GAC to Become DAS

[Gabe1]

I'll find the exact post for you guys when I'm not on a tablet. It refers to a report from someone fined in Huntington Beach, CA for using the designated HA stall when not disabled. Fine was in the $200s (I got that wrong). Person fought it in court and lost.

I'm interested to read the link. I can find the Huntington Beach, CA story of the person that blocked the handicapped stall and lost in court for obstructing the use of a handicapped parking stall. But that was a parking stall. The California ordinances all seem to refer to handicapped parking as handicapped stalls, those stalls being for parking not bodily functions. That would be a whole difference offence.

I am so interested in hearing how the police could determined someone was not in need and issue a citation then have it hold up in court. These things are all weighed when writing an ordinance, where and what is the burden of proof when using a ADA restroom. The police have to have the evidence to uphold the citation. This should scream civil rights violation.

 

[Gabe1]

Are there any reports on how well DAS is going at WDW?

I think it is actually evening out, CMs seem to be for the most part on the same page now and some kinks are being ironed out. The guests who showed up to 'test' DAS have dwindled. Guests on the other hand are either adjusting or fighting back. Today my DS heard a complaint that made him want to pull his hair out.

Either the attraction is in DAS FP return time or they are not depending on the wait time. At the time the guest with a DAS was declined a FP return because the standby wait was 13 minutes. Fit that it wasn't a reasonable accommodation to get in FP for 13 minutes because guest should be given a FP at the 10 minute mark. Now with HM the wait max at that time was 13 but could be less because it depends on where they are in the cycle of opening the door and letting a large group of guests in from the queue.

So this guest was arguing that the day was being ruined and not being accommodated because of 3 minutes.
My thought was they now need to be a tad more general in the guidelines if this is what Disney is up against and maybe work the guidelines as approximately 10-15 minutes or something not to be taken so freak'n literally.

 

[willtravel]

I think it is actually evening out, CMs seem to be for the most part on the same page now and some kinks are being ironed out. The guests who showed up to 'test' DAS have dwindled. Guests on the other hand are either adjusting or fighting back. Today my DS heard a complaint that made him want to pull his hair out.

Either the attraction is in DAS FP return time or they are not depending on the wait time. At the time the guest with a DAS was declined a FP return because the standby wait was 13 minutes. Fit that it wasn't a reasonable accommodation to get in FP for 13 minutes because guest should be given a FP at the 10 minute mark. Now with HM the wait max at that time was 13 but could be less because it depends on where they are in the cycle of opening the door and letting a large group of guests in from the queue.

So this guest was arguing that the day was being ruined and not being accommodated because of 3 minutes.
My thought was they now need to be a tad more general in the guidelines if this is what Disney is up against and maybe work the guidelines as approximately 10-15 minutes or something not to be taken so freak'n literally.

As I am reading this, it's like reading a word problem.....But thanks for letting me know. The second paragraph helped me out. I could never work at WDW. I would be telling people to stop . OOOHHH and Thanksgiving is coming up. EEEEEEEKKKK

 

[flynnibus]

What I see of the "hate" (as you put it though I'd call it confusion in points of view that fuels the vitriol) is some people who presume a person requesting consideration for a special need is somehow getting something better than them. Not what they're actually doing in trying to have an equal experience by making up for a disadvantage with an accommodation.

Honestly I think it boils down to people like yourself expecting to be elevated to offset challenges you are forced to live with.. you advocate with 'its nothing compared to what we normally have to burden..' type arguments. There is certainly room for compassion - the problem is when people act like that treatment is OWED them or worst.. believe it's mandated -- it's not.

The law doesn't mandate it, nor should you try to force people to believe it. You can't force that type of behavior.

I imagine the fine I referenced in Huntington Beach came as a result of people using the HA stalls as changing rooms oblivious to the fact they were excluding a wheelchair person from using the accommodation set aside to make up for their limitation. When a problem gets bad enough someone has to make a law to correct it.

I'm still waiting for you to find the cite - because I'm willing to bet someone mangled the facts into something it's not.

 

[Gabe1]

As I am reading this, it's like reading a word problem.....But thanks for letting me know. The second paragraph helped me out. I could never work at WDW. I would be telling people to stop . OOOHHH and Thanksgiving is coming up. EEEEEEEKKKK

Sorry, my aging eyes and iPhone, proof reading not what it should be. Glad you got the gist of my post .

A good chunk of the guests are adjusting. A chunk of the guests that are having hissy fits want to wait for nothing and are determining DAS as a failure.

