Disney Information Station Logo

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





Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-03-2006, 08:12 PM   #91
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by SueM in MN
My current job is in the area of something called "Performance Improvement". A good part of Perfomance Improvement is looking at the process the way it is, or the way you want to change it to be. You look at all the parts of the process (whether it is baking a cake, doing surgery, or bringing Segways into WDW) and the places where the process can/could/maybe fall apart or fail. Those "what ifs" are the things you need to take into account if you want success.
So, those who want to see Segways in places like WDW have a better chance of success if you understand the "what ifs". Understanding them allows you to prepare for when they are brought up and also to suggest some ways to deal with them.
At least that's IMHO.
"What Ifs" Are illegal.

Is it the opinion here that we only need to follow the laws we agree with?
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-03-2006, 10:44 PM   #92
SueM in MN
It's like combining the teacups with a roller coaster

 
SueM in MN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Twin Cities area,Minnesota,USA
Posts: 30,146
DISboards Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwinfred
"What Ifs" Are illegal.

Is it the opinion here that we only need to follow the laws we agree with?
I didn't say "What Ifs" are legal or anything about only following laws we agree with (and I don't think anyone said that we should).
I said if you want to succeed you need to understand the "What Ifs".

Whether or not "What Ifs" are legal doesn't really matter. They are going to come up. If you are trying to persuade Disney to let Segways be used in the parks, it is much more persuasive to have considered things from their point of view and have considered some possible solutions to what they see as problems. If you don't bring them up, they will.

If you are talking about ADA lawsuits, the "What Ifs" will be there too. Maybe not out in clear view, but I'm betting part of their defense would be that they have a responsibility to make a safe park experience for their guests. So, the "What Ifs" will be there too.
__________________
SueM in MN
Moderator of disABILITIES
Link to disABILITIES FAQs thread

Spaceship Earth: We are all passengers together.
Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans......John Lennon
Be a rainbow in someone else's cloud. Dr. Maya Angelou
trip report link in Memory of eternaldisneyfan, who lived these words: Some people are always grumbling because roses have thorns. I am thankful that thorns have roses. Alphonse Karr
SueM in MN is online now  
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 03-04-2006, 02:53 AM   #93
tarkus
I'm just here for the ride
 
tarkus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ponte Vedra, Fl
Posts: 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by SueM in MN
I didn't say "What Ifs" are legal or anything about only following laws we agree with (and I don't think anyone said that we should).
I said if you want to succeed you need to understand the "What Ifs".

Whether or not "What Ifs" are legal doesn't really matter. They are going to come up. If you are trying to persuade Disney to let Segways be used in the parks, it is much more persuasive to have considered things from their point of view and have considered some possible solutions to what they see as problems. If you don't bring them up, they will.

If you are talking about ADA lawsuits, the "What Ifs" will be there too. Maybe not out in clear view, but I'm betting part of their defense would be that they have a responsibility to make a safe park experience for their guests. So, the "What Ifs" will be there too.
Sue, it's all about the law.

Any errossion in the rights afforded by they ADA should concern all, what other laws is Disney allowed to break?

As far as the "what if's".......Do you think that one day the FDOT, or FAA, etal, just one day said "you know, it's time to look at that Segway thinggy" ?

No, that was done by people who understand the "what ifs".

The only thing that Disney needs to do is to come into compliance. Nothing persuasive about.

If it's law than it must be followed until it's no longer thw law.

Alan
tarkus is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 07:52 AM   #94
SueM in MN
It's like combining the teacups with a roller coaster

 
SueM in MN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Twin Cities area,Minnesota,USA
Posts: 30,146
DISboards Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarkus
No, that was done by people who understand the "what ifs".
That part is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying the "What Ifs" will come up, no matter what. I'm not saying only obey the laws you agree with. I'm saying whether the "What Ifs" become a factor in the discussion/situation or not doesn't depend on the law. They are going to come up regardless. That's a lot different than saying "Disney doesn't have to obey the laws" , which seems to be what you think I am saying.

And there are situations when the "What Ifs" are not against the law. For example, a hospital can't say "No service animals allowed." They can say "There are specific areas in the hospital where service animals are not allowed" because the risks of outweight the benefits (for example in surgery, or a sterile preparation area - whether it is a patient, visitor or worker). That's all based on "What Ifs".
__________________
SueM in MN
Moderator of disABILITIES
Link to disABILITIES FAQs thread

Spaceship Earth: We are all passengers together.
Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans......John Lennon
Be a rainbow in someone else's cloud. Dr. Maya Angelou
trip report link in Memory of eternaldisneyfan, who lived these words: Some people are always grumbling because roses have thorns. I am thankful that thorns have roses. Alphonse Karr
SueM in MN is online now  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:07 AM   #95
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by SueM in MN
That part is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying the "What Ifs" will come up, no matter what. I'm not saying only obey the laws you agree with. I'm saying whether the "What Ifs" become a factor in the discussion/situation or not doesn't depend on the law. They are going to come up regardless. That's a lot different than saying "Disney doesn't have to obey the laws" , which seems to be what you think I am saying.

And there are situations when the "What Ifs" are not against the law. For example, a hospital can't say "No service animals allowed." They can say "There are specific areas in the hospital where service animals are not allowed" because the risks of outweight the benefits (for example in surgery, or a sterile preparation area - whether it is a patient, visitor or worker). That's all based on "What Ifs".
Sue

In an earlier post Chuck S wrote that he believed that the ADA was a flawed law. I agree with him, the ADA is flawed, but not for the reasons he thinks that it is. The flaw in the ADA is that the penalties for violating it are not severe enough. In corporate America many are not driven by doing the right thing but only by doing the bottom line thing.

If people did the right thing there would have been no need for the ADA to have been passed at all. But the Segway is a perfect example of people not doing the right thing. With absolutely no evidence that it's dangerous to anyone they reject its use inside their parks by the very people that it could help the most. People who have difficulty walking.

And to add insult to injury they allow their cast members to ride around on a device with eight hours of training in front of someone who has been forced to rent a $40 a day scooter to replace their Segway which they've used for eight hours a day for the last two years. They'll even allow you to take a tour (if you're again willing to pay the freight) on one of these "dangerous" devices.

The Disney Corporation has become so Not "Walt Disney".

Walt Disney said about Epcot "It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed, but will always be introducing and testing and demonstrating new materials and systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise."

Unfortunately the Disney Corporation has cast aside Walt's desire for ingenuity and imagination and improving the quality of life for the American public.

It's a shame really, when you boil it down it's more about doing the right thing, than the legal thing.

One last quote from Walt "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing."
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:11 AM   #96
Chuck S
DVC Boards Co-Moderator
 
Chuck S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Seguin, Texas USA
Posts: 25,635
DISboards Moderator

I thought the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation" for disabled devices, etc. It boils down to whether courts would consider opening the parks to all Segways, whether the person had any training or not, a "reasonable" accomodation or a safety issue for all guests, doesn't it?

You still never addressed the issue of how Disney could legally tell the difference.
__________________

DVC Member at OKW since 1992
Chuck S is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:22 AM   #97
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck S
I thought the ADA requires "reasonable accomodation" for disabled devices, etc. It boils down to whether courts would consider opening the parks to all Segways, whether the person had any training or not, a "reasonable" accomodation or a safety issue for all guests, doesn't it?

You still never addressed the issue of how Disney could legally tell the difference.
Perhaps you can bless us with your evidence that the Segway presents a "safety issue for all guests".

Now remember under the law, you can't imagine it or contemplate it, you must have actual evidence of it. And that danger must be associated with the use of the device not the behavior of the operator.

So with that I'm all ears. (So to speak)
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:23 AM   #98
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck S
You still never addressed the issue of how Disney could legally tell the difference.

