Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Trip Planning Forums > The DIS Unplugged Podcast
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-26-2010, 06:40 PM   #1
Justin Jett
I will do my Elvis impression at DAP, if Kevin will do a duet with me
I'm signed up and ready to go
 
Justin Jett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,241

The new ADA rules were officially published today

Other power-driven mobility device means any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines--whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities--that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices (EPAMDs), such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair within the meaning of this section. This definition does not apply to Federal wilderness areas; wheelchairs in such areas are defined in section 508(c)(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12207(c)(2).

"Other Power-Driven Mobility Device" and "Wheelchair"
Because relatively few individuals with disabilities were using nontraditional mobility devices in 1991, there was no pressing need for the 1991 title III regulation to define the terms "wheelchair" or "other power-driven mobility device," to expound on what would constitute a reasonable modification in policies, practices, or procedures under § 36.302, or to set forth within that section specific requirements for the accommodation of mobility devices. Since the issuance of the 1991 title III regulation, however, the choices of mobility devices available to individuals with disabilities have increased dramatically. The Department has received complaints about and has become aware of situations where individuals with mobility disabilities have utilized devices that are not designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability, including the Segway® Personal Transporter (Segway® PT), golf cars, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and other locomotion devices.

The Department also has received questions from public accommodations and individuals with mobility disabilities concerning which mobility devices must be accommodated and under what circumstances. Indeed, there has been litigation concerning the legal obligations of covered entities to accommodate individuals with mobility disabilities who wish to use an electronic personal assistance mobility device (EPAMD), such as the Segway® PT, as a mobility device. The Department has participated in such litigation as amicus curiae. See Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., No. 6:07–cv–1785–Orl–31KRS, 2009 WL 3242028 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2009). Much of the litigation has involved shopping malls where businesses have refused to allow persons with disabilities to use EPAMDs. See, e.g., McElroy v. Simon Property Group, No. 08–404 RDR, 2008 WL 4277716 (D. Kan. Sept. 15, 2008) (enjoining mall from prohibiting the use of a Segway® PT as a mobility device where an individual agrees to all of a mall´s policies for use of the device, except indemnification); Shasta Clark, Local Man Fighting Mall Over Right to Use Segway, WATE 6 News, July 26, 2005, available at www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?s=3643674 (last visited June 24, 2010).

In response to questions and complaints from individuals with disabilities and covered entities concerning which mobility devices must be accommodated and under what circumstances, the Department began developing a framework to address the use of unique mobility devices, concerns about their safety, and the parameters for the circumstances under which these devices must be accommodated. As a result, the Department´s NPRM proposed two new approaches to mobility devices. First, the Department proposed a two-tiered mobility device definition that defined the term "wheelchair" separately from "other power-driven mobility device." Second, the Department proposed requirements to allow the use of devices in each definitional category. In § 36.311(a), the NPRM proposed that wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids used by individuals with mobility disabilities shall be permitted in any areas open to pedestrian use. Section 36.311(b) of the NPRM proposed that a public accommodation "shall make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that the use of the device is not reasonable or that its use will result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the public accommodation´s goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations." 73 FR 34508, 34556 (June 17, 2008).

The Department sought public comment with regard to whether these steps would, in fact, achieve clarity on these issues. Toward this end, the Department´s NPRM asked several questions relating to the definitions of "wheelchair," "other power-driven mobility device," and "manually-powered mobility aids"; the best way to categorize different classes of mobility devices, the types of devices that should be included in each category; and the circumstances under which certain types of mobility devices must be accommodated or may be excluded pursuant to the policy adopted by the public accommodation.

Because the questions in the NPRM that concerned mobility devices and their accommodation were interrelated, many of the commenters´ responses did not identify the specific question to which they were responding. Instead, commenters grouped the questions together and provided comments accordingly. Most commenters spoke to the issues addressed in the Department´s questions in broad terms and using general concepts. As a result, the responses to the questions posed are discussed below in broadly grouped issue categories rather than on a question-by-question basis.

Two-tiered definitional approach. Commenters supported the Department´s proposal to use a two-tiered definition of mobility device. Commenters nearly universally said that wheelchairs always should be accommodated and that they should never be subject to an assessment with regard to their admission to a particular public accommodation. In contrast, the vast majority of commenters indicated they were in favor of allowing public accommodations to conduct an assessment as to whether, and under which circumstances, other power-driven mobility devices will be allowed on-site.

