Disney Being Sued Over Segway Ban

[Donald A]

A private corporation does not have the right to restrict devices for the disabled. That's the issue here, not the blanket Segway ban. If you want to carry your firearm where it isn't allowed because you suffer from a disability, feel free to hire lawyer and sue.

Is a Segway classified by the FDA as a medical device for the disabled? Honestly, I am not sure, but being a physician I have never written for one and never would. If it is an FDA approved medical device prescribed by a physician then it should be allowed.

[Natazu]

Is a Segway classified by the FDA as a medical device for the disabled? If it is an FDA approved medical device prescribed by a physician then it should be allowed.

The company that manufactures the Segway has not sought FDA approval because of an existing agreement with the company to whom they sold the Ibot. The lawsuit against Disney is for disabled access under the ADA so the claimants couldn't care less whether the Segway has FDA approval.

Honestly, I am not sure, but being a physician I have never written for one and never would.

A disabled person does not need a prescription for their Segway unless they want to talk their insurance company into paying for it. However, I do know someone who has a Segway prescription so there is at least one physician (though he is a specialist) who has written one.

[JPL]

From the ADA

Sec.36.208 Direct threat.

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.


(b) Direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.


(c) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.


After reading this I don't think this will fly under the ADA after reading this.

[Donald A]

From the ADA

Sec.36.208 Direct threat.

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.


(b) Direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.


(c) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.


After reading this I don't think this will fly under the ADA after reading this.

I agree it won't fly. Unfortunately, Disney is in a position where you can't please everyone. They get sued for not following ADA guidelines and then get sued when someone on a Segway hurts another guest. I guess this isn't just true with a Segway but motorized wheelchairs too. I have always thought Disney has been good with special needs guests, but I guess you can't please everyone.

[Donald A]

The company that manufactures the Segway has not sought FDA approval because of an existing agreement with the company to whom they sold the Ibot. The lawsuit against Disney is for disabled access under the ADA so the claimants couldn't care less whether the Segway has FDA approval.

A disabled person does not need a prescription for their Segway unless they want to talk their insurance company into paying for it. However, I do know someone who has a Segway prescription so there is at least one physician (though he is a specialist) who has written one.

I do see your points about FDA approval, but I am not seeing how this is an ADA issue.

[Natazu]

I do see your points about FDA approval, but I am not seeing how this is an ADA issue.

Basically, the claimants are attempting to force it to become an ADA issue with the lawsuit.

[AnnetteFan]

Not at all. Employees of companies are frequently allowed to do things at their place of employment that guests and customers are not.

Also, Disney can ensure that all of their CM's who use Segways are properly trained and operate them safely amongst the guests.

I get what you're saying but at the same time I think it would be a nice gesture for them to discontinue the use of segways by employees just to make a point.

[Ian]

I get what you're saying but at the same time I think it would be a nice gesture for them to discontinue the use of segways by employees just to make a point.

I'm pretty sure they have some kind of contractual deal with the Segway folks.

They use them for the tour and all, too, remember.

[Mackflava99]

I also side with Disney on this--
If one or 2 people were using it, i guess its ok, but they go too fast. I have seen them in NYC whizzing past me. If 20-30 people were using it through the parks, it would be a real hazzard.

one question- isn't there a Segway tour available in Epcot?

[caryrae]

I was wondering if some people need Segways to get around, what did they do before there were Segways? Also if Disney were to have to allow Segways what would the odds be that anyone of us see some using them on our trips?

I also side with Disney on this--
If one or 2 people were using it, i guess its ok, but they go too fast. I have seen them in NYC whizzing past me. If 20-30 people were using it through the parks, it would be a real hazzard.

one question- isn't there a Segway tour available in Epcot?

Yes there is a tour in Epcot (in World Showcase). It is in the morning before world showcase is open.

[EPCOT84]

I was wondering if some people need Segways to get around, what did they do before there were Segways? Also if Disney were to have to allow Segways what would the odds be that anyone of us see some using them on our trips?

I had similar observation about ECVs. In my '07 trip, I saw the use of ECV's expand compared to my trips in the '90s (gosh it sounds so old now). Yet, once they were introduced, more people use ECVs for various reasons. I have learned from the Intercot boards how and why ECVs are used and now see how it allows more people mobility.

I imagine in time Segways or some similar technology will also create the same discussion. Segways, however, have all the problems discussed earlier compared to ECVs and motorized wheelchairs.

In downtown Los Angeles some tour group recently started Segway tours of the city. I made a point to watch how the people operate it, other people's reactions, after reading these boards.

