, PM because that rant would take several days to write and it would be much easier to skype than type.
So again, sorry, because I guess I intended to offend although not to be a jerk but rather to try to get the point across that just because you don't like any particular rule doesn't make it illegal. (Of course then Alan had to prove me wrong on that particular rule, but in general...)

Bill

[IcanGlide]

I too, thought right away about mounting a third wheel on my Seg and trying to get in, but Alan posted the fact the he has tried three and four wheels and they still wouldn't let him in. I certainly despise frivilous lawsuits, but to me, and I may be wrong, it would be a last resort and would probably be a class action lawsuit. That type of litigation would also take years to resolve.

My plan is to start writing my congressmen starting next week. I asked Disney to let me in with my Segway and they refused my request. I am also going to write the more prominent people in Congress that are in other states. And I am going to keep writing until I get action. I've also thought about organizing a day when several disabled people with Segways would try to enter the park at various times with the news media present to film it all and get that image out that way. I know that is a rather expensive way to get attention, but it would let the people of this country see the situation first hand. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, nor do I have the media contacts, but it is just a thought.

Being disabled and denied access is not a laughing matter at all. My comments referring to amusing were mainly directed towards the three wheeled car. It was also funny to me to see how many people jumped at different ideas to follow Disney's rule to see if it could be used against them. No offense intended and I do apologize. We have the law on our side and we need to vocalize our situation very loudly for ourselves. DRAFT has the influence that I will never have, so let them push the area that is best for them. As a disabled American, I can use the individual discrimination I have experienced with Disney to yell until I get it resolved.

Playing the devil's advocate tends to expose the weak areas of our situation and would help us to see things from a different light. I probably should have waited a little longer before I posted a response on Friday. We need to play this thing smart and knocking the dirt off of it is one of the ways of doing just that. I'll put my thicker skin back on and run with it from now on.

Frank

[stinggray]

Something that Disney dose not like is negative publicity. If you get Dateline to look at this from your angle they may just jump all over this. Have the story out showing how much freedom the Seg has given you. Then Disney turning you away at the gate with the Seg but giving you the option of the wheelchair. Now show the day in a wheelchair with all the frustrations of being there in one and O yea looking butt cracks:mad:. This will hopefully put the pressure on Disney. And is you could get in Universal Studios on a Seg that would be icing on the cake. I'm not the best at telling a story but you get the point. Show Disney as the bad guy.

PS Dateline is NBC, ABC's competitor (owned by Disney).

[DarthSegVator]

Back to TARKUS' point...

Someone with a qualifying disability can use any device that enhances their mobility including crutches, a cane, walker, wheelchair, scooter or a Segway. They are afforded these protections under the ADA.

Disney cannot decide to comply with certain aspects of ADA and not others.

Disney's position of a safety concern is hogwash as evidenced by their own Cast Member use in the park as well as guided tours. The claim that their Cast Members receive extensive training is also moot. Someone that uses a Segway everyday as their primary mobility device has more experience on a Segway than a "Cast Member" does, even if the Cast Member uses it their entire shift. TARKUS, QUADSQUAD, SITNSEG and others have amassed tens of thousands of hours each. They are some of the most qualified gliders anywhere.

Disney needs to comply with the law.

[Desert_Seg]

Being the Devil's Advocate here....

Disney is complying with the law.

Title III, Sec.36.303 Auxiliary aids and services.

(f) Alternatives. If provision of a particular auxiliary aid or service by a public accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense, the public accommodation shall provide an alternative auxiliary aid or service, if one exists, that would not result in an alteration or such burden but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by the public accommodation.

Unfortunately is is as simple as that. They are in full compliance by offering an alternative (again, they cannot charge for this alternative).

So, the only clear way in is via the additional wheels. Please note that the wheels Alan showed use were probably not enough as they did not seem fully functional and left a risk of allowing the unit to tip over backwards. That's why I recommend the functional fore and aft wheels.

Steven

[DarthSegVator]

Being the Devil's Advocate here....

Disney is complying with the law.

Title III, Sec.36.303 Auxiliary aids and services.

(f) Alternatives. If provision of a particular auxiliary aid or service by a public accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense, the public accommodation shall provide an alternative auxiliary aid or service, if one exists, that would not result in an alteration or such burden but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by the public accommodation.

Unfortunately is is as simple as that. They are in full compliance by offering an alternative (again, they cannot charge for this alternative).

So, the only clear way in is via the additional wheels. Please note that the wheels Alan showed use were probably not enough as they did not seem fully functional and left a risk of allowing the unit to tip over backwards. That's why I recommend the functional fore and aft wheels.

Steven


Steven,

Following this premise, Disney could choose to ban scooters because a wheelchair is available...or did I miss something.

Another important portion of ADA, as I understand it, is enhancing the quality of life of the individual. Clearly the Segway has no peer for functional independence. Also, standing vs sitting has substantial advantages both medically and mentally for people with disablilties. Even those that cannot stand receive the benefits of the Segway unequaled by any other available means - otherwise they'd be using something else.

Key West has a Segway ban in place, but not for the disabled. Same goes for San Francisco.

To me it is a black and white issue...banning Segways for people with a qualifying disability is against the law. Period.

[Tarkus]

Being the Devil's Advocate here....

Disney is complying with the law.

Title III, Sec.36.303 Auxiliary aids and services.

(f) Alternatives. If provision of a particular auxiliary aid or service by a public accommodation would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense, the public accommodation shall provide an alternative auxiliary aid or service, if one exists, that would not result in an alteration or such burden but would nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered by the public accommodation.

Unfortunately is is as simple as that. They are in full compliance by offering an alternative (again, they cannot charge for this alternative).

So, the only clear way in is via the additional wheels. Please note that the wheels Alan showed use were probably not enough as they did not seem fully functional and left a risk of allowing the unit to tip over backwards. That's why I recommend the functional fore and aft wheels.

Steven


Steven, your not playing "Devils Advocate" at this point you are showing a poor understanding of the law.

I will give you time to show me the case where Sec.36.303 comes into play with Disney.

It may for the "mom and pop" store, But Disney is already set-up for ECV type devices so none of that comes into play. No changes would be needed to allow Segway access.

Your post only SUPPORTS the fact that they are in violation, none of that section would apply to Disney.

Be Big,
Alan

[polo_pro]

tarkus did respond to desert_seg's comments...my further comments and questions were moot after this...plz delete this post

[Tarkus]

Something that Disney dose not like is negative publicity. If you get Dateline to look at this from your angle they may just jump all over this. Have the story out showing how much freedom the Seg has given you. Then Disney turning you away at the gate with the Seg but giving you the option of the wheelchair. Now show the day in a wheelchair with all the frustrations of being there in one and O yea looking butt cracks:mad:. This will hopefully put the pressure on Disney. And is you could get in Universal Studios on a Seg that would be icing on the cake. I'm not the best at telling a story but you get the point. Show Disney as the bad guy.

PS Dateline is NBC, ABC's competitor (owned by Disney).

The Media in general is very "Mouse Friendly".