Many commenters also indicated their support for the two-tiered approach in responding to questions concerning the definition of "wheelchair" and "other power-driven mobility device." Nearly every disability advocacy group said that the Department´s two-tiered approach strikes the proper balance between ensuring access for individuals with disabilities and addressing fundamental alteration and safety concerns held by public accommodations; however, a minority of disability advocacy groups wanted other power-driven mobility devices to be included in the definition of "wheelchair." Most advocacy, nonprofit, and individual commenters supported the concept of a separate definition for "other power-driven mobility device" because a separate definition would maintain existing legal protections for wheelchairs while recognizing that some devices that are not designed primarily for individuals with mobility disabilities have beneficial uses for individuals with mobility disabilities. They also favored this concept because it recognizes technological developments and that innovative uses of varying devices may provide increased access to individuals with mobility disabilities.

While two business associations indicated that they opposed the concept of "other power-driven mobility device" in its entirety, other business commenters expressed general and industry-specific concerns about permitting their use. They indicated that such devices create a host of safety, cost, and fraud issues that do not exist with wheelchairs. On balance, however, business commenters indicated that they support the establishment of a two-tiered regulatory approach because defining "other power-driven mobility device" separately from "wheelchair" means that businesses will be able to maintain some measure of control over the admission of the former. Virtually all of these commenters indicated that their support for the dual approach and the concept of other power-driven mobility devices was, in large measure, due to the other power-driven mobility device assessment factors in § 36.311(c) of the NPRM.

By maintaining the two-tiered approach to mobility devices and defining "wheelchair" separately from "other power-driven mobility device," the Department is able to preserve the protection users of traditional wheelchairs and other manually-powered mobility aids have had since the ADA was enacted, while also recognizing that human ingenuity, personal choice, and new technologies have led to the use of devices that may be more beneficial for individuals with certain mobility disabilities.

Moreover, the Department believes the two-tiered approach gives public accommodations guidance to follow in assessing whether reasonable modifications can be made to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices on-site and to aid in the development of policies describing the circumstances under which persons with disabilities may use such devices. The two-tiered approach neither mandates that all other power-driven mobility devices be accommodated in every circumstance, nor excludes these devices from all protection. This approach, in conjunction with the factor assessment provisions in § 36.311(b)(2), will serve as a mechanism by which public accommodations can evaluate their ability to accommodate other power-driven mobility devices. As will be discussed in more detail below, the assessment factors in § 36.311(b)(2) are specifically designed to provide guidance to public accommodations regarding whether it is permissible to bar the use of a specific other power-driven mobility device in a specific facility. In making such a determination, a public accommodation must consider the device´s type, size, weight dimensions, and speed; the facility´s volume of pedestrian traffic; the facility´s design and operational characteristics; whether the device conflicts with legitimate safety requirements; and whether the device poses a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or conflicts with Federal land management laws or regulations. In addition, under § 36.311(b)(i) if the public accommodation claims that it cannot make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with disabilities, the burden of proof to demonstrate that such devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements rests upon the public accommodation.

Categorization of wheelchair versus other power-driven mobility devices. Implicit in the creation of the two-tiered mobility device concept is the question of how to categorize which devices are wheelchairs and which are other power-driven mobility devices. Finding weight and size to be too restrictive, the vast majority of advocacy, nonprofit, and individual commenters opposed using the Department of Transportation´s definition of "common wheelchair" to designate the mobility device´s appropriate category. Business commenters who generally supported using weight and size as the method of categorization did so because of their concerns about having to make physical changes to their facilities to accommodate oversized devices. The vast majority of business commenters also favored using the device´s intended use to categorize which devices constitute wheelchairs and which are other power-driven mobility devices. Furthermore, the intended-use determinant received a fair amount of support from advocacy, nonprofit, and individual commenters, either because they sought to preserve the broad accommodation of wheelchairs or because they sympathized with concerns about individuals without mobility disabilities fraudulently bringing other power-driven mobility devices into places of public accommodation.

