Tina Baughman filed suit against Disneyland after it denied her access to the park using her Segway, her customary mode of transportation. Disney’s official policy is to allow access to disabled patrons using either wheelchairs or four-wheeled scooters. Baughman’s suit claims that she has never used a wheelchair, and that in order to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Disneyland should not be able to mandate the mode of transportation that disabled Americans choose. No one should be forced to sit, in her opinion.

Disneyland’s attorneys cite the potential safety hazards Segways pose, in that they reach speeds of up to 12 miles per hour, have no steering wheel, and are not equipped with brakes. Given these facts, and the potential for the park to become crowded, the Segways may pose a potential issue. Disney also defended that giving a means of access period, should be sufficient, and that a preference for a particular mode of transportation should not be required to be accommodated by law.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, did not agree, Chief Judge  Alex Kozinski referred to the fact that Segways are commonly used in California’s busy Burbank airport.

I’m somewhat on the fence about this one. On the one hand, the plaintiff’s attorney points out that Segways are used in the back lots at Disneyland, and used as an example in Tomorrowland. Thus, it is not as though Disney is not familiar with them, they simply do not want to be required to accommodate them, or any other form of transportation aside from the two it already does.

Additionally, if Segways are becoming more popular with the disabled, then they do not seem to differ much from four-wheeled scooters, in terms of the natural progression of technological developments. Lastly, I fail to see the actual problem with using the Segway, in terms of the logistics within the park. If the only fear is the hypothetical safety hazard, then it seems like a weak reason to deny this woman access. It seems like Disneyland would literally have nothing to change, in terms of actual infrastructure, to allow their use, rather than to change their written policy.

What do you think? Is Disneyland trying to capitalize on the use of the technology only when in its interests, or should the plaintiff just take a seat, so to speak?