So why weren't there many strollers back in the day?

[jaklgreen]

Consider yourself fortunate because you are the minority. It happens to me multiple times every trip, one time I was sitting on main street waiting for the parade when a woman ran over both feet with her huge stroller , it pulled one of my shoes of (and broke it) I had to chase her down to get my shoe back, so yes I have issues with strollers.
[/QUOTE]
That is crazy. I have never hit anyone with our stroller(when they were young) nor have I been hit. I am a very aware person though and my head is on a swivel. It's like I have this 6th sense in seeing collision before they happen. It's weird but I have avoided many situations like this. Even putting out my hand and stopping my kids from being ran into. I see a situation and my brain runs through all of the possible outcomes almost instantly. I actually thought that most people, especially parents, were like that. I know some things are very unavoidable, for sure. But I see many situations that are about to happen a mile away to other kids there and think to myself "why didn't the parents stop that." I guess I see things differently. Lucky me.

 

[ninjaprincesst]

Consider yourself fortunate because you are the minority. It happens to me multiple times every trip, one time I was sitting on main street waiting for the parade when a woman ran over both feet with her huge stroller , it pulled one of my shoes of (and broke it) I had to chase her down to get my shoe back, so yes I have issues with strollers.

That is crazy. I have never hit anyone with our stroller(when they were young) nor have I been hit. I am a very aware person though and my head is on a swivel. It's like I have this 6th sense in seeing collision before they happen. It's weird but I have avoided many situations like this. Even putting out my hand and stopping my kids from being ran into. I see a situation and my brain runs through all of the possible outcomes almost instantly. I actually thought that most people, especially parents, were like that. I know some things are very unavoidable, for sure. But I see many situations that are about to happen a mile away to other kids there and think to myself "why didn't the parents stop that." I guess I see things differently. Lucky me.
[/QUOTE]
It has just become so widespread at the parks now that parents use their strollers as battering rams and not strollers, it's just crazy.

 

[Trackmaster]

That's dangerous thinking.. and EXACTLY why the ADA was enacted in the first place.

People were being excluded and reducing their quality of life because they were being excluded and they didn't 'elect' to accept those additional burdens. They were being discouraged from participating through lack of inclusion.

That kind of dismissive thought is exactly why the ADA sets out to make accessibility a DEFAULT - not something someone should need to 'elect' to earn or tolerate.

"Dangerous thinking" is a completely Orwellian concept. What's so bad about actually thinking about an issue, instead of just doing everything that you want without questioning it. That's what I was saying.... I'm not going to touch that issue with a 10 foot pole due to the hoards of backlash I'd get.

 

[flynnibus]

Except that when the ADA was created it was not envisioned to encompass all the newly created "disabilities" that some people seem to have come up with, which often time seems more like nothing more than a made up malady to obtain special service. I would be shocked if any of the initial supporters of the bill would have said they thought it was going to allow pigs on planes or some of the other ridiculous things that are happening in the name of the ADA.

Completely different tangent from the comment made in the post... but... to you post you can look at the history of the ada and know that when the courts started limiting the scope of what was considered a disability to be covered, Congress took direct SPECIFIC action to widen the breath and definition of covered disabilities (including all the mental stuff) in the 2008 amendments to the ada. So yes, they did want it to be so encompassing, and made specific counter action to overturn how the Supreme Court had limited the interpretation of the original 1990 ada law.

 

[flynnibus]

"Dangerous thinking" is a completely Orwellian concept. What's so bad about actually thinking about an issue, instead of just doing everything that you want without questioning it.

It’s dangerous thinking because it suggests that these people are not your equal.

 

[Chi84]

Except that when the ADA was created it was not envisioned to encompass all the newly created "disabilities" that some people seem to have come up with, which often time seems more like nothing more than a made up malady to obtain special service. I would be shocked if any of the initial supporters of the bill would have said they thought it was going to allow pigs on planes or some of the other ridiculous things that are happening in the name of the ADA.

It's a pretty cynical outlook to believe people are "coming up with" made-up disabilities to get special treatment (and to annoy others). It's possible that medical science has progressed to a point where conditions previously unrecognized or untreatable are now capable of being alleviated. As this happens, more disabilities will be recognized and encompassed by our laws.

There will always be people abusing the system for their own selfish wants. Unfortunately, those people have the power to ruin things for others who truly need assistance by forcing the system to react in order to prevent that type of fraud. Would it be better to deny people who are suffering the means to alleviate that suffering in order to stop the abusers? That is the question that needs to be answered, and it's a complicated one.

 

[Amos1784]

This!! This is my biggest pet peeve. I would rather have my ankles run over than be blinded during a ride I waited an hour for.

Last time we were there in March we were on Seas with Nemo, there was a 50 something year old woman in the shell next to us with another woman similar to her age taking flash photos with a wind up disposable camera (think 1998) through the ENTIRE ride. All you saw was flash...click....and then listened to the wind of the camera. It truly was unbelievable.

 

[Chi84]

Not cynical when you see the evidence that backs it up. Look at autism in California, it had remained at a fairly constant level for years... but when the state passed legislation that provide more state funded for 3 to 5 year olds with autism you had a magically increase in autistic kids. There are lots of people that will use any system no matter how well intentioned and game it... they did it for autism you can bet they are doing it for the ADA.... In California the rate of autism went up from just over 6.2 per 10,000 births to 42.5 per 10,000... I can only imagine if the had pass a law that taxed parents of autistic kids that they would never have seen this dramatic increase.

So is the answer to decrease funding for autistic children or to tax the parents who claim to have autistic children? Or do you continue the funding but put in stricter controls, creating a greater burden of proof on autistic individuals who may be at a disadvantage in meeting proof requirements. Do you require people who claim ADA protection to carry a card stating that they have severe depression or some other disability and to present that card to business owners? That’s what I mean by complicated. It’s simple to look at statistics and say there’s a problem.

If enough people abuse the system, the laws will change to offer less protection to individuals who need it. Is that a good thing?

 

[Chi84]

View attachment 365768

That's an excellent example of the type of abuse I meant. And the laws will eventually change to make things more difficult for people with actual disabilities who need service animals.

Just to clarify, though, I was responding to the claim that people were making up new, previously unrecognized disabilities, not just faking that they have a disability.

 

[fngoofy]

This!! This is my biggest pet peeve. I would rather have my ankles run over than be blinded during a ride I waited an hour for.

I've said before, they have you in the queue for Pirates for a fair amount of time. Why can they not have Johnny Depp (or any pirate for that matter) address the queue via a screen (that is worked into the theming of the queue) and say in 6 languages "NO FLASH, LIGHTS, OR DEVICES"?
And if you really want it to hit home and work, pull a PeeWee's Funhouse and have Anna and Elsa come on and say "Ok kids, if you see mommy or daddy using their flash or looking at their phone while you are on a ride, you yell "MOMMY AND DADDY ARE HORRIBLE PEOPLE" as loud as you can when you get off the ride!)

I spoke with a manager after we got off PotC one time and told him about how bad it was during our ride. I explained that it was like watching a movie while people were taking pics, you can't follow the story and it blows the telling of the story. It genuinely seemed like he had never considered how disruptive it was for the guest. He was nice, asked us if we wanted to ride again and said they'd even hold back a few boats so that we didn't have it happen again. I thanked him and said no thanks, he said he'd pass it along in their next managers meeting. To his credit, for the rest of the week the CMs at load were mechanically saying "no flash photography."

This seeming like news to him may seem odd, but being that I was a CM at Disney Quest for a little while back in the day, I know that the main operational concern with flash is not the guests, but that it messes with in ride cameras, makes it difficult to view what's happening in the ride with flashes going off all the time.


I doubly hate it in that the photos they are getting turn out horrible, AND the pic is that up an overly lit scene that looks nothing like what you are seeing with your eyes.

We had one jerk on SSE that was doing HDR triple flash photography with every shot.
My wife went up to him and his party after we got off and told him how distracting and inconsiderate it was. He flatly said "I don't care", literally.

So yeah. This is the first world problem of our times at WDW. If we are going to be asked to pay these prices we need to not be blinded in dark rides and not have to endure some moron's voiceover of the Ghost Host's welcome at HM.

 

[Trackmaster]

It’s dangerous thinking because it suggests that these people are not your equal.

I'm not specifying what I think on the issue either way, don't take what I say as a stance on the issue. Don't read into what I say and assume that it represents my viewpoint on what park policy I advocate for.

But you're being completely Orwellian again. And you're basically being like Roy Cohn. You're saying that some people are acting like people with disabilities are not their equals... when all they want to do is have them treated like anybody else and be given special treatment that a non-disabled person wouldn't get. You're making a contradictory comment, scapegoating, and viciously attacking somebody who can't agree with your logical paradoxes.

Doesn't that make you the one who wants to create separate Feudal classes of people by law? From an argumentative stand-point, wouldn't true equality mean using economics or price points to determine perks at private institutions. Or at least letting the parks themselves create their own system, provided that it was transparent, honest, and they were upfront with what they did?

 

[flynnibus]

I'm not specifying what I think on the issue either way, don't take what I say as a stance on the issue. Don't read into what I say and assume that it represents my viewpoint on what park policy I advocate for.

But you're being completely Orwellian again. And you're basically being like Roy Cohn. You're saying that some people are acting like people with disabilities are not their equals... when all they want to do is have them treated like anybody else and be given special treatment that a non-disabled person wouldn't get. You're making a contradictory comment, scapegoating, and viciously attacking somebody who can't agree with your logical paradoxes.

Doesn't that make you the one who wants to create separate Feudal classes of people by law? From an argumentative stand-point, wouldn't true equality mean using economics or price points to determine perks at private institutions. Or at least letting the parks themselves create their own system, provided that it was transparent, honest, and they were upfront with what they did?

You're moving your lips alot but not saying much. The topic of discrimination based on protected classes has nothing to do with the hypotheticals you threw around. And frankly I don't give #$^ about your 'oh I don't want to bring my opinion into this...' dance.

The suggestion was made that coping with the burdens is something the disabled should ELECT to shoulder or just don't. As if, "hey, you knew that going in, deal with it" instead of acknowledging that not all burdens are necessary, nor should they need to exist when we can live by common standards that EMBRACE those limits within reason. That's what I was referring to.

Keep your labeling to yourself. There is nothing Orwellian about facing the real history that existed that alienated and diminished the livihood of individuals who were treated like third class citizens because of their condition, regardless of their ambition to live otherwise. So yes, I will speak up against ignorance that would suggest people coping with accessibility issues should just accept that it's a choice they can make.

 

[disneyfireman]

Agree. Unless the 5 year old has a mobility problem, they don't need to use a stroller. We live in NYC and by the time my kids were 3, they were out of the strollers, climbing at least 3 flights of stairs, and walking a few miles a day. Now that they are 9 and 11, they are strong, healthy kids in good shape.

Yep. A kid over 5 in a stroller that has no physical disability reason to be in one. Has parents that need parenting classes. Period
It takes either a lazy parent or a lazy kid to be in a stroller over 5.

 

[mdcpr]

Yep. A kid over 5 in a stroller that has no physical disability reason to be in one. Has parents that need parenting classes. Period

Yep. A kid over 5 in a stroller that has no physical disability reason to be in one. Has parents that need parenting classes. Period

I always wonder if the parents put older kids in strollers so they can speed up across the parks. Unfair to the children.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It's a pretty cynical outlook to believe people are "coming up with" made-up disabilities to get special treatment (and to annoy others).

People are absolutely doing that. It's not cynical, it's factually true.

 

[disneyfireman]

That's because no one likes the idea of personal responsibility. They are also confusing rights and wants.

Yep. 110% correct.

 

[mdcpr]

People are absolutely doing that. It's not cynical, it's factually true.

As the mother of a child with a disability, this is HORRIBLE!!

 

[disneyfireman]

That's dangerous thinking.. and EXACTLY why the ADA was enacted in the first place.

People were being excluded and reducing their quality of life because they were being excluded and they didn't 'elect' to accept those additional burdens. They were being discouraged from participating through lack of inclusion.

That kind of dismissive thought is exactly why the ADA sets out to make accessibility a DEFAULT - not something someone should need to 'elect' to earn or tolerate.

The ADA was created for folks with real disabilities. Now, There is a lot of poppycock “disabilities” out there that is complete nonsense and diminishes those who truly suffer from something they have no control over. I’m sorry. But being over weight because someone eats too much and they want a ECV is no disability. Or the kid that can’t stand in line because mom or dad never disciplined them. Or all this other nonsense that people have “needs”. It’s just Baloney. I’m almost 100% deaf. I don’t consider that a disability. Disney owes me zero special concerns or treatment. Nor does society.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

As the mother of a child with a disability, this is HORRIBLE!!

What on Earth are you talking about?

As the mother of a child with a disability, you should be angrier than anyone that people abuse the system with fake disabilities very frequently.

 

[mdcpr]

What on Earth are you talking about?

As the mother of a child with a disability, you should be angrier than anyone that people abuse the system with fake disabilities very frequently.

This is when threads can get confusing. The fact that a parent would treat their child like they were disabled to get their way, is a horrible thing. I don't get angry at these things because I believe in Karma, and actions like these will haunt people eventually. The universe has a funny way to take care of these things.