At the moment Dateline and others are have too much fun with "Pervs" and the war, but believe me that I send ALL NATIONAL MEDIA OUTLETS this type of info.

As Far As Universal, it's never been an issue. I have both spoken with their people at length on this and traded written correspondence.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i118/segforlegs/DRAFTUNIV.jpg

We did not "kill nor mame" anyone on that trip !

Be Big,
Alan

[Desert_Seg]

Steven,

Following this premise, Disney could choose to ban scooters because a wheelchair is available...or did I miss something.

Steven, your not playing "Devils Advocate" at this point you are showing a poor understanding of the law.

I will give you time to show me the case where Sec.36.303 comes into play with Disney.

Gentlemen,

You are missing the point. Remember, that there is a blanket ban on ALL two-wheeled devices, regardless of their use. That is not discriminatory and is likely done under the guise of safety, which is a premise for which they cannot be faulted. The Segway is two-wheeled and, therefore, is covered by the ban. (Again, it doesn't matter how safe the Segway might be, there are cities and, indeed, countries, that have banned the Segway, providing Disney with all kinds of ammunition).

In an effort to comply with the Title III of the ADA, Disney (as I have been told) provides the mobility impaired on a two-wheeled device (including a Segway) with a free wheelchair. That meets or exceeds the requirements of Title III and, therefore, Disney is not in violation of the law.

One more thing, in a court of law, and in the interest of public safety, you would have to prove that the Segway is completely safe. All Disney has has to do is show how it is been called unsafe numerous times AND then point at all their crowds.

Therefore, to win this battle you cannot make it an emotional battle but rather it must be a logical battle. The logic is that Disney has said that the Segway is banned because it is two-wheeled and all two-wheeled devices are banned. So, you must make the Segway a non-two-wheeled device. If you do this, and the modified Segway is then banned you then have a very good case against Disney. Until then Disney can hid behind safety, security, and a two-wheeled ban.

Steven

[Tarkus]

Just looking up "exceptions" and posting them leaves little challenge on my part.

You need to see how those fit into the Disney debate, not just throw them out there, give it some thought.

I need more of a challenge.

Be Big,
Alan

PS-Yes I started with a "winkie" so some of the above is supposed to be sarcastic !

[Tarkus]

Gentlemen,

You are missing the point. Remember, that there is a blanket ban on ALL two-wheeled devices, regardless of their use. That is not discriminatory and is likely done under the guise of safety, which is a premise for which they cannot be faulted. The Segway is two-wheeled and, therefore, is covered by the ban. (Again, it doesn't matter how safe the Segway might be, there are cities and, indeed, countries, that have banned the Segway, providing Disney with all kinds of ammunition).

In an effort to comply with the Title III of the ADA, Disney (as I have been told) provides the mobility impaired on a two-wheeled device (including a Segway) with a free wheelchair. That meets or exceeds the requirements of Title III and, therefore, Disney is not in violation of the law.

One more thing, in a court of law, and in the interest of public safety, you would have to prove that the Segway is completely safe. All Disney has has to do is show how it is been called unsafe numerous times AND then point at all their crowds.

Therefore, to win this battle you cannot make it an emotional battle but rather it must be a logical battle. The logic is that Disney has said that the Segway is banned because it is two-wheeled and all two-wheeled devices are banned. So, you must make the Segway a non-two-wheeled device. If you do this, and the modified Segway is then banned you then have a very good case against Disney. Until then Disney can hid behind safety, security, and a two-wheeled ban.

Steven

Steven,

"AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD" does not support your case, Title III, Sec.36.303 Auxiliary aids and services.


You truly are now speaking out of total ignorance of the law

PERIOD.

I don't care if you are now offended, your last post is full of inaccuracies and "what ifs".

The statement in bold print is incorrect, study further and you will see why.

ALan

PS-I'll be out for a while so work on a more compelling case and I will be happy to answer the Internet Legals". Of course only after checking with "real" attorneys.

[Desert_Seg]

Steven,

"AS I HAVE BEEN TOLD" does not support your case, Title III, Sec.36.303 Auxiliary aids and services.

You truly are now speaking out of total ignorance of the law

PERIOD.

I don't care if you are now offended, your last post is full of inaccuracies and "what ifs".

The statement in bold print is incorrect, study further and you will see why.

ALan

Alan,

You call it ignorance. I call it education as I studied law at the University of Nebraska. I know of which I speak whilst you are speaking emotionally. I also brought this up with my attorney on more than one occasion, the last being two nights ago sitting around the table with other folks.

Just so you know, when I said "As I've been told" I was referring to the various people who have told me that Disney will provide a free of charge wheelchair if you are not allowed to use your mobility aid. I said "As I've been told" because I have not experienced it first hand and you (and only you) have told me they won't give you a free wheelchair. Therefore, I can't say with certainty that they do.

Furthermore, if Disney continues with their current practice of banning ALL two-wheeled devices and their premise is the safety of their visitors, then there is little you, or anybody else, can do do change that short of taking them to court. Considering that in a court of law the safety of many trumps the rights of a few (which in this case would be the argument that I presume Disney would use) I see very little support for an injunction forcing Disney to allow Segways into the park.

I'm not offended, attack at will. Just don't be surprised when this logic is the logic used by your attorneys.

Steven

[polo_pro]

I would guess that every type of injury on Disney properties is thoroughly documented. I'd also guess that after running segway tours for many years, there's at least one case (possibly many) where a segway has been involved in someone being injured. If you agree with my assumptions, when Disney fights this they'll be able to cite specific incidents where unsafe segway usage opened them to liability issues.

I know I did a fair amount of hypothesizing above. And I'm not trying to say any of this would stand up in court. My point is that we do not have all the information that Disney would use in court trying to defend its position regarding the disabled using segways on their property. And maybe we're lucky we don't have this info...otherwise, it'd eventually become "yet another anti-segway story" (YAASS), eh? And trust me when I say EVERY media outlet is going to glomb onto a story that involves a lawsuit, the mouse and segway.

ps - I still think it's worth pursuing this matter. I'm just pointing out there may be unintended consequences (beyond Segway INC losing future sales to their biggest customer). Too bad Segway INC is typically silent on this matter...but maybe they'll finally be coaxed into telling their customers their position in this matter as things move forward into a courtroom.

[Tarkus]

Alan,

You call it ignorance. I call it education as I studied law at the University of Nebraska. I know of which I speak whilst you are speaking emotionally. I also brought this up with my attorney on more than one occasion, the last being two nights ago sitting around the table with other folks.

Just so you know, when I said "As I've been told" I was referring to the various people who have told me that Disney will provide a free of charge wheelchair if you are not allowed to use your mobility aid. I said "As I've been told" because I have not experienced it first hand and you (and only you) have told me they won't give you a free wheelchair. Therefore, I can't say with certainty that they do.

Furthermore, if Disney continues with their current practice of banning ALL two-wheeled devices and their premise is the safety of their visitors, then there is little you, or anybody else, can do do change that short of taking them to court. Considering that in a court of law the safety of many trumps the rights of a few (which in this case would be the argument that I presume Disney would use) I see very little support for an injunction forcing Disney to allow Segways into the park.

I'm not offended, attack at will. Just don't be surprised when this logic is the logic used by your attorneys.

Steven

Steven,

I'm not an attorney, nor did I study law. But to quote a great American:

"You know, America is a great country. It doesn't matter how smart, witty or well schooled your are as long as you can afford people to make you look that way"
Ted Baxter
Anchorman WJM News Minneapolis.


You are entitled to your "legal" opinion".

I will chose to listen to those people and government agencies I spoke of in post # 24 of this thread.

Their attorneys all passed the bar. That is not to say that all who pass the bar are good Lawyers.

Reasonable Accommodations
Direct Threat

Even with a basic knowledge of the ADA one would avoid the use of these terms in the context they have been used here.


As far as speaking from emotion, you have it almost correct.
I'm speaking "with" emotion. Big difference.

I have posted as much information as possible on this issue so I need to move to other things at this point.

I have presented what are the legal facts, and what I have gotten back was conjecture.

You can leed a horse to water......

Do with that as you will, I'll agree to disagree.

This will all play out in time and I have little doubt what the outcome will be.

Be Big,
Alan

PS-Steven, you never responded to what was so totally incorrect about your statement I put in "bold" in post # 64 ? I'll take that as you don't know whats wrong with it.

Now that's an example of speaking from emotion.

[Tarkus]

For those without legal training that may want to read the facts and definitions of the terms used and misused in this thread , here they are.

Title III, Sec.36.303 Auxiliary aids and services deals with a public accommodation's requirement to provide auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to ensure equal access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations that it offers, unless an undue burden or a fundamental alteration would result.

We of course are not asking for Disney to provide us with anything other than lawful access.


The following is from technical information manuals of the DOJ. There is little difference between choosing to use a service animal and the choice of a Segway.



III-4.2300 Service animals. A public accommodation must modify its policies to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability, unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration or jeopardize the safe operation of the public accommodation.

Service animals include any animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Tasks typically performed by service animals include guiding people with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to the presence of intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or retrieving dropped items.

The care or supervision of a service animal is the responsibility of his or her owner, not the public accommodation. A public accommodation may not require an individual with a disability to post a deposit as a condition to permitting a service animal to accompany its owner in a place of public accommodation, even if such deposits are required for pets.

ILLUSTRATION: An individual who is blind wishes to be accompanied in a restaurant by her guide dog. The restaurant must permit the guide dog to accompany its owner in all areas of the restaurant open to other patrons and may not insist that the dog be separated from her.

A number of States have programs to certify service animals. A private entity, however, may not insist on proof of State certification before permitting the entry of a service animal to a place of public accommodation.

III-4.3100 General. A public accommodation is required to provide auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to ensure equal access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations that it offers, unless an undue burden or a fundamental alteration would result.

Who is entitled to auxiliary aids? This obligation extends only to individuals with disabilities who have physical or mental impairments, such as vision, hearing, or speech impairments, that substantially limit the ability to communicate. Measures taken to accommodate individuals with other types of disabilities are covered by other title III requirements such as "reasonable modifications" and "alternatives to barrier removal."

ILLUSTRATION: W, an individual who is blind, needs assistance in locating and removing an item from a grocery store shelf. A store employee who locates the desired item for W would be providing an "auxiliary aid or service."

BUT: If G, who uses a wheelchair, receives the same retrieval service, not because of a disability related to communication, but rather because of his inability to physically reach the desired item, the store would be making a required "reasonable modification" in its practices, as discussed in III-4.2000 of this manual.

III-3.8000 Direct threat. A public accommodation may exclude an individual with a disability from participation in an activity, if that individual's participation would result in a direct threat to the health or safety of others. The public accommodation must determine that there is a significant risk to others that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by reasonable modifications to the public accommodation's policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of appropriate auxiliary aids or services. The determination that a person poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability; it must be based on an individual assessment that considers the particular activity and the actual abilities and disabilities of the individual.

The individual assessment must be based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical evidence, or on the best available objective evidence, to determine --

1) The nature, duration, and severity of the risk;

2) The probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and

3) Whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate or eliminate the risk.

Such an inquiry is essential to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear, while giving appropriate weight to legitimate concerns, such as the need to avoid exposing others to significant health and safety risks. Making this assessment will not usually require the services of a physician. Sources for medical knowledge include public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institutes of Health, including the National Institute of Mental Health.

May a public accommodation refuse to serve an individual with a disability because of limitations on coverage or rates in its insurance policies? No. A public accommodation may not rely on such limitations to justify exclusion of individuals with disabilities. Any exclusion must be based on legitimate safety concerns (see III-4.1200), rather than on the terms of the insurance contract.

ILLUSTRATION: An amusement park requires individuals to meet a minimum height requirement that excludes some individuals with disabilities for certain rides because of a limitation in its liability insurance coverage. The limitation in insurance coverage is not a permissible basis for the exclusion.

BUT: The minimum height requirement would be a permissible safety criterion, if it is necessary for the safe operation of the ride.


So unless information is added that has not been beaten to death, I'm done with this one, but keep those PM's and emails coming in !

Be Big,
Alan

[drmarty]

Also
(after I finished this I see Alan references this but doesn't quote it so I will leave the text here for you to read.)

III-4.1200 Safety. A public accommodation may impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation. However, the public accommodation must ensure that its safety requirements are based on real risks, not speculation, sterotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

Alan has mentioned this before.

Just saying "Lot's of people say Segways are dangerous" or "Have been banned" would not seem to meet this standard.

I read this: Title III Technical Assistance Manual
on the DOJ web page and have started on the whole text of Title III which is here: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/publicat.htm

As Alan has pointed out - All is not what it seems or what we may have been led to believe.

After reading Alan, and looking at The DOJ website, even what little I have, I am more certain of what he says "They are not in compliance with Title III" Alan's points about mixing up Titles I II and III and what is required is important and well taken. Knowledge IS power.


Thank you,
Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Like Alan, my last comment on this post or else we would just keep going round and round and round.

Scary when somebody is quoting an actor on the Mary Tyler Moore show as a "great American"....

What has been posted here is not legal fact. It is the text, or basis, for the regulations of the ADA, which is a series of Federal laws. Any interpretation of those laws is left up to the Department of Justice.

Alan said he spoke to the Department of Justice (his quoted post 24) but the question is...did he give them all the facts? Those facts being:

1. All two-wheeled vehicles are banned at Disney
2. If you are on a two-wheeled vehicle Disney will provide you with an alternate form of mobility aid.

Only Disney can assert why they are banning all two-wheeled vehicles but my premise is that it will be due to safety. If it is due to safety, all Disney has to do is show why it would be unsafe and the onus is on the plaintiff (Alan, the DoJ, whomever) to prove that the device is safe. There is enough anectodal evidence of accidents on the Segway (just to go YouTube or look at the accident reports from Sanibel) to bolster Disney's position. Disney does NOT have to prove that accidents have happened on their grounds, only that they happen, that it can be dangerous, and that there is very little way to control it.

