Well Sauron it comes down to defining “need”, doesn’t it.
Obviously if it is a free service provided to those with some sort of “medically recognized” disability ala disability parking then I have no business taking one.
However, if I’m paying for the service I’m fully entitled to used the scooter. I’m paying. Money is changing hands. Whether my “disabilty” is an artificial limb or that I’m getting over a cold and am feeling weak is immaterial.
I’m renting a service because I feel I need it.
Until you’re paying for it, or I’ve run you or your loved ones over, it’s none of your business.
So, if I read you correctly, you want the carts to be available only to people who have a medical condition, who has a physician (not all people do), who is under treatment for that condition (not all people are, for example, Snookie isn’t for a variety of reasons that are no one’s business)?
Why?
are you some how harmed by the store/park’s policy?
do you have evidence that some one w/a legitimate handicap goes w/o accomodations because some one that you suspