I wonder what would happen if...

[KSagal]

I have often wondered what would happen at one of these theme parks or other large places that require people who use a segway for mobility purposes to instead rent one of their scooters...

I still think it is against the law to require a person to give up their mobility device, just to be forced to rent one that belongs to the facility.

My thinking is this... If you own a segway, and use it for mobility, you are likely to know how to use it, and what you can do (like curbs or grates) and what you can't...

Now, you get to a facility, and they force you to give up the familiar, in order to rent one of their unfamiliar ones. You will not be as good at using the unfamiliar, you cannot know its clearance, its ability to climb small curbs and the like.

What if you were to offer to run an obstacle course, and prove that you are proficient on your segway. If they let you do it, fine, if not, do it yourself by showing your skills before they make you dismount...

Then, when they put you onto a scooter of their choice, simply ram it backwards into their parked scooters. Run over the foot of the rental agent. Ram the door frame over and over on your way out of the corral. Continue to hit things and show just how unfamiliar you are with their device. Make them afraid to be near you, and continue to remind them that the wake of bodies will only happen if you are forced to use this 'unfamiliar' machine...

Of course, I do not suggest doing this in a manner where anyone could get hurt, including and especially the clerk that is running the scooter kiosk, as he is just an employee, not a decision maker. Do not play this game in public, just for the enjoyment? of the park staff...

But also make it obvious that their chosen policy is going to be a problem for them, as much as you...

I know I am looking at this very much from a perspective of a person who does not depend on a mobility device, so if you feel I am out of line to suggest something like this, say so. I do not intend to offend, just offer this up for consideration, and want to hear what people feel.

There are times where someone has to choose to be the squeaky wheel...

[Bob.Kerns]

I think it would be unwise to do this ....

But the thought process is exactly what separates you, an intelligent individual, from the people who came up with the policy.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

I think it would be unwise to do this ....

But the thought process is exactly what separates you, an intelligent individual, from the people who came up with the policy.

This may come as a complete surprise to you, but there have been times when I have chosen to take the road that was not the highest path, if I feel a need to make a point...

I will happily say hear and now that this may not be a wise path, and I am not necessarily suggesting it be done as much as we consider its impact...

[emrnyc]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I have often wondered what would happen at one of these theme parks or other large places that require people who use a segway for mobility purposes to instead rent one of their scooters...

I still think it is against the law to require a person to give up their mobility device, just to be forced to rent one that belongs to the facility.

My thinking is this... If you own a segway, and use it for mobility, you are likely to know how to use it, and what you can do (like curbs or grates) and what you can't...

Now, you get to a facility, and they force you to give up the familiar, in order to rent one of their unfamiliar ones. You will not be as good at using the unfamiliar, you cannot know its clearance, its ability to climb small curbs and the like.

What if you were to offer to run an obstacle course, and prove that you are proficient on your segway. If they let you do it, fine, if not, do it yourself by showing your skills before they make you dismount...

Then, when they put you onto a scooter of their choice, simply ram it backwards into their parked scooters. Run over the foot of the rental agent. Ram the door frame over and over on your way out of the corral. Continue to hit things and show just how unfamiliar you are with their device. Make them afraid to be near you, and continue to remind them that the wake of bodies will only happen if you are forced to use this 'unfamiliar' machine...

Of course, I do not suggest doing this in a manner where anyone could get hurt, including and especially the clerk that is running the scooter kiosk, as he is just an employee, not a decision maker. Do not play this game in public, just for the enjoyment? of the park staff...

But also make it obvious that their chosen policy is going to be a problem for them, as much as you...

I know I am looking at this very much from a perspective of a person who does not depend on a mobility device, so if you feel I am out of line to suggest something like this, say so. I do not intend to offend, just offer this up for consideration, and want to hear what people feel.

There are times where someone has to choose to be the squeaky wheel...

The place that would have you rent their chair is more interested in making a buck thank than that would be best for their patron...
And Karl ....
I like the way you think!
Martin

[JohnM]

If you can't handle their electric scooter, they will probably offer a non-powered wheelchair that one of your party can push. Take it or leave it, they really don't care. Guerrilla theater isn't likely to get you anywhere.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by JohnM

If you can't handle their electric scooter, they will probably offer a non-powered wheelchair that one of your party can push. Take it or leave it, they really don't care. Guerrilla theater isn't likely to get you anywhere.

