Disney the segway and the ADA

[Schmeck]

There would also be problems limiting who is allowed to bring in their Segway - the ADA allows for equal access, not superior, and that can be looked at from two perspectives. The first would be that the Segway allows the disabled user to 'keep pace' with the able-bodied. The second would be that the endurance and ease of travel would give the disabled user 'superior' access, and thus not be covered under the ADA. It would be very difficult to ban some people from bringing in a Segway while others were allowed to.

Of course, not everyone has a Segway - but I'd bet a couple dollars that a few Segway rental stores would pop up in Orlando if Segways were allowed. Think of all the rented ECVs from outside sources at WDW.

 

[tarkus]

I'm curious as to which provisions of the ADA that you are relying on. I agree with you that it should be the law, but as a lawyer, I don't understand the ADA to be that cut and dried on mobility devicies. Just looking to become more informed . . .

Thanks!
HF24

Exactley the point !

When the ADA was drafted they were ambiguous as to exact names and types of devices as to leave room for new technologies.

So what happened was the "standard" became the FDOT definition of the " common wheelchair".

By strict definition the Segway DOES NOT meet the common wheelchair definition because it only has 2 wheels.

The original standard stated 3 or 4 wheel devices, as thats what was common at the time.

The FDOT has now issued guidance as to the Segway and has in essence brought the Segway into the "common wheelchair" category.

Hence the position that the Segway falls under ADA protections.

It's also protected by the Assisted technology act.

Without my "ears" yet I can't post url's that would help spell this out.

This is for those with qualifying disabilities of course.

Common wheelchair
http://adaptiveenvironments.org/nea..._1?PHPSESSID=236cce042b0392d4cd03b6b8106eaaf6

FDOT/SEGWAY
http://www.fta.dot.gov/14531_17515_ENG_HTML.htm

Related information
http://www.draft.cc

WOW, I got my ears !

Thanks for all the input,
Alan

 

[eternaldisneyfan]

"Segway HTs cannot be marketed as medical devices, because Segway HTs have not been approved by the FDA as a medical device." (http://www.answers.com/topic/segway)

This is probably the reason Disney (and other places) do not allow Segways. Until the FDA approves it as a medical device, there probably will not be much improvement. Also this site said some newer Segways can go up to 24 mph which would obviously be too dangerous a speed...

I don't think the common public should be allowed to use it in indoor areas. Disney or other offsite places shouldn't be able to rent it. Only those who own one, are trained on it, and have a disability placard should be able to use it. But if Disney imposed these restrictions and asked for proof they could be accused of violating medical privacy...it's all complicated.

When the FDA approves it & it is marketed as a mobility aid, then establishments will be more apt to approve its use.

I would concentrate on the media, educating the FDA, and marketing your idea to Segway to make this happen.

 

[Gwinfred]

I'm curious as to which provisions of the ADA that you are relying on. I agree with you that it should be the law, but as a lawyer, I don't understand the ADA to be that cut and dried on mobility devicies. Just looking to become more informed . . .

Thanks!
HF24

quite honestly the ADA has nothing to do with the specifications of mobility devices. As a lawyer I'm sure you're familiar with Attorney General Thornburgh's remarks when DOJ was implementing the ADA after its passage that there would be no attempt to identify devices because any attempt to do so would not be able to take into account future advances in technology.

However you might refer to the 1973 Rehabilitation Act as amended in 1998 which identifies an assistive technology device as "any item, piece of equipment, product system, whether acquired commercially, or modified which improves the functional capabilities of people with disabilities.

There is absolutely no requirement under any Federal LAW which requires an assistant device to have FDA approval.

 

[Gwinfred]

"Segway HTs cannot be marketed as medical devices, because Segway HTs have not been approved by the FDA as a medical device."

This is probably the reason Disney (and other places) do not allow Segways. Until the FDA approves it as a medical device, there probably will not be much improvement. Also this site said some newer Segways can go up to 24 mph which would obviously be too dangerous a speed...

I don't think the common public should be allowed to use it in indoor areas. Disney or other offsite places shouldn't be able to rent it. Only those who own one, are trained on it, and have a disability placard should be able to use it. But if Disney imposed these restrictions and asked for proof they could be accused of violating medical privacy...it's all complicated.

When the FDA approves it & it is marketed as a mobility aid, then establishments will be more apt to approve its use.

I would concentrate on the media, educating the FDA, and marketing your idea to Segway to make this happen.

there isn't actually any Segway they can go 24 mph the top speed of all Segways is 12.5 mph with the exception of the P. model which has a top speed of 10 mph.

