Trespassing third parties

[Chip Chipperson]

You read what you wanted and ignored the rest. Reedy Creek Improvement District is a local government.

I believe the confusion is that the law cited only applies to the District itself, not the private businesses located in the District. So RCID/CFTOD can't make a local law preventing Uber and Lyft from operating there, but Disney CAN theoretically ban them from their property (the parks and hotels but probably not Disney Springs since the parking garages are District property).

Trains was trying to cite the rideshares as some sort of "gotcha" argument, but the fact is that Disney allows rideshares to operate on their property as long as they follow the rules they set for where they can pick up and drop off passengers. The signs that WDW made and installed is evidence enough to know that they have permission to operate.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Trains was trying to cite the rideshares as some sort of "gotcha" argument

Not at all, I was originally responding to someone who asked why Disney would not want Uber to operate. Since they are a 3rd party and compete with a Disney service, I offered that and then pointed out that there is nothing in the official property rules that allows Uber to operate.

I’ve pretty much exited the discussion but it’s entertaining to watch it continue

 

[Lilofan]

Not at all, I was originally responding to someone who asked why Disney would not want Uber to operate. Since they are a 3rd party and compete with a Disney service, I offered that and then pointed out that there is nothing in the official property rules that allows Uber to operate.

I’ve pretty much exited the discussion but it’s entertaining to watch it continue

Uber has its presence at WDW. When we were filling up our gas tank at the gas station across from Disney Springs, there was a vacant dirt / paved lot next door with approx 50 cars with Uber drivers in their personal cars waiting for the next guest to pick up.

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

You are not confused. You are willfully difficult.

Whatever. You brought something up, I challenged it and then asked a question as your responses seem to say two differ things right next to each other.

How silly of me to start a discussion on a discussion board. If you are going to discuss with name calling instead of facts or opinions then I’m out. Have a good one.

 

[flynnibus]

You read what you wanted and ignored the rest. Reedy Creek Improvement District is a local government.

Ain’t nobody talking about reedy creek - everyone is talking about Disney and Disney’s property. Which is why your cite was nice, but not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Isamar]

The law relating to ride shares doesn’t address where vehicles can enter. The reference to municipalities basically says that state law will govern this type of business and municipalities won’t.

I know nothing about trespass law in Florida specifically, but the common law generally recognizes an “implied invitation” / “implied consent” to enter certain privately owned land (in the absence of the owner indicating otherwise) for certain purposes.

For example, people don’t seek your consent before entering your walkway/driveway to knock on your door (“implied invitation to knock”) to welcome you to the neighborhood, ask you to turn down the music, try to sell you something, or deliver a package, because your consent is implied. If you put up a sign that clearly tells some people they can’t enter, or install a locked gate, then implied invitation no longer applies.

The same implied invitation/consent would apply to parking lots of certain private properties. If you need a ride to the mall, a hotel or Disney Springs, you might be dropped off by a friend, taxi, Lyft, etc. It’s generally understood that everyone has the implied consent of these businesses to enter the property for the purpose of delivering a potential shopper/guest. So unless there is law to the contrary, Disney wouldn’t have to give advance consent for Uber or Lyft to drop someone off. Disney can, however, tell them that they are not allowed on their private property (negating implied consent) or they can designate particular parking spots for their use.

 

[lewisc]

I know nothing about trespass law in Florida specifically, but the common law generally recognizes an “implied invitation” / “implied consent” to enter certain privately owned land (in the absence of the owner indicating otherwise) for certain purposes.

Wouldn't a manned security gate suggest against implied consent?
I wonder if the law cited could justify dropping off a passenger off the side of the road just before the gate

 

[flynnibus]

The same implied invitation/consent would apply to parking lots of certain private properties. If you need a ride to the mall, a hotel or Disney Springs, you might be dropped off by a friend, taxi, Lyft, etc. It’s generally understood that everyone has the implied consent of these businesses to enter the property for the purpose of delivering a potential shopper/guest

Sure - but let's just stay focused on the known entity at hand... WDW. Where every resort and park is behind a security gate. Only Disney Springs and TTC are open to traffic. There is a direct interaction with security to enter most of Disney's properties... and why none of this is really under contention.

"implied consent" is basically why most trespass situations results in a direct written notice to close such . And can be simplified to the lay as "you aren't trespassing until you've been told to leave and do not -- then you are trespassing".

But I think we are spending a lot of time on a discussion that is not in play at all here. There is no uncertainty around implied consent when the place is access controlled.

 

[Isamar]

Sorry, I hadn’t thought of the manned gates and that’s a good point. Implied consent is negated for sites with manned gates.

In practice, any type of driver dropping off a hotel guest is treated the same unless Disney has previously instructed staff to turn away particular types of drivers. I doubt that guests with the first Uber drivers showing up at the gates were being turned away because there was no prior consent in place. They’re screening for a guest’s valid purpose to enter, rather than who’s bringing them. But you’re absolutely right that implied consent wouldn’t apply where there are manned gates.
(I have no idea how it works at the parks because I’m always on the bus .)

 

[splashtest]

I have DAS and when you check in the FP lane the user needs ri go first before anyone taps in plus the CM needs to “approve it” 1st. I can probably count on 1 hand how many times ive seen other DAS users when checking into a ride. Granted its a small sample but you would get an idea if it was widely used etc and from my years of using it. I dont see any real abuse what so ever that people claim it is causing these lines on the FP side.

