Buses, ECVs, and the Law

[mgilmer]

It isn't something that is word for word out of the ADA it is how court precedent has interpreted what equal non-discriminatory access is.

So the court has said that to load able-bodied guests only would be to treat a wheel-chair user differently and therefore not equally.

Its not meant as a penalty to anyone, only as a means to treat everybody at one bus stop equally.

What court where?

 

[mgilmer]

So, at this point, I can't say that the "bus is considered full" part is in any specific law. I did see it in writing, but can't point to it, so I won't quote that part anymore.
I can say that some of the 'good drivers' have mentioned that they were told that information in their training, so not sure why it would be part of the training if it was not true.

Sue:

It could be that is Disney policy. As my lawyer friend told me, there is nothing preventing Disney, or any other business, from going above or beyond the "floor" that is the law and enabling regulations and doing more than what the law allows to institute parity between the disabled and the enabled. I just think it is wrong to state something as the law (the "floor") when it is not.

 

[bookwormde]

When a law is passed (ADA) the responsible executive department creates rules and regulations, which for this particular situation is title III section 304. It basically states that persons with disabilities will not be discriminated against (have equal access), and specifies which levels of transport the section applies to.

Then methodologies are developed to meet the regulations. Some of these work without challenge and some are challenged either administratively or in Federal District Court.
Once a set of generally acceptable methodologies are developed they are published for use a guidelines. This does not mean that they work in all situations or are not open to challenge.

The methodology, which DWD uses, is one of these methodologies, which have become generally acceptable. There are certainly other methodologies that would work (like having 10 disabled places n the bus instead of 1 or 2) but WDW has chosen this one to be most efficient while providing equal access.

Part of this equal access consideration in this methodology is that if a disabled person is not able to load then to allow anyone else to load would violate equal access.

Loading order is just a matter of practicality and safety (assuming that non disabled individuals respect the law in regards to the disabled spaces).

There is a large body of court and administrative rulings on ADA, which continue to evolve; additionally Congress modifies the law upon occasion (a big amendment reinstating some of the original intent is just being passed).

There is no specific enforcing action for removing individuals from Disabled seats, what does happen if these seat are not available as needed is that WDW would have to come up with a way to make these seat unavailable at all times except when needed by disabled individuals. Obliviously this is inefficient but is the final solution.

To give another example, WDW has some room classes, which can be more difficult to access (book) for disabled individuals than for the general population. Even though they are within the guidelines, if the practical effect of the methodology creates inequalities in access then it is still open to administrative of court challenge.

Hope this helps with some process understanding.

bookwormde

 

[mgilmer]

When a law is passed (ADA) the responsible executive department creates rules and regulations, which for this particular situation is title III section 304. It basically states that persons with disabilities will not be discriminated against (have equal access), and specifies which levels of transport the section applies to.

Then methodologies are developed to meet the regulations. Some of these work without challenge and some are challenged either administratively or in Federal District Court.
Once a set of generally acceptable methodologies are developed they are published for use a guidelines. This does not mean that they work in all situations or are not open to challenge.

The methodology, which DWD uses, is one of these methodologies, which have become generally acceptable. There are certainly other methodologies that would work (like having 10 disabled places n the bus instead of 1 or 2) but WDW has chosen this one to be most efficient while providing equal access.

Part of this equal access consideration in this methodology is that if a disabled person is not able to load then to allow anyone else to load would violate equal access.

Loading order is just a matter of practicality and safety (assuming that non disabled individuals respect the law in regards to the disabled spaces).

There is a large body of court and administrative rulings on ADA, which continue to evolve; additionally Congress modifies the law upon occasion (a big amendment reinstating some of the original intent is just being passed).

There is no specific enforcing action for removing individuals from Disabled seats, what does happen if these seat are not available as needed is that WDW would have to come up with a way to make these seat unavailable at all times except when needed by disabled individuals. Obliviously this is inefficient but is the final solution.

To give another example, WDW has some room classes, which can be more difficult to access (book) for disabled individuals than for the general population. Even though they are within the guidelines, if the practical effect of the methodology creates inequalities in access then it is still open to administrative of court challenge.