It is also easy to cut and paste the "supporting facts" that you want know, which is why I would encourage everybody to read all of the ADA regulations (not just Title III). One cut and paste that seems to have been left out of many people's argument is the following:

Public accomodations must...

...Provide equivalent transportation services and purchase accessible vehicles in certain circumstances.

Disney does.

So the case is as follows (in simple form)....Disney has a ban on Segways and mobility impaired gliders think this is unfair.

DoJ will go to Disney and ask for their position paper. If Disney's premise is that the Segways are unsafe (and I can see their point) AND they can support it (this, I believe, is easy) AND they offer an alternative form of transportation then they are in compliance with the law (which I believe they are).

Anything else and DoJ might bring charges.

Regardless of how safe Alan and others might be on their Segway the Disney policy has to apply to all. It cannot be exclusionary (within reason, of course) and, therefore, their policy is an big no on all Segways.

Alan and I aren't going to agree on this one and, in fact, many aren't going to agree with me. But the deciding factor could be as simple as the "reasonable man" (a legal measuring tool, such as it where). It could go something like this...Given the points above, would a "reasonable man" expect that Disney will allow him to glide within the park? Non-Segway gliders, the majority of the world, would likely say no.

Again, I wish Alan luck, and will join him in this fight. But (and this is a big but) this is a very hard battle to win.

Steven

[drmarty]

Steven,

I don't see where you come up with the concept that "all Disney has to do is show why it would be unsafe and the onus is on the plaintiff (Alan, the DoJ, whomever) to prove that the device is safe."

Every place in the law that they discuss safety or risk etc. they make it clear it can't be speculation or generalizations. The fact you can find a video clip on YouTube doesn't make disabled people who use them unsafe. Different groups. They can't generalize based on Sannibel Island.

Again the safety requirements must be based on real risks. How many disabled Segway users can they document that have been hurt but more importantly how many injuries to others can they document. You know it is zero. They cannot prove real risk. They cannot pass the onus to prove it is safe onto the plaintiff according to the law. And it also seems they have to make individual assessments rather than blanket bans as they have done. This seems to be what it says.

And....

If they could ban them just because they only have two wheels, we are back at our little wheelie things to press the issue. We are looping. We have come back to this.

I now have to continue my new hobby - reading the text of Title III of the ADA.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

I said I wasn't going to post anymore but you are up early so here I go....

Steven,

I don't see where you come up with the concept that "all Disney has to do is show why it would be unsafe and the onus is on the plaintiff (Alan, the DoJ, whomever) to prove that the device is safe."

Every place in the law that they discuss safety or risk etc. they make it clear it can't be speculation or generalizations. The fact you can find a video clip on YouTube doesn't make disabled people who use them unsafe. Different groups. They can't generalize based on Sannibel Island.

Getting videos off of YouTube or using Sannibel aren't speculation or generalizations. YouTube videos, especially if they can get the actual people testify, are fact. Sannibel is fact (those are police reports, mind you).

Again the safety requirements must be based on real risks. How many disabled Segway users can they document that have been hurt but more importantly how many injuries to others can they document. You know it is zero. They cannot prove real risk. They cannot pass the onus to prove it is safe onto the plaintiff according to the law. And it also seems they have to make individual assessments rather than blanket bans as they have done. This seems to be what it says.

Once the prove their are real risks (again YouTube, Sannibel, the postings here about accidents that have happened) then the onus goes to the plaintiff to prove otherwise.

It also isn't how many disabled users have had accidents. They don't have to prove that....only how many accidents Segways have had.

And....

If they could ban them just because they only have two wheels, we are back at our little wheelie things to press the issue. We are looping. We have come back to this.

Yep. I agree 100%.

I now have to continue my new hobby - reading the text of Title III of the ADA.

Marty

There is a very strong argument to be made that the rights of some people are being violated. But there is an equally strong (and possibly stronger) argument to be made that the safety of many is more important.

Regardless of what we think (we being the Segway users) all it takes is one look at the more than 500 videos of crazy antics on Segways, or the various accident reports, and folks will think Segways are unsafe.

Steven

[joebarnin]

Steven,

Two questions:

1) I can find videos of crazy stunts done by people in standard wheelchairs. Could Disney ban "all four wheel devices" using the same reasoning?

2) Could Disney ban the iBOT, because it can be used in Balance (2-wheel) mode?

Jeff

[IcanGlide]

It has been said many times already, the law says that if safety is to be considered, it has to be done on an individual basis, not on a group basis, regarding DISABLED people.

Frank

[Sven]

OK, people. Since a lot of facts have been thrown out in this discussion, let me add a few. Fact: this is a forum focusing on "Special Needs/Mobility/ Disabled Use". Fact: Tarkus and his colleagues are working very hard to enhance the lives of those of us who are disabled by forcing Disney to allow Segway use as a mobility aid. Fact: While burdened with the task of persuading various governmental agencies to act, they have to contend with contrarians on this forum. Opinion: If you are not an advocate for the rights of disabled folks, why are you posting here? Tarkus and others who are committed to working for the cause need ideas that can result in change, not defenses for status quo.

[Timezkware Tim]

Disney is banning 2 wheeled vehicles. If you add 2 wheels, they will change the wording of their policy to accomodate their needs. You could add 2 inline wheels to a razor scooter and also call it a mobility device but I doubt Disney would let you in.

Like I said, it's not a slam dunk, but DRAFT has a case with Segways based on their real-life usage and what I expect to be a great safety record.

The fact that you can come up with a couple of accidents is not a reliable accident record, it's just a couple of cases. Joebarnin is right. You could also find a few manual wheelchair accidents. The more accurate way to look at safety is through reliable detailed testing such as the DOT tests, as well as the Segway's real life overall record of public use amongst peds.

Tim

[Desert_Seg]

OK, people. Since a lot of facts have been thrown out in this discussion, let me add a few. Fact: this is a forum focusing on "Special Needs/Mobility/ Disabled Use". Fact: Tarkus and his colleagues are working very hard to enhance the lives of those of us who are disabled by forcing Disney to allow Segway use as a mobility aid. Fact: While burdened with the task of persuading various governmental agencies to act, they have to contend with contrarians on this forum. Opinion: If you are not an advocate for the rights of disabled folks, why are you posting here? Tarkus and others who are committed to working for the cause need ideas that can result in change, not defenses for status quo.

Sven,

Don't get your panties in an uproar. Contrarian views do help and, quite often, provide fodder for better supportive arguments.

If you remember, this whole discussion started as a way to solve the issue (or did you forget the extra wheels discussion?).

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

Steven,

Two questions:

1) I can find videos of crazy stunts done by people in standard wheelchairs. Could Disney ban "all four wheel devices" using the same reasoning?

2) Could Disney ban the iBOT, because it can be used in Balance (2-wheel) mode?

Jeff

Jeff,

1. Losing argument. The legal argument (based on the safety issue) is that two-wheeled vehicles are unsafe, not that four-wheeled vehicles are unsafe. You can't mix the two arguments as four-wheeled vehicles are not banned.

