Disney Response Part II

[IcanGlide]

I've just received the second response to my inquiry from Disney that started a couple of months ago. Here it is in it's entirety:


Dear Mr. Sumner:

This letter is in further response to your recent inquiries regarding the use of Segways in our theme parks. As previously indicated, we are unable to permit the use of two-wheeled personal transportation vehicles by guests in our theme parks.

Your contention that our Company is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act is simply inaccurate. One need look no further than the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines to see that the rules regarding accessibility deal with the accommodation of wheelchairs. There are no rules for the accommodation of two-wheeled personal transportation vehicles. Nor has the Department of Justice issued an opinion that Title III of the ADA requires accommodation of these devices.

We assume you are aware that even the manufacturer of Segway, a self balancing, electric powered transportation device, has repeatedly cautioned in various written materials that the device “has not been designed, tested or approved as a medical device.” Further, it warns that the user “must be able to step on and off the Segway HT unassisted, which requires physical abilities similar to ascending and descending stairs without assistance, and without holding a handrail.” Pointedly, the inventor of both the Segway and the Independent IBOT Mobility System (an upright wheelchair approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a medical device) never sought such approval for the Segway.

It should go without saying that those who use wheelchairs and electric scooters are highly valued guests. Disney has long been a leader in the industry in creating accessible and magical experiences for guests with disabilities, designing new attractions and modifying older ones to provide common wheelchair access or transfer onto the ride vehicle. We have shared these innovative designs with our competitors as well as the U.S. Access Board. Our engineers have spent thousands of hours over many years working with the U.S. Access Board in the creation of rules for the amusement industry so that persons with disabilities can have greater access to places of amusement throughout the United States. In our theme parks, we have provided guidebooks for guests with disabilities which set out many of the services we offer. Among other things, these services include information on ride access, Braille guidebooks and maps, audiotapes, accommodations for service animals, assistive listening systems, reflective captioning in theater-type venues, video captioning, and sign language interpretation. We have also invented a handheld captioning system that displays text in attractions so that our guests with hearing disabilities can enjoy the show in “real time.” We offer wheelchair accessible miniature golf courses and accessible slides at our water parks. Electric scooters are available for rent at each of our theme parks. We have received many awards and honors for the measures we have taken to provide services for our guests with disabilities, two of which are the Chairman’s Award presented to us by the U.S. Access Board and a National Access award from Self Help for Hard of Hearing People.

In short, we have a good deal of experience and a good basis for judgment about the best interests of all our guests. And, in that regard, our commitment to safety is also a Disney hallmark. In fact, safety is the first of four quality standards – safety, courtesy, show and efficiency – that guide all of our operational decisions. The ordinary walking speed for an able-bodied pedestrian is generally between two and four miles per hour. Segways can operate at speeds far in excess of the ordinary pedestrian walking speed. Our theme parks entertain a diverse range of guests, including families with toddlers and elderly persons. Some guests have sight, hearing, mental or mobility disabilities. Some use assistive devices such as scooters, wheelchairs, hearing aids, or use service animals. All traverse pedestrian walkways. It has been our longstanding policy to disallow two-wheeled vehicles since their speed and maneuverability compromise the safety of these pedestrians. For instance, toddlers dart unexpectedly towards whatever captures their attention at the time; elderly guests may not be able to move out of the way of vehicles as quickly as they once did; and guests with vision or hearing disabilities may not be able to identify or react to the unexpected risks of vehicular traffic. Two-wheeled vehicles are not generally expected to be found in pedestrian walkways or crowded theme parks. Many states, municipalities and private facilities such as shopping malls, as well as many countries in Europe and Asia have banned Segways and other two-wheeled vehicles from sidewalks and common areas because of safety concerns.

We believe our policy is well-founded and hope that while you may still disagree with it, you at least appreciate our view about making responsible accommodations that take into account the safety of all our guests, including those with disabilities.

Very truly yours,
Bob Minnick
Technical Director, Global Accessibility and Facility Safety

And yet they are safe enough for their staff to use.

Universal Studios here I come.

Frank

[Sal]

Nora and I were at Disney in February, and two Segways (i167s) zipped by us and went on their merry way (they were definitely not on the beginner key).

Again, such hypocrisy.

She and I were both saying what Frank said: "And yet they are safe enough for their staff to use," after EVERY line in the fifth paragraph of Disney's letter.

-Sal

[cruiter]

While I believe it is inherently the parks right to decide provided they do provide other devices such as wheel chairs, their line "Two-wheeled vehicles are not generally expected to be found in pedestrian walkways or crowded theme parks. Many states, municipalities and private facilities such as shopping malls, as well as many countries in Europe and Asia have banned Segways and other two-wheeled vehicles from sidewalks and common areas because of safety concerns.
" in the 5th paragraph implies IMHO, that those that do allow these are the minority. It's just not so!!! Doesn't Unerversal allow them? Don't "Most" states allow them on sidewalks? And don't only a "few" European nations have issues? And don't most of those have the issue under review at the present? If they had said instead, Most states allow them on sidewalks with listed exceptions and Most European nations allow them on Sidewalks, instead of the word "Many", how valid would their argument have been?



My take

Jim

Nora and I were at Disney in February, and two Segways (i167s) zipped by us and went on their merry way (they were definitely not on the beginner key).

Again, such hypocrisy.

She and I were both saying what Frank said: "And yet they are safe enough for their staff to use," after EVERY line in the fifth paragraph of Disney's letter.

-Sal

[Tarkus]

Funny stuff.

We will see.

Be Big,
Alan

[Ronda]

My husband Bob and I are considering a short trip to Orlando to visit our son. Bob uses a Quickie P200 (power chair) for accessibility purposes due to quadriplegia. The Quickie has a max speed topping out at 8 mph. Trust me, it was an honest mistake not to have planted speed bumps in our home. More than once the dogs have had to jump aside as Bob revs up his Quickie to zip from one end of the house to the other.

Within days I'm expecting an i2 who will be christened: "Pony". In my furry little brain it would be absolutely grand if Pony could accompany us for a day or two in Disney World. But alas, the good people at Disney fear that Pony will be capable of galloping in excess of the typical walking speed and therefore is an inherant risk to pedestrians, etc.

Thank goodness there are thoughtful folks like my husband who would never entertain the thought of ramming the backsides of little old ladies or knocking over sweet innocent cherubs while cruising at the full speed capabilities of his Quickie!

Quite the picture in your mind's eye, isn't it? You get my point.

One last little paragraph before I sign off. Great bunch of folks on this board, by the way. Only a mere month ago I signed up for a Segway tour. The guide outfitted me in full gear consisting of helmet plus elbow and knee pads in anticipation of learning how to maneuver a sleek x2. The other four tourists (Taiwainese students) giggled at my glee as we traversed rocky terrain up and down hills and glided our way through a beautiful abandoned botanical garden. The famous Segway grin remained plastered on my 53-years young face. That is, until I learned the price tag of the x2. Gasp! Gag! The initial sticker shock gave way to visions of empathasizing with Ralphie and his illusive dream... a Red-Ryder-Carbine-Action-200-Shot-Range-Model-Air-Rifle. I've worked too hard for too many years, put 101% into raising two kids up right, plus lovingly devoted quite a few years assisting my husband. Adequate rationaization, right? Oh, let's add in a bit of elation that I'm a lucky survivor of 2 cancers plus half a dozen other health concerns. Baldness isn't becoming of a woman. Life is much too short. Age catches up with us much too young. Okay, back to the story. The fun factor of that first Segway glide compensated for the gasping and gagging. The real decision became: x2 or i2? My heart yearned for the x2 with visions of leaving flying dust on the woodsy trails near home. I'd wear a helmet (of course!) and otherwise conduct myself in the manner expected of a middle-aged woman. Well, most of the time at least. Sigh. My head logically insisted an i2 would be less likely to keep my family and friends from envisioning grey matter smatter.

North Georgia, get ready for a new Pony! May she one day glide side by side a black and teal Quickie in the wonderful world of Disney.

[ArtL]

You know, one funny thing is that at Epcot, they now give quick (2 minute or so) demo rides after a short introductory lecture. During the lecture the cast member demonstrates how safe the Segway is by intentionally running into a volunteer from the audience to show that the Segway will not only stop, but will back up.

Wonder if this Technical Director guy has ever sat through their own presentation?

Go figure.

[Desert_Seg]

You know, one funny thing is that at Epcot, they now give quick (2 minute or so) demo rides after a short introductory lecture. During the lecture the cast member demonstrates how safe the Segway is by intentionally running into a volunteer from the audience to show that the Segway will not only stop, but will back up.

Wonder if this Technical Director guy has ever sat through their own presentation?

Go figure.

Art,

That's actually a tried and true Segway "official" demo technique. I use it all the time (I'm the volunteer!)

Steven

[ArtL]

Art,

That's actually a tried and true Segway "official" demo technique. I use it all the time (I'm the volunteer!)

Steven

Thought it might be... but the point is that Disney uses that technique themselves to show guests how safe a Segway is, and that it poses no risk to people on foot. Now, it isn't a big leap to go from 'it's safe in the demo' to 'it's safe everywhere' so where's the logic in the Disney position?

[Ronda]

Okay, if the Segway stops, then backs up if it makes contact with a pedestrian... inquiring minds want to know what happens if the Segway should run into a tree? I'm supposing one's head would become imbedded into the tree while the Segway stops and backs up, right?

Helmets are a good idea for inquiring minds like mine.

[IcanGlide]

The tree doubles over grabbing its stomach and goes "oomph" while you see stars and hear little birds sing. Of course, the Segway will just start talking about your momma.

Frank

[wwhopper]

Then it would be a natural location for SegwayfesT and other Segway related events.

I went to Disney in Florida in 1977 on Spring Break and have no desire to go back, but if I could go on my Segway, then it might be worth seeing again.

[Ronda]

Disney could protect themselves from a liability standpoint quite easily. Simply require a signed & dated waiver by each Segway glider including the understanding that any conduct while operating a Segway which is considered unsafe will result in the Segway in question being placed outside the Disney gates.

Simple enough solution, unless there is an adjenda other than safety.

[polo_pro]

Then it would be a natural location for SegwayfesT and other Segway related events.

I went to Disney in Florida in 1977 on Spring Break and have no desire to go back, but if I could go on my Segway, then it might be worth seeing again.

Ditto...until then Legoland, San Diego Wild Animal Park, Six Flags Magic Mountain, etc will do just fine.

ps - I do like the idea of a Segfest being held at a theme park. Has anyone ever approached a theme park asking them if they want 200 segways going through their park during a weekday (when there are no crowds)? The saavy theme park would even build a media event out of the whole thing to attract more visitors that day!

[pam]

Ah, yes, there are agendas other than safety, among them loss of rental fees.
Pam

Disney could protect themselves from a liability standpoint quite easily. Simply require a signed & dated waiver by each Segway glider including the understanding that any conduct while operating a Segway which is considered unsafe will result in the Segway in question being placed outside the Disney gates.

Simple enough solution, unless there is an adjenda other than safety.

[Timezkware Tim]

Okay, if the Segway stops, then backs up if it makes contact with a pedestrian... inquiring minds want to know what happens if the Segway should run into a tree? I'm supposing one's head would become imbedded into the tree while the Segway stops and backs up, right?

Helmets are a good idea for inquiring minds like mine.

The issue you brought up is the thought behind many people's safety concerns. But this type of accident generally doesn't happen for a reason: It's not about what a machine can potentially can do, it's about what people will do.

A person can potentially run into a tree, but people don't behave that way, even though it's "possible". Segway critics only look at the raw facts like "12.5 mph" and discount the behavior of the operator.

In reality, a Segway has and extremely short stopping distance rate due to dynamic braking and the ability to quickly adjust it's own balance, so you might actually be able to stop before hitting a tree sooner on a Segway than if you were running at the same speed.

Tim

[Tarkus]

Ah, yes, there are agendas other than safety, among them loss of rental fees.
Pam


Thanks Pam, I not able to log on much this week so I'm sooooo happy you got right to the point.

No matter what they say it's about lost $$$$.

Be Big,
Alan

[polo_pro]

Perhaps we're going about this the wrong way. Has anyone sat down and tried to figure out how much lost "rental fee" revenue will occur if they let private segway's in Disneyland for disabled individuals? $50K/year? $100K/year?

OK, now with that number in hand, let's create a petition of segway owners (disabled and able bodied) who vow never to spend money at Disneyland until the policy is changed. How much is this? 10K/year? 100K/year?

The last step is to side step the PR folks and lawyers at Disneyland. They only come up with justification for existing policies. They rarely make the meaninful decisions. We need to send the above cost/benefit analysis to a BEAN COUN...I mean, the finance department (along with a pre-made memo where the person can type in their name and sign it before sending it around).

Then let that little piece of viral information wind its way through the whole Disney organization until it hits the laywers and PR folks from the backside! Suddenly, they'll see their whole stance on this topic be forcefully changed to our side. I predict this should all come to pass in Oct 2007.

Then we'll have the ironic experience where PR folks are seeking us out so they can make a "Bring your own Segway day" as part of a big effort to draw the media to the park. I'll try to keep the chuckling to a minimal as they give their speeches in Tomorrowland (in an attempt to rewrite history Disney style) about how they've always supported adoption of new and innovative technologies.

OPTA - Everyone should get ready for our next big challenge...being able to bring our polo mallets into the park so we can "encourage" the crowds to part as we ride through. Oh, that and a foam brick, eh? 8^) 8^) 8^)

[drmarty]

Plo,

Sorry but this has never seemed to influence them. Whether or not the issue is money, they would never acknowledge it by saying "Oh yeah, look at that, we lose 2% more by denying Segways so now we will let them in." There are too many intangible issues and it is just too complex. You seem to be expecting them to act logically.

I don't think we will be able to get them to magically just change their position by pointing out it would make them more money or it would be good PR. I keep trying to put into words my feelings. How is this? They don't want us. If we point out the financial benefit they will say it is because it has a motor. If we point out motors are OK then they will say it has 2 wheels. Or no brakes. Or goes too fast. We are merely chasing our tails while they laugh at us. I think it will be over when we drag them into court and get an order saying "You will let them in." And then it will only be over their kicking and screaming bodies.

Maybe a little help:

As I posted earlier I was doing some looking around the internet and found that the definition of a wheelchair has changed as of 1 Apr 06. It mentions wheels but does not say 3 or 4 wheels. Here is the quote: "Identification. A mechanical wheelchair is a manually operated device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position."

The other interesting thing is that wheelchairs are all supposed to be labelled essentially saying they have to be prescribed by a doctor, not by a guard or greeter, etc. They can't offer you one at the entrance without a doctor's evaluation. (unless they have a doctor to give his advice)

And throughout the federal rules it keeps making reference to the fact that wheelchairs are for persons "restricted to a sitting position." I think the importance of this is the narrowness of the indications for use. In a case such as the one being litigated you are having the guard trying to put a person who may have difficulty walking long distances but can stand fine into a wheelchair which is clearly not indicated for him. Every doctor would agree that we should be trying to expand the mobility of the patient, not restrict it.

The patient should be able to discuss these issues in private with his or her doctor, not with a guard at the entrance to a mall.

Marty

[polo_pro]

I wasn't expecting the decision makers at Disney to act logically. They're probably as bad as any politician at assessing risk associated with segways. That's why I put my hope in the bean count...I mean, financial department. They tend to pay attention to hard cold numbers and force the decision maker's hands.

No one's speculated how Segway INC would react if Disney was sued under ADA. Knowing how agile Disney is, I'd guess that'd pull Segway INC into any court case that looked like it might go against Disney. So whomever ends up suing Disney had better be ready to fight Segway INC too.

And if Disney has bought over 120 segways over the years, that equated to over half a million dollars of revenue for Segway INC. Trust me, Segway INC will do everything in their power to make sure Disney doesn't lose in court. Heck, they might even have a "special recall/GPS upgrade" where the person who's suing suddenly finds their segway doesn't work anymore (or at least not in Anehiem, eh?) 8^) 8^) 8^)

[Desert_Seg]

Plo,

Sorry but this has never seemed to influence them. Whether or not the issue is money, they would never acknowledge it by saying "Oh yeah, look at that, we lose 2% more by denying Segways so now we will let them in." There are too many intangible issues and it is just too complex. You seem to be expecting them to act logically.

Disney is acting logically, at least from a fiscal perspective. The potential financial liability far outweighs any potential revenue gain.

As I posted earlier I was doing some looking around the internet and found that the definition of a wheelchair has changed as of 1 Apr 06. It mentions wheels but does not say 3 or 4 wheels. Here is the quote: "Identification. A mechanical wheelchair is a manually operated device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position."

This precludes the Segway totally..it is not a manually operated device. However, that is the wrong argument. The argument is that the Segway is a mobility aid.

The other interesting thing is that wheelchairs are all supposed to be labelled essentially saying they have to be prescribed by a doctor, not by a guard or greeter, etc. They can't offer you one at the entrance without a doctor's evaluation. (unless they have a doctor to give his advice)

Anybody can use a wheelchair. Only a Doctor can PRESCRIBE it. That means that I, Joe BagODonuts, Joe Schmuckatelli, or any other named individual can buy one, offer one for use, or pretty much do anything they want with it but only a Doctor can PRESCRIBE it.

The patient should be able to discuss these issues in private with his or her doctor, not with a guard at the entrance to a mall.

And that's the case. If you are in a wheelchair nobody can ask you for proof that you need it. The presumption is that you do. The same cannot be said for anybody on a Segway because many able-bodied individuals also use them. However, if the person is on a Segway flying a handicapped card then there should be no questions asked.

Steven

[drmarty]

From Steven:
"Anybody can use a wheelchair. Only a Doctor can PRESCRIBE it. That means that I, Joe BagODonuts, Joe Schmuckatelli, or any other named individual can buy one, offer one for use, or pretty much do anything they want with it but only a Doctor can PRESCRIBE it."

Well, Joe (I mean Steven), anybody can use heroin too. But just because you can buy it doesn't mean you are supposed to. So if you or Joe BagODonuts or whoever offers it for use they are violating Federal law. The person selling it to you is in violation of federal law.

This is the law:

Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which he/she practices."


So my point is that if we are trying to get Disney to allow impaired persons in with their Segways then we have Federal law backing us up at least as far as limiting them providing wheelchairs and "Medically Approved" scooters. If they think they (Dizzyland or any public place that restricts Segways and offers wheelchairs) are in compliance because they offer an alternative then they are wrong. They are not allowed to prescribe wheelchairs at the entrance of Disneyland or the mall that the gentleman is sueing.


Again from Steven:
"This precludes the Segway totally..it is not a manually operated device. However, that is the wrong argument. The argument is that the Segway is a mobility aid."

Sorry it is not clear what I meant. You missed my point completely. I was not comparing it to a Segway. If you want to do that then here is the quote from the CFR:

(a) Identification. A powered wheelchair is a battery-operated device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position.

My point was that previously someone had found in the CFR (I believe) a common definition of a wheelchair which included it being 3 or 4 wheeled and someone was denied use of a Segway because it only had 2. This definition has changed as of 1 Apr 06 (again to the best of my ability to go through these regulations) and now it only says device with wheels.

This gets very complicated. Yes, if we were able to direct the discourse we would call it a mobility aid but they of course will try to prevent that as they did in the case I mentioned.

I was pointing out the change in definition so if someone is told no because..."it only has two wheels" they will be aware that that is no longer a differentiating item according to the Federal government and ANSI. I did not intend it to be the centerpiece of a coordinated assault on all these inequities. I even titled that section "Maybe a little help." It was just some additional information I thought some people would want to have.

We should all know as much of this info as possible, not for Disneyland because They Don't Want Us, but for all the other places like malls who want to sit us down and move backwards. Getting up and out of the wheelchair is/should be the goal of the patients, the doctors, and even society.