Hope this helps with some process understanding.

bookwormde

That is precisely what the attorney told me. These are guidelines to meet the ADA requirements but they are not the law as other guidelines can be used as well. These are only suggestions to businesses as ways of implementing the ADA equal access provisions. They do not carry the force of law. I think we need to be careful in saying that doing "X" is illegal when it is not. It is not illegal to continue to load the enabled just because there are no disabled slots available. Other accommodations can (and should) be made in those circumstances. Now if a driver deliberately refuses to load a disabled person when disabled space is available, that is another story. That is illegal.

 

[bookwormde]

Actually once a methodology is chosen if the entity fails to follow the methodology and the effect is to deny equal access that is a violation of the law. So yes if the driver continues to load, then by not assuring equal access, he is causing his employer to be in violation of the law. Occasional inadvertent violations are not generally perused, but if a pattern develops then administrative and court challenges are appropriate and would likely find that the entity was not in compliance.

bookwormde

 

[mgilmer]

Actually once a methodology is chosen if the entity fails to follow the methodology and the effect is to deny equal access that is a violation of the law. So yes if the driver continues to load, then by not assuring equal access, he is causing his employer to be in violation of the law. Occasional inadvertent violations are not generally perused, but if a pattern develops then administrative and court challenges are appropriate and would likely find that the entity was not in compliance.

​

bookwormde

Well I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on tv, but my friend said that an alternate accommodation is an acceptable alternative. I asked him how a business like Disney could make an acceptable alternative accommodation in this situation and he said that if the driver immediately called for a second bus and the disabled person unable to be loaded due to space limits on the first bus was loaded first on the second bus and the wait period was "reasonable" for the second bus to arrive, that would be an acceptable accomodation under the law. FWIW, my friend has been practicsing exclusively in this area for about 30 years and really knows his beans.

 

[bookwormde]

Actually the second bus must arrive before the first bus leaves it loaded riders at the stop to be in technical compliance, but most people find this accommodation acceptable as long a the bus can actually accommodate them in a reasonable time. Most people are quite happy as long as the situation is reasonable, that is why there are very few formal challenges. And yes any accommodation, which provides equivalent access is acceptable, it is only when access is not equivalent that there is an issue

bookwormde

 

[Talking Hands]

Actually the second bus must arrive before the first bus leaves it loaded riders at the stop to be in technical compliance, but most people find this accommodation acceptable as long a the bus can actually accommodate them in a reasonable time. Most people are quite happy as long as the situation is reasonable, that is why there are very few formal challenges. And yes any accommodation, which provides equivalent access is acceptable, it is only when access is not equivalent that there is an issue

bookwormde

But this is given lip service and in reality is not done by the drivers at WDW. You are just told to wait for the next bus or altogether ignored. If they do say they will call for another bus it doesn't happen and you wait for the next scheduled bus. That is unless you call and complain.

 

[mgilmer]

But this is given lip service and in reality is not done by the drivers at WDW. You are just told to wait for the next bus or altogether ignored. If they do say they will call for another bus it doesn't happen and you wait for the next scheduled bus. That is unless you call and complain.

That is a clear violation of the law. No doubt about it and Disney should be held to account.

 

[SueM in MN]

Sue:

It could be that is Disney policy. As my lawyer friend told me, there is nothing preventing Disney, or any other business, from going above or beyond the "floor" that is the law and enabling regulations and doing more than what the law allows to institute parity between the disabled and the enabled. I just think it is wrong to state something as the law (the "floor") when it is not.

Trust me, I do know the difference between policy, law and guidelines.
I work with CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and OSHA guidelines and Federal and State Law. I also have written my share of policies and procedures over the years.

I was (I guess you could say) acting in good faith when I posted that information. It was represented to me as law, not policy.
I was told it in PMs independently by 2 bus drivers probably 7 or 8 years ago and did have a citation for it which they sent to me (I do not think it was presented to me as ADA law, but as Department of Transportation). Over the years since then, a number of bus drivers have also mentioned it to us (as law) while they were loading DD's wheelchair on the bus. So, I did have what seemed like very good evidence for the information.

