Excellent Reply

[KSagal]

First off, many people do not always look out for the other guy.

Many people are not good at being responsible for what they do in their own lives, much less damage they do to others...

ANyone with the classic Brother-in-law type person knows people who blame their own problems on other people, and this will not stop happening just because they are at Disney, own a segway, or any other reason.

I live in a place where specific segway insurance is simply not available, at any price.

Most Insurance companies try to pay out as little as they can, so even an insured glider at Disney is a risk, because even if the glider does not fight, their own insurance company might.

Cookies are rarely allowed to crumble as they used to.

Every time a cookie does crumble, there is a complainer with a lawyer looking to get money from the wheat farmer for bad flour, the mill for bad flour, the cookie sheet manufacturer for defective aluminium, the baker for shoddy workmanship, the cuban government for substandard sugar, the oven manufacture, the vendor who sold the cookie, the marketing company that said their cookies don't crumble, the trucking company that moved the cookies around, the kiosk who sold the cookie to the crumbler, and the guy who just happened to be standing nearby.

It is always about money, but following the money does not always bring you to the guilty party, it just brings you to the party with the most money...

[pam]

And we have a number of lawyers who are members of SC, BTW. (I just approved and put one on moderation, today.)

Pam

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by pam

And we have a number of lawyers who are members of SC, BTW. (I just approved and put one on moderation, today.)

Pam

So? Lawyers are like everyone else. Some are good, some are bad, some believe in people being accountable for themselves, and some don't. My wife is a legal professional. Most of the lawyers we know and respect do not have a very high opinion of the majority of their profession.

By the way, I know quite a few car mechanics. Most of them that I know and respect realize that there is less than steller mechanics in their field as well.

I am an engineer. I have seen some downright shoddy work, and some truely inspired work among my bretherin.

What was your point?

[Suzined]

If a business is open to the public, then it is inviting all of the public in. It cannot create classes of the public then discriminate against some of those classes. The ADA simply extends this to include discrimination against the disabled.

If a store owner wishes to keep certain classes off his property, that is okay as long as the property owner does not operate a public business upon that property. This includes lunch counters and seats in the back of the bus. Some businesses are afraid so attempt to ban certain classes. They hide behind "safety", always a moral high ground if the surrounding crowd doesn't laugh at them.

[quade]

Originally Posted by Suzined

If a business is open to the public, then it is inviting all of the public in. It cannot create classes of the public then discriminate against some of those classes.

That's simply not true.

A business can discriminate for any one of several reasons; dress (men must wear jacket and tie), age (must be 21 or older), sex (women's only gym), language (signs only in English with no requirement that employees speak a second language) . . .

It's not necessarily the smartest move . . . but it can and does happen all the time.

If a store owner wishes to keep certain classes off his property, that is okay as long as the property owner does not operate a public business upon that property. This includes lunch counters and seats in the back of the bus. Some businesses are afraid so attempt to ban certain classes. They hide behind "safety", always a moral high ground if the surrounding crowd doesn't laugh at them.

Nobody at Disney is trying to keep you from visiting the parks. Trust me they want your money because it's just as green as anyone else's. They just dont' want to incur the extra liability of dealing with Segways, in crowds, by people they do not have any control over whatsoever. If they thought they would make more money by letting you ride the Segway than they'd have to ever pay out in any case brought against them because they did . . . then they would, in all likelihood, be more than happy to let you ride. As it stands now, their risk is far greater than the reward could ever hope to be.

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by Suzined

If a business is open to the public, then it is inviting all of the public in. It cannot create classes of the public then discriminate against some of those classes. The ADA simply extends this to include discrimination against the disabled.

If a store owner wishes to keep certain classes off his property, that is okay as long as the property owner does not operate a public business upon that property. This includes lunch counters and seats in the back of the bus. Some businesses are afraid so attempt to ban certain classes. They hide behind "safety", always a moral high ground if the surrounding crowd doesn't laugh at them.

Ok, this is likely going to evolve into another firestorm and I'll not only get more negative rep points but negative e-mail (I do wish they would, at least, use proper grammar) but here goes.

Yes, this is true. But while others might see businesses "hiding" behind safety, it is a valid defense. Remember - the safety of many outweighs the rights of one and, therefore, it can't be said that safety is not a valid defense some of the time.

One also has to realize that the ADA is not able to create a new "class" of people by giving rights to the disabled. To do so would be discrimination which makes implementation / enforcement of ADA requirements often not possible or possible within very limited confines.

Karl is correct in that the cookie doesn't crumble the same way. It never has, never will, and that's why ADA enforcement is such a difficult thing.

So, back to the premise that this is about money. Money drives virtually everything we do in life, like it or not.

Steven

[quade]

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Money drives virtually everything we do in life, like it or not.

I completely disagree with your premise.

Karl has no financial incentive whatsoever (that we know of) to continue to argue with me about this and any one of another of other topics.

quod erat demonstrandum, baby . . .

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by quade

I completely disagree with your premise.

Karl has no financial incentive whatsoever (that we know of) to continue to argue with me about this and any one of another of other topics.

quod erat demonstrandum, baby . . .

Hence the reason I used the word "virtually", which means your case ain't rested, baby!

In fact, you might have been better off using quod erat faciendum but I use that for illustrative purposes only (pun intended)

Steven

[KSagal]

I see much of this as relative truth, or situational truths...

I don't disagree with Quade or Steven as much as they would make it seem. I am less than the most ardent supporter of the segways at DIsney. But while I don't see the safety issue that much different that they, I draw different conclusions...

If we use Steven's premise, that the safety of the many outweighs the needs of the few, then we have a problem.

I really do not see how anyone could argue that they are not aware of baby carriage collisions at Disney. I have not heard anyone say they are unaware of people in wheel chairs or on mobility scooters being collided with. Crowds and these devices do not really mesh well. They certainly do not do as well as crowds without them.

I am not assigning blame for these collisions. Personally, I believe there is lots to go around, whether it is an over aggressive carriage pusher, or mobility scooter driver, is not my point. The fact that 100% able bodies people walk around in permanent Gawk mode, and walk into everything, poles, mailboxes, wheelchairs, and the like is not my point.

I believe it would be safer for the masses at DIsney, if all conveyances that use wheels were to be disallowed. Crowd movement, especially in the real crunch times, and at emergencies, would flow more evenly.

The problem, of course, is that an option like that will not happen. The laws are clear about some of it, and their past history of allowances show that while there is a real and predictable level of risk, that risk is not above what the Disney corporation is willing to absorb. While there is an increased risk to the general masses, that risk is not greater than the fallout of a complete ban on wheels. Possibly more clearly, the financial costs of defending a policy of no wheels would not be worth it, and they are willing to subject the crowd to that much possible dangers, because they have a financial interest in doing so.

Now enter the segway. Does this increase the risk to the crowd? Surely, some here believe it may. Others do not. I don't happen to believe it will, but my opinion is just that, and so is everyone elses. No one is quoting a difinative study or imperical data, because they do not yet exist. Evey major study that I am aware of, by the US federal government or its assigns, the Canadian Government, the German government, and others all say that the risk is manageable. But some would argue that there is no absolute data in this area.

Here is the rub, as I see it. Disney does not see the financial advantage to take the risk of allowing the segways into the park. I have said many times that it is not a safety issue, although that is their shield. I do not believe that the crowd at Disney, which they are happy to be battered by baby carriages, wheelchairs, and scooters, will not be additionally battered. Disney has offered no data to prove their case, just their opinion.

Again, I believe their motivation is that if disabled people are allowed on segways, there will be an audible cry for more people, and especially people who are not disabled, to want to use them. I believe it is seen as a step that will alter the characteristic of the crowd at disney, by them. Until they are ready to capitalize on that change in the expectation of the crowd, they will fight it happening.

I will make this prediction. In 10 years, the crowd at Disney and parks like it will have a distinctly different look, and these safety conserns will be moot, as the parks by then will be capitalizing on the change, and all of the sudden, safety was not the issue, but revenue was...

[Five-Flags]

Originally Posted by KSagal

... I will make this prediction. In 10 years, the crowd at Disney and parks like it will have a distinctly different look, and these safety conserns will be moot, as the parks by then will be capitalizing on the change, and all of the sudden, safety was not the issue, but revenue was...

[prediction mode]
This will probably be fueled by the fact that only those who can easily afford a Segway will be able to afford the $4000.00 1-day non-park-hopper ticket.
[/prediction mode]

Who, me? Facetious? Naaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!