I am chomping at the bit to formulate a reply to Mr Minnick's letter to Mr Sumner. But then I keep reminding my self that Minnick is not a decision maker. He was told to write a letter to Mr Sumner telling him WHY NOT. He was not reviewing the policy and revaluating their position. He is so busy rambling on in his letter and patting Disneyland on the back, and Blah Blah Blah, that I think he forgot what his title is. "Technical Director, Global Accessibility and Facility Safety." More like the "Director of Accessibility Prevention and Fossil Safety"

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Marty,

I'm not sure where you are finding that wheelchairs can only be sold / issued by a licensed practitioner. I've spent a few hours tonight looking this up (jet lag, you know) and nowhere in the CFR do I see that (and I looked right at your citation which can be found here http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/21cfr890_06.html, scroll down to 890.3850, and click on either link)

In fact, throughout all my research, I found nothing regulating the sale or provisioning of wheelchairs.

Furthermore, Disney isn't trying to ban the Segway on grounds that it doesn't fit the "old" # of wheels definition. Disney is basing (at first blush) its ban of the Segway on the fact that it bans ALL two-wheeled modes of transportation.

Also, the Segway would never qualify as a "wheelchair" as it does not meet the "device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes" definition.

Not being ornery, only pointing out that having had to procure wheelchairs for both my daughter and my mother that no prescription or special permit is / was required.

Steven

[drmarty]

Steven,

The reference is in my other post. But here it is again:

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/346.html

And the title is:

Guidance Document For the Preparation of
Premarket Notification [510(K)] Applications For
Mechanical and Powered Wheelchairs, and
Motorized Three-Wheeled Vehicles

And so you don't have to look it up, here is the section on labelling: (highlighting mine)

"Labeling


Provide draft or sample package labeling, package inserts, including complete operator's instructions, and required labeling regarding electromagnetic interference (EMI) according to FDA's March 26, 1994 labeling letter mailed to wheelchair manufacturers (copy attached).


Provide the following prescription statement (both on the device itself and in the operator's manual, and in any advertising and/or promotional materials) according to 21 CFR 801.109:

Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which he/she practices."

Include copies of promotional materials for the new and predicate devices.


Provide cleaning instructions."


Nobody, especially me ever said Disney was "trying to ban the Segway on grounds that it doesn't fit the "old" # of wheels definition."

It gets complicated to keep the arguements and issues seperate and clear. I can't do it. For instance I also never said or thought that a Segway was a wheelchair. It is not and never will be. And I don't want it to be. Keeping these things straight is another reason why trying to argue the points with Disney or almost anyone is foolish. They get mixed up like you did and then say "The segway is not a wheelchair." when the point about the definition of a wheelchair was only in response to a completely seperate issue.

And I don't care if you are or are not being ornery, point out what you like but the law is the law. Just because you were able to break it doesn't mean it isn't the law. I doubt you will get it but good, bad, or indifferent if it is a wheelchair the Federal law says and I quote "Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which he/she practices."

I haven't seen many wheelchair police out tho, so not to worry.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Steven,

The reference is in my other post. But here it is again:

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/346.html

And the title is:

Guidance Document For the Preparation of
Premarket Notification [510(K)] Applications For
Mechanical and Powered Wheelchairs, and
Motorized Three-Wheeled Vehicles

...

Marty,

I was hoping that wasn't your sole reference. The cited reference applies only to pre-market devices that are submitted for evaluation by the FDA. It does NOT apply to approved devices.

In fact, once the FDA approves a device they then set the requirements as to requiring a prescription and, in the case of wheelchairs, I can find no evidence that APPROVED devices require a prescription. I can, however, find ample evidence that a prescription is not required.

Don't worry about being ornery...I've been accused of being the same on more than one occasion.

Steven

[IcanGlide]

We may be chasing the wrong rabbit. From what I understand, a prescription is required for insurance purposes, so the insurance company will pay, not for everyday use by the public. If it took a doctor everytime someone was directed to a wheelchair, some places would be in a world of hurt--like hospitals discharging patients.

One of the things we need is the words "mobility aid" replacing the word "wheelchair" in the ADA. This would take the action of Congress or the Justice Department or both. And we as Segway users could start that wheel rolling with letters, e-mails or phone calls. Arguing over nit-picky definitions or interpretations of law is pointless with Disney. We need big guns and they don't come any bigger than Congress or the JD.

Frank

[KSagal]

I would like to throw my two senses into the argument...

On the thought of having all segway owners, able bodied, disabled, and everyone in between, sign a petition to impress Disney, it ain't gonna happen. At last count, I was under the impression that less than 30K have been sold. I believe that half of them were not in the United States, and half of those that are in the US, have gone to commercial or security agencies. That leaves 7 or 8K signatures available, and you just aren't going to get that done, and each and every one of their theme parks see that many people hourly...

And regardless of my love for my Segway, and my desire to not support any organization who does not support my issues, my 3 year old still likes the whole crew, and so does my 7 year old... Am I really supposed to try to explain how the mouse has annoyed daddy to the point that he will not take them? My wife is looking forward to a week with the mouse for her 40th birthday, and would want to go even without the kids... (I will and would have hated it all anyway, regardless of this topic, but even with my distaste for the whole thing, I plan to do the Dad thing, as that is far more important than this topic)

Next to consider... Liability...