I noticed that the users had difficulty using the Segway on some parts of the sidewalk and the docents had to stop to help the riders. Yes, the pedestrians would stop and look, causing a pedestrian slowdown (stop and gawk). I saw some problems the riders and pedestrians had moving in and out of mid-day lunch traffic, which would be similar to Disney park traffic. I tried to imagine would would happen if one tipped over during that heavy pedestrian traffic. This is in a business district with mostly adults. Add small children to the mix and it is an accident waiting to happen.

I am not so sure about being able to use the definition of Direct Threat quoted above without reading it in context. It appears to refer a situation where an individual poses a direct threat due to the person's condition (such as a communicable disease or medically caused behavior) rather than a person of limited mobility using a device to aid mobility. However, that is up to experienced attorneys to tweak.

[Snowgod]

It always amazes me how new technology has to fight for its place among us. As many times as I have been run over by ECVs out of control or people running with double wide strollers and yet you seem to think that Segways are dangerous. It is amazing what a youtube video can do to convince people that something is not as it seems. Having run a Segway business I can tell you that there are people who have a difficult time on a Segway. These same people have a hard time with most new things especially if they are balance related. I saw the same treatment given to snowboards when they first arrived on the ski slopes and it took years before people realized it was no more dangerous than skiing. Segways can be limited to a slow key and have great deal of agility in a crowd. As a mater of fact, if you try to run someone over they just need to push on your handle bar to move you away from them. Being run over by a Segway wheel hurts less to me than being stepped on by high heels or run over by an ECV and the small wheels they have. I am sure that someday this will be looked at as just a brick in the road for the mobility of people with disabilities, especially all the wounded vets now learning to glide on a Segway.

[Goofster]

The way the law is written what is reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another.

Reasonableness is not a 'subjective' standard when it comes to the law. It's an objective standard, so it doesn't matter what a particular individual might think in a given situation, it's what an "ordinary" person, making a well-informed decision based on all the facts and circumstances presented, would decide.

[Goofster]

From the ADA

Sec.36.208 Direct threat.

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.


(b) Direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.


(c) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.


After reading this I don't think this will fly under the ADA after reading this.

This isn't the section covering the dispute. This regulation is applicable where, for example, the person's disability is the direct threat. An example might be a dentist refusing to perform oral surgery on an HIV/AIDS patient because of the danger of the dentist acquiring the disease because of the lack of the appropriate equipment in his office to prevent transmission. Something along those lines.

I think this is the regulation at issue:

28 CFR s36.303 -

(a) General. A public accommodation shall take those steps that may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that taking those steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or would result in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense.

Disney's probable argument in response is that allowing the segway would (1) fundamentally alter the nature of pedestrian traffic within the parks, and (2)allowing their use, including the requirement of policing them, would be an undue burden, would be difficult, and expensive.. Keep in mind, the facts and circumstances, including risks of safety, are all taken into account.

[Goofster]

A private corporation does not have the right to restrict devices for the disabled.

Yes, a private corporation does have the right to restrict, especially where not having the restriction results in an undue burden, etc. It's a balancing act that is evaluated by the courts. Don't give the ADA more power than it already has.

[3Cabsfan]

Sadly some people will fight battles just for the sake of fighting. Segways should not be allowed period. I am hoping the company fights to the bitter end. If they do, they will win.

[dgauthier]

I feel they need to leave the segways where they are: Special tours and for employees only, these things rate right up there with those shoes with the hidden wheels in them. I can tell you from one that has been run over by someones kid with these shoes on it hurts and now think how much it will hurt if it is an adult on a 150 pound machine smacks into you or worse if it is your kid!

[Snowgod]

Now that you all have proved your bias by wanting Segways banned from WDW unless you are charged for the experience. You should all become aware of a group called DRAFT. Check out their website and see why Disney will eventually lose this battle.

[Donald A]

Now that you all have proved your bias by wanting Segways banned from WDW unless you are charged for the experience. You should all become aware of a group called DRAFT. Check out their website and see why Disney will eventually lose this battle.

You may have a good point. I don't think we'll see them in WDW any time soon, but from the looks of things the time may be coming. This is actually very helpful information for the current discusssion.

[thrillme]

Segways seem to be very agile. They stop and turn quite quickly. I think the percentage of people that will want to use them (handicap or whatever) are quite likely to bring their own.

Why not simply require a "License to Operate" and require operators bringing in their own to carry some sort of liability insurance. I think the same could be said for EVC's as well. If they do end up injuring someone due to recklessness that person would be covered.

Of course a License to Operate and Insurance is not in the plans yet.

I just don't see them as being that much of a hassel anymore than an EVC, agressive stroller operator or an undisciplined child running and bashing into someone causing them to fall.