Disability rights organizations across the country have to sue organizations every day for violating provisions of the ADA. The only reason that Disney hasn't been sued yet is because it's far down on the pecking order in terms of importance to people with disabilities everyday lives.

Perhaps some day soon it will rise to the top and they will get to explain themselves in federal court.

 

[tarkus]

"Segway HTs cannot be marketed as medical devices, because Segway HTs have not been approved by the FDA as a medical device." (http://www.answers.com/topic/segway)

This is probably the reason Disney (and other places) do not allow Segways. Until the FDA approves it as a medical device, there probably will not be much improvement. Also this site said some newer Segways can go up to 24 mph which would obviously be too dangerous a speed...

I don't think the common public should be allowed to use it in indoor areas. Disney or other offsite places shouldn't be able to rent it. Only those who own one, are trained on it, and have a disability placard should be able to use it. But if Disney imposed these restrictions and asked for proof they could be accused of violating medical privacy...it's all complicated.

When the FDA approves it & it is marketed as a mobility aid, then establishments will be more apt to approve its use.

I would concentrate on the media, educating the FDA, and marketing your idea to Segway to make this happen.

This is not my idea, it's about the law and the ADA.

FDA approval is not a requirement for ADA protection, and that is what this is about.

Disney nor any other "public accommodation", witch is what a theme park is under Title III of the ADA, gets to chose what laws they want to follow.

As far as violating the privacy end, they are already violating ADA as it stands.

I will agree that I don't see why someone who could walk would want to ride thru Disney.

My wife and I enjoyed many walks on Disney properties when I was healthy and believe on foot was the best way to take in the beauty.

It's hard to do that with your head at butt level, but again I digress.....

Sweet dreams,
Alan

 

[videogal1]

SueM,

I fully understand the position of no Segs for the able bodied, but we are talking about folks with qualifying disabilities. The Segway holds the same position as a mobility scooter as far as the ADA is concerned.

In fact, it does not. As shown by actions by the DOJ and decisions made by SCOTUS, it is highly unlikely that anyone having the stability and balance required to operate the Segway would qualify for protection of the ADA, which requires that a person be SUBSTANTIALLY limited in a major life activity (of walking, etc. in this application). The Segway requires balance, proprioception, and an occasional bit of fancy footwork to operate safely...none of which is required for the use of a "mobility scooter."

Anyone wishing to make a federal case out of this would be stopped in their tracks by the DOJ, which would dismiss the case on the basis that the complainant had no standing under the ADA.

 

[tarkus]

In fact, it does not. As shown by actions by the DOJ and decisions made by SCOTUS, it is highly unlikely that anyone having the stability and balance required to operate the Segway would qualify for protection of the ADA, which requires that a person be SUBSTANTIALLY limited in a major life activity (of walking, etc. in this application). The Segway requires balance, proprioception, and an occasional bit of fancy footwork to operate safely...none of which is required for the use of a "mobility scooter."

Anyone wishing to make a federal case out of this would be stopped in their tracks by the DOJ, which would dismiss the case on the basis that the complainant had no standing under the ADA.

With all do respect, I'm living proof !

If you like I will submit you both The Miami Project and Mayo Clinics reports to the contrary.

So "highly unlikely" leaves you a lot of wiggle room.

If you look at my links you will see Quads, double amps, paras all using Segways.

Would they be stopped in their tracks?

Regards,
Alan

 

[videogal1]

With all do respect, I'm living proof !

If you like I will submit you both The Miami Project and Mayo Clinics reports to the contrary.

So "highly unlikely" leaves you a lot of wiggle room.

If you look at my links you will see Quads, double amps, paras all using Segways.

Would they be stopped in their tracks?

Regards,
Alan

You may be living proof that you can use a Segway but if you, or anyone with your capabilities, were to push this to its final legal end you would not only lose your status under the ADA but also make some very bad case law. You cannot claim ADA protection if you have capabilities outside those defined by the DOJ and SCOTUS which, at this time, do not include ADA protection for anyone able to safely operate a Segway while still claiming impaired mobility at the level required by the ADA. Is that what you want?

 

[Chuck S]

There is another concern to address. With the ADA barring Disney from inquiring about the type of disability that requires someone to use a segway...or asking for proof of that disability, if they allowed them in the parks under the ADA, I see the immediate start up of off site rental operations that would rent segways to anyone. Disney could not say "No, unless you prove a disability." Even for safety concerns under the ADA. I think that the FDA and FDOT need to come up with an easy way to modify the Segways to make them "obviously" a handicapped/medical device...maybe a special color or paint design that, by Federal law, could only be obtained with a Physician's permission, and only be operated by the person with a "medical permit." For this type of technology, there has to be some sort of "bending" of privacy for the safety of people in crowded areas. That way, folks that truly need them could operate them, and those that don't wouldn't be able to obtain a medical permit or special colored Segway.