2. Interesting premise but no. The ban is for TWO-WHEELED vehicles, not vehicles capable of operating only on two-wheels. After all, cars can go on two wheels too. However, that is a great legal argument / point to bring up. The iBot is normally a six-wheeled vehicle but it is capable of operating on two-wheels. Can Disney prohibit the operation of said vehicle on two wheels?

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

It has been said many times already, the law says that if safety is to be considered, it has to be done on an individual basis, not on a group basis, regarding DISABLED people.

Frank

Frank,

It is on an individual basis. The basis is two-wheeled vehicles not the individuals on the vehicles.

Also, when considering the Segway the ban is against the individual item, not the individuals on the item.

Don't confuse individual with person.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

Disney is banning 2 wheeled vehicles. If you add 2 wheels, they will change the wording of their policy to accomodate their needs. You could add 2 inline wheels to a razor scooter and also call it a mobility device but I doubt Disney would let you in.

Like I said, it's not a slam dunk, but DRAFT has a case with Segways based on their real-life usage and what I expect to be a great safety record.

The fact that you can come up with a couple of accidents is not a reliable accident record, it's just a couple of cases. Joebarnin is right. You could also find a few manual wheelchair accidents. The more accurate way to look at safety is through reliable detailed testing such as the DOT tests, as well as the Segway's real life overall record of public use amongst peds.

Tim

You don't know this as fact, although it is a premise I believe to be correct. If they do that, then, and only then, do you have (IMHO) a case against Disney.

You could not add wheels to an inline skate and call it a mobility device. What is the impairment that prevents the individual from walking but they then can use an inline skate? Common sense does apply.

There is more anecdotal evidence of problems with the Segway than no problems. That is because problems get the press and regular (non-problematic) use does not. If you doubt me scour the internet, scour the press, ask around. How many know that Carlos has been a glider for two years with nary an accident? Then find out how many know that the Segway was "banned" in the Netherlands because it does not comply with the safety requirements or that it was recalled due to a software malfunction?

We keep rehashing the same stuff over and over and over. 'Nuff said.

Steven

[IcanGlide]

I'm not confusing anything. According to the DoT, when an individual is handicapped and on a Segway, the item (Segway) is to be allowed.

Frank

[Timezkware Tim]

You don't know this as fact, although it is a premise I believe to be correct. If they do that, then, and only then, do you have (IMHO) a case against Disney.

You could not add wheels to an inline skate and call it a mobility device. What is the impairment that prevents the individual from walking but they then can use an inline skate? Common sense does apply.

There is more anecdotal evidence of problems with the Segway than no problems. That is because problems get the press and regular (non-problematic) use does not. If you doubt me scour the internet, scour the press, ask around. How many know that Carlos has been a glider for two years with nary an accident? Then find out how many know that the Segway was "banned" in the Netherlands because it does not comply with the safety requirements or that it was recalled due to a software malfunction?

We keep rehashing the same stuff over and over and over. 'Nuff said.

Steven

Actually, I was referring to the razor, which is not a skate, but a (manual) scooter where you stand on a platform with 2 (tandem) wheels. If you added 2 more (smaller) wheels underneath (in-line) it would be a 4 wheeled scooter. I don't think it would bee allowed, but of course, I'm speculating like everyone else. I totally see you point about the 4 wheel thing, but if a disabled person challenged the law with a 4 wheeled Seg, they may be allowed that day, but Disney could change their written policy. Obviously the only way to real foil a policy that could exclude Segways is to take the mouse to court eventually. Disney gets sued all the time, they won't close down California Adventure or Disneyworld over losing a Segway case. I'm sure DRAFT wants to get all their Segs in line (DOT safety study results, etc.) before their lawyers clock in.

(I know you will respond, Steven. You have retired and come back more times than Streisand, Cher and the Who put together, lol.)

Tim

http://www.savontv.com/im/nwimages/turbo-razor.jpg
The Razor

[ArtL]

I wasn't going to respond to this thread since I don't have a dog in this fight... not disabled, and don't live in Florida or California (and doubt TSA will lift the restrictions on large Li-Ion batteries traveling by air) so no using my Segs at a Disney property anytime soon. But of course, I just can't help it, so here you go:

It seems to me Disney's real objection to the use of Segways that is not closely monitored by thier staff comes down to thier liability. Frankly, I think the argument is a bit specious, since Disney theme parks, when you get right down to it, have inherently dangerous things in close proximity to guests as a part of their business model... I'm thinking both rides (large electro-hydraulic and mechanical things moving at high speed) and parade vehicles operating within a foot or so of unpredictable and excited children. Easy to suffer death or greivous bodily harm left and right around there... In fact you regularly hear news reports of accidents or someone dying on or shortly after some theme park ride or another. That is something not peculiar to Disney.

Of course, nothing bad happens to most people because they take reasonable precautions not to get hurt.

IMHO, Disney would not be taking on significantly more risk by allowing Segways in the parks - in fact my gut feel is they would have less risk in allowing an experienced Segway owner/rider - disabled or not - than they assume by renting ECVs to people and turning them loose in the crowds with no real training or experience operating the vehicle. Perhaps a negotiating point would be to provide for people who wish to use a Segway to demonstrate competence maneuvering the Segway to Disney standards (surely they have those, since thier staff is so thoroughly trained), signing a waiver and assumption of liability for you own use (or misuse) of a Segway while on their property?

Just my $.02... I will now shut up on this topic.

[IcanGlide]

Disney's claim has to do with safety and their guests, and they say the people wouldn't be able to see us (?????). Go figure.

And in my opinion, if it is safe for people to walk around, it's safe for me to glide around. I'll sign their waiver, because I won't run over anyone.

Frank

[ArtL]

I agree with you completely Frank. Personally, I think Segways are far safer than those carts... they seem to appear out of nowhere and their drivers are often quite rude.

Now I'm really shutting up :-)

[drmarty]

Sorry ArtL,

I don't think it is any use for each person to come up with their own reason why they think Disney is doing or not doing anything. While you are entitled to your opinion, as they say, it is of little relevance.

We all wonder what on Earth is their motivation but you have no more insight as to their intentions than anyone else and unless they state them, we will not know.

The problem with random speculation is it does nothing to advance solutions. Devising a solution to what you consider their "real objection" is a waste of time unless it is actually their objection. And the chance of one of us guessing what their motive is is remote. At least I know I don't feel I can. So I will try to avoid speculation of the highest order like saying "Their objection is to the height of the Segway." (I know now that was a joke. That is why I can use it as an example.)


And Tim,

We think you are right, that if we show up with four wheeled Segways they will change the rule. THAT is exactly the point. They feel they are OK because they are banning all two wheeled devices. "See, no discrimination." We think however that they don't want Segways and if they change the rule when we show up (if we showed up) it will prove our point once and for all. At that juncture we can show the world (read Congress and the public) and maybe even somebody at Disney that they are Selecting Segways for a ban and should be stopped.