I was going to say the exact same thing. In the 3 years we've been using DAS for my husband we have never come across another family using it close to our check-in. More times than not we have to wait until the CM realizes we're using a DAS to signal the system to allow our scans.

 

[Splash4eva]

I was going to say the exact same thing. In the 3 years we've been using DAS for my husband we have never come across another family using it close to our check-in. More times than not we have to wait until the CM realizes we're using a DAS to signal the system to allow our scans.

This is my 2nd day here and so far every ride we have been on. I have Not seen one other group go “blue” then scanned in. Again. I am FULLY aware im a small sample size but again. If this was widespread use and abuse its almost impossible not to see anyone using it

 

[lewisc]

FULLY aware im a small sample size

Exactly true.

Search in this thread Len (touring plans) posted Disney's statements in a law suit as well as anecdotal observations, over hours. Both support the opposite conclusion.

We have no idea how many DAS holders are abusers. We have no idea how many guests would qualify for DAS but don't apply

 

[lazyboy97o]

We have no idea how many DAS holders are abusers. We have no idea how many guests would qualify for DAS but don't apply

That sort of data is available.

 

[Splash4eva]

Exactly true.

Search in this thread Len (touring plans) posted Disney's statements in a law suit as well as anecdotal observations, over hours. Both support the opposite conclusion.

We have no idea how many DAS holders are abusers. We have no idea how many guests would qualify for DAS but don't apply

and we also have NO clue how many use it today. We have people who want to guess and make assumptions but again. No current data. Point im trying to make is i dont think DAS is creating long lines. Lack of capacity and Genie+ usage along with down times. Im at HS today i think 6 rides at some point were off line today.ToT never closed to be clear but one side was down. Rise went down so did MMRR as we went to ride them both. And ToT had issues as well when we went on

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

and we also have NO clue how many use it today. We have people who want to guess and make assumptions but again. No current data. Point im trying to make is i dont think DAS is creating long lines. Lack of capacity and Genie+ usage along with down times. Im at HS today i think 6 rides at some point were off line today.ToT never closed to be clear but one side was down. Rise went down so did MMRR as we went to ride them both. And ToT had issues as well when we went on

We know roughly how many people are using lightning lane per hour. We also know roughly how many people total are using lightning lane per hour based on @lentesta ’s work having people standing there actually counting. Golden Oaks / Club 33 makes up an infintesimal portion of LL returns since there just aren’t that many of them. I believe Len also posted that no VIP tours were observed during the counting period. That means that the number of people using lightning lane that are not using genie+ are either:
1. Recovery;
2. Rider Switch;
3. DAS.

At the ride @lentesta counted, Haunted Mansion, Rider Switch is basically nonexistent, since there’s no height requirement. So unless there is a huge percentage of recovery fastpasses (possible if there were a ton of rides down, but probably unlikely), based on the evidence, we can conclude that a huge percentage of the Lightning Lanes are DAS, and they are, indeed, “slowing down the lines.” What percentage of people using DAS are abusing the system versus those who have a genuine need is an unknown.

Based on the previous lawsuit filed a decade ago, we also know that DAS abuse absolutely is a huge thing. We know this because Disney told us so, in court filings, under the penalty of perjury.

 

[lewisc]

We know roughly how many people are using lightning lane per hour. We also know roughly how many people total are using lightning lane per hour based on @lentesta ’s work having people standing there actually counting. Golden Oaks / Club 33 makes up an infintesimal portion of LL returns since there just aren’t that many of them. I believe Len also posted that no VIP tours were observed during the counting period. That means that the number of people using lightning lane that are not using genie+ are either:
1. Recovery;
2. Rider Switch;
3. DAS.

At the ride @lentesta counted, Haunted Mansion, Rider Switch is basically nonexistent, since there’s no height requirement. So unless there is a huge percentage of recovery fastpasses (possible if there were a ton of rides down, but probably unlikely), based on the evidence, we can conclude that a huge percentage of the Lightning Lanes are DAS, and they are, indeed, “slowing down the lines.” What percentage of people using DAS are abusing the system versus those who have a genuine need is an unknown.

Based on the previous lawsuit filed a decade ago, we also know that DAS abuse absolutely is a huge thing. We know this because Disney told us so, in court filings, under the penalty of perjury.

What % of LL guests are paid G+?

Does the projected number DAS guests reduce the number of G+ slots?

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

What % of LL guests are paid G+?

Does the projected number DAS guests reduce the number of G+ slots?

In the observation @lentesta did earlier this thread, he counted 1,750 people entering the lightning lane at HM in one hour, none of which appeared to be VIP tours. He also posted that HM Genie+ released a max of 24 slots every 5 minutes for roughly 288 slots per hour. This means in the observed hour, 16 percent of the Lightning Lane users were people who had purchased Genie+, and 84 percent were people who had gotten access either through DAS or Recovery.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

He also posted that HM Genie+ released a max of 24 slots every 5 minutes for roughly 288 slots per hour.

I have 0 data but just as an observation that seems to be way off.

 

[Splash4eva]

I have 0 data but just as an observation that seems to be way off.

So is the 84% im here now and LL are running slow and you can easily see and view who is going thru and das is not the bulk…

 

[JoeCamel]

So is the 84% im here now and LL are running slow and you can easily see and view who is going thru and das is not the bulk…

so ask the CM at the merge what the ratio is