 

[Absimilliard]

Currently, Segways in the parks are limited to the tours at Epcot, which if you notice is training in a separate area and then the tour in itself which take place in the not yet open World Showcase. Thus, no crowds for novice riders to deal with. Cast members use them as well, but they're all trained and in a small number.

The problem I see and you can already see it with bulkier and slower ECV is that people don't "hear" them, so, you always have the chance of people going in front of you, not moving, etc. People are not yet used to having Segways around them and so do not act very good.

Also, I think liability may be an issue? Say a guest is driving his Segway around. If a guest gets injured, who's responsible? Disney for allowing it? The Segway user? Any one got more insight on that?

I may be completely wrong... but that's how I saw it.

 

[Schmeck]

Can you legally deny some people access to riding Segways in the park when you allow others to do so? Doesn't that go against the ADA's section about equal vs superior access?

Can anyone buy an electric wheelchair, with their own money, or an ECV, etc? Could they use them in the parks without a doctor's note? Wouldn't the Segway be the same?

 

[Gwinfred]

You may be living proof that you can use a Segway but if you, or anyone with your capabilities, were to push this to its final legal end you would not only lose your status under the ADA but also make some very bad case law. You cannot claim ADA protection if you have capabilities outside those defined by the DOJ and SCOTUS which, at this time, do not include ADA protection for anyone able to safely operate a Segway while still claiming impaired mobility at the level required by the ADA. Is that what you want?

There are certainly a lot of people who have misconceptions about the Segway.

"Substantial Limitation" in walking could be caused by many conditions including some which would leave one with the ability to balance, and even the ability to do a bit of "fancy footwork" as you put it. COPD comes to mind, but there is also a Federal Judge with lung cancer who no longer has the ability to walk the distance required and uses a Segway as his mobility device inside a federal courthouse in the United States.

"Substantial Limitation" under federal law could also be temporary as I'm sure you're aware. For example someone who had a broken leg in a cast, who could stand but not walk any distance would be considered as having a substantial limitation.

An even better example of someone meeting the definition of "substantial limitation" are amputees. This organization called DRAFT has donated Segways to soldiers who have lost a leg or in one case both legs while serving our country in Iraq. While all of the soldiers have prosthetic legs walking any distance is difficult for them. The use of the Segway allows them to visit places and do things that they would ordinarily not be able to do. No one would suggest that they don't meet the definition of disability under federal law.

Interestingly the Segway requires none of the items which you have ascribed to it. It doesn't require good balance, or even fancy footwork to operate it safely. There are many people with multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease and other conditions where their balance is affected but can safely operate the Segway. The design of the Segway and its gyroscopes compensate for their balance problems.

The Disability Law Coordinating Council of the United States Department of Transportation issued ADA guidance with regard to the Segway on September 1, 2005. This guidance ascribed the same legal standing to the Segway as that of other mobility aids such as the cane, walker, etc. and required transportation agencies to transport Segway as an assistive device for people with disabilities.

The Segway is new technology and as with all things new they are often times resisted by those who don't understand them. Hopefully for many people who have difficulty walking, that understanding of the Segway will come sooner rather than later.

 

[Gwinfred]

There is another concern to address. With the ADA barring Disney from inquiring about the type of disability that requires someone to use a segway...or asking for proof of that disability, if they allowed them in the parks under the ADA, I see the immediate start up of off site rental operations that would rent segways to anyone. Disney could not say "No, unless you prove a disability." Even for safety concerns under the ADA. I think that the FDA and FDOT need to come up with an easy way to modify the Segways to make them "obviously" a handicapped/medical device...maybe a special color or paint design that, by Federal law, could only be obtained with a Physician's permission, and only be operated by the person with a "medical permit." For this type of technology, there has to be some sort of "bending" of privacy for the safety of people in crowded areas. That way, folks that truly need them could operate them, and those that don't wouldn't be able to obtain a medical permit or special colored Segway.

Well to be clear the ADA doesn't bar anyone from inquiry with regard to disability it just limits the extent of that inquiry. A very good example is the service animal. Places of public accommodation can refuse to allow pets inside their venue but cannot refuse entrance of the service animal. To help prevent fraud they can however inquire as to the tasks which that service animal provides for the individual with disabilities.

The service animal as you might guess isn't FDA approved. Under federal law there is no requirement for certification and indeed individuals can train their service animals themselves. They are not required to carry medical permits, etc.