With time I am sure the majority of guests are going to realize GAC isn't coming back and that with DAS waiting longer than GAC is going to happen. And yes guest melt downs over 3 minute waits will likely continue. Front line CMs would love to tell off the unreasonable guests that having to wait 3 minutes longer, but they can't, they can only think it.

 

[Nemo14]

I'll find the exact post for you guys when I'm not on a tablet. It refers to a report from someone fined in Huntington Beach, CA for using the designated HA stall when not disabled. Fine was in the $200s (I got that wrong). Person fought it in court and lost.

I'm anxious to read this too, since every law I've read states that public restrooms must have handicapped stalls available, but I cannot find any references to "exclusively for" the disabled.

 

[pais]

I'm anxious to read this too, since every law I've read states that public restrooms must have handicapped stalls available, but I cannot find any references to "exclusively for" the disabled.

That whole fining thing scared me! I have twin little ones and many times I have used the HS for the three of us because it's too scary to have us all go into separate stalls (especially when it's crowded at Disney). We're pretty quick and would never jump in front of someone in a wheelchair though. I'm always rushing and afraid someone will be parked out there!

 

[Acolli18]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/10...ccess-service-dud/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058& Just read this article on someones experience with the new system...Sorry if this has already been posted... I find it comical that they suggest going back to the pay-per-ride format...

 

[JerseyDad]

That whole fining thing scared me! I have twin little ones and many times I have used the HS for the three of us because it's too scary to have us all go into separate stalls (especially when it's crowded at Disney). We're pretty quick and would never jump in front of someone in a wheelchair though. I'm always rushing and afraid someone will be parked out there!

.....ADA mandates that a certain percentage ...AT LEAST ONE of the stalls in a restroom be handicapped accessible ...however ...those / that stall ...IS NOT intended to be solely used by a disabled person ...nor is it OFF-LIMITS to the able bodied.

....local jurisdictions mandate a certain number of stalls, urinals, sinks etc in restrooms ...all varying based on the use of the building. A deli will have significantly less than say ...a movie theater ...because it's based on occupant load.

....that said ...if a jurisdiction indicates that a certain occupancy needs 8 full toilet stalls ...of which 1 will be h'capped accessible ....then that 1 stall is part of "The Required Count" and therefore available to all occupants. Therefore ...if you assume that it's not available to the general (able bodied) public ...then the restroom is technically not meeting the code compliant count at all times.

.....I don't recall anywhere that says being in a wheelchair that means you cannot "hold it" for few minutes to use the bathroom. IE: at a busy theater a line of people get set to use the restroom. Maybe a person is in a wheelchair and is the 10th one in the line. If no one else in front of the line used the h'capped stall, it would be empty until that wheelchair using person got to the front of the line. That would bring the line to a crawl for everyone, including the wheelchair user.

....I do know that California has a law that mandates a 2 to 1 female to male stall ratio ...but I'm not sure that includes h'capped stalls ....and I don't see it as really mattering anyhow.

 

[pais]

.....ADA mandates that a certain percentage ...AT LEAST ONE of the stalls in a restroom be handicapped accessible ...however ...those / that stall ...IS NOT intended to be solely used by a disabled person ...nor is it OFF-LIMITS to the able bodied.

....local jurisdictions mandate a certain number of stalls, urinals, sinks etc in restrooms ...all varying based on the use of the building. A deli will have significantly less than say ...a movie theater ...because it's based on occupant load.

....that said ...if a jurisdiction indicates that a certain occupancy needs 8 full toilet stalls ...of which 1 will be h'capped accessible ....then that 1 stall is part of "The Required Count" and therefore available to all occupants. Therefore ...if you assume that it's not available to the general (able bodied) public ...then the restroom is technically not meeting the code compliant count at all times.

.....I don't recall anywhere that says being in a wheelchair that means you cannot "hold it" for few minutes to use the bathroom. IE: at a busy theater a line of people get set to use the restroom. Maybe a person is in a wheelchair and is the 10th one in the line. If no one else in front of the line used the h'capped stall, it would be empty until that wheelchair using person got to the front of the line. That would bring the line to a crawl for everyone, including the wheelchair user.

....I do know that California has a law that mandates a 2 to 1 female to male stall ratio ...but I'm not sure that includes h'capped stalls ....and I don't see it as really mattering anyhow.

Thank you for the educated response!

 

[JerseyDad]

Thank you for the educated response!

....thank you for telling me that I said something 'educated' !! (I'm used to wife & sassy daughters telling me to shut up)

....it's amazing how these ADA laws get twisted and interpreted by all the local jurisdictions (which they can do ....but just not in a manner that lessens the original intent ) ......to the point of complete confusion!

....I do retail, commercial, residential property development design & construction ...and if I had the same project in 10 different jurisdictions ...I'd get 10 different ideas of what's "legal or required".

....I'll go off-track a bit in giving one of my all time best examples. It was in NYC ...where the Buildings Department wanted me to put a handicapped "fueling position" at the gas pump of a service station re-build I was doing. I told the examiner that there were both full-service and self-service fueling positions ...and a handicapped person need not exit their vehicle to fuel their car ...they would just opt to drive up to the full-service position and have the attendant do it. Well ....he told me that: 1). he didn't care ...and 2.) I didn't understand. Because he WANTED ....a 5' foot wide, handicapped blue painted "aisle" adjacent to the fuel pump island ....so that the WHEELCHAIR BOUND GAS STATION ATTENDANT could get his wheelchair between the car and the pumps ...so he could pump gas into cars!!

....now here's where reality comes into play: I told him that it was not required by law, and very unlikely that the gas company would hire someone in a wheelchair. At that point he exploded and told me I was being discriminatory in my thoughts. Well ....that wasn't true at all ...I KNEW that there was NO WAY that the gas company would hire someone in a wheelchair ...to pump gas ...and be an EASY TARGET for robbery since he'd have several hundred dollars on his person at any given time.

.....sorry for the 'detour' ...it was just something that popped into my head related to interpretations of ADA laws..

 

[GoofGoof]

Then they need to stop putting the changing tables in the handicap stalls.

What if there is a handicapped person with a baby that needs changing?

 

[GoofGoof]

....that said ...if a jurisdiction indicates that a certain occupancy needs 8 full toilet stalls ...of which 1 will be h'capped accessible ....then that 1 stall is part of "The Required Count" and therefore available to all occupants. Therefore ...if you assume that it's not available to the general (able bodied) public ...then the restroom is technically not meeting the code compliant count at all times.

This is definitely true. Unfortunately I currently work in a building that is too small for my company. We have recently hired a bunch of new people (the vast majority were men) and we have 2 men's rooms with 2 stalls in each. ADA dictated that 1 of the 2 stalls in each men's room be handicap accessible. 4 stalls ain't enough If we had to drop down to 2 stalls to keep the handicap ones for only those who are disabled there would be a big...mess. Especially in the mornings after everyone has had their coffee or taco day in the cafeteria My general rule is if someone rolls in with a wheelchair you should always give them first shot, if everyone in the room is able bodied its first come, first serve.

 

[JimboJones123]

What I see of the "hate" (as you put it though I'd call it confusion in points of view that fuels the vitriol) is some people who presume a person requesting consideration for a special need is somehow getting something better than them. Not what they're actually doing in trying to have an equal experience by making up for a disadvantage with an accommodation.

It comes off as being oblivious to the difficulties others face and concentrating solely on the accommodation as a perk instead of making up for a disadvantage.

Think of it this way. Two people are traveling down a path. One is walking the other has wheels. The person walking starts to feel their feet hurt and says to to the person with the wheels how lucky they are to have a seat. They may even think it is so unfair that person always has a seat and why can't they. The wheelchair person is thinking about how their backside hurts from all the sitting or how nice it would be to be able to get up and stretch their legs without enduring god awful pain. Or knowing that not being able to use their legs means their digestive system doesn't work properly as well. The difference in these perceptions of what the accommodation means and provides doesn't become apparent until both get to the end of the pathway. That's where there are three steps. The person walking climbs the steps and continues going. The wheelchair person is stopped and can go no further or must look for an alternate route. And hence you have the old allegory "I felt sorry for myself for having no shoes until I met the man who had no feet."

I imagine the fine I referenced in Huntington Beach came as a result of people using the HA stalls as changing rooms oblivious to the fact they were excluding a wheelchair person from using the accommodation set aside to make up for their limitation. When a problem gets bad enough someone has to make a law to correct it.

We get that you are not pleased. The fact is, Disney really isn't a place for any disabled person to go and be given VIP treatment.

Some may feel slighted that there has been sort of a pull back in accomodations, but this is the way Disney decided to do things.

A theme park was never meant to be a charity. If it ia too difficut a thing to handle under the DAS system, families may want to reconsider if they really want to go.

A disability should not come with preferential treatment expectations.