I am flabbergasted that you would not like one of my ideas!



For every ying, there is a yang. For every this, there is a that.

All too often, procedures are established by those who never have to implement them, and systems are in place that do not work. However, the designers of these failed ideas are still collecting their millions, and flying off on the company jet, after the congress has given my tax dollars to them.

IF anyone on this thread should stand up for a plan to make the chickens come home to roost, if anyone on this forum were here with the stated purpose to show what the result of a thought process that is too narrow will actually do in the wide wide world, I would have thought it was our very own JohnM.

Perhaps if I tossed him a goat as I crossed this bridge, he would feel more inclined toward its success.

[JohnM]

I wonder what would happen if....... Karl took the time to really read my reply?

Nowhere did I disagree that the policy is wrong. Just that Karl's piece of guerrilla theater would at best be pointless, at worst counter-productive.

This is an issue that won't be settled until a judge makes a definitive ruling on the application of the ADA regarding certain mobility aids.

[wwhopper]

From what I read in the media last fall, this is already being taken on by a group of folks who are Segway users (not our DRAFT folks - though they have been implicated in it) and it was at a stalemate last I heard. The private property owners have enough funding to do what they want and the heck with anyone else.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by JohnM

I wonder what would happen if....... Karl took the time to really read my reply?

Nowhere did I disagree that the policy is wrong. Just that Karl's piece of guerrilla theater would at best be pointless, at worst counter-productive.

This is an issue that won't be settled until a judge makes a definitive ruling on the application of the ADA regarding certain mobility aids.

Actually, I do not wholly disagree with JohnM's points. My little trick will not likely do much of anything the first time it happens. However, if it were to become the norm, the expected reaction to their policy, they may eventually rethink their policy...

Not because they like people with segways more, and not because they think that disabled people on segways will never learn to drive a rascal, but because it will start to cost them more than it is worth, to try to make it happen.

I personally happen to think one of the major problems in socitety today is that so many think that all problems will be solved by the government or the courts, because that is just not so. Lawyers cost money, and really good ones often cost more money, and large companies have more money than individuals with disabilities, as a rule. Judges are lawyers.

However there is something that large companies pay attention to even more than court orders anyway, and that is profit. They like to make money, and do not like to loose money. Making money is their job. Some may think that an entertainment company's job is to entertain people, but that is just not so. Their job is to make money, and entertainment is their tool.

So, if you if you systematically dismantle the function of denying challenged people on their segways the ability to use their segways, you may have some success, eventually.

At this point, telling all people with segways that use them as mobility aids to just go away and leave us alone, does not really cost the parks much. That at least is how they see it. The numbers are too small.

The numbers get bigger if they get grouped in with others who may claim a disability and use other tools to compensate, so if you force them into a larger group, and say it you need a mobility device, then we will force you to use ours, at a profit.

At this point, the numbers are not big enough to listen, but they are big enough that the government watchdogs may see, and there is a potential for a profitable hostage situation, where you can say, "our wheelchair or none!"

This is where I am suggesting it may be possible to affect their thinking. If they get the impression it is more expensive to deal with this problem than it is to just let these people into the park, and make money from them in the form of a fee, or at the hot dog stand, instead of loose money at the rascal repair station, the repair of the wheelchair corral, and other legal expenses, each and every time they use this policy, they may think about it. Most likely not, but sometimes you have to tilt at a windmill or two before you engage the real monster...

If nothing else, if the perception that this policy of forcing mobility impared citizens from their mobility device they are familiar with to one forced upon them entirely for profit, is a danger to that person, or to other persons near them, and that danger of injury or damage is costly, then the playing field changes...

Even the eventual judge that may weigh in on this may be able to see it more dangerous to force people to use that which they are unfamiliar with, instead of what works for them.

So, on JohnM's statement that guerilla theature (great term, cudos) will probably not work, I agree. But it may eventually start a dialog or consideration.

On his statement that life will not change until some judge changes it, I do not agree.

I feel the government is there to keep the roads from having potholes. (a job they do so well) and to keep our borders secure (dito) and is not there to be my nanny or big brother. We still live in a capitalistic society for a couple more weeks, and I believe the way to change that is to appeal to the concepts of profit or loss...

[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.