As I stated in the post that you quoted, I do not now have a link to back up the information about the bus being 'full', so I will not post that until/unless I can find a link to back it up. As much as possible, I do find links to as much specific information as I can. I don't always post the links, because links have a way of becoming 'dead' links that no longer work, but I do post quotes whenever possible.
There is a link (which I posted in this thread) that says the bus drivers are required to ask people sitting in the 'handicapped designated' seats to move if those seats are needed by someone with a disability. So, that part is based on the ADA Civil Rights Document.

I would have preferred a PM rather than an accusation in a thread that basically said I knowingly represented something as law when it was not, but I do think the discussion that comes out of this may be a good thing.

PM or thread, I would have done the same thing that I did on the linked thread above - indicated I could not back up part of the information and would not post it again. I don't have time to go back right now and post that same information on other threads where it came up, but will when I have time in the next weekend.

I am not afraid to say I am wrong when I am. I do read threads on other boards, which is where I read the information which led me to spend a couple of hours looking for back up documentation and when I could not find it, I posted in the thread linked above.

 

[bookwormde]

In the end the “technicalities” only matter if you are headed for administrative or court solutions to a problem. What people need to keep in mind is that ADA is a discriminations law with the basic concept being equal access, when equal access does not happen other than in an unusual circumstance, it is time to work through the channels to correct the situation. This is typically the only way that things improve. Bus supervisors are the best starting point in this case, if that does not work I would think that WDW has an manager or department which is responsible for of meeting the needs of special needs guest who visit WDW and that would be the next level.

Just wondering is anyone has the email for this person/department? With the persistence of the current bus access problem it is probably getting to be time for someone who has been affected by this issue to move it up the chain of command in WDW.

Thanks to CheshireFigment for splitting this discussing off so those that have interest in it can access it easier and can serve as a useful link since the general bus discussion seem to come up regularly.

bookwormde

 

[Talking Hands]

I have sent a link to a friend whose job is Disability Access at Disney.

 

[bookwormde]

TalkingHands

Thanks, hopefully the person will consider the possibility of setting up and supplying an email address so when issues are identified that appear to be a significant and repetitive problem which have not been resolved through standard channels, that this information can be transferred in a timely manner.

Since we all love Disney and just want to make it better my thoughts are that this would avoid the potential of issues like this eventually entering the adversarial venue.

bookwormde

 

[mgilmer]

Trust me, I do know the difference between policy, law and guidelines.
I work with CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and OSHA guidelines and Federal and State Law. I also have written my share of policies and procedures over the years.

I was (I guess you could say) acting in good faith when I posted that information. It was represented to me as law, not policy.
I was told it in PMs independently by 2 bus drivers probably 7 or 8 years ago and did have a citation for it which they sent to me (I do not think it was presented to me as ADA law, but as Department of Transportation). Over the years since then, a number of bus drivers have also mentioned it to us (as law) while they were loading DD's wheelchair on the bus. So, I did have what seemed like very good evidence for the information.

As I stated in the post that you quoted, I do not now have a link to back up the information about the bus being 'full', so I will not post that until/unless I can find a link to back it up. As much as possible, I do find links to as much specific information as I can. I don't always post the links, because links have a way of becoming 'dead' links that no longer work, but I do post quotes whenever possible.
There is a link (which I posted in this thread) that says the bus drivers are required to ask people sitting in the 'handicapped designated' seats to move if those seats are needed by someone with a disability. So, that part is based on the ADA Civil Rights Document.

I would have preferred a PM rather than an accusation in a thread that basically said I knowingly represented something as law when it was not, but I do think the discussion that comes out of this may be a good thing.

PM or thread, I would have done the same thing that I did on the linked thread above - indicated I could not back up part of the information and would not post it again. I don't have time to go back right now and post that same information on other threads where it came up, but will when I have time in the next weekend.

I am not afraid to say I am wrong when I am. I do read threads on other boards, which is where I read the information which led me to spend a couple of hours looking for back up documentation and when I could not find it, I posted in the thread linked above.

Sue:

It was never my intention to accuse or imply that you were willfully misstating anything. I apologize for stating my opinion is such a way as would lead you to believe that. I have the utmost respect for you and your posts and agree with you 99.8% of the time. Again, I apologize.

 

[mgilmer]

There is a link (which I posted in this thread) that says the bus drivers are required to ask people sitting in the 'handicapped designated' seats to move if those seats are needed by someone with a disability. So, that part is based on the ADA Civil Rights Document.

I have always thought that part of the law is too weak. If an enabled person parks their car in a handicapped parking space, they can be told to move it or get a ticket and be towed. Why cannot the same be told to an enabled person who parks their butt in a handicapped blocking space (assuming there is another place for them to move to)?

 

[sunnydoozer]

What court where?

Oh Lord

I guess you were on some sort of militant bent. I merely wanted to let the other posters know that there was no such language in the ADA. I have no interest in photocopying lengthy court rulings, for your benefit, especially when you presumeably have access yourself through your "lawyer friend".

Since you didn't pick up on it no one on the board was suggesting that buses leave half full. It is however useful food for thought to encourage city's and oddly enough Disney to have sufficient lifts and tiedowns in service.

 

[Talking Hands]

I can tell you that in the 10 years I have been using an ECV and then a PWC at WDW has an able bodied person denied access to a bus because I could not be accommodated. I will be left behind but they will be allowed to board unless there is no room for anyone to board. Is that equal access? No! Is it the way it is? Sure is. Do I complain about it. Not really. I don't want those who are able to go to WDW without mobility aids to complain even more that the disabled are ruining their trip.

 

[Schmeck]

Would this be considered illegal? 3 people in ECVs are waiting for the bus, which fits only 2 ECVs. Two get on, one is left to wait for the next bus. The bus driver then lets those able to use the front entrance to board.

How about this scenario? I get on a bus, and the only open seats are the ones that fold up for an ECV/wheelchair. I have to have a seat because my calf is aching from my re-excision, so I sit in one of those seats. Now we get to the next bus stop and someone there is in a wheelchair. Can I be forced to get out of my seat and stand? If I have to stand, I'd have to get off the bus and wait for the next one, as I'd collapse on a moving bus if I was standing.

Has anyone looked at the # of ECV and wheelchair users on average at WDW, the number of able bodied guests, and the ratio of those to the ratio of seats on a bus to the tie down places? If the ratios are the same, then letting able bodied people on a bus even after the tie down spots are full would seem to be equal access to me. Think about after a park closes - People sometimes have to wait for 3 buses to come to get back to the resorts!

What I'd really like to see are those buses/subways like they have in Asia - the whole side opens up, and it's open access for everyone. They'd have to figure out how to incorporate more tie downs though. There could be one side full of seating, a full side of tiedown areas, and poles/grab handles down the center for people who choose to stand.

 

[Talking Hands]

I don't think your scenarios are illegal.
If I am the 3rd one in line I would have to wait anyway as there are only 2 tiedowns
The driver can ask you to move but you can refuse and then there is no space for an ECV or PWC. And obviously you have good reason to sit.
Open access for everyone. Really. And how do they avoid people in ECVs and PWCs injuring others in the free for all. Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

[SueM in MN]

Sue:

It was never my intention to accuse or imply that you were willfully misstating anything. I apologize for stating my opinion is such a way as would lead you to believe that. I have the utmost respect for you and your posts and agree with you 99.8% of the time. Again, I apologize.

Sorry I misunderstood/overreacted. I had kind of a tough last 2 weeks.

I have always thought that part of the law is too weak. If an enabled person parks their car in a handicapped parking space, they can be told to move it or get a ticket and be towed. Why cannot the same be told to an enabled person who parks their butt in a handicapped blocking space (assuming there is another place for them to move to)?

I think the idea is that most people will move from the handicapped spot on the bus if there are seats to move to - there is not anything particular about that seat that makes it more 'desirable' (unlike handicapped parking spots, which are looked at as 'desirable' since they are closer).
If you look on the Family Board, you will find that some people do 'desire' those bus seats, since it's possible to store a stroller underneath.