Rule Against Kids Riding on Laps one wheelchairs?!

[arminnie]

If someone runs into me because of having a child in their lap (I am extremely medically fragile) and I have so much as a scratch I will sue their "bottoms" off and make them sorry that they ever made such a mistake.

 

[cobright]

Nope, it doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. Safety trumps accommodations under the ADA. No one has a legal right to an accommodation that poses a safety risk to himself or others, period.

Well, sort of. I mean, an ADA compliant business can't simply make an arbitrary decision and then say it's for everyone's safety. Consider non-conventional mobility aids like Segways or ECVs powered by combustion engines. If a business is open to the public, they may not deny a disabled person the right to use their prefered mobility device...

"unless a particular type of device cannot be accommodated because of legitimate safety requirements. Such safety requirements must be based on actual risks, not on speculation or stereotypes about a particular type of device or how it might be operated by people with disabilities using them."

As an example...

if golf cars are generally prohibited in a park, the park may be required to allow a golf car when it is being used because of a person’s mobility disability, unless there is a legitimate safety reason that it cannot be accommodated.

These citations come from this document https://www.ada.gov/opdmd.pdf and relate to the rules allowing for use of Segways and Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD). But look at the language and see how the ADA looks at accommodation of a disability.

The disabled person gets what he or she needs to live their life as normally as possible unless that choice poses a significant and immediate risk to safety or the surrounding facilities. You cannot simply name off some blanket rule followed by the empty headed "rules are rules", and still remain ADA compliant.

A woman, sitting on her own parked ECV, nursing her child, is not putting anything or anyone at a significant risk. That same woman, with her infant in a baby bjorn, cruising her ECV down Mainstreet USA at a normal walking pace is of no more risk than an able legged mother (or father) doing the same thing.

The law is clear. You may not single someone out with harder standards based solely on the technology they need to live a normal life. If you want to tell a person they may not do something (that they need to do because of a disability) because you believe it to be unsafe, then you have to show how this specific person doing this specific activity created this significant and immediate risk.

As I mentioned, this can sometimes be easier than others. An ambulatory child riding their quad-father creates a risk that the control device may become jarred or the operator's vision may become obstructed in a way he is unable to remedy himself.

But as a general policy each case must be appreciated separately, because, just like the rest of us, mobility challenged people are individuals.

*Note* I should also point out that WDW may have a greater right to discriminate against the disabled than the ADA brief I linked suggests. It specifies "covered entities" (meaning those places covered by the new ruling) as state and local governments and non-profits and businesses that serve the public. Even though Disney has argued before that each day in the parks is a ticketed event and not the same as serving the public, they were still held to this same level of scrutiny in Baughman v. Walt Disney World Company, a case demanding ADA accommodation for those using Segways as mobility aids. Baughman lost her case, for failing to provide expert testimony that Segway usage by the disabled could be done safely in the parks. I wish she had known me. I can demonstrate a stand-up mobility platform that can 'run' through crowds faster and safer than a person on foot.

 

[cobright]

Umm, actually it is technically against the rules to carry any child in the parks in any manner

I would have to see the rule forbidding anyone from carrying their child while in the parks.

If someone runs into me because of having a child in their lap (I am extremely medically fragile) and I have so much as a scratch I will sue their "bottoms" off and make them sorry that they ever made such a mistake.

I should say that you might take action against anyone who injures you, could you not? Why would you only take legal action against a disabled person who runs you down?

 

[arminnie]

I should say that you might take action against anyone who injures you, could you not? Why would you only take legal action against a disabled person who runs you down?

Where did you get that I said that? I was referencing the subject of this thread about a person on a motorized vehicle (who may or not be disabled - all ECV passengers are not disabled - some are just making a valid choice to have a better experience) running into a person BECAUSE they were allowing a child to impair their driving.

I would press charges against anyone who hurt me because of bad choices on their part or malicious behavior. A legitimate accident - no.

 

[cmwade77]

I would have to see the rule forbidding anyone from carrying their child while in the parks.