Commenters seeking to have the Segway® PT included in the definition of "wheelchair" objected to classifying mobility devices on the basis of their intended use because they felt that such a classification would be unfair and prejudicial to Segway® PT users and would stifle personal choice, creativity, and innovation. Other advocacy and nonprofit commenters objected to employing an intended-use approach because of concerns that the focus would shift to an assessment of the device, rather than the needs or benefits to the individual with the mobility disability. They were of the view that the mobility-device classification should be based on its function--whether it is used to address a mobility disability. A few commenters raised the concern that an intended-use approach might embolden public accommodations to assess whether an individual with a mobility disability really needs to use the other power-driven mobility device at issue or to question why a wheelchair would not provide sufficient mobility. Those citing objections to the intended-use determinant indicated it would be more appropriate to make the categorization determination based on whether the device is being used for a mobility disability in the context of the impact of its use in a specific environment. Some of these commenters preferred this approach because it would allow the Segway® PT to be included in the definition of "wheelchair."

Some commenters were inclined to categorize mobility devices by the way in which they are powered, such as battery-powered engines versus fuel or combustion engines. One commenter suggested using exhaust level as the determinant. Although there were only a few commenters who would make the determination based on indoor or outdoor use, there was nearly universal support for banning from indoor use devices that are powered by fuel or combustion engines.

A few commenters thought it would be appropriate to categorize the devices based on their maximum speed. Others objected to this approach, stating that circumstances should dictate the appropriate speed at which mobility devices should be operated--for example, a faster speed may be safer when crossing streets than it would be for sidewalk use--and merely because a device can go a certain speed does not mean it will be operated at that speed.

The Department has decided to maintain the device´s intended use as the appropriate determinant for which devices are categorized as "wheelchairs." However, because wheelchairs may be intended for use by individuals who have temporary conditions affecting mobility, the Department has decided that it is more appropriate to use the phrase "primarily designed" rather than "solely designed" in making such categorizations. The Department will not foreclose any future technological developments by identifying or banning specific devices or setting restrictions on size, weight, or dimensions. Moreover, devices designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities often are considered to be medical devices and are generally eligible for insurance reimbursement on this basis. Finally, devices designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities are less subject to fraud concerns because they were not designed to have a recreational component. Consequently, rarely, if ever, is any inquiry or assessment as to their appropriateness for use in a public accommodation necessary.

Definition of "wheelchair." In seeking public feedback on the NPRM´s definition of "wheelchair," the Department explained its concern that the definition of "wheelchair" in section 508(c)(2) of the ADA (formerly section 507(c)(2), July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 372, 42 U.S.C. 12207, renumbered section 508(c)(2), Public Law 110-325 section 6(a)(2), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3558), which pertains to Federal wilderness areas, is not specific enough to provide clear guidance in the array of settings covered by title III and that the stringent size and weight requirements for the Department of Transportation´s definition of "common wheelchair" are not a good fit in the context of most public accommodations. The Department noted in the NPRM that it sought a definition of "wheelchair" that would include manually-operated and power-driven wheelchairs and mobility scooters (i.e., those that typically are single-user, have three to four wheels, and are appropriate for both indoor and outdoor pedestrian areas), as well as a variety of types of wheelchairs and mobility scooters with individualized or unique features or models with different numbers of wheels. The NPRM defined a wheelchair as "a device designed solely for use by an individual with a mobility impairment for the primary purpose of locomotion in typical indoor and outdoor pedestrian areas. A wheelchair may be manually-operated or power-driven." 73 FR 34508, 34553 (June 17, 2008). Although the NPRM´s definition of "wheelchair" excluded mobility devices that are not designed solely for use by individuals with mobility disabilities, the Department, noting that the use of the Segway® PT by individuals with mobility disabilities is on the upswing, inquired as to whether this device should be included in the definition of "wheelchair."

Most business commenters wished the definition of "wheelchair" had included size, weight, and dimension maximums. Ultimately, however, they supported the definition because it excludes other power-driven mobility devices and enables them to engage in an assessment to determine whether a particular device can be allowed as a reasonable modification. These commenters felt this approach gave them some measure of control over whether, and under what circumstances, other power-driven mobility devices may be used in their facilities by individuals with mobility disabilities. Two commenters noted that because many mobility scooters are oversized, they are misplaced in the definition of "wheelchair" and belong with other power-driven mobility devices. Another commenter suggested using maximum size and weight requirements to allocate which mobility scooters should be categorized as wheelchairs, and which should be categorized as other power-driven mobility devices.

Many advocacy, nonprofit, and individual commenters indicated that as long as the Department intends the scope of the term "mobility impairments" to include other disabilities that cause mobility impairments (e.g., respiratory, circulatory, stamina, etc.), they were in support of the language. Several commenters indicated a preference for the definition of "wheelchair" in section 508(c)(2) of the ADA. One commenter indicated a preference for the term "assistive device," as it is defined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, over the term "wheelchair." A few commenters indicated that strollers should be added to the preamble´s list of examples of wheelchairs because parents of children with disabilities frequently use strollers as mobility devices until their children get older.

In the final rule, the Department has rearranged some wording and has made some changes in the terminology used in the definition of "wheelchair," but essentially has retained the definition, and therefore the rationale, that was set forth in the NPRM. Again, the text of the ADA makes the definition of "wheelchair" contained in section 508(c)(2) applicable only to the specific context of uses in designated wilderness areas, and therefore does not compel the use of that definition for any other purpose. Moreover, the Department maintains that limiting the definition to devices suitable for use in an "indoor pedestrian area" as provided for in section 508(c)(2) of the ADA would ignore the technological advances in wheelchair design that have occurred since the ADA went into effect and that the inclusion of the phrase "indoor pedestrian area" in the definition of "wheelchair" would set back progress made by individuals with mobility disabilities who, for many years now, have been using devices designed for locomotion in indoor and outdoor settings. The Department has concluded that same rationale applies to placing limits on the size, weight, and dimensions of wheelchairs.

With regard to the term "mobility impairments," the Department intended a broad reading so that a wide range of disabilities, including circulatory and respiratory disabilities, that make walking difficult or impossible, would be included. In response to comments on this issue, the Department has revisited the issue and has concluded that the most apt term to achieve this intent is "mobility disability."

In addition, the Department has decided that it is more appropriate to use the phrase, "primarily" designed for use by individuals with disabilities in the final rule, rather than, "solely" designed for use by individuals with disabilities--the phrase, proposed in the NPRM. The Department believes that this phrase more accurately covers the range of devices the Department intends to fall within the definition of "wheelchair."

After receiving comments that the word "typical" is vague and the phrase "pedestrian areas" is confusing to apply, particularly in the context of similar, but not identical, terms used in the proposed Standards, the Department decided to delete the term "typical indoor and outdoor pedestrian areas" from the final rule. Instead, the final rule references "indoor or * * * both indoor and outdoor locomotion," to make clear that the devices that fall within the definition of "wheelchair" are those that are used for locomotion on indoor and outdoor pedestrian paths or routes and not those that are intended exclusively for traversing undefined, unprepared, or unimproved paths or routes. Thus, the final rule defines the term "wheelchair" to mean "a manually-operated or power-driven device designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability for the main purpose of indoor or of both indoor and outdoor locomotion."

Whether the definition of "wheelchair" includes the Segway® PT. As discussed above, because individuals with mobility disabilities are using the Segway® PT as a mobility device, the Department asked whether it should be included in the definition of "wheelchair." The basic Segway® PT model is a two-wheeled, gyroscopically-stabilized, battery-powered personal transportation device. The user stands on a platform suspended three inches off the ground by wheels on each side, grasps a T-shaped handle, and steers the device similarly to a bicycle. Most Segway® PTs can travel up to 12½ miles per hour, compared to the average pedestrian walking speed of 3 to 4 miles per hour and the approximate maximum speed for power-operated wheelchairs of 6 miles per hour. In a study of trail and other non-motorized transportation users including EPAMDs, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found that the eye height of individuals using EPAMDs ranged from approximately 69 to 80 inches. See Federal Highway Administration, Characteristics of Emerging Road and Trail Users and Their Safety (Oct. 14, 2004), available at www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04103 (last visited June 24, 2010). Thus, the Segway® PT can operate at much greater speeds than wheelchairs, and the average user stands much taller than most wheelchair users.

The Segway® PT has been the subject of debate among users, pedestrians, disability advocates, State and local governments, businesses, and bicyclists. The fact that the Segway® PT is not designed primarily for use by individuals with disabilities, nor used primarily by persons with disabilities, complicates the question of to what extent individuals with disabilities should be allowed to operate them in areas and facilities where other power-driven mobility devices are not allowed. Those who question the use of the Segway® PT in pedestrian areas argue that the speed, size, and operating features of the devices make them too dangerous to operate alongside pedestrians and wheelchair users.

Comments regarding whether to include the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair" were, by far, the most numerous received in the category of comments regarding wheelchairs and other power-driven mobility devices. Significant numbers of veterans with disabilities, individuals with multiple sclerosis, and those advocating on their behalf made concise statements of general support for the inclusion of the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair." Two veterans offered extensive comments on the topic, along with a few advocacy and nonprofit groups and individuals with disabilities for whom sitting is uncomfortable or impossible.

While there may be legitimate safety issues for EPAMD users and bystanders in some circumstances, EPAMDs and other non-traditional mobility devices can deliver real benefits to individuals with disabilities. Among the reasons given by commenters to include the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair" were that the Segway® PT is well-suited for individuals with particular conditions that affect mobility including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson´s disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, amputations, spinal cord injuries, and other neurological disabilities, as well as functional limitations, such as gait limitation, inability to sit or discomfort in sitting, and diminished stamina issues. Such individuals often find that EPAMDs are more comfortable and easier to use than more traditional mobility devices and assist with balance, circulation, and digestion in ways that wheelchairs do not. See Rachel Metz, Disabled Embrace Segway, New York Times, Oct. 14, 2004. Commenters specifically cited pressure relief, reduced spasticity, increased stamina, and improved respiratory, neurologic, and muscular health as secondary medical benefits from being able to stand.

Other arguments for including the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair" were based on commenters´ views that the Segway® PT offers benefits not provided by wheelchairs and mobility scooters, including its intuitive response to body movement, ability to operate with less coordination and dexterity than is required for many wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and smaller footprint and turning radius as compared to most wheelchairs and mobility scooters. Several commenters mentioned improved visibility, either due to the Segway® PT´s raised platform or simply by virtue of being in a standing position. And finally, some commenters advocated for the inclusion of the Segway® PT simply based on civil rights arguments and the empowerment and self-esteem obtained from having the power to select the mobility device of choice.

Many commenters, regardless of their position on whether to include the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair," noted that the Segway® PT´s safety record is as good as, if not better, than the record for wheelchairs and mobility scooters.

Most business commenters were opposed to the inclusion of the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair" but were supportive of its inclusion as an "other power-driven mobility device." They raised industry- or venue-specific concerns about including the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair." For example, civic centers, arenas, and theaters were concerned about the impact on sight-line requirements if Segway® PT users remain on their devices in a designated wheelchair seating area; amusement parks expressed concern that rides have been designed, purchased, and installed to enable wheelchair users to transfer easily or to accommodate wheelchairs on the ride itself; and retail stores mentioned size constraints in some stores. Nearly all business commenters expressed concern--and perceived liability issues--related to having to store or stow the Segway® PT, particularly if it could not be stored in an upright position. These commenters cited concerns about possible damage to the device, injury to customers who may trip over it, and theft of the device as a result of not being able to stow the Segway® PT securely.

Virtually every business commenter mentioned concerns about rider safety, as well as concerns for pedestrians unexpectedly encountering these devices or being hit or run over by these devices in crowded venues where maneuvering space is limited. Their main safety objection to the inclusion of the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair" was that the maximum speed at which the Segway® PT can operate is far faster than that of motorized wheelchairs. There was a universal unease among these commenters with regard to relying on the judgment of the Segway® PT user to exercise caution because its top speed is far in excess of a wheelchair´s top speed. Many other safety concerns were industry-specific. For example, amusement parks were concerned that the Segway® PT is much taller than children; that it is too quiet to warn pedestrians, particularly those with low vision or who are blind, of their presence; that it may keep moving after a rider has fallen off or power system fails; and that it has a full-power override which automatically engages when an obstacle is encountered. Hotels and retail stores mentioned that maneuvering the Segway® PT through their tight quarters would create safety hazards.

Business commenters also expressed concern that if the Segway® PT were included in the definition of "wheelchair" they would have to make physical changes to their facilities to accommodate Segway® PT riders who stand much taller in these devices than do users of wheelchairs. They also were concerned that if the Segway® PT was included in the definition of "wheelchair," they would have no ability to assess whether it is appropriate to allow the entry of the Segway® PT into their facilities the way they would have if the device is categorized as an "other power-driven mobility device."

Many disability advocacy and nonprofit commenters did not support the inclusion of the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair." Paramount to these commenters was the maintenance of existing protections for wheelchair users. Because there was unanimous agreement that wheelchair use rarely, if ever, may be restricted, these commenters strongly favored categorizing wheelchairs separately from the Segway® PT and other power-driven mobility devices and applying the intended-use determinant to assign the devices to either category. They indicated that while they support the greatest degree of access in public accommodations for all persons with disabilities who require the use of mobility devices, they recognize that under certain circumstances allowing the use of other power-driven mobility devices would result in a fundamental alteration or run counter to legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation of a public accommodation. While these groups supported categorizing the Segway® PT as an "other power-driven mobility device," they universally noted that because the Segway® PT does not present environmental concerns and is as safe to use as, if not safer than, a wheelchair, it should be accommodated in most circumstances.

The Department has considered all the comments and has concluded that it should not include the Segway® PT in the definition of "wheelchair." The final rule provides that the test for categorizing a device as a wheelchair or an other power-driven mobility device is whether the device is designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities. Mobility scooters are included in the definition of "wheelchair" because they are designed primarily for users with mobility disabilities. However, because the current generation of EPAMDs, including the Segway® PT, was designed for recreational users and not primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities, the Department has decided to continue its approach of excluding EPAMDs from the definition of "wheelchair" and including them in the definition of "other power-driven mobility device." Although EPAMDs, such as the Segway® PT, are not included in the definition of a "wheelchair," public accommodations must assess whether they can make reasonable modifications to permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use such devices on their premises. The Department recognizes that the Segway® PT provides many benefits to those who use them as mobility devices, including a measure of privacy with regard to the nature of one´s particular disability, and believes that in the vast majority of circumstances, the application of the factors described in § 36.311 for providing access to other-powered mobility devices will result in the admission of the Segway® PT.
__________________
Skip AKA "Justin"
"Pursue the passion, not the money. If you follow your passion and you're good what you do, the money comes." -Pete Werner
Justin Jett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 06:58 PM   #2
Justin Jett
I will do my Elvis impression at DAP, if Kevin will do a duet with me
I'm signed up and ready to go
 
Justin Jett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,241

It has often been said that Universal Studios Orlando allows disabled people to use Segways.

I'm curious to know if anyone has used a Segway in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.
__________________
Skip AKA "Justin"
"Pursue the passion, not the money. If you follow your passion and you're good what you do, the money comes." -Pete Werner
Justin Jett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 08:24 PM   #3
WDWAurora
I may not be Peter's Tink, but I'm Patrick's...And his princess...Can Tink be a princess? Please?
 
WDWAurora's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 4,287

Wow, I'm really going to have to spend some time digesting all of that! I work in special education and like to have a good handle on the ADA rules. Maybe it's just late, but I'm having a hard time even following it because it is so detailed! It will definitely have lots of interesting implications for Disney, but I'm more interested for my everyday life. Am I reading correctly that Disney is still ok in not allowing them?
__________________
DH Me DS Pixie Hulk
Link to our September pre-trip report: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1864362 (with PICS!)
Link to the trip report! http://www.disboards.com/showthread....4#post27844434
WDWAurora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 09:40 PM   #4
Justin Jett
I will do my Elvis impression at DAP, if Kevin will do a duet with me
I'm signed up and ready to go
 
Justin Jett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by WDWAurora View Post
Wow, I'm really going to have to spend some time digesting all of that! I work in special education and like to have a good handle on the ADA rules. Maybe it's just late, but I'm having a hard time even following it because it is so detailed! It will definitely have lots of interesting implications for Disney, but I'm more interested for my everyday life. Am I reading correctly that Disney is still ok in not allowing them?
Here is this link to the full text:

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII...reg3_2010.html
__________________
Skip AKA "Justin"
"Pursue the passion, not the money. If you follow your passion and you're good what you do, the money comes." -Pete Werner
Justin Jett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2010, 11:21 PM   #5
jcb
always emerging from hibernation
 
jcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: In view of the Smoky Mountains
Posts: 3,540

Ok - let's play like we are WDW's safety expert.

The final rule requires WDW "to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices [Segways] by individuals with mobility disabilities" unless you (i.e. WDW) can prove that the Segway cannot be operated safely. In deciding whether the Segway can be operated safely, you must base your decision on actual risks and not mere speculation regarding the device or how it will be operated.

Here are the factors you must to evaluate to decide whether you have to permit the Segway in WDW:

Quote:
(i) The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;

(ii) The facility´s volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);

(iii) The facility´s design and operational characteristics (e.g., whether its business is conducted indoors, its square footage, the density and placement of stationary devices, and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the user);

(iv) Whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power-driven mobility device in the specific facility; and

(v) Whether the use of the other power-driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or poses a conflict with Federal land management laws and regulations.
You are allowed to ask the Segway user to provide "credible assurance that the [Segway] is required because of the person´s disability" but you can't ask questions about the nature and extent of the individual´s disability.

What is your decision?
__________________
Jack
jcb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 12:23 AM   #6
kaytieeldr
Reserving the right to make jokes out of typos - but NOT the people who make them - since 2012
 
kaytieeldr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: There is no Pixie Dust on the Transportation Board!!!
Posts: 35,773

I would simply cite (ii) in refusing all Segways. Yes, traffic fluctuates by season, day, even hour - what do you do when only 500 people show up at 9 AM, but by 11 you have 15,000? Eject all the Segway users? Err on the side of caution.

Walt Disney World won't let me use Tower of Terror's mainstream queue while on an ECV. I can do it. I have. I didn't know it wasn't allowed, and the Greeter was busy with other Guests, so I just rode on up. None of the other CMs even blinked an eye. But when I tried to do the same thing later in the week - nope. Turns out, because not ALLECVs can maneuver through the ropes, they don't allow ANY to try.

And that's my support for my decision
__________________
OFFICIAL 2014 Reading Challenge Participant 32/52
Phone Monkey; Phone Monkey 2; Phone Monkey Declined; The Barkeep; Ultimate Guide to Soapmaking; Brief Anecdotes from an Amusing Life; Twisted Disney; Tony Partly Cloudy; The Alternative Guide to Nursery Rhymes; Dead Woman's Shoes; South of Normal; Wal-Mart Book of Ethics; Las Vegas Cab Life; Savvy Travelers Guide: Boston Red Sox; Professor Plausible's Big Book of Baloney; Sweet Masterpiece; The President's Brain is Missing; Why Your Flight Attendant Hates You; Dirty Numbers; My Life on Craigslist; Retail Memories: When Customer Attack; The Village Idiots Cruise Club; How to Find Your Soulmate on the Internet - NOT!; The Dining Doctor; Cars & Stars; Tales in the Sky; Reader's Digest The Dumb Book; An Amazon Verified Purchase; Adventures in Casino Security; Waiter Rant; Keep the Change; Fairy Tales from the I.R.S.; now (still) reading "Hot Doug's", along with 'Match Dot C'mon', 'Cliches: A Dictionary of Recieved Ideas', 'The Chase', and 'Real Happy Family'
kaytieeldr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:16 AM   #7
kaligal
DIS Veteran
 
kaligal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,012

At some point, someone who understands legal stuff and is willing to comb through all that will explain to me what it says.

I really hope that people who cannot walk, but don't have to sit will not be forced into chairs because other people feel that they should sit.

I know that isn't the popular view around here (or most places), but it is mine.

I think that eventually, society will see that it is silly to force people to sit and will allow the new technology to be utilized.
kaligal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:26 AM   #8
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 7,969

Wow, thanks for posting that here.
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at the Beach Club!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:50 AM   #9
DisneyKevin
Kelvis
Above the Pearls Below the Crown

Such a tease!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 8,822
DISboards Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligal View Post
At some point, someone who understands legal stuff and is willing to comb through all that will explain to me what it says.

I really hope that people who cannot walk, but don't have to sit will not be forced into chairs because other people feel that they should sit.

I know that isn't the popular view around here (or most places), but it is mine.