Again, if the Disney park no longer meets one's needs (or wants), don't go. It might just be too much. There are times, with my disabled family members where they would be so exhausted from the drive and walk to the parks that we left without going into the gates. Honestly, how does one even get to MK at all without a pretty solid chunk of waitingto get the TTC, then security, then the gate. Plus there is the walk time. How is that handled?

 

[luv]

It doesn't make sense, in a busy restroom, to reserve a stall for Only The Handicapped.

Point taken, though, that the handicapped wait longer than others. They wait in line, like the rest of us. When they get to the front of the line, though, they don't get to take the next door that opens, the way the rest of us do. They have to keep waiting (sometimes quite a long while) for that ONE particular stall, while others who were behind them are able to zip on into stalls as the doors open.

It is stuff like that (and the fact that there are so many, many downsides to being handicapped) that made me happy that Disney sometimes gave them a break and let them wait a little LESS time now and then. That was GOOD.

This thread is not a good indicator of the public, in general, I don't think. Most people are only too happy to give people who obviously have a hard time all the time...a break. We're happy to let them go first, if we can. We'd like to assist in whatever way possible.

I still wish there were some way to cut the handicapped a break while not allowing cry-babies and cheaters to take advantage. I've never been able to figure it out. But I'd like to see that happen.

 

[luv]

We get that you are not pleased. The fact is, Disney really isn't a place for any disabled person to go and be given VIP treatment.

Some may feel slighted that there has been sort of a pull back in accomodations, but this is the way Disney decided to do things.

A theme park was never meant to be a charity. If it ia too difficut a thing to handle under the DAS system, families may want to reconsider if they really want to go.

A disability should not come with preferential treatment expectations.

Again, if the Disney park no longer meets one's needs (or wants), don't go. It might just be too much. There are times, with my disabled family members where they would be so exhausted from the drive and walk to the parks that we left without going into the gates. Honestly, how does one even get to MK at all without a pretty solid chunk of waitingto get the TTC, then security, then the gate. Plus there is the walk time. How is that handled?

There are wheelchairs. I would park the car, go get one, bring it back to the car and then push it. It was, at times, difficult...and always a time-consuming process...but the parking staff isn't great about giving you a good spot just because someone can't walk. My aunt eventually got herself a handicapped card thing, which made it easier. There is often a wheelchair not too far off, if not right there in the handicapped section.

When you get to the park, you can rent an ECV, of course. But, like so many things, getting to the park from the lot can be challenging.

 

[Jane Doe]

We get that you are not pleased. The fact is, Disney really isn't a place for any disabled person to go and be given VIP treatment.

Some may feel slighted that there has been sort of a pull back in accomodations, but this is the way Disney decided to do things.

A theme park was never meant to be a charity. If it ia too difficut a thing to handle under the DAS system, families may want to reconsider if they really want to go.

A disability should not come with preferential treatment expectations.

Again, if the Disney park no longer meets one's needs (or wants), don't go. It might just be too much. There are times, with my disabled family members where they would be so exhausted from the drive and walk to the parks that we left without going into the gates. Honestly, how does one even get to MK at all without a pretty solid chunk of waitingto get the TTC, then security, then the gate. Plus there is the walk time. How is that handled?

It may appear to be a harsh statement to some but I fully agree. My niece was born with Hydrocephalus which makes her unable to do anything without some form of help. Now she likes bright colours and music and, based on meeting characters at various places, loves larger than life things which means that a trip to WDW (now DLP is closer but the same rules apply) would be great for her. Would we ever take her? Never as it would be a ridiculous thing to do. The plane ride there would be too long and probably affect her health for a start. The parks would definitely not be suitable as she has a tendency to throw her legs about the place when over stimulated which would be dangerous for her and those around her. Getting on rides would be a long process as she is in her mid twenties, 5'10", wriggly and has to be moved by her carer as she can't stand at all.

To turn up at WDW and complain that the park isn't suitable for her needs is daft, she isn't suitable for the park.

 

[unkadug]

What if there is a handicapped person with a baby that needs changing?

They should do it at Epcot next to the guy ing in the bushes. What else?

 

[minninedaisy74]

What if there is a handicapped person with a baby that needs changing?

Well then they need to have a 2 changing tables especially if they are ticketing non handicapped people for using the handicapped stall.

 

[Nemo14]

That depends on the jurisdiction. Did you know in California it is a fine-able offense to use a handicapped stall if you are not disabled? It'll cost you $400+ to find out.

Still waiting for the documentation about this. Did I miss it somewhere?