DAS Pass for a person with a prosthetic ?

[SteveMouse]

There was a lawsuit against Disney regarding Segways. The court found Disney had legal basis for denying the unrestricted use of Segways within park boundaries. See http://disunplugged.com/2011/04/04/settlement-approved-in-walt-disney-world-segway-lawsuit/.

See https://www.hrdive.com/news/ada-doe...preferred-accommodations-3rd-cir-says/577588/ for language regarding preferred accommodations.

As to reading a menu as opposed to providing one in Braille, there is no requirement that a restaurant offer a Braille menu. The restaurant is required under the ADA to make the contents of the menu available to visually-impaired individuals, whether that be through large-type, electronic copy, staff reading the menu, or another process.

 

[Evita_W]

This isn't exactly true. Since WDW already issues 'return time' accommodations to others, they can't very well claim that issuing it to an amputee is an onerous burden.

Beyond that, the ADA has issued guidance before on how much choice the disabled person gets in what accommodations they have a right to. Take Segues and 'Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices' (OPDMD). The ADA wrote a guidance sheet in 2010 (i think) clarifying that unless the venue can show that a mobility device cannot be operated within reasonable safety standards, a venue may not choose what mobility tech a disabled person is allowed to use. Prior to this, some parks would prohibit any motorized wheelchairs from operating off paved trails, would prohibit wheelchairs powered by combustion engines, prohibit 2-wheeled mobility devices and so on.

Applied here, I would (and have) argue that a person who has replaced a lower limb with a prosthetic may not have either a mobility or stamina issue. The guest may have all the strength in the world necessary to remain upright. And yet... even the best prosthetics till must sandwich a bit of flesh and bone and prolonged weight bearing may not exhaust the guest while at the same time it is causing that guest injury.

By your reasoning Disney could throw away all their braille menus and such and assign blind guests a CM to follow them around and read everything to them. Never mind that many guests would prefer the braille and simply offering their literature in braille would be less of an imposition on the guest, as long as it works the guest's preference makes no difference.



If you've gotten the impression that I think using a wheelchair is undignified I will apologize for expressing myself poorly. Pretty much the entirety of my free time for the last 7 or so years has been in improving access to wheelchair tech, improving the inclusivity of venues to mobility devices, and improving the experience had using mobility tech.

Using a wheelie, or a hook for that matter, isn't undignified. But refusing to make an easy accommodation to an amputee, one that the venue already makes for others, and instead requiring them to use assistive devices that they don't really need or may be personally uncomfortable with is infantilizing.

I honestly don't know enough about prosthetics to know the answer to this question, but are there situations where using a mobility device may cause injury to the amputee that would have been able to be avoided with a return time? If so, I would think requesting a DAS would be a proper accommodation if it would help avoid injury.

There was a lawsuit against Disney regarding Segways. The court found Disney had legal basis for denying the unrestricted use of Segways within park boundaries. See http://disunplugged.com/2011/04/04/settlement-approved-in-walt-disney-world-segway-lawsuit/.

See https://www.hrdive.com/news/ada-doe...preferred-accommodations-3rd-cir-says/577588/ for language regarding preferred accommodations.

As to reading a menu as opposed to providing one in Braille, there is no requirement that a restaurant offer a Braille menu. The restaurant is required under the ADA to make the contents of the menu available to visually-impaired individuals, whether that be through large-type, electronic copy, staff reading the menu, or another process.

Disney was able to show that Segways were not safe in the theme park setting, which is why they had a legal basis. Although based on what I have seen at other parks and zoos that have continued to allow them, I would disagree with them and think the case should be revisited.

If you read the link you provided on the preferred accommodations, the key part you missed is that the preferred accommodations were placing an undue hardship on the employer, without that fact, the employer would have lost the case.

As for brail menus, under ADA, you would be correct; however, Disney settled a lawsuit involving blind and people with service animals and that settlement does require Disney to provide brail maps, menus and also requires them to provide the crates for the service animals on attractions where service animals cannot ride, which is another accommodation that ADA does not require, but the settlement does.

So, it really isn't as cut and dry as you are might think.

 

[SteveMouse]

On a day where the parks are empty, it might be ok to use Segways. Given the incidence rate of people-ECV ( or wheelchair) collisions, many of which are instigated by ambulatory people stepping in front of or into ECVs or wheelchairs, I can only imagine what would happen with Segways or similar devices.

The article referenced states explicitly:

“The ADA requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities unless the employer would suffer an undue hardship as a result. However, as several courts have concluded, employers are not obligated to grant the reasonable accommodation the employee prefers. Employers need only provide an accommodation that allows an employee with a disability to do his or her job (emphasis added).” It goes on to cite specific examples. See https://www.hrdive.com/news/ada-doe...preferred-accommodations-3rd-cir-says/577588/.

Providing crates for service animals is an accommodation to be certain. The ADA and the regulations do not specify what accommodations need be offered, but that an accommodation must be provided. Disney needed to to accommodate individuals with service animals who wanted to ride attractions. Options probably included letting the animal ride the attraction (probably unsafe and could not be made safe), providing crates, or providing individuals to temporarily care for animals. Disney’s selected option was to offer crates (which are usually attended). For relevant attractions, Disney provides an accommodation: the crates. It does not provide different choices for individuals with service animals.

I never suggested that there were bounds on the nature of accommodations or disabilities Or that Disney only offers the DAS. The focus of the alternative waiting is not because of someone’s inability to stand In line. It’s their inability to be in line for an extended duration. It’s a nuanced position: If it were solely the ability to stand in line, then wheeled visitors would qualify for alternative waiting as well. And most people don’t really like standing in line, anyway. So we may see further movement towards virtual queues, going beyond FastPass+.

And believe me- due to the nature of my underlying condition, I have a rather peculiar set of limitations that are difficult to accommodate. Most of my joints pare either permanently immobilized or have extremely limited ranges of motion. My extremities cannot be repositioned or moved independently: I basically have about 125 bones, instead of 206. And the number gets smaller regularly as new bone grows, connecting existing bone in a web of new bone material.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The focus of the alternative waiting is not because of someone’s inability to stand In line. It’s their inability to be in line for an extended duration.

(Emphasis added)

Thank you - this is what so many people seem to miss.

 

[cobright]

Disney was able to show that Segways were not safe in the theme park setting, which is why they had a legal basis. Although based on what I have seen at other parks and zoos that have continued to allow them, I would disagree with them and think the case should be revisited.

Indeed. In the Disney-Segway case, Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., Disney produced an established expert who said the Segway could not be used in the park within reasonable safety standards. The plaintiff was allowed to bring her own expert testimony or otherwise refute Disney's witness and she decided not to.

I'm actually with Disney on the Segway issue. If you ever watch a Segway standing still they actually tend to be all over the place a little bit and I think they would be problematic in the attraction lines. Other venues, zoos especially, that don't have close winding lines are a better fit.

I've given testimony and written amicus briefs maybe a dozen times now, usually when a set of wheels I built is denied access somewhere and the Baughman case gets brought up a lot by people who take it as a license to deny access to non traditional mobility devices. In one case a movie theater had refused a client because his powerchair ran on a hydrogen fuel cell. Nothing else, just the method of storing electricity. In another case a state park had kicked one of my customers out because his powerchair was too fast. I've made some very fast chairs, but this one was adjusted so that it could pull a very modest 15MPH. 15mph is a speed most able adult humans are capable of. My client and his chair together weighed less than 250 pounds. Abled human beings of this size regularly run and play games in this park without being told to leave.

I've always been a cynic, but I had an idea during that case that's stuck with me. I really think some people are offended when a handicapped person is able (via personal skill or ability or assistive tech) to perform at the same ability level as able bodied people. I can't count the number of times I have overheard people say that my lady-friend strolling through the Disney parks in her powerchair was "like cheating" because she didn't have to be on her feet all day. Dozens of times at least.

 

[Evita_W]

Indeed. In the Disney-Segway case, Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., Disney produced an established expert who said the Segway could not be used in the park within reasonable safety standards. The plaintiff was allowed to bring her own expert testimony or otherwise refute Disney's witness and she decided not to.

I'm actually with Disney on the Segway issue. If you ever watch a Segway standing still they actually tend to be all over the place a little bit and I think they would be problematic in the attraction lines. Other venues, zoos especially, that don't have close winding lines are a better fit.

I've given testimony and written amicus briefs maybe a dozen times now, usually when a set of wheels I built is denied access somewhere and the Baughman case gets brought up a lot by people who take it as a license to deny access to non traditional mobility devices. In one case a movie theater had refused a client because his powerchair ran on a hydrogen fuel cell. Nothing else, just the method of storing electricity. In another case a state park had kicked one of my customers out because his powerchair was too fast. I've made some very fast chairs, but this one was adjusted so that it could pull a very modest 15MPH. 15mph is a speed most able adult humans are capable of. My client and his chair together weighed less than 250 pounds. Abled human beings of this size regularly run and play games in this park without being told to leave.

I've always been a cynic, but I had an idea during that case that's stuck with me. I really think some people are offended when a handicapped person is able (via personal skill or ability or assistive tech) to perform at the same ability level as able bodied people. I can't count the number of times I have overheard people say that my lady-friend strolling through the Disney parks in her powerchair was "like cheating" because she didn't have to be on her feet all day. Dozens of times at least.

The people that do this have no clue what those of us that have to use these devices deal with.

DH would gladly trade places with them if they would took his chronic knee pain and risk needing knee replacement before 50, which apparently comes with various higher risks, especially needing revisions or another replacement than waiting. Working with his doctor, they were able to figure out the best way to try to reduce this is an ECV when at theme parks, etc., Which we visit frequently since we live in Southern California as waling around the theme parks, zoos, etc. is the primary time the pain becomes unmanageable and we aren't about to stop doing that anytime soon or decrease frequency, so this appears to be the middle ground, although insurance won't pay for it, apparently they don't consider visiting theme parks, zoos and the like a daily activity.....maybe we should direct them to this board.

But most people would look at him and say he doesn't need an ECV, not knowing the full story.

He will be getting a customized Victory 10, likely with 50 Ah Batteries from Gold Mobility when we go next month. It is one that can fit in both of our cars and we are capable of lifting in and out, as neither car can support a lift.

But, I can only imagine the range on a hydrogen fuel cell chair though...lol

 

[lanejudy]

15mph is a speed most able adult humans are capable of.

Capable of... probably for some. But that's a 4-minute mile and I don't know very many people who can achieve that without regular training. I wouldn't consider it a realistic speed for a human or a mobility device.

 

[Evita_W]

Capable of... probably for some. But that's a 4-minute mile and I don't know very many people who can achieve that without regular training. I wouldn't consider it a realistic speed for a human or a mobility device.

It depends on the country and state, some have regulations about the maximum speed a mobility device can go without requiring a driver's license and sometimes registration with the DMV. But if they have a driver's license and are registered per the law, then the maximum speed doesn't matter, as long as the speed can be lowered to the average person's walking speed, the device must be allowed unless they can prove allowing it within the park would pose a safety issue and they can't use the maximum speed as a reason if the speed can be lowered.

And there are many legitimate reasons to have a higher speed mobility device. For example, due to disabilities or costs, some are unable to have a larger vehicle or may not need one if they have ability device than can go up to say 35 MPH on the road and be turned down to 6 or MPH or lower in stores, theme parks, etc.

This eliminates the need for many to load and unload a mobility device while still maintaining independence without needing a traditional car.

 

[daisy2013]

It depends on the country and state, some have regulations about the maximum speed a mobility device can go without requiring a driver's license and sometimes registration with the DMV. But if they have a driver's license and are registered per the law, then the maximum speed doesn't matter, as long as the speed can be lowered to the average person's walking speed, the device must be allowed unless they can prove allowing it within the park would pose a safety issue and they can't use the maximum speed as a reason if the speed can be lowered.

And there are many legitimate reasons to have a higher speed mobility device. For example, due to disabilities or costs, some are unable to have a larger vehicle or may not need one if they have ability device than can go up to say 35 MPH on the road and be turned down to 6 or MPH or lower in stores, theme parks, etc.

This eliminates the need for many to load and unload a mobility device while still maintaining independence without needing a traditional car.

Even with a license people (disabled or not) cannot drive a car, motorcycle, golf carts or other vehicles in a theme park no matter how slow they drive it. There are legitimate safety reasons to limit such vehicles.

 

[Evita_W]

Even with a license people (disabled or not) cannot drive a car, motorcycle, golf carts or other vehicles in a theme park no matter how slow they drive it. There are legitimate safety reasons to limit such vehicles.