Marty

[Timezkware Tim]

Sorry ArtL,
...Tim,

We think you are right, that if we show up with four wheeled Segways they will change the rule. THAT is exactly the point. They feel they are OK because they are banning all two wheeled devices. "See, no discrimination." We think however that they don't want Segways and if they change the rule when we show up (if we showed up) it will prove our point once and for all. At that juncture we can show the world (read Congress and the public) and maybe even somebody at Disney that they are Selecting Segways for a ban and should be stopped.

Marty

I think they could easily be against Razors in my eariler example if someone put two wheels of any fashion on them. There's no Segway discrimination in that case, just modified 2 wheelers.

The fact is, Disney will exclude what it wants in the name of "safety" for now, and no one will argue with precaution when you're talking about a reletively new invention that is illegal in certain places.

We'll see what happens in the future after DRAFT or someone challenges the current policy. Until then...no gliding into Tomorrowland.

Guess I was wrong about Steven... :)

Tim

[DarthSegVator]

A ban on two-wheel devices is fine, but they are breaking the law by applying the ban to people with a qualifying disability that have ADA protections.

Disney can ban anything they want as long as they don't violate any laws.

[ArtL]

Sorry ArtL,

I don't think it is any use for each person to come up with their own reason why they think Disney is doing or not doing anything. While you are entitled to your opinion, as they say, it is of little relevance.

We all wonder what on Earth is their motivation but you have no more insight as to their intentions than anyone else and unless they state them, we will not know.

The problem with random speculation is it does nothing to advance solutions. Devising a solution to what you consider their "real objection" is a waste of time unless it is actually their objection. And the chance of one of us guessing what their motive is is remote. At least I know I don't feel I can. So I will try to avoid speculation of the highest order like saying "Their objection is to the height of the Segway." (I know now that was a joke. That is why I can use it as an example.)


And Tim,

We think you are right, that if we show up with four wheeled Segways they will change the rule. THAT is exactly the point. They feel they are OK because they are banning all two wheeled devices. "See, no discrimination." We think however that they don't want Segways and if they change the rule when we show up (if we showed up) it will prove our point once and for all. At that juncture we can show the world (read Congress and the public) and maybe even somebody at Disney that they are Selecting Segways for a ban and should be stopped.

Marty
Drmarty - obviously I disagree with your assessment. I believe it is a useful exercise to speculate on potential objections and then develop ways to overcome them, if for no other purpose than to be prepared to negotiate. You do want to go in with a well thought out position, not just show up unprepared. Barring the other party, Disney in this case, being forthcoming on their thinking in developing a ban in advance of negotiation - and I think that the expected reaction is to not be open and forthcoming so as to protect their position and possibly to shield them from litigation - running through this sort of exercise is the only way to discover the weaknesses of your own position and thereby to improve your negotiation.

Business owners (and I am one) do not like anyone telling them how to run their business, and the bigger the business, the stronger that feeling, in my experience. By showing that you are willing to meet their level of operating skill requirements you are weakening their "ban Segways" position. Going in with a simple "ADA says so" position is fine, but as you can see, the corporation just points to all the ramps, the ECVs and wheelchairs they make available, and then some clause about public safety, and then you're stuck in the he said-she said battle of opinions on safety. You may well prevail in court, but you have to get to court first, then convince a judge that you're right and they're wrong. In the meantime, you're out of luck, have run through a pile of money in lawyer fees, and have a headache from beating your head against the wall.

What I suggest - to offer to demonstrate that you meet (or exceed) the operator skill level they require of their own employees, and to go through their own orientation for using Segways in the park, takes that safety argument away. Obviously they would not want to admit that their requirements are inadequate. Better to be seen as a partner with them in reaching a mutually beneficial solution than an annoying adversary, don't you think?

I do think that the negotiations with a large corporation like Disney should be done by some organization, who can go in with a cogent position including some figures showing the benefit to Disney (and revenue speaks loudly to any corporation) instead of by individuals trying to do so on their own if for no other reason than bigger numbers speak louder - saying "we represent 5000 disabled Segway users (totally made up number) who want to come to your business with four or five family members, spending an average of "$4000 each visit" (another made up number) has more effect than one, two or ten people gliding up to the gates on any given day and putting a relatively low level manager in the position of listening to your arguments, however reasonable and legally correct, letting you in and then getting fired, or enforcing the company policy they've been given (and thereby not getting fired). DRAFT is probably the right organization to do that.

[polo_pro]

I do think that the negotiations with a large corporation like Disney should be done by some organization, who can go in with a cogent position including some figures showing the benefit to Disney (and revenue speaks loudly to any corporation) instead of by individuals trying to do so on their own if for no other reason than bigger numbers speak louder - saying "we represent 5000 disabled Segway users (totally made up number) who want to come to your business with four or five family members, spending an average of "$4000 each visit" (another made up number) has more effect than one, two or ten people gliding up to the gates on any given day and putting a relatively low level manager in the position of listening to your arguments, however reasonable and legally correct, letting you in and then getting fired, or enforcing the company policy they've been given (and thereby not getting fired). DRAFT is probably the right organization to do that.

Maybe the best argument is how other local competitors are gaining our collective revenue. If you can show how an organizations's members spent 2.2 million dollars at amusement parks last year, then mentioning Legoland (my personal favorite), Universal Studios, Knots and Six Flags all allow segways allows the Disney management to come to the desired conclusion, eh?

ps - I was hypothesizing that these other amusement parks MIGHT allow segways. I do not know whether this is the case for disabled people, able-bodied people or brand new gliders at these various other parks.

[Sven]

So the argument is: we disabled folks have rights only if we spend enough money? Good grief, are we back in the '50s?

[ArtL]

So the argument is: we disabled folks have rights only if we spend enough money? Good grief, are we back in the '50s?

Not at all... the money just gets their attention.

[ArtL]

Just a thought, but does anyone know if well-known glider Steve Wozinak is (still/back) on speaking terms with Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Bubba and now major stockholder/Director of the Walt Disney Corporation? That might be the Segway-friendly in at top levels of the corporation that could turn the issue, provided all the appropriate stars align, of course.

[polo_pro]

Just a thought, but does anyone know if well-known glider Steve Wozinak is (still/back) on speaking terms with Steve Jobs, Apple Computer Bubba and now major stockholder/Director of the Walt Disney Corporation? That might be the Segway-friendly in at top levels of the corporation that could turn the issue, provided all the appropriate stars align, of course.

Nice thinking...pulling strings at high levels!

[drmarty]

I have never seen Disney worry about money. All the speculation that if we can show them they are or will lose money to Universal or anyone else seems fruitless. They have never shown any indication that they care in the least. They make so much money and have so many visitors that no matter how much you think you spend, they don't seem to care. They are not Ma and Pa or some struggling concern begging for business.

We and our Segways are a thorn in their side and all the money we may spend means nothing to them. If we and our $5000 Segways and all the money we and our families and friends will ever spend there just disappear, the mouse will just go on. They won't be happy or sad or care.