They can ask.
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 08:36 AM   #99
Chuck S
DVC Boards Co-Moderator
 
Chuck S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Seguin, Texas USA
Posts: 25,635
DISboards Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwinfred
They can ask.
People lie, and we have evidence of that with the ECVs.

The device itself, are you serious? ANY device, in and of itself, isn't dangerous, a car isn't dangerous sitting there parked, a segway isn't dangerous sitting there parked, nor is a gun dangerous sitting on a shelf. It is the use and actions of the owner/user that make any device dangerous...the law may be able to seperate fully the device from the use and user, but I don't think a court would be able to at all. All devices rely upon the behavior of the operator.
__________________

DVC Member at OKW since 1992

Last edited by Chuck S; 03-04-2006 at 08:44 AM.
Chuck S is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:09 AM   #100
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck S
People lie, and we have evidence of that with the ECVs.

The device itself, are you serious? ANY device, in and of itself, isn't dangerous, a car isn't dangerous sitting there parked, a segway isn't dangerous sitting there parked, nor is a gun dangerous sitting on a shelf. It is the use and actions of the owner/user that make any device dangerous...the law may be able to seperate fully the device from the use and user, but I don't think a court would be able to at all. All devices rely upon the behavior of the operator.

Just as I thought nothing but conjecture, c'mon with the internet at your fingertips can't you at least find one example?

Helen Keller may have said it best:

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:18 AM   #101
Chuck S
DVC Boards Co-Moderator
 
Chuck S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Seguin, Texas USA
Posts: 25,635
DISboards Moderator

It is not conjecture to say you can not seperate the device from the actions of the user. By definition any device does indeed rely upon the actions/behavior of its user. A shovel is a shovel, but it can't dig a hole without being used by someone. A Segway can not run around the park by itself, it requires a rider.
__________________

DVC Member at OKW since 1992
Chuck S is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:28 AM   #102
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

It is conjecture to be unable to provide any evidence at all of what would happen given the unsafe behavior of the user.

What is the potential danger for others when confronting a Segway operator who exhibits unsafe behavior, as compared to a power wheelchair or scooter operator who exhibits unsafe behavior.

This is a perfect example of the attitudes which required the passage of the ADA.
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:36 AM   #103
Chuck S
DVC Boards Co-Moderator
 
Chuck S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Seguin, Texas USA
Posts: 25,635
DISboards Moderator

Well, it is certainly common sense to know that being hit with a metal object traveling at 6mph will do less damage than being hit with a metal object traveling at 12 mph. The Segways weight is appoximately the same as an ECV. If you are hit with an ECV traveling 6 mph you would sustain less damage than an ECV traveling at 12 mph. Simple physics. That weight, along with the weight of the rider, is also distibuted between two points of contact with the ground, vs 3 or 4 with an ECV or wheelchair. Making each contact point bear a heavier load if it runs over a foot. Again, simple physics.
__________________

DVC Member at OKW since 1992

Last edited by Chuck S; 03-04-2006 at 09:45 AM.
Chuck S is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:43 AM   #104
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

It would be common sense (although not necessarily true) to conclude that being hit with the same object would do more damage at 12 mph versus 6 mph.

But we are talking about different objects.

A 350 pound power wheelchair for example which continues to move even after striking someone and can break toes and legs when striking them.

Versus a 84 pound device which stops immediately upon contact with another and has been demonstrated to cause no injury when rolling over anothers fingers.

There is no common sense in comparing apples with oranges.
Gwinfred is offline  
Old 03-04-2006, 09:47 AM   #105
Gwinfred
Earning My Ears
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 50

Simple Physics?

Would you rather have an elephant standing on your hand or a lady in high heels?

You keep editing your post above without answering my questions.

Are you sure you're not a member of Congress who goes back and edits in their remarks for the record after they've delivered them from the floor?

Last edited by Gwinfred; 03-04-2006 at 09:53 AM.
Gwinfred is offline  
Closed Thread



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 10:02 PM.

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: