Mobility Question

[bidnow5]

Sorry but I have mobility issues I gladly rent an ECV I could rent a wheel chair which is cheep to rent and you are paying thru the nose for tickets lodging and food when at Disney so you can afford to rent a wheelchair

 

[ttintagel]

Can you imagine the outcry if WDW refused to make accommodation for ADHD or autism and instead offered iPads or headphones for rent? Not what you wanted but something at a price. This is what they are doing for mobility issues.

That doesn't solve the immediate problem of someone with autism not being able to physically be in the line. The better analogy is a parent of an autistic child needing an iPad or headphones, not having it, and Disney offering to let them rent one. They have the choice - rent it or don't.

Well, what about if they started charging for the DAS? They'd have a choice - pay to stay out of the line or don't.

 

[goofieslonglostsis]

Never stops amazing me how mobility issues turn into a reason to be accomodated in line different than others, yet magically no need excists for mobility crossing the park to and from rides, which still makes up a lot more miles than a line. Interesting, imho.

 

[aaarcher86]

Well, what about if they started charging for the DAS? They'd have a choice - pay to stay out of the line or don't.

That'd be against ADA, so they couldn't. They can't charge for the accommodation. They can't charge to put a blind person in the front of a free show, but they could absolutely rent out white canes for those who needed them. They'll provide a stroller as a wheelchair tag, but not the stroller. They don't have to provide the tools, they just have to make sure you can use them if you decide to. The accommodation for mobility is that lines are accessible should the guest choose to use a mobility aid, but the cost is on them. The accommodation for autism or other issues is waiting outside the line, but figuring out what to do while waiting is on the guest (which can be a huge task in and of itself). There doesn't have to be a charge associated with either, depending upon how the guest decided to proceed. Comparing disabilities and their accommodations is silly, since they have different needs. Are we next going to compare the accommodations for the deaf or blind to mobility? Those are also free of charge, but I don't see anyone upset about that.

At the end of the day, if you have a mobility issue, you know you have a mobility issue. If you're going somewhere that this is going to be a problem, you need to take proper responsibility to help yourself whether it's renting or bringing a mobility aid, scheduling your FP accordingly, staying for less time with more breaks, or coming at a slower time when the lines are short and easy to get through.

The same goes for someone without a mobility issue. If you need iPads, a closer and more expensive resort, or frequent breaks... Do it. Plan it. Bring whatever will help you. But it seems increasingly obvious that people want everyone to do something for them while they don't take any kind of personal responsibility for making things easier themselves (just a general comment, not at anyone in particular). No one has any idea what kind if expense anyone else has to roll out in order to have an enjoyable time at the park.

 

[asta]

Never stops amazing me how mobility issues turn into a reason to be accomodated in line different than others, yet magically no need excists for mobility crossing the park to and from rides, which still makes up a lot more miles than a line. Interesting, imho.

Your attitude is extremely unkind. People deal with varying degrees of pain and not all mobility issues require you to be confined to a wheelchair. An alternative accommodation would be to let you have an alternative place to sit and wait until your time. With the new rules that return time is not any shorter than the length of time all guests wait, just gives you the opportunity to rest painful joints. You could then be in better condition to walk to the next attraction.

I understand that those being extended this option don't want it extended to others because of the concern that it would overwhelm the system. But that still doesn't make it right to pick one group over another.

It is very disturbing to encounter attitudes like this that assume that anyone not in perfect health is a liar out to cheat the system. For some reason many people especially feel free to question the motive of mobility impaired unless you are confined to a wheelchair full time. Try to understand instead of accusing.

 

[Coonhound]

Your attitude is extremely unkind. People deal with varying degrees of pain and not all mobility issues require you to be confined to a wheelchair.

why do people use this phrase, being confined to a wheelchair? If you rent a scooter or chair for the trip you are not confined to it. The Best thing about it is that you have a place to sit down when you need it, but you can get up and walk when you don't. Besides, Disney's answer to any mobility problem is chair or scooter.

An alternative accommodation would be to let you have an alternative place to sit and wait until your time. With the new rules that return time is not any shorter than the length of time all guests wait, just gives you the opportunity to rest painful joints. You could then be in better condition to walk to the next attraction.

that is why they suggest you rent a scooter or wheelchair... That way you can walk or stand when you are able to and you also have a seat with you whenever you need to sit down. They don't need to give a return time or use a DAS because you have the option to sit or stand whenever and wherever needed.

I understand that those being extended this option don't want it extended to others because of the concern that it would overwhelm the system. But that still doesn't make it right to pick one group over another.

actually, Disney is only picking one group over another because this group has more options...what I said above about not needing a return time because a mobility device can work for that problem

It is very disturbing to encounter attitudes like this that assume that anyone not in perfect health is a liar out to cheat the system. For some reason many people especially feel free to question the motive of mobility impaired unless you are confined to a wheelchair full time. Try to understand instead of accusing.
I don't think anyone is doing that I think they just are pointing out why mobility issues don't need a DAS. A DAS may be the preferred option, a person may not want to get a scooter, but Disney does to have to give preferred option they only have to create accessibility, so they are within their rights the way they have chosen to go about it.

My comments in bold

 

[aaarcher86]

Your attitude is extremely unkind. People deal with varying degrees of pain and not all mobility issues require you to be confined to a wheelchair. An alternative accommodation would be to let you have an alternative place to sit and wait until your time. With the new rules that return time is not any shorter than the length of time all guests wait, just gives you the opportunity to rest painful joints. You could then be in better condition to walk to the next attraction. I understand that those being extended this option don't want it extended to others because of the concern that it would overwhelm the system. But that still doesn't make it right to pick one group over another. It is very disturbing to encounter attitudes like this that assume that anyone not in perfect health is a liar out to cheat the system. For some reason many people especially feel free to question the motive of mobility impaired unless you are confined to a wheelchair full time. Try to understand instead of accusing.

You kind of just answers your own issue though.

If someone needs a lace to sit while they wait, a wheelchair or ECV meets their needs. They may not like it, and it may not be preferred over another option given to other people, but it isn't unreasonable to use that is Disney's preferred way of accommodating those issues. They don't have to offer more than one option, and if separating them in this fashion keeps,their system running more smoothly then it's what they're going to do. It meets legal requirements, and works better for their needs as well. Not liking the option you're given isn't a valid reason for Disney to offer a different option. And honestly, considering the lack of seating at Disney more times than not it's the more logical answer as the wheelchair or EVC provides a permanent seat.

There is not an alternative way to deal with someone who can not handle the line atmosphere.

 

[Coonhound]

At the end of the day, if you have a mobility issue, you know you have a mobility issue. If you're going somewhere that this is going to be a problem, you need to take proper responsibility to help yourself whether it's renting or bringing a mobility aid, scheduling your FP accordingly, staying for less time with more breaks, or coming at a slower time when the lines are short and easy to get through.

The same goes for someone without a mobility issue. If you need iPads, a closer and more expensive resort, or frequent breaks... Do it. Plan it. Bring whatever will help you. But it seems increasingly obvious that people want everyone to do something for them while they don't take any kind of personal responsibility for making things easier themselves (just a general comment, not at anyone in particular). No one has any idea what kind if expense anyone else has to roll out in order to have an enjoyable time at the park.

Best line of this thread.

 

[Coonhound]

You kind of just answers your own issue though.

If someone needs a lace to sit while they wait, a wheelchair or ECV meets their needs. They may not like it, and it may not be preferred over another option given to other people, but it isn't unreasonable to use that is Disney's preferred way of accommodating those issues. They don't have to offer more than one option, and if separating them in this fashion keeps,their system running more smoothly then it's what they're going to do. It meets legal requirements, and works better for their needs as well. Not liking the option you're given isn't a valid reason for Disney to offer a different option.

Exactly.

 

[Michigan]

With the new rules that return time is not any shorter than the length of time all guests wait, just gives you the opportunity to rest painful joints. You could then be in better condition to walk to the next attraction.

Using FP+ gives you that.

 

[asta]

Using FP+ gives you that.

Then why have a DAS at all?

 

[geek+nerd]

Then why have a DAS at all?

Now that you are able to get more FP+ after you use your first three, I kind of agree with this.

 

[aaarcher86]

Then why have a DAS at all?

Accessibility. The DAS is a placeholder for someone waiting in the standby line. FP isn't guaranteed for any ride. It's recommended to use the DAS in conjunction with FP in the same way that a wheelchair/ECV can be used in conjunction with it.

They can't tell someone they can ONLY use FP regardless of the disability. A mobility aid can be used in the mains line and the DAS can be used as a place holder for someone else, waiting the same length of time they would if they were standing there.

By all means, let's take away the DAS and the rental WC/EVC/stroller and everyone can fend for themselves. Are we really going to roll the argument 'if I can't have it, no one can?' What seemed to start as a genuine curiosity as to WHY legally they can charge for one and not the other, you don't seem to be taking the answers very well.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

What type of accommodation would be suggested? I see that you think a reasonable accommodation would be to provide shorter lines, in other words allow them to go in front of almost everybody else (and their entire party, too.) That's not going to happen anymore because that's the issue that was being abused and the reason for the change in the first place. If anybody who said they had mobility issues but didn't want to use a wheelchair were sent to the front of every line, then they're back where they started with the abuse. If guests have needs that preclude them being able to wait in queues, they just get to go somewhere else to wait - they don't get a shorter wait. Would that be acceptable for mobility issues as well assuming the person with the mobility issue merely does not WANT to use a mobility aid for whatever reason?

Rental of a wheelchair is a reasonable accommodation and that's all they have to do. Besides, a guest with mobility issues can bring their own mobility equipment (at no charge) or use an outside rental (at a possibly lower cost). If all you want is a place to sit, what about those walker things with a seat on them?

I have no problem with a mobility aid be offered (even though these come at a cost, they are not just being offered). The problem is that mobility issues come at very different levels and need to be addressed differently. Saying that anyone with any degree of mobility problems has to be in a wheelchair/ECV is just wrong. To insist on that seems punitive.

But they are not. They are saying that anyone who has a mobility problem to the extent that they are unable to wait in the queues without a mobility aid have the option of getting one to use. What you are saying is that you believe it's not fair they have to pay to rent the mobility aid, because persons without mobility issues don't have to pay for rental of one, so if they don't want to pay then they should be given alternate accommodations, specifcially a shorter time to wait before boarding the attraction (which WDW doesn't allow anybody anymore, outside of Make A Wish kids.)

Once you get it out of the realm of offering a reasonable accommodation (which WDW does) to "I don't like the accommodation because it isn't fair that I would have to spend money" then you're outside the ADA and all WDW is required to do is meet the ADA.

Would it be nice if WDW gave everyone a wheelchair who said they needed one for free, sure (although as noted, this is not feasible). Would it be nice if they said "You can just go right into the fastpass line then," sure. But they got into some trouble with the shorter line accommodation being abused, so they've found another - which is a reasonable one. WDW has no obligation to provide guests who have issues with mobility aids, nor do they have an obligation to offer an alternate accommodation for those who have needs but don't like the reasonable accommodation that has been offered.

 

[asta]

What type of accommodation would be suggested? I see that you think a reasonable accommodation would be to provide shorter lines, in other words allow them to go in front of almost everybody else (and their entire party, too.) That's not going to happen anymore because that's the issue that was being abused and the reason for the change in the first place. If anybody who said they had mobility issues but didn't want to use a wheelchair were sent to the front of every line, then they're back where they started with the abuse. If guests have needs that preclude them being able to wait in queues, they just get to go somewhere else to wait - they don't get a shorter wait. Would that be acceptable for mobility issues as well assuming the person with the mobility issue merely does not WANT to use a mobility aid for whatever reason?

.

No where in any of my posts did I suggest that an appropriate accommodation would be to go to the front of any line. I think that if your pain issues allow you limited walking but would greatly benefit from the ability to use the DAS to wait the normal standby line length in an alternative place where you can better manage your pain then that should be a worthy use of the DAS. Where do you get front of the line from that? I would not be jumping in front of anyone when used this way. Your wait time would not be increased at all. Not at all, your wait time might even be faster if you are not dealing with loading and unloading as many wheelchairs.

When the DAS could reasonably address someone's needs without forcing them to rent a device it just seems unfair to offer this procedure to some but make others pay for the help they need.

It is very naive to assume that all mobility issues can only be solved by a wheelchair. There are many aspects of WDW that can be enjoyed more by being ambulatory as much as possible. Trying to cope with pain is tough enough without the accusations of entitlement. Please don't accuse me of that.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

You're not being forced to rent a device. You're being told that if you feel you cannot stand in the line, this is the option that is available for you. You can rent the device or not rent the device. If you have the wheelchair you can walk if you want, or you can sit when you feel that you need to. Being asked to rent the device is legally reasonable. It is you, personally, who considers it unreasonable because you think it's unfair that you are being asked to spend money.

No, all mobility issues cannot be solved by a wheelchair but they can't all be solved by allowing the guest to wait elsewhere either. And the wheelchair allows them to stay in the line and not get out of it and come back later. Of course if a guest has other issues, like they cannot be in sun in an outdoor line, then they can get a DAS to wait elsewhere. But just because you would prefer to wait elsewhere doesn't mean WDW has to allow you to.

I'm not addressing the "can't afford to rent a wheelchair" because that doesn't seem to be the argument. If you are at WDW it's likely you can afford the wheelchair, they are not that expensive. The argument seems to be "I shouldn't HAVE to pay for a wheelchair because nobody else does" or conversely "I would have trouble standing in the line but I don't like using a wheelchair, why can't I wait someplace else?"

Someone up above gave a very good explanation as to why they want to limit the number of guests they allow to have placeholders in lines, so it is reserved for guests who can be given no other accommodation. The wheelchair is a reasonable accommodation for mobility needs.

 

[DavidG1966]

Maybe the real answer here is that everyone just can't do everything and it is impossible for any company including Disney to accommodate everyone's different issues and disabilities. Maybe Disney is just NOT for everyone. People should consider what they can and can't do and weigh the costs of going and NOT GO if that is the best answer.

Edit: I am sorry... This is such a FIRST world problem.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Also the first post asked a question that made me think the OP believes it may be a violation of the ADA to "force" mobility impaired guests to rent a wheelchair. It's just pointing out that WDW does not, under ADA, have to offer the accommodation the guest wants or prefers - just one that would be considered reasonable under the law (and courts would ultimately determine what is reasonable, not the customer). Can't see any reason why, should someone bring a legal complaint against Disney for violating the ADA by offering (relatively inexpensive) wheelchair rental as a reasonable accommodation for mobility issues, Disney wouldn't prevail on that issue.

 

[aaarcher86]

I think that if your pain issues allow you limited walking but would greatly benefit from the ability to use the DAS to wait the normal standby line length in an alternative place where you can better manage your pain then that should be a worthy use of the DAS. When the DAS could reasonably address someone's needs without forcing them to rent a device it just seems unfair to offer this procedure to some but make others pay for the help they need.

I think these two things really sum it up. If the way someone manages pain is by sitting, they will be advised to utilize a permanent seat. Disney can't guarantee there will be a spot to sit when someone uses the DAS. If a wheelchair or ECV would not be helpful, explain why as something other than 'it's unfair' or 'I don't like it.'

On that note, while you may feel it's unfair, the law disagrees with you. The law actually requires Disney to so less than they do for mobility issues. And that's really what it comes down to. Again, just because something is available for one need, doesn't mean it needs to be given to all needs.

One is a need. One is a preference.

 

[lanejudy]

I need glasses to see the shows at WDW.
It is not WDW's responsibility to provide them to me so I can see their shows if I do not choose to bring glasses with me because I am not so impaired that I cannot walk around the parks without them.
It is my responsibility to purchase and bring my glasses with me so I can see the shows.

OP originally indicated no intent to be argumentative, so I'm going to close this thread as it has degraded to an argument of which disability is more deserving.