I think that eventually, society will see that it is silly to force people to sit and will allow the new technology to be utilized.
What about dirt bikes or motorcycles for those that we dont want to be "forced into chairs"?
__________________
DisneyKevin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:51 AM   #10
Justin Jett
I will do my Elvis impression at DAP, if Kevin will do a duet with me
I'm signed up and ready to go
 
Justin Jett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligal View Post
At some point, someone who understands legal stuff and is willing to comb through all that will explain to me what it says.
Here ya go:

http://www.disboards.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=13
__________________
Skip AKA "Justin"
"Pursue the passion, not the money. If you follow your passion and you're good what you do, the money comes." -Pete Werner
Justin Jett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:55 AM   #11
maroo
DIS Veteran
 
maroo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 8,042

They do make "wheelchairs" (by the technical ADA term) that can stand - they have some that elevate to eye level for those that have to sit (Lauren has one) and there are wheelchairs that allow the person riding in them to literally stand up. Since they do make them and many are covered by insurance, I think that the new ADA definitions make sense, personally. If someone is more comfortable standing up - then they can get a wheelchair that will allow them to stand.
maroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 08:56 AM   #12
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 7,969

Skip, I found this... would you consider it a good "translation"?

Wheelchairs and Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices. The rule adopts a two-tiered approach to mobility devices, drawing distinctions between wheelchairs and "other power-driven mobility devices." "Other power-driven mobility devices" include a range of devices not designed for individuals with mobility impairments, such as the Segway® PT, but which are often used by individuals with disabilities as their mobility device of choice. Wheelchairs (and other devices designed for use by people with mobility impairments) must be permitted in all areas open to pedestrian use. "Other power-driven mobility devices" must be permitted to be used unless the covered entity can demonstrate that such use would fundamentally alter its programs, services, or activities, create a direct threat, or create a safety hazard. The rule also lists factors to consider in making this determination. This approach accommodates both the legitimate business interests in the safe operation of a facility and the growing use of the Segway® PT as a mobility device by returning veterans and others who are using the Segway® PT as their mobility aid of choice.
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at the Beach Club!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 09:02 AM   #13
kaligal
DIS Veteran
 
kaligal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 7,012

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisneyKevin View Post
What about dirt bikes or motorcycles for those that we dont want to be "forced into chairs"?
What about them? Or what about jet packs, cars or space shuttles?

I don't argue non-issues. People against gay marriage routinely ask if people can marry dogs or chairs. They say that if you can marry whomever you love, you should be able to marry your dog. Or a 5 year old girl. Etc., etc.

I don't argue that. It isn't the issue at hand.

There are plenty of people who cannot walk, but could use a Segway or whatever they may come up with next. I think they should be able to do that. And I think that it'll work out just fine. The world won't end. It won't be a catastrophe.

It'll be just like when they finally allowed power wheelchairs. Yeah, there is an occasional accident. But the folks in the power chairs are better off and we, as a society, are better for allowing them. If it makes us step aside once in while, whup. (That's a little whup. Not a big one.)
kaligal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 09:03 AM   #14
Justin Jett
I will do my Elvis impression at DAP, if Kevin will do a duet with me
I'm signed up and ready to go
 
Justin Jett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,241

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisneyKevin View Post
What about dirt bikes or motorcycles for those that we dont want to be "forced into chairs"?
Quote:
Other power-driven mobility device means any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or other engines--whether or not designed primarily for use by individuals with mobility disabilities--that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars, electronic personal assistance mobility devices (EPAMDs), such as the Segway® PT, or any mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes, but that is not a wheelchair within the meaning of this section.
Looks like golf carts are allowed.
__________________
Skip AKA "Justin"
"Pursue the passion, not the money. If you follow your passion and you're good what you do, the money comes." -Pete Werner
Justin Jett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2010, 09:03 AM   #15
roomthreeseventeen
Inaugural Dopey Challenge finisher
 
roomthreeseventeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 7,969

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Jett View Post
Looks like golf carts are allowed.
What's the difference between a golf car and a golf cart?
__________________
Amy, Patrick, Cosette and Herbie
Many trips as a kid! 2010 GF RPC (March) and AKL/BWI (Oct)
2012
AKL (marathon weekend) and ... AKL (Wine and Dine)
2013 Fort Wilderness 2014 Dopey Challenge AKL
2015 Dopey Challenge at the Beach Club!

roomthreeseventeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

You Rated this Thread: