I wonder what would happen if...

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

I agree with you that making it easy for them is not what we want.

Implementing inane policies should cost them time, hassle, ridicule, lost sales, bad press, personal embarrassment, and I'm sure there are more we could come up with.

I just think your particular choice of tactics would be unwise. NOT your instinct to stand up for what is right.

When someone tries this, I try to make it very plain that they are crossing a legal and ethical line.

As to the Disney thing -- I think our position from that outcome is stronger than it seems at first glance. MOST property owners do NOT have the resources to implement Disney's proposed settlement. (I say "proposed" because I'm not aware of it having been approved by the judge, though it may have -- and it's still possible it may be trumped by future regulations or laws before it's implemented).

In fact, I think there's still a chance someone at Disney will say "Say, this settlement does nothing but buy us MORE liability -- we'd be better off letting them use their own Segways).

A very small chance, though. Positions harden, and sense gets trapped below ground before it can germinate.

Still, from the property owner's standpoint, the Disney settlement is Bad News. It would appear to me to open them up to the requirement of providing a suitable STANDING aid for those who prefer, and guess what -- the only suitable device currently available is the Segway. And any alternative is sure to be EXPENSIVE. And few establishments have as deep pockets as Disney.

While I am just picking on one of your statements, I honestly do not know how I would react to this kind of a situation. I tend to say that I do not give my money to those who are not polite or accommodating to me, but if kids are involved, or one person out of a larger group is not serviced, and everyone else is excited, that is not always an option.

On that statement, several of us have mentioned how we have fallen off out segways. I know I have bumped into an item or two with my car, especially when I was learning to drive it. (I do not recall hitting something with it for several decades now...) I recall falling off my bike about 14 or 15 years ago because a dog and I took the same point to different paths...

All I am saying is that most of us have a learning curve, that often includes the impact (slight, I hope) with some other item.

Now, all that I listed above was the learning curve on item I wanted to learn to master, and did learn on my own terms, at my speed.

Insert the need to learn a new transportation device, imposed upon you by another's desire to earn money from your disability. Regardless of desire, this would still need a learning curve before you and be proficient on it. The difficulties of this imposed learning curve need not be on the head of the would be segway user/forced rascalite.

I do not see as much of a clear legal line that is being crossed. If you intentionally cause property damage, I can see it as being wrong. If you instead do not hurt someone, and do not intentionally cause property damage, but to scare people with your crazy driving...

I live and drive in Massachusetts. Believe me, diving in a manner that scares others without actually getting arrested for doing something specifically illegal, is an artform here...

I said, I honestly do not know what I would do in this situation. I do know that I hope I never go quietly into the night. That I do know...

[Bob.Kerns]

I'm wondering if you misread the line you highlighted?

The "when someone tries this" refers to those trying to impose their own made-up rules about what mobility devices are appropriate for a disabled person.

If I read you correctly, you interpreted it as someone trying your strategy? That's not what I intended to say at all.

Pronouns. This person has caused too much trouble with pronouns. This person must renounce pronouns. Even if renouncing pronouns makes this person sound a bit like Gollum.

[KSagal]

I think my plan is precious, yessss, precious... Anddd... Its my birthday....



Yes, I did take it to mean a person attempting to try my suggestion. I did not take it to mean an organization that begrudge a person their tools of choice.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by ksagal

i Think My Plan Is Precious, Yessss, Precious... Anddd... Its My Birthday....



Yes, I Did Take It To Mean A Person Attempting To Try My Suggestion. I Did Not Take It To Mean An Organization That Begrudge A Person Their Tools Of Choice.

HBD2U
HBD2U
HBD2KARL
HBD2U

(Edited to restore uppercase after a mad macro mangled it).

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

HBD2U
HBD2U
HBD2KARL
HBD2U

(Edited to restore uppercase after a mad macro mangled it).

My Birthday was back on the 17th of January. Thank you just the same for the song...

I was trying to type for Gollum, who felt that the ring should be his, because it was found on his birthday...

[rook2218joe]

Would Disney be able to handle "the load" IF 20 or 30 people (pre-arranged, of course) arrived on the same day requiring "Stand Up Mobility Devices"?

[Tarkus]

Originally Posted by rook2218joe

Would Disney be able to handle "the load" IF 20 or 30 people (pre-arranged, of course) arrived on the same day requiring "Stand Up Mobility Devices"?

To be blunt, screw their ability to provide the ESV. Is Disney now in the business of "creating" their own device ? Has it been tested, safety studies. Is it "ADA Approved". LOL !

DOES IT EVEN EXIST ?

Only one thing matters, Disney is in violation of the ADA etal as long as it prohibits persons with disabilities from useing the Segway on their premises.

Thats why it is imperative to file your objections. See the Urgent thread for updates.

Extra wheels, seats and the like are fine for discussion , but the reality is we do not need to concede anything. The Segway is protected as is.

DISNEY IS IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW AND THEY KNOW IT.

Another point that seems to get lost. I hear the term "Private Property" used often in these discussions.

DISNEY IS A PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMIDATION UNDER THE ADA, ANY TALK OF "PRIVATE PROPERTY" IS MOOT"!

Be Big,
AMAC

[Bob.Kerns]

[QUOTE[
Q. What are public accommodations?
A. A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers. Private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA's title III requirements for public accommodations.

Q. Does the ADA allow public accommodations to take safety factors into consideration in providing services to individuals with disabilities?
A. The ADA expressly provides that a public accommodation may exclude an individual, if that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be mitigated by appropriate modifications in the public accommodation's policies or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids. A public accommodation will be permitted to establish objective safety criteria for the operation of its business; however, any safety standard must be based on objective requirements rather than stereotypes or generalizations about the ability of persons with disabilities to participate in an activity.
[/QUOTE]

Pretty clear-cut. The stickiest part is the "objective safety criteria". Are they arguing that ">2 wheels" is an objective safety criterion? On what basis?

Question: If they get class-action status, does that bar the AG from filing suit as well? The AG does have that power now.

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

Pretty clear-cut. The stickiest part is the "objective safety criteria". Are they arguing that ">2 wheels" is an objective safety criterion? On what basis?

On what basis...hmmmm?

Maybe, just maybe, Disney is basing their opinions on +6 years of Segway usage on their own property; a couple hundred units used by both trained employees performing their jobs and novice guests on tours. Perhaps they have more real life experience in their particular theme park venue than DRAFT or SegChatters can even imagine.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but you are not dealing with the Segway ignorant rubes from Ikea or Simon Malls here. Disney is likely to have hard facts based on actual use. Judges like that kind of stuff.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by JohnM

On what basis...hmmmm?

Maybe, just maybe, Disney is basing their opinions on +6 years of Segway usage on their own property; a couple hundred units used by both trained employees performing their jobs and novice guests on tours. Perhaps they have more real life experience in their particular theme park venue than DRAFT or SegChatters can even imagine.

I'm not trying to start a fight, but you are not dealing with the Segway ignorant rubes from Ikea or Simon Malls here. Disney is likely to have hard facts based on actual use. Judges like that kind of stuff.

I know you're not trying to start a fight. It's a relevant point .... It's just not what my question was.

Experience != objective criteria. Experience would definitely come in handy if you're trying to set objective criteria. But experience doesn't meet the requirements of the law.

I would also, were I the judge, want to see the equivalent hard facts regarding other forms which ARE allowed.