Disney Being Sued Over Segway Ban

[Goofster]

If the accomodation he needs in order to allow him to vacation in WDW is excessive or not "reasonable" then, unfortunately, yes.

I mean let's be realistic here ... there can't be more than .0001% of the population who have a disease that requires them to use a Segway to get around.

You can't possibly expect Disney to put the balance of their guest population at risk to accomodate for the 12 people in the world that want to use Segways in WDW.

And you can argue all you want that motorized wheelchairs and scooters are just as risky as Segways, but I'm sorry ... I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I've never seen a motorized wheelchair that went 12mph, required highly developed motor skills and quick reaction times to operate safely, or that people could easily and readily fall off of. And before you ask, yes ... I've ridden a Segway more than once. Both times I rode I saw people crash them and fall off them. And these were governed down to 4 mph from the standard 12 mph.

I recognize that you have a bias in this because you happen to know someone who's affected, but the bottom line is, the "Right to a Vacation" is not a right that's protected under the Constitution. Unfortunate? Maybe. Reality? Yes.

I agree 100%.

[Natazu]

I think Disney should ban everything that isn't completely safe. No Parasailing, no Richard Petty Driving Experience, no Crush-n-Gusher - that one almost killed us both last month. Let's see, Mission Space has some fatalities so it's obviously unsafe, Kali River Rapids has unloading accidents all the time. My niece hit her head pretty hard at the end of Peter Pan a few months ago. Now that I think about it, maybe they should just close everything but the shops. Wait, then people will still be getting run over by ECVs. Just leave the golf courses open where, incidentally, you can use a Segway.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If someone is operating their Segway unsafely, they can be ejected, crippled or not.

In addition, just because someone can settle for a wheelchair, there's no reason they shouldn't use a Segway if that would give them a better quality of life. I could settle for a Volvo but that isn't what I choose to drive. But if I drive around at 150mph, the police will do something about it, even if I'm disabled.

[LibertyTreeGal]

I think Disney should ban everything that isn't completely safe. No Parasailing, no Richard Petty Driving Experience, no Crush-n-Gusher - that one almost killed us both last month.

Jym, the difference between this and the arguments here is that none of these things are unsafe for others (with the exception of ECV's, which I am none too fond of but don't know what we can do reasonably about it). I am not the least bit endangered if you go on Mission Space, parasailing, etc.. (your personal choice, your personal risk) however, I might be if your Segway decides to topple over on top of me because if didn't get a good charge last night. And what if you decide to have a few drinks? Operating a Segway while intoxicated could be disastrous, and yet you could not deny someone the right to drink on site (and frankly, the bartender over at the Rose & Crown would have no reason to deny them alcohol since he wouldn't know). So when we are dealing with a place that serves alcohol, what do we do about someone who is operating a motorised vehicle? Yes, I admit, this is probably going to be a rare occurence, but we live in the age of lawsuits and Disney has to view things from every angle. (And if Disney allows personal Segways, they are going to have to legally rent them out sooner or later to anyone who claims they need them. Just becaue someone is disabled, doesn't mean they aren't just like everyone else. Ever seen a teenager on an ECV? *shudder*) Yes, you can get drunk and get onto an ECV, but the potential for damage is far less.

I just really feel for Disney, they are darned if they do and darned if they don't.

[Goofster]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If someone is operating their Segway unsafely, they can be ejected, crippled or not.

In addition, just because someone can settle for a wheelchair, there's no reason they shouldn't use a Segway if that would give them a better quality of life. I could settle for a Volvo but that isn't what I choose to drive. But if I drive around at 150mph, the police will do something about it, even if I'm disabled.

Their better quality of life should not be at the expense of injuries to bystanders. Unfortunately, if a wheelchair or an ECV does not work for a particular disabled person, then maybe WDW is not the best place to go.

As for your driving 150 mph analogy, if you were to crash your car into another or hit another human being, having the police available doesn't do any good. Instead, an outright ban on driving that fast is more appropriate, which, as here, an outright ban on Segways is appropriate and best for Disney and the other guests -- it prevents needless injury.

[Polynesian Dweller]

Luckily, this suit has been filed in federal district court. The judges, at least the majority of them, are smart. I wouldn't be surprised to see this suit kicked on a summary disposition motion relatively soon.

That is a distinct possibility. What most people don't realize is how few lawsuits, both here in Canada and in the US, actually proceed. Just because you file doesn't mean the suit will be considered by the court to have merit to proceed.

I don't know US law, but in Canada you do not have to accommodate someone if it will endanger or impact on the rights of others. We have to accommodate as best we can but not beyond what would reasonable encumber or endanger others. Your law sounds very similar from what I'm reading.

[Jasper]

In my humble opinion....