The service animal and the Segway when used by a person with disabilities are very similar in this sense. My pet dog would not be allowed but your service animal would be. They might even be the same animal but when I'm holding the leash it's a pet. People using the Segway as an assistive device who have disabilities have the same rights under the law has anyone else.

And by the way the Segway is much safer in crowded areas to those around at them the wheelchair or the scooter. Have you ever heard of anyone that's been hurt badly by someone operating a Segway?

 

[Gwinfred]

Currently, Segways in the parks are limited to the tours at Epcot, which if you notice is training in a separate area and then the tour in itself which take place in the not yet open World Showcase. Thus, no crowds for novice riders to deal with. Cast members use them as well, but they're all trained and in a small number.

The problem I see and you can already see it with bulkier and slower ECV is that people don't "hear" them, so, you always have the chance of people going in front of you, not moving, etc. People are not yet used to having Segways around them and so do not act very good.

Also, I think liability may be an issue? Say a guest is driving his Segway around. If a guest gets injured, who's responsible? Disney for allowing it? The Segway user? Any one got more insight on that?

I may be completely wrong... but that's how I saw it.

What makes Disney's stance on the Segway for people with disabilities, while unlawful, even more peculiar is the fact that they not only have tours, but more importantly have cast members running around all over the Park on them. As a matter of fact Disney is one of Segway's biggest customers.

While I understand that the cast members are trained, so are people with disabilities. As a matter-of-fact I would assert that those with disabilities using the Segway as an assistive device are better trained than the cast members and are more accomplished using the Segway than those cast members. In my experience people whose mobility is dependent upon two wheels sticking out from their sides are much more accomplished than those who mobility is not. It would surprise many people to know that the Segway is used by many people for mobility inside their homes. In tight spaces around small animals etc. it's the best mobility device for those who can stand but have difficulty walking.

The issue of liability is no different for an individual using the Segway than a individual using a power wheelchair. If you were negligent you are responsible. But then again I don't think anybody's ever been injured by someone on a Segway. You can't say that about a power wheelchair or scooter.

 

[Chuck S]

But again, the problem comes down to how to tell the difference between someone that truly needs the accomodation of a Segway and those that simply want to rent one off-site for the "fun of running around Disney on a Segway." The point of my post is there has to be some legal, formal, uniform way to identify either the special need Segway or a special needs user from someone out for a joy ride. As far as anyone being hurt by a Segway...if they were as prevalent as wheelchairs and ECVs then you could make an adequte comparison. My bet is there would be the same or more Segway than ECV accidents...and Segways have the potential to hurt someone much worse if driven at higher speeds.

 

[Gwinfred]

But again, the problem comes down to how to tell the difference between someone that truly needs the accomodation of a Segway and those that simply want to rent one off-site for the "fun of running around Disney on a Segway." The point of my post is there has to be some legal, formal, uniform way to identify either the special need Segway or a special needs user from someone out for a joy ride. As far as anyone being hurt by a Segway...if they were as prevalent as wheelchairs and ECVs then you could make an adequte comparison. My bet is there would be the same or more Segway than ECV accidents...and Segways have the potential to hurt someone much worse if driven at higher speeds.

The solution to your problem is that Disney can tell everyone that Segways are not allowed. However if someone tells them they have a mobility related disability and they must allow them. Literally no different than the issue of service animals versus pets.

They can also look for additional evidence of disability, perhaps a cane hanging from a Segway, or a disabled placard affixed to the Segway in some form, etc., and if they suspect fraud there are other ways to deal with that.

It's absolutely true that Segways are not as prevalent as power wheelchairs or scooters. But I have no idea how you could reach the conclusion that the Segway's have the potential to hurt someone worse than a power wheelchair. Do you know that the top speed of many power wheelchairs exceeds 12 mph?

Because of the design of the Segway has less potential to cause injury than any mobility device. The only known study which was presented to the Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC assess the danger of the Segway to others even when operated a top speed as being equivalent to that of children playing. They assessed the danger of the power wheelchair to others to be consistent with equestrians (people riding horses).

 

[videogal1]

TAn even better example of someone meeting the definition of "substantial limitation" are amputees. This organization called DRAFT has donated Segways to soldiers who have lost a leg or in one case both legs while serving our country in Iraq. While all of the soldiers have prosthetic legs walking any distance is difficult for them. The use of the Segway allows them to visit places and do things that they would ordinarily not be able to do. No one would suggest that they don't meet the definition of disability under federal law.

If you take a look at the direction of ADA court decisions regarding the qualifying criteria for coverage under the ADA you would soon see that your amputees would not necessarily be considered as having a substantial limitation. The ADA does not consider diagnosis or the "name" of a condition when it comes to its qualifying criteria. If your amputee, regardless of the cause, is not substantially limited by the condition, they do not qualify as disabled under the ADA. IOne decision held that if a person could walk with the use of a cane they were not disabled.