In didn't say a car, golf cart, etc., I said a mobility device that may have a max speed higher than 15 MPH would have to be allowed if it can be slowed to an appropriate speed.

There are indeed such mobility devices out there and in some states must be registered with the DMV, especially if used on public roads.

For example, there are ECVs, which are declared as mobility devices that have a top speed of 35 to 40 MPH, but can be slowed down to as low as 3 or 4 MPH. Some even have 40+ mile range. But they are considered street legal mobility devices and as long as they meet size requirements to be safe and the driver operates at an appropriate speed, they must be allowed.

 

[daisy2013]

In didn't say a car, golf cart, etc., I said a mobility device that may have a max speed higher than 15 MPH would have to be allowed if it can be slowed to an appropriate speed.

There are indeed such mobility devices out there and in some states must be registered with the DMV, especially if used on public roads.

For example, there are ECVs, which are declared as mobility devices that have a top speed of 35 to 40 MPH, but can be slowed down to as low as 3 or 4 MPH. Some even have 40+ mile range. But they are considered street legal mobility devices and as long as they meet size requirements to be safe and the driver operates at an appropriate speed, they must be allowed.

Every mobility device is not appropriate for every location. For some a golf cart is their preferred mobility device, street legal or not, it’s not appropriate for theme parks. There are limits that must be set for safety of the public. Whether or not an individual person could safely operate an unapproved device in a theme park does not mean the restrictions should be changed because of that individual person.

 

[Evita_W]

Every mobility device is not appropriate for every location. For some a golf cart is their preferred mobility device, street legal or not, it’s not appropriate for theme parks. There are limits that must be set for safety of the public. Whether or not an individual person could safely operate an unapproved device in a theme park does not mean the restrictions should be changed because of that individual person.

A golf cart is not a mobility device and I never said it was, not sure what your hangup is with golf carts, but you are correct they are not mobility devices and are not what I am referring to. There are ECVs, which are approved mobility devices that I am speaking of. These are not golf carts, they are ECVs that meet all requirements and happen to also be street legal. They are required to be allowed unless it can be proven it would be unsafe to do so.

 

[DisneyOma]

In didn't say a car, golf cart, etc., I said a mobility device that may have a max speed higher than 15 MPH would have to be allowed if it can be slowed to an appropriate speed.

There are indeed such mobility devices out there and in some states must be registered with the DMV, especially if used on public roads.

For example, there are ECVs, which are declared as mobility devices that have a top speed of 35 to 40 MPH, but can be slowed down to as low as 3 or 4 MPH. Some even have 40+ mile range. But they are considered street legal mobility devices and as long as they meet size requirements to be safe and the driver operates at an appropriate speed, they must be allowed.

At that speed they would also require seat belts in my state, and insurance, and probably a plate, inspections sticker, and anything else the state could do to get $$$. How is the vehicle "slowed down" in a theme park? Is there a locked setting?

 

[Evita_W]

At that speed they would also require seat belts in my state, and insurance, and probably a plate, inspections sticker, and anything else the state could do to get $$$. How is the vehicle "slowed down" in a theme park? Is there a locked setting?

Same way it is slowed down on any other ECV, using a knob, switch or some other method to set the max speed until intentionally changed. In most cases they actually require a two step process to change the maximum speed so it doesn't get accidentally changed while in one setting or the other. Can you imagine going down the road at 35 MPH and accidentally setting the max speed to 6 MPH or vice versa? Neither one would be good, so there are safety mechanisms for that.

And yes, that is my point, there are certified mobility devices that may have to be registered in some states with the DMV. As for seat belts, it depends, some technically get classified as scooters or motorcycles and while in some states that may require a different type of license, in most cases seat belts would not be required, especially for 3 wheel devices. Insurance would likely be required as well.

But again, these devices are classified in a way that makes them both certified ADA compliant mobility devices AND street legal vehicles. They are not common in the U.S., it seems they are more common in the UK, but they do exist and I only know that because DH has come across some when looking into ECVs. Not all of them are FAA compliant for flying though, but some are, although there are apparently ways you can fly with even the noncompliant ones, just takes more work.

 

[lanejudy]

We are WAY off topic folks! Get back to discussing DAS and prosthetics.

 

[lanejudy]

One more reminder to keep it on topic