I think that since WDW is private property if Disney wants to say NO SEGWAYS, then they should be allowed to without the judicial system sticking their noses into it.

But that's just one person's opinion, which in the overall picture doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Your view of how the courts and our government operate is the view that was in place from the founding of this country up until the 1930’s and in particular up until the 1936 election. Until then the generally held view by the courts and elected officials was that there was a line between the public and private sectors.

However, in the run up to the 1936 election the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal were having no real impact on the depression. As a result Franklin was in real danger of losing the 36 election. In order to win the election Roosevelt made a decision to make the New Deal personal with Americans. That is when the entitlement programs like Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security took on their current form in which money started being sent directly to Americans. Prior to that these programs (those that had already been created anyway) were much broader and did not allow money to go directly to individuals.

Once this line had been crossed, Roosevelt (and others) saw no reason to stop there, they used this new way of thinking to push for a much larger, and more significantly a much more intrusive government. Thus, we went from a country that said “a man is king in his own home” to “a man is king in his own home so far as the government allows him to be.”

And before everyone goes off and accuses me of making a political statement, I am not intending to do that at all. Instead I am simply trying to point out how and when your point of view changed to what we currently have. It is up to each person to read and understand our collective history and make their own decisions about what is good or bad in it.

[Goofster]

Your view of how the courts and our government operate is the view that was in place from the founding of this country up until the 1930’s and in particular up until the 1936 election. Until then the generally held view by the courts and elected officials was that there was a line between the public and private sectors.

However, in the run up to the 1936 election the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal were having no real impact on the depression. As a result Franklin was in real danger of losing the 36 election. In order to win the election Roosevelt made a decision to make the New Deal personal with Americans. That is when the entitlement programs like Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security took on their current form in which money started being sent directly to Americans. Prior to that these programs (those that had already been created anyway) were much broader and did not allow money to go directly to individuals.

Once this line had been crossed, Roosevelt (and others) saw no reason to stop there, they used this new way of thinking to push for a much larger, and more significantly a much more intrusive government. Thus, we went from a country that said “a man is king in his own home” to “a man is king in his own home so far as the government allows him to be.”

And before everyone goes off and accuses me of making a political statement, I am not intending to do that at all. Instead I am simply trying to point out how and when your point of view changed to what we currently have. It is up to each person to read and understand our collective history and make their own decisions about what is good or bad in it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[mttafire]

Your view of how the courts and our government operate is the view that was in place from the founding of this country up until the 1930’s and in particular up until the 1936 election. Until then the generally held view by the courts and elected officials was that there was a line between the public and private sectors.

However, in the run up to the 1936 election the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal were having no real impact on the depression. As a result Franklin was in real danger of losing the 36 election. In order to win the election Roosevelt made a decision to make the New Deal personal with Americans. That is when the entitlement programs like Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security took on their current form in which money started being sent directly to Americans. Prior to that these programs (those that had already been created anyway) were much broader and did not allow money to go directly to individuals.

Once this line had been crossed, Roosevelt (and others) saw no reason to stop there, they used this new way of thinking to push for a much larger, and more significantly a much more intrusive government. Thus, we went from a country that said “a man is king in his own home” to “a man is king in his own home so far as the government allows him to be.”

And before everyone goes off and accuses me of making a political statement, I am not intending to do that at all. Instead I am simply trying to point out how and when your point of view changed to what we currently have. It is up to each person to read and understand our collective history and make their own decisions about what is good or bad in it.

100% correct...... I think the one thing we all can agree on is; Too much government intrusion is a bad,bad thing.
I knew there was a reason my grandfather "really disliked" FDR!

[Natazu]

First, let me take a minute to say I respect everyone's opinion and their right to voice it, even Ian.

Jym, the difference between this and the arguments here is that none of these things are unsafe for others (with the exception of ECV's, which I am none too fond of but don't know what we can do reasonably about it). I am not the least bit endangered if you go on Mission Space, parasailing, etc.. (your personal choice, your personal risk) however, I might be if your Segway decides to topple over on top of me because if didn't get a good charge last night.

I see your point and it is a good one. But I think maybe people believe Segways are more dangerous than they really are. My friend Shane has been riding his Segway everywhere he goes for several years and has never run over anyone, neither have I though I have quite a bit less hours than Shane. The Disney CMs don't seem to have any trouble avoiding guests and the mulititude of other riders I know are doing fine as well.

Are there riders who are dangerous? Sure. I looked at the YouTube vids. Most of those idiots are unsafe and shouldn't be allowed near people. However, most Seggers (yup, that's what they're called) ride safely. And once again, if someone is operating their mobility device unsafely, they should be ejected from the park.

Their better quality of life should not be at the expense of injuries to bystanders. Unfortunately, if a wheelchair or an ECV does not work for a particular disabled person, then maybe WDW is not the best place to go.