The Disability Law Coordinating Council of the United States Department of Transportation issued ADA guidance with regard to the Segway on September 1, 2005. This guidance ascribed the same legal standing to the Segway as that of other mobility aids such as the cane, walker, etc. and required transportation agencies to transport Segway as an assistive device for people with disabilities.

That may be true, however, it is unlikely that the DOJ would find the person using the Segway disabled under the current case law and would, therefore end any hope of a future widespread "medical" use because the user would not be considered disabled and their case would not advance. That does not mean that a person with a disability who could ride one would get a ticket for doing so, it just means that if they chose to fight that ticket using an ADA-based defense, they would not prevail, as the ability to use one to mitigate a mobility issue exceeds the qualifying standard for the ADA, as shown by case law. All you have to do is make a quick review of ADA-based decisions to see that the coverage under the ADA is shrinking and those whose "impairments" were previously thought to be substantial limitations and considered disabling are now not.

The Segway is new technology and as with all things new they are often times resisted by those who don't understand them. Hopefully for many people who have difficulty walking, that understanding of the Segway will come sooner rather than later.[/QUOTE]

It is not people that need to understand the Segway but, rather, people who need to understand the ADA and what it is turning into. It does not matter if the Segway is deemed a medical device. One would think that a cane is a medical device, yet consistent use of a cane does not automatically make one disabled and if Disney,which is the original topic of this discussion, choses to prohibit use of the Segway, even as a medical device, it is their right. They have little to lose. At this point in time there is no way that the courts would find its user disabled under the ADA, thereby making the whole argument pointless.

 

[Gwinfred]

Well I don't believe we want to turn this into a legal debate about what the Supreme Court has said and what they haven't, but you strike me as one who may have participated in Fred Shotz's forum. I don't believe there's any case law which you can cite which will support your arguments in title III of the ADA.

I believe you're referring to the case law which was held in title I cases, specifically Sutton v. United Airlines Inc. and Toyota v. Williams, which were narrow issues and even the Justices who found for the majority don't agree with your position.

Justice O'Connor who delivered the opinion of the court in Sutton v. United Airlines said this about your position:

"The dissents suggest that viewing individuals in their corrected state will exclude from the definition of "disab[led]"
those who use prosthetic limbs, see post , at 3-4 (opinion of Stevens , J.), post , at 1 (opinion of B reyer , J.), or take
medicine for epilepsy or high blood pressure, see post , at 14, 16 (opinion of S tevens , J.). This suggestion is incorrect.
The use of a corrective device does not, by itself, relieve one's disability. Rather, one has a disability under subsection A
if, notwithstanding the use of a corrective device, that individual is substantially limited in a major life activity. For
example, individuals who use prosthetic limbs or wheelchairs may be mobile and capable of functioning in society but
still be disabled because of a substantial limitation on their ability to walk or run. The same may be true of individuals
who take medicine to lessen the symptoms of an impairment so that they can function but nevertheless remain
substantially limited. Alternatively, one whose high blood pressure is "cured" by medication may be regarded as disabled
by a covered entity, and thus disabled under subsection C of the definition. The use or nonuse of a corrective device does
not determine whether an individual is disabled; that determination depends on whether the limitations an individual with
an impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting."

If you're aware of any case law under title III which support your position I would love to read it. I'm a student of the ADA and the 1973 rehabilitation act and I'm always learning.

 

[Chuck S]

The only known study which was presented to the Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC assess the danger of the Segway to others even when operated a top speed as being equivalent to that of children playing. They assessed the danger of the power wheelchair to others to be consistent with equestrians (people riding horses).

To the person on the Segway, or the pedestrian that it hit? It seems that the pedestrian would come out far worse being rammed by a Segway, simply because the higher center of gravity, increasing the risk of the rider falling onto the pedestrian. Generally, if one is rammed by an ECV or wheelchair the passenger of the device usually remains seated. With a Segway that person would be more likely to fall off the device and land upon someone else. Also, you state, simply informing Disney that one has a disablility should enable them to use a Segway in the parks. Again, how does that solve the problem of folks renting Segways for the fun of it and running them through the parks?

Disney: Do you have a disability that is assisted by the Segway?
Rider: Yes.

I think we'd see a lot of folks with "instant" disabilities. There HAS to be a system put in place to adequately weed out the joyriders, whether it be a doctors pass or specially emblazoned/colored Segway. Especially on a product as popular for fully ambulatory and able bodied folks as the Segway is becoming.