What is the position of Disney, if a mobility impared person were to want to go into the park, and then decide to sit with their child/grandchild in a ride? They park their segway, and get on the ride... Some other out of control, unwatched, spawn of the great unwashed gets on the segway and falls into the crowd/into the water/ into the allagator pit....whatever... Now, Disney is looking at a lawsuit, even if it is clear that the parent should have watched their child, and that child was tresspassing on the segway, etc, etc... This is not to say that Disney is right, but it does recognise one of the clear dangers of them allowing people into the park on mobility devices, especially those as cool as segways. I am sure that this must happen, but I really do not see the same thing happening to the wheelchair that the person got out of to go on the ride. (Presuming they were ambulatory enough to get out of the wheelchair. I am presuming that we are speakng of a person that has mobility issues, but can use a segway, which means if required to use the wheelchair, they can get out for short times...)

My Sister-in-Law is in a wheelchair due to a spinal injury 15 years ago. Clearly, a segway has no potential for her, as she cannot stand. Still, I have had discussions about the potential of the Ibot for her with my brother, and he basicly likes it a bit, but thinks it is too expensive (Sound familiar?) and then the conversation went onto other devices... He spoke of a class of wheelchair, for people with spine injuries and others, who cannot stand, but should not sit exclusively either... He said there are verticle wheelchairs, not unlike an electric seated one, but the person is strapped in, and supported properly, yet the device holds them in a "standing" or near standing position. Perhaps DR Marty can weigh in here...

If the new definition of a wheel chair includes that it is specifically for those who are restricted to a sitting position... I personally presume (And that has no legal value at all) that the wording is designed to indicate a person who cannot stand under their own power, but where does the verticle wheel chair fit in? Is that another device that Disney would dis-allow?

This topic just gets muddier and muddier....

[Sharkie]

Here's a link to a "wheelchair" that keeps the person in an upright position.

http://www.vertran.com/

Jim

[hellphish]

That thing looks sooooo scary. I'm sure there isn't any intelligence in the machine to keep you from falling forward.

[Sharkie]

When you consider that the center of gravity is well behind the wheels, there really isn't a lot of danger of it falling forward. It's not obvious from those pictures, but the person is actually leaning back a bit.

Jim

[hellphish]

I've never operated an electric wheelchair before, but I would imagine they are able to stop pretty quickly.

[Five-Flags]

When you consider that the center of gravity is well behind the wheels, there really isn't a lot of danger of it falling forward. It's not obvious from those pictures, but the person is actually leaning back a bit.

Jim

If you follow the link and then click on the left-hand picture "enhanced lifestyle" you can see the Vertran in several positions, from seated to standing. The angle is more clearly shown.

[drmarty]

IcanGlide,
No, you are missing the point, and your understanding is dead wrong. You say "From what I understand.." but unfortunately that is nothing. The Federal law is for the Sale by or on Order of....a doctor. The federal law concerns use. Not reimbursement by insurance companies. A prescription is an order to provide and also includes instructions for use and if necessary precautions. How the ins company decides to pay or not pay is seperate and their own business. A lot of them do link payment to the Rx for many reasons. And yes there is supposed to be a doctor's Rx for every wheelchair dispensed by anyone for any reason. Period. Does that happen? Ask Steven. Is that legal? Ask me. No. But there are no people running around enforcing the law.

HOWever, We are getting swept offpoint. Forget wheelchairs and their definitions. I do not want to change them or anything. This was a very narrow point - ONLY THIS - When someone offers a wheelchair as an "accomodation" and they think that because of this they are in compliance with ADA, they are not. First it really isn't what ADA means as accomodation and (HERE IT COMES) they aren't supposed to be passing out wheelchairs. Just because they or you or Steven or even I think it is OK, The Federal Law doesn't.

And Steven,

You can hope all you want. You need to review the reference. That has nothing to do with a premarket evaluation of the wheelchair. It is an equivalancy showing. Before you can market a wheelchair you need to show it DOES NOT NEED to be evaluated by submitting a 510(K) application stating it is the same as one that has been evaluated and approved.

More importantly the labelling required in the 510(K) application is the labelling the predicate article is/was required to have and that is the labelling and precautions that the wheelchair has to have to be legally sold in these United States. (I can't speak for foreign entities like where you live.)

So the labelling does NOT, as you seem to think, apply only to pre-market devices submitted for evaluation. This is the labelling that IS required of all, repeat, all wheelchairs. They make it part of the Premarket Notification Application so that they can be sure that before the first wheelchair is sold, it will have the appropriate cautions/labelling on it and in the users manual and in all literature such as ads.

I am not saying that the law is followed. But I drove 80mph the other day and there is a law against that too.

Remember this is a small point that only applies to being offered a wheelchair at an entrance. It has nothing to do with the overall issue. Put it in the proper perspective.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Marty, Marty, Marty....

You think I would post without the research?