If we want to use Segways in/on Disney property we will have to make them abide by the law, hold their feet to the fire.

As far as "some organization" negotiating with them, fine. They have tried and are working on it. At least they say they are. I keep hearing "something is coming" "Keep waiting" "We talked to Blah Blah on the Hill."

I applaud them, and their work. I would be glad to help rather than wait. But since they don't seem to need our/my help, and I am not interested in waiting until my knees get so bad that I can't stand on my Segway, or waiting until my Grandson Isaac is too old to want to hang around with me and go to Disneyland with me. I need action now.

Marty

[KSagal]

I would not say that there is a 'right' way or a 'wrong' way to slay this giant. I believe that there is room for every one's approach...

If 19 separate people cover the same ground, and make their same individual case to 19 different middle managers who eventually pass the complaints upstairs, and 15 segs show up at the gate with 45 family members in tow, and 3 different organizations make formal approaches regarding segways, and 4 different lawsuits all get filed at the same time, that is good...

I really do believe that this is a case of enough little blows will drop the tree. If one of the many hatchets gets the job done earlier, so much the better.

I believe that this cause is just, and lawful. I believe that the cause against segways in vermin-ville is not justifyable, nor lawful. I believe that how I personally feel will not sway the policy makers there, but that is not a good enough reason for me to give up...

I also have advantages. I love my seg, and it gives me advantages that I do not have without it, but I am not as dependent upon it as some others. I have a personal policy not to give my money to people who do not appreciate it, but DIsney is a place that has the heart of may children, and as parents (Grand parents) we are held hostage to that. I do not begrudge my kids having a grand time with the mouse and his friends, irrespective of my personal feelings.

So, for what-ever it is worth, I say that those who wish to band together and fight for access to Disney should do it. Those who do not wish to work with others, should wage war on their own. Those who do not care which path they take, should be free to move as their situation warrants.

After access is granted, someone will have to tell me why pluto is a dog who acts like a dog, and goofy is a dog who has a dog...

[RAY-NER]

I've had my SEGWAY i2 since Dec. 11, 2006. I have been admitted to three restaurants, the Rite-Aid Drug store, Von's Supermarket, the Port Hueneme (CA) police department, my dentist's office and the 99 Cent Only store!

The liquor store where I buy my California Lottery ticket also has no objection to me on my SEGWAY!

I tried the drive up window at KFC, but was refused service. I was told that they only serve people with a gas driven car or SUV at their drive up facility.

So I went back to my apartment without any KFC chicken dinner!

Strange rules abound in some corporations. I can live with the Disney restriction, but I don't understand KFC where there are no other people to get in the way of my passage in their drive up lane.

RAY-NER

[cmonkey]

you are a pedestrian while on a seg, why would you want them to treat you like a 'vehicle'??:D

[RAY-NER]

Well that is probably a good explanation, but they do need the money badly, so they should make exceptions for us modern day SEGWAY folks. RAY-NER

[pam]

I think the problem started with kids on bicycles who would ring the order bells and then run away. At least, that's the urban legend I heard. So Mickey D's made rules about only doing cars. There may be some liability issues they're thinking of, too. A car slipping out of gear and hitting another car is one thing. Hitting a bike or Segway rider is another.
Pam

[KSagal]

I had a minor issue at Walgreens Drug Store Pharmacy drive thru... We all know how important it is to be able to get drugs with a minimum of hastle... So I spoke with the store manager, and have expressed authorization for that lane...

Many of these issues can be handled by a polite conversation with the facility manager, but some cannot...

The problem with some fast food places and others that hire a very young staff, is that the shift manager is often still in high school. That is why I have found that a return visit to the store/facility manager is worth while. This face to face gives you the opportunity to speak and present yourself proactively, instead of a confrontation thru the glass...

[cmonkey]

Both for the potential injury of a pedestrain in a drive thru lane, and for the safety of the employee as well.

I once knew a gal who had a sawed-off shotgun pointed at her by a walk-up at the drive thru window. She handed over the cash drawer and quit her job.

I can fully understand why the 'no-pedestrian' rule is around.

[Timezkware Tim]

Both for the potential injury of a pedestrain in a drive thru lane, and for the safety of the employee as well.

I once knew a gal who had a sawed-off shotgun pointed at her by a walk-up at the drive thru window. She handed over the cash drawer and quit her job.

I can fully understand why the 'no-pedestrian' rule is around.

It's not a robbery issue, monk. Car drivers can also shoot guns. Peds simply are not allowed in most drive thrus because they can get run over.

Drive thru windows were designed for cars to "drive thru". Walk-up windows for pedestrians can be found on some sidewalks and boardwalks where people "walk".

Tim

[dave]

Gentlemen,

You are missing the point. Remember, that there is a blanket ban on ALL two-wheeled devices, regardless of their use. That is not discriminatory and is likely done under the guise of safety, which is a premise for which they cannot be faulted. The Segway is two-wheeled and, therefore, is covered by the ban. (Again, it doesn't matter how safe the Segway might be, there are cities and, indeed, countries, that have banned the Segway, providing Disney with all kinds of ammunition).

In an effort to comply with the Title III of the ADA, Disney (as I have been told) provides the mobility impaired on a two-wheeled device (including a Segway) with a free wheelchair. That meets or exceeds the requirements of Title III and, therefore, Disney is not in violation of the law.

One more thing, in a court of law, and in the interest of public safety, you would have to prove that the Segway is completely safe. All Disney has has to do is show how it is been called unsafe numerous times AND then point at all their crowds.

Therefore, to win this battle you cannot make it an emotional battle but rather it must be a logical battle. The logic is that Disney has said that the Segway is banned because it is two-wheeled and all two-wheeled devices are banned. So, you must make the Segway a non-two-wheeled device. If you do this, and the modified Segway is then banned you then have a very good case against Disney. Until then Disney can hid behind safety, security, and a two-wheeled ban.

Steven

I was at Disneyland last weekend with a friend who attempted to enter with a Segway. Disney refused his admittance with a Segway with an attached DMV placard, nor did they provide a free wheelchair. He was charged for a wheelchair only after returning from his car to show that he had his DMV handicap ID card. The placard was not enough to prove that he was handicapped, nor was his VA card indicating disability.

[Majestic]

Sad simple fact is that there will always be those someones that will speed around and neglect/ignore other people's space. This would be the case with segways, wheelchairs, and ecv's alike.

Disney isn't concerned with the right people. They're concerned with the "wrong" ones. The ones that will abuse the right/privilage to use our segs in the parks. You KNOW there will be the person that goes red key around Epcot during the busy part of the day that will create nothing but a negative view of segs in general.

Isn't that always the case?

Of course, there are people that run through crowds knocking other people over. Do they get escorted out of the parks? Yeah right.

Lastly, as someone that travels to Disney quite often, I will honestly say that there have been times where I couldn't WALK through the Magic Kingdom it was so packed so I'd doubt that you could do better getting from point a to b on a seg BUT I "CAN" say that even slow, getting to do it on a segway is still better than not doing it at all. I fully understand that there are those that require a mobility device to get around so it has nothing to do with the device it's the person that needs it to get around.