I couldn't disagree more. Noone is going to convince me that access should be conditional for anyone, period.

As for your driving 150 mph analogy, if you were to crash your car into another or hit another human being, having the police available doesn't do any good. Instead, an outright ban on driving that fast is more appropriate, which, as here, an outright ban on Segways is appropriate and best for Disney and the other guests -- it prevents needless injury.

I was a little unclear with that part of the analogy. What I meant was, just because a Segway can go 12.5mph, that doesn't mean one has to drive it at 12.5mph. So really, a ban on Segways isn't appropriate, a ban on driving a Segway unsafely is appropriate. Oh, and crashing into something at 150mph is a self-correcting problem.

[sagessa]

If the accomodation he needs in order to allow him to vacation in WDW is excessive or not "reasonable" then, unfortunately, yes.

You can't possibly expect Disney to put the balance of their guest population at risk to accomodate for the 12 people in the world that want to use Segways in WDW.

I fail to see how allowing a disabled person to use his mobilty device is unreasonable.

I also fail to see how Disney would be putting the "balance of their guest population at risk" by allowing the use of Segways in the parks. People on this thread have repeatedly stated that Segways are dangerous, as though repetition of a belief makes it true.

SEGWAYS ARE NOT DANGEROUS IF USED PROPERLY.

Sorry to shout, but most of you don't seem to understand that. They are no more dangerous than the people who use their ECVs and motorized wheelchairs as battering rams to get through crowds. I would go so far as to say that they are actually safer because of the increased visibilty that a Segway provides, both for the rider and those around him.

LibertyTreeGal:

In regards to your point about intoxicated Segway operators: the exact same thing can be said about those using ECVs and motorized wheelchairs. Do you think that Disney should ban those devices in areas where alcohol is served?

Rachel R.

[LibertyTreeGal]

LibertyTreeGal:

In regards to your point about intoxicated Segway operators: the exact same thing can be said about those using ECVs and motorized wheelchairs. Do you think that Disney should ban those devices in areas where alcohol is served?

Rachel R.

I actually did mention that in my post, at the end if you want to reread it. I stated that the potential for damage is far less. I am actually not happy about either Segway or ECV use when impaired, but the "cat is out of the bag" concerning ECV's so even the discussion of banning them is fruitless. I would much rather spend the morning slamming my head against the wall.

One other thing I thought of -- who on earth can afford to transport their Segway to WDW unless they are within driving distance? And as such, the next step of this lawsuit would demand that someone who is disabled be able to rent a Segway and once that happens, you can not really bar anyone from renting it. Just like you can't bar anyone from renting an ECV.

Gosh, I never felt people would be so touchy over this.....

Perhaps a solution would be that Segway drivers be licensed? Wouldn't be any different than having a drivers license, and for someone as clutzy as me, it would be harder to get

[caryrae]

I am sure there really wouldn't be that many people riding Segways at WDW and I would think the odds of me seeing anyone but a CM riding would be very slim. Myself I have never seen anyone riding in public anywhere yet, I never even seen one in real life except at WDW once or twice with a CM riding it.

[Goofster]

SEGWAYS ARE NOT DANGEROUS IF USED PROPERLY.


Rachel R.

Ironically, the conditioning of your statement above proves the point. In other words, to put it bluntly:

SEGWAYS ARE DANGEROUS IF NOT USED PROPERLY.

In essence, you are admitting that an individual, either the seggy (rider) or a bystander, could be harmed if the device is used improperly. Improper use could be any of the following:

1. Renting it for the first time and not knowing how to use it - which, according to Natazu, we should not be conditioning the use of Segways to anyone who might need one at WDW, regardless of their experience in using it.

2. Failing to properly charge the battery, which would result in it falling over onto people.

3. Pure and outright stupidity.

And, any argument comparing Segways to an ECV or a wheelchair is far fetched and implausible. The possibility of injuries from the improper use of a Segway is greater.

Plus, Disney should not have to be taxed with the extra burden of policing those guests using a Segway.

[Goofster]

I couldn't disagree more. Noone is going to convince me that access should be conditional for anyone, period.

So where exactly should Disney stop? If a disabled individual feels that being in his car (or bicycle) is better for his mobility then a Segway, ECV or Wheelchair, should Disney then allow him access to drive his car (or bicycle) through the parks? Or do you agree that there is a line between reasonable accomodation and unreasonable accomodation?

(Yes, the analogy may be farfetched, but when we accomdate, as you suggest, for everyone, there will be some unusual access issues.)