If you read 21 CFR 801.109, it clearly states (emphasis mine):

"(c) Labeling on or within the package from which the device is to be dispensed bears information for use, including indications, effects, routes, methods, and frequency and duration of administration, and any relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects, and precautions under which practitioners licensed by law to administer the device can use the device safely and for the purpose for which it is intended, including all purposes for which it is advertised or represented: Provided, however, That such information may be omitted from the dispensing package if, but only if, the article is a device for which directions, hazards, warnings, and other information are commonly known to practitioners licensed by law to use the device. Upon written request, stating reasonable grounds therefor, the Commissioner will offer an opinion on a proposal to omit such information from the dispensing package under this proviso."

Wheelchairs clearly fit into this category, as do walkers, which also would require the "by prescription only" rule if it weren't for this little tidbit.

Steven

[polo_pro]

Marty, I'll make a special trip down to SoCal just to meet with you outside Disneyland. You can look at my bad knees and my hurt right wrist...too much swinging the polo mallet lately! Clearly, I can't be expected to use a wheelchair due to my hurt wrist, nor are you in a position to push me around Disneyland all day.

You can write my prescription right outside Disneyland's front gate clearly stating that Segway use is recommend (only using the left wrist) and wheelchair usage is strictly prohibited. Then with all this on video, we can turn to the guard asking him if he's suggesting I ignore my doctor's medical advice and risk further injury by using the wheelchair.

Or is this just too much of a setup? 8^) 8^) 8^)

ps - While I'm not disabled, I know of other polo players who are and have similarly sore right wrists. They might be willing to take my place in this exercise so that ADA issues also have to be addressed.

[Tarkus]

Here's what I think:

http://forums.segwaychat.com/showthread.php?t=14558

I am far to busy to spell it out again.

A close look at the DRAFT site will show much of the research and information that is pertinent. You just need to look and read , no need to re-invent the wheel.

Oh, there are many fine Standing Chairs on the market. They are excellent, just don't offer the versatility of the Segway

Be Big,
Alan

Out of this one !

[drmarty]

Steven, Steven, Steven, Steven,

Do you think I would post without doing the research?

Here is the whole regulation you cite: (jump to the end for the punchline)

"Sec. 801.109 Prescription devices.
A device which, because of any potentiality for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use is not safe except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of such device, and hence for which "adequate directions for use" cannot be prepared, shall be exempt from section 502(f)(1) of the act if all the following conditions are met:(a) The device is:

(1)(i) In the possession of a person, or his agents or employees, regularly and lawfully engaged in the manufacture, transportation, storage, or wholesale or retail distribution of such device; or

(ii) In the possession of a practitioner, such as physicians, dentists, and veterinarians, licensed by law to use or order the use of such device; and

(2) Is to be sold only to or on the prescription or other order of such practitioner for use in the course of his professional practice.

(b) The label of the device, other than surgical instruments, bears:

(1) The statement "Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a ____", the blank to be filled with the word "physician", "dentist", "veterinarian", or with the descriptive designation of any other practitioner licensed by the law of the State in which he practices to use or order the use of the device; and

(2) The method of its application or use.

(c) Labeling on or within the package from which the device is to be dispensed bears information for use, including indications, effects, routes, methods, and frequency and duration of administration, and any relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects, and precautions under which practitioners licensed by law to administer the device can use the device safely and for the purpose for which it is intended, including all purposes for which it is advertised or represented: Provided, however, That such information may be omitted from the dispensing package if, but only if, the article is a device for which directions, hazards, warnings, and other information are commonly known to practitioners licensed by law to use the device. Upon written request, stating reasonable grounds therefor, the Commissioner will offer an opinion on a proposal to omit such information from the dispensing package under this proviso.

(d) Any labeling, as defined in section 201(m) of the act, whether or not it is on or within a package from which the device is to be dispensed, distributed by or on behalf of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor of the device, that furnishes or purports to furnish information for use of the device contains adequate information for such use, including indications, effects, routes, methods, and frequency and duration of administration and any relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects, and precautions, under which practitioners licensed by law to employ the device can use the device safely and for the purposes for which it is intended, including all purposes for which it is advertised or represented. This information will not be required on so-called reminder--piece labeling which calls attention to the name of the device but does not include indications or other use information.

(e) All labeling, except labels and cartons, bearing information for use of the device also bears the date of the issuance or the date of the latest revision of such labeling."



This and all regulations are hard to follow. The part Steven quotes says you can delete the label ONLY if ALL the following conditions apply. If you read it all, it only allows the label to be left off:

1) if it is in the possession of a DOCTOR, or the people making or transporting it.

AND (remember ALL of these conditions need to be met)

2) Is to be sold only to or on the prescription or other order of such practitioner for use in the course of his professional practice.

The section you highlight says it doesn't need the label if and only if the information is commonly known to PRACTITIONERS. This is because the section only applies to items - wheelchairs in this case - that will be IN THE POSSESSION of the practitioner. It DOES NOT apply to the one you bought for your daughter or mother.


It is the law.

Marty

[Desert_Seg]

Marty, Marty, Marty, Marty....

No, it isn't the law...at least the way I read it. You disagree but then that is your right.

I contend that there is NO law requiring the issuance of a prescription IOT to use or buy a wheelchair. You disagree.

Simple question. If it is a violation of federal law to provide a wheelchair don't you think that Disney's boatload of attorneys would have pointed this out? In fact, according to your interpretation, each and every

- hospital that makes you use a wheelchair to leave the hospital is in violation of Federal law.

- airline that provides you Red Cap wheelchair service at the airport is in violation of Federal law

- The company (name escapes me) that sells motorized "wheelchairs" on late night TV is in violation of Federal law

- Pharmacies who sell wheelchairs are in violation of Federal law

- Any user who uses a wheelchair without a prescription is in violation of a Federal law

Logic, and my reading of the law, states that that isn't the case...

I've sent in a query to the FDA, let's see what comes out (if anything) but for now....I think we've beat this one to death.

Steven

[KSagal]

Marty, Steven, Marty, Steven, Marty, Steven, Sam, Marty, Steven:


All of this is nice, but Laws are not simple, their interpretation is not concrete, And people violate them all the time, anyway!

One of the reasons I brought up the definition of a wheel chair including the requirement to be seated, and the standing wheelchairs is just to punch a hole in their policy...

I believe that Disney is not complying with the law of the land. I also believe that they are not particularly conserned with that fact, unless someone takes them to court to prove that they are breaking the law, and that will not be easy, as they will take armies of lawyers to muddy the water as much as needed. Their motivation is not legal, in my opinion, but economic. I believe they feel there is no financial advantage to doing their research to see if segways in the parks will benefit them. A large legal battle may add to the value they see in possibly changing their policy. Significant additional income would also add to the value they would see in looking into this matter...

Additionally, I believe that they see potential liability in their allowing anything that they have not completely researched, and like most humans and groups of humans, they fear that which they do not know.

NOw, if they make policy statements about segways not being allowed because of wheel count, or because people are standing, or any number of other reasons, I contend that if you can un-do the value of each of these excuses (which are a put-up job to begin with) then their own arguments fall apart...

If they will only allow wheel chairs and not segways, then a verticle wheelchair comes in, what do they do? An approved medical device, that has a person standing... Now, that rule about sitting in wheelchairs goes out the window for that moment...

Then, segways are now allowed based on their inability to stop, or safety reasons, or what ever the new excuse is...

Then the traffic studies come out, where the segway is better than other devices that are allowed, and some allowed items are similar looking to segways but are not as versitle, etc, etc...

That is where I was going, This thread went elsewhere.

[Desert_Seg]

Last post...I swear.

1. The preamble of the oft quoted section (Sec. 890) states "(b) The identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation." Furthermore, Sec 801.4 discusses the term "intended use" and states "The intended uses of an article may change after it has been introduced into interstate commerce by its manufacturer.". One could surmise that the identification of a wheelchair is not precise and that its intended use has changed since it was first introduced.

2. The wheelchair descriptor does use the term "...a device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position." However, my take on this is that it does not mean that a person who can walk cannot use a wheelchair. It means that while in use the person using it is in a seated position.

3. Standup Wheelchairs (what some are calling a vertical wheelchair) do NOT have a requirement for a person to be sitting at all times. To whit:

" Sec. 890.3900 Standup wheelchair. (a) Identification. A standup wheelchair is a device with wheels that is intended for medical purposes to provide mobility to persons restricted to a sitting position. The device incorporates an external manually controlled mechanical system that is intended to raise a paraplegic to an upright position by means of an elevating seat..."

4. Finally, I'd like to point out that the wheelchair is a Class I device, meaning it is "subject to only the general controls authorized by or under sections 501 (adulteration), 502 (misbranding), 510 (registration), 516 (banned devices), 518 (notification and other remedies), 519 (records and reports), and 520 (general provisions) of the act....". Class I devices may not be required to comply with Section 501(k), which is cited in Marty's earlier post regarding as evidence that there is a requirement for a wheelchair to be "used only upon authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use such device".

Still no response from the FDA but the the only way I'll keep adding to this post is if I get a response....

Steven

[ArtL]

And that's why we have courts and pay judges...

[Okeechobee Wind]

Interpretation of the ADA wordings must take place in a court room.
Dealing with Disney is a Mickey Mouse venture from the beginning. Disney cares for nobody but Disney. This must be understood from the beginning. They are not a nice company to deal with. Whether a cast member who has thirty years with the company or a guest that has spent thousands and thousands of dollars a year with Disney, they will fight to the finish for the most foolish of regulations . Regulations that will be relaxed or interpreted depending on what the wished out come of the moment may be. There is a direct relationship with LLC that is unexplainable. (They own hundreds of Seg’s)
Remember, Disney is the masters of human manipulation. They wrote the book and set the world forward with new rules of marketing sites, sounds, visions and memories.
When the first Segway showed up at an entrance to the park, the first question to the operator was, How did you get here?
The next day Segway HT’s where not allowed on Disney transportation. This made it almost impossible to get near an entrance. If you do make it to an official entrance they will offer a free of charge mobility scooter for the day.
The Disney Corporation takes great pride in “casting” the perfect person in the correct position. This is a form of manipulation not a form of proper placement. One can never win and if you do it will clouded with fairy dust.