Federal Court to Disneyland: Segways Are the Future

I lived in Orange County as a kid, and as such I pretty much was brainwashed into loving all things Disneyland from an early age. I mean, the place is great: you’ve got all the rides, food, and fantasy you could possibly want, and the joint is always remarkably clean. Really, aside from how god-awfully expensive it is, I suppose the only downside is that it’s always filled to the brim with hordes of grubby psychopathic Juggalo-looking families smashing their way from Adventureland to Tomorrowland like Jerome Bettis on PCP.

So, yeah, basically Disneyland, for all it’s wonderful animatronic vibes, can also be one hell of a crazily stressful pain in the ass. You know what would make that even more chaotic? Adding Segways to the mix. Disneyland has long banned the futuristic toys from terrorizing patrons, but thanks to an opinion from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that may change. As it turns out, Segways aren’t just the failed dream of lazy futurists. They’ve also become replacements for electric wheelchairs and the like.

Wait, medical Segways? The OC Register has the story:

The court took up an appeal of the 2007 case by Tina Baughman, who was forbidden from using a Segway at Disneyland where she wanted to celebrate her daughter’s eighth birthday. Baughman has “limb girdle muscular dystrophy,” which makes it difficult to walk or stand from a seated position, according to the court document. … Baughman of Pacific Palisades sued Disney under the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act. A lower court sided with Disney, because the company does allow motorized scooters and wheelchairs. But appeals court judges said that wasn’t good enough: Disney also should consider new devices.

Read the Register’s piece for more background, but apparently Baughman’s condition makes a Segway a better option for getting around that, say, a Rascal scooter, because she’d basically be in a standing position all day. (While I suppose that argument means she wouldn’t be getting in and off of rides, I’m in no place to comment on whether or not it’s valid. I’d love to hear any qualified opinions in the comments, though.)

But the truly fascinating part of the case is the reason the 9th Circuit told Disneyland to further study the effects of legalizing Segways. In its opinion, the court stated that a company can’t ignore new technological developments in medicine and mobility (even if it’s a Segway).

“Technological advances didn’t end with the powered wheelchair,” a panel of three judges said, according to the LA Times.

“As new devices become available, public accommodations must consider using or adapting them to help disabled guests have an experience more akin to that of non-disabled,” said Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote the court’s opinion.

Ignore the potentially hilarity and horror of dozens of Segway pileups on Main Street USA, as well as thinking about the headache Disney might have on its hands in sorting out who needs a Segway for medical reasons and who simply doesn’t want to walk. The court’s ruling is a high water mark in judicial forward thinking from an institution we’ve sadly come to expect to hand down rulings that, at least on the tech front, are too-regularly focused on dated models.

What’s great about this ruling is that, rather than saying Disney can or can’t ban Segways, the court said the firm needs to revisit the topic because the argument “we already allow wheelchairs” discounts the possibility of new advances in technology. Segways may or may not be the answer in this instance, but the court has basically said that a company’s allowance of old tech doesn’t allow them to preclude studying the costs and benefits of new developments. Or, in other words, that’s like

That’s valuable moving forward because it helps consumers drive technology forward. Disneyland is a unique case because it’s a semi-monopoly; while there are other theme parks out there, there’s only one Disneyland. But imagine a state-managed energy provider banning users from integrating rooftop solar into the grid because cost/benefit analysis is expensive, and the old system works just fine. That’s an obtuse example, I know, but the point remains that the court’s decision helps prevent companies from limiting consumer’s choices — at least when it comes to mobility — simply because the company, not the consumer, deems the old tech is “good enough.”

Follow Derek Mead on Twitter: @derektmead.

• Virtual Disneyland Means Free Rides
• Goodbye Walking, Hello UNI-CUB
• A Bike You Can Run On