Hope all this made sense. :)

Fred


I agree with you completely Frank. Personally, I think Segways are far safer than those carts... they seem to appear out of nowhere and their drivers are often quite rude.

[Majestic]

Regarding the thought of adding a 3rd or 4th wheel, it's still a 2 wheeled segway because that's what it was when it left the factory.

A bicycle with training wheels on it is still a two wheeled bicycle.

I find it hard to believe that adding an extra wheel will make any strides in the correct direction. Those people at the gates at Epcot or whatever park are not the ones to take up the battle with. It's the top brass that is going to help make strides to allow limited Segway use within the parks and I mean for everyone. I can HONESTLY see NO reason why Disney doesn't allow Segs at Epcot. I CAN see why they wont at some of the other parks.

[Tarkus]

Sad simple fact is that there will always be those someones that will speed around and neglect/ignore other people's space. This would be the case with segways, wheelchairs, and ecv's alike.

Disney isn't concerned with the right people. They're concerned with the "wrong" ones. The ones that will abuse the right/privilage to use our segs in the parks. You KNOW there will be the person that goes red key around Epcot during the busy part of the day that will create nothing but a negative view of segs in general.

Isn't that always the case?

Of course, there are people that run through crowds knocking other people over. Do they get escorted out of the parks? Yeah right.

Lastly, as someone that travels to Disney quite often, I will honestly say that there have been times where I couldn't WALK through the Magic Kingdom it was so packed so I'd doubt that you could do better getting from point a to b on a seg BUT I "CAN" say that even slow, getting to do it on a segway is still better than not doing it at all. I fully understand that there are those that require a mobility device to get around so it has nothing to do with the device it's the person that needs it to get around.

Hope all this made sense. :)

Fred

Fred,

It's not a matter of how crowded a place is. Disney likes to think that they have the monopoly on crowds. I have been in NYC on St. Patrick's Day and the Disney crowd is "a small group" in comparison.

It matters not if they worry about the "wrong group", they are still in violation of the law .

You say you can see why they should not be allowed in some parks, are some above the law and others are not ?

Look, I layed low on the Disney "Magic Meets" thread as it was not my place to go off on the front page.

Bottom line is you have hitched your horse to a bad tree. They ban the machine you enjoy.

One thing I do agree on is the adding of wheels, pointless. I have seen Disneys stance from their "top" and their time will come.

There was a time when I spent far more time then I would have liked on Disney property, so I know about their crowds.

Anybody with the proper skills should be able to Handel it. If not then they should be ejected.

I don't want to offend but your post sounds a bit like "defending the defenceless". Disneys policies on this are invalid.

Be Big,
Alan

[Tarkus]

Regarding the thought of adding a 3rd or 4th wheel, it's still a 2 wheeled segway because that's what it was when it left the factory.

A bicycle with training wheels on it is still a two wheeled bicycle.

I find it hard to believe that adding an extra wheel will make any strides in the correct direction. Those people at the gates at Epcot or whatever park are not the ones to take up the battle with. It's the top brass that is going to help make strides to allow limited Segway use within the parks and I mean for everyone. I can HONESTLY see NO reason why Disney doesn't allow Segs at Epcot. I CAN see why they wont at some of the other parks.

No , the "top brass" will do NOTHING to help make strides. They have made that clear in no uncertain terms.

The "Top Brass" will only comply when forced to.

At that point they will put their PR spinsters on it to make it seem as if Disney was "cutting edge" on this issue. And people will buy it.

They have great PR, ever notice when somebody gets killed on one of their rides it's never Disneys fault?

Or how fast that kind on news "vanishes" from the press. It helps to own the media, and Disney comes as close to that as anyone could.

Again, it's defending the indefensible.

Be Big,
Alan

[Majestic]

Alan,

You are not offending, I'm simply providing my input. The same way everyone does here. I meant to offend nobody. If that's the case, please accept my ever so humble appologies for speaking my peace.

Fred

[Tarkus]

Alan,

You are not offending, I'm simply providing my input. The same way everyone does here. I meant to offend nobody. If that's the case, please accept my ever so humble appologies for speaking my peace.

Fred

No , it's all good. I'm a Jersey guy just like you so I don't offend easy. I'm just a "hard ***" on this.
Sarcasm noted.

Once it hits this page I speak my piece. over and over and over.

I understand your problem with the Malls in your area. Woodbridge Center, Bridgewater Commons, Menlo Park are all owned by Simon or General Growth Properties. Neither is Seg friendly to anyone.

Hope your knees heel up fast.....and whatever you do don't use your cell or text when driving in NJ.......

Be Big,
Alan


Be Big,
Alan

[hellphish]

The "Top Brass" will only comply when forced to.

At that point they will put their PR spinsters on it to make it seem as if Disney was "cutting edge" on this issue. And people will buy it.

So.... sue them already. Who cares how they spin it afterwards. You'll have your access, right? I am sure that there must be more to it than simply filling out a form pointing out an ADA violation, but I haven't been fighting the fight so I don't really know. Maybe you can talk more about what you're doing with disney?

[Tarkus]

So.... sue them already. Who cares how they spin it afterwards. You'll have your access, right? I am sure that there must be more to it than simply filling out a form pointing out an ADA violation, but I haven't been fighting the fight so I don't really know. Maybe you can talk more about what you're doing with disney?

You sir have a very simplistic view of things, "sue them already". The American way, don't "fight the fight" as you said, have somebody else do it for you.

Sue ? That sir would just increase the amount of time it would take to reach a resolution. All you need do is look how long it took Jerry Kerr when he sued the airline for his rights.

REMEMBER HE IS THE REASON WE CAN FLY WITH THE SEGWAY
There were no others willing to step up to the plate.


Are you a person with a disability ?
If your are then you should be out daily walking the walk, being seen , telling the story, reaching out to any media you can find, and refusing to leave the Mall when security asks.

Be your own advocate.

And if your not take notice, the only way AB's will ever get the Segway access they seek will be through the work of groups now working for disability access.


Here's the truth, when someone chooses the Segway as a mobility aid they know what they are getting into as far as these things are concerned, So be ready to be a trailblazer.


What am I doing with Disney and the Malls, I chose not to disclose that information, but I will say that this is being handled the same way any other of these situations are, behind the scenes with people of power.

Government moves slow, and if you don't have the stomach for that fact then use another device.

Until someone else gets it done for you.


Another thing I do is dig deep into my pockets, along with a very small group of others to keep "fighting the fight".

I fly around, make tons of calls, meetings both local, state and federal.
I also help with giving Segways to American Heroes returning from war.

Oh, and yes I beat the drum here. Over and over and over.

With that I have just scratched the surface of what I and others do for the cause.

So there you have it.

Be Big,
Alan

PS-THE ABOVE ARE MY PERSONAL COMENTS AND IN NO WAY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF DRAFT. THATS THE REASON I USED THE WORD "I", NOT DRAFT, IN RESPONCE TO THIS POST.

[Worm]

Bravo!!!!!!