I should say that you might take action against anyone who injures you, could you not? Why would you only take legal action against a disabled person who runs you down?

Grr.....Disney's website redesign is making it hard to find, they used to have a guidebook for guests with disabilities that outlined their responsibilities and the guest's responsibilities. It quite clearly stated "Wheelchairs and ECVs may not hold more than the number of people that they were designed to hold, in most cases this limit is one person." I may have the exact wording slightly off, but that was the gist of it and they enforced it, as I said before sometimes to the point of kicking people out of the park.

But ultimately it is covered by item c on the park rules: https://disneyland.disney.go.com/park-rules/

Someone riding in your lap would be considered unsafe behavior and within the state of California it may very well be against the law. No one has prosecuted such a case yet, but technically a wheelchair/ECV is a vehicle and thus no one may ride on someone's lap in a vehicle. This would be the same law that is in place that requires you to remove your child from a stroller to board the tram or bus, it appears no one has dared to prosecute this yet, but technically they could. And since Disney enforces the rules about strollers, they actually may legally be obligated to do the same with wheelchairs/ECVs, as otherwise they wouldn't be treating everyone equally.

That being said, looking further into this, apparently there are devices that would allow you to safely carry a child in a wheelchair/ECV and if you had such a device, then I would agree that Disney would have no rights to say you can't do it, as that would be the same as a non-disabled person carrying their child in an appropriate harness, what have you. But they are definitely correct that carrying a child in your lap without such a device is unsafe and as I said possibly illegal in California, no one really knows for sure until there gets to be some sort of case law for it.

And I would agree that you might take action against anyone who injures you, no question there. If it were a legitimate accident, no I probably wouldn't, but if it were malicious, yes I would probably do so. Now if I was in a situation where Disney's policy or setup made it impossible for the ECV driver to operate it safely and caused me to get hurt, then I would go after Disney for that, as they would be the responsible party.

 

[cmwade77]

Well, sort of. I mean, an ADA compliant business can't simply make an arbitrary decision and then say it's for everyone's safety. Consider non-conventional mobility aids like Segways or ECVs powered by combustion engines. If a business is open to the public, they may not deny a disabled person the right to use their prefered mobility device...

As an example...

These citations come from this document https://www.ada.gov/opdmd.pdf and relate to the rules allowing for use of Segways and Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD). But look at the language and see how the ADA looks at accommodation of a disability.

The disabled person gets what he or she needs to live their life as normally as possible unless that choice poses a significant and immediate risk to safety or the surrounding facilities. You cannot simply name off some blanket rule followed by the empty headed "rules are rules", and still remain ADA compliant.

A woman, sitting on her own parked ECV, nursing her child, is not putting anything or anyone at a significant risk. That same woman, with her infant in a baby bjorn, cruising her ECV down Mainstreet USA at a normal walking pace is of no more risk than an able legged mother (or father) doing the same thing.

The law is clear. You may not single someone out with harder standards based solely on the technology they need to live a normal life. If you want to tell a person they may not do something (that they need to do because of a disability) because you believe it to be unsafe, then you have to show how this specific person doing this specific activity created this significant and immediate risk.

As I mentioned, this can sometimes be easier than others. An ambulatory child riding their quad-father creates a risk that the control device may become jarred or the operator's vision may become obstructed in a way he is unable to remedy himself.

But as a general policy each case must be appreciated separately, because, just like the rest of us, mobility challenged people are individuals.

*Note* I should also point out that WDW may have a greater right to discriminate against the disabled than the ADA brief I linked suggests. It specifies "covered entities" (meaning those places covered by the new ruling) as state and local governments and non-profits and businesses that serve the public. Even though Disney has argued before that each day in the parks is a ticketed event and not the same as serving the public, they were still held to this same level of scrutiny in Baughman v. Walt Disney World Company, a case demanding ADA accommodation for those using Segways as mobility aids. Baughman lost her case, for failing to provide expert testimony that Segway usage by the disabled could be done safely in the parks. I wish she had known me. I can demonstrate a stand-up mobility platform that can 'run' through crowds faster and safer than a person on foot.

Actually, Disneyland is older than WDW and thus has more right to discriminate, but the reality is the parked ECV wouldn't be an issue and carrying her infant in a baby bjorn wouldn't be an issue as far as Disney is concerned, California law may state otherwise on that one, as I said in my previous post it is uncertain. But having a child ride in your lap while moving does indeed pose a significant and immediate risk and this why it is deemed against the rules. The risks are clear, as a disabled person cannot properly operate their mobility device and help a child that may be falling at the same time.

As I said, this has always been the rule at Disneyland (at least since 1995) and I have seen people removed from the park for violating it.

 

[cobright]

It quite clearly stated "Wheelchairs and ECVs may not hold more than the number of people that they were designed to hold, in most cases this limit is one person." I may have the exact wording slightly off, but that was the gist of it and they enforced it, as I said before sometimes to the point of kicking people out of the park.

I have seen this wording you mention, I don't remember it exactly either but I know the gist you speak of. The language is also directed to specify the number of people seated on the mobility aid. I'm not sure the same can apply, in all cases anyway, to babes in arms. My point is that the ADA is very clear that rules based on blanket perceptions of safety must be excepted when shown that a handicapped persons preferred mode of accommodation can be used safely.

but technically a wheelchair/ECV is a vehicle and thus no one may ride on someone's lap in a vehicle.

technically a wheelchair/ecv is a vehicle in the same very general way that a wagon or a skateboard is a vehicle; in much the same way that the Astro Orbiter rockets are vehicles, in this case vehicles where you may end up sitting on someone's lap.

But they are definitely correct that carrying a child in your lap without such a device is unsafe and as I said possibly illegal in California, no one really knows for sure until there gets to be some sort of case law for it.

Unsafe is a nebulous designation. The ADA does not allow you to discriminate against the handicapped simply because their needed accommodation is less safe than the same task done by an able bodied person. A business can only deny a disabled person's chosen mobility aid if it poses a "significant and immediate" risk to safety. Otherwise, one might argue that a man with a prosthetic leg should be kicked out of Disney World if he insists on carrying his sleeping child. Doing so is definitely less safe when using a metal leg instead of a human one.

The risks are clear, as a disabled person cannot properly operate their mobility device and help a child that may be falling at the same time.

Tell that to this guy:

There are definitely cases where carrying a child on a mobility aid makes things significantly more dangerous. Probably most cases. Enough where having a rule makes some sort of sense for expediency or whatnot. On the other hand, there are plenty of exceptions made all the time. You can't board a bus with a child in a stroller, unless the child is disabled and that stroller is a wheelchair.

Mindlessly following rules has lead us, as a people, to no end of trouble.

P.s. sorry for the delay in replying ... we just moved from California back to Michigan and my computer finally showed up.

 

[OurBigTrip]

My point is that the ADA is very clear that rules based on blanket perceptions of safety must be excepted when shown that a handicapped persons preferred mode of accommodation can be used safely.

Not necessarily, which is why Disney won the lawsuit against them pertaining to a disabled person using a Segway in Disney parks.

Unsafe is a nebulous designation. The ADA does not allow you to discriminate against the handicapped simply because their needed accommodation is less safe than the same task done by an able bodied person.

That really doesn't make sense in the current argument (lap child in a wheelchair), since the same task presumably wouldn't be done by an able bodied person, since an able bodied person wouldn't be using a wheelchair.

A business can only deny a disabled person's chosen mobility aid if it poses a "significant and immediate" risk to safety.

Disney isn't denying the accommodation - the OP is free to use the wheelchair. But Disney can mandate that the accommodation be used in a safe manner. The wheelchair is an accommodation; carrying a child in your lap in a wheelchair is not an accommodation.

You can't board a bus with a child in a stroller, unless the child is disabled and that stroller is a wheelchair.

If it's a wheelchair, then it's not a stroller.

 

[SueM in MN]

Enough said