[caryrae]

This is what Wikipedia says about bans and restrictions:

Bans and restrictions

United States
The company has challenged bans and sought exemption from pavement restrictions in over 30 states. The Segway has been banned from use on sidewalks and in public transportation in a small number of municipalities, often based on the fact it is not classified as a medical device. The Segway generally does not fall into the category of exempt devices such as powered wheelchairs, but is more of a vehicle somewhere between a bicycle and motor scooter. Advocacy groups for pedestrians and the blind in the US have been critical of Segway use. Specifically, America Walks and the American Council for the Blind oppose allowing the Segway to be driven on sidewalks, even for those with disabilities, and have actively lobbied against any such legislation. America Walks' official position is:

“ Nothing that moves faster than walking speed belongs in the space intended for walking. ”

The American Council of the Blind's official position is:

“ The Segway may well have a good use and place in our environment, but it is clear [...] that insufficient attention is being paid to pedestrian safety and injuries and deaths are not the price we should be paying for innovation. ”

Notable bans:

In November 2002, before it was widely available, the city of San Francisco banned the Segway from sidewalks citing safety concerns. However, a number of Segway Tour operations use them anyway.

In February 2004, Disney banned Segways from its theme parks, stating they had not been approved by the FDA as medical devices. In the same month, Disney began offering Segway tours of its Epcot theme park. In early August 2007, Disney began offering a similar guided tour in its Disney's California Adventure park in California. The tours are offered during crowd-free periods, prior to normal operating hours for each park.

[biodtl]

I'm just not sure of what medical condition where you can stand on hours end, but can't walk or sit.

My thoughts exactly. My husband has a slight handicap and standing is far more uncomfortable than walking (though he - like the people suing - can't walk for). In fact, I'm NOT handicapped and I can say the same.

If he is having pain, he'll happily rent an ECV and not feel discriminated against or have any "diginity" issues.

This lawsuit is just silly.

[TheRustyScupper]

1) I need the address for the ADA Segway Lawsuit lawyers.
2) I think I need to file at least one, if not many suits.

3) My sample ADA lawsuits
. . . I don't like to walk a lot, so I want moving sidewalks (energy challenged)
. . . I don't like much sun, so I want a dome (light challenged)
. . . I don't like to spend much, so I want a subsidy (fiscally challenged)
. . . I don't like crowds, so I want smaller admission limits (annoyance challenged)

[mttafire]

1) I need the address for the ADA Segway Lawsuit lawyers.
2) I think I need to file at least one, if not many suits.

3) My sample ADA lawsuits
. . . I don't like to walk a lot, so I want moving sidewalks (energy challenged)
. . . I don't like much sun, so I want a dome (light challenged)
. . . I don't like to spend much, so I want a subsidy (fiscally challenged)
. . . I don't like crowds, so I want smaller admission limits (annoyance challenged)

LOL. The funny thing about this post is: There is some truth in it.
It seems that so many folks these days are "challenged" in some way.
Too many folks want to play the "victim card" or "im disabled" when they are no more disabled than i am. (remember folks; my hearing is shot. )
Nice post Rusty!
I may also ad that im Sleep challenged..( We have a baby girl) can i join you and sue for that too?
Shawn

[Ian]

I fail to see how allowing a disabled person to use his mobilty device is unreasonable.

I also fail to see how Disney would be putting the "balance of their guest population at risk" by allowing the use of Segways in the parks. People on this thread have repeatedly stated that Segways are dangerous, as though repetition of a belief makes it true.

SEGWAYS ARE NOT DANGEROUS IF USED PROPERLY.

I'm not going to belabor the point, but I did want to respond since this was directed at me.

That's your opinion. And one that is not shared by a majority of the country (as evidenced by the vast number of bans in place on Segway usage in public places).

Remember ... you were the one who said repetition of a belief does not make it true. That goes both ways.

I do agree that ECVs are also unsafe, and if it was up to me, I wouldn't allow ECV's in the parks either. But that cat is already out of the bag. I also don't believe they're nearly as dangerous as Segways would be since they can't travel nearly as fast.

I mean it's pure physics that an object traveling 12 miles per hour is capable of causing far more damage than an object traveling at 3 miles per hour.

[mttafire]

I'm not going to belabor the point, but I did want to respond since this was directed at me.

That's your opinion. And one that is not shared by a majority of the country (as evidenced by the vast number of bans in place on Segway usage in public places).

Remember ... you were the one who said repetition of a belief does not make it true. That goes both ways.

I do agree that ECVs are also unsafe, and if it was up to me, I wouldn't allow ECV's in the parks either. But that cat is already out of the bag. I also don't believe they're nearly as dangerous as Segways would be since they can't travel nearly as fast.

I mean it's pure physics that an object traveling 12 miles per hour is capable of causing far more damage than an object traveling at 3 miles per hour.

Agreed. Ian has pretty much summed it up for me also, No need for me to add to this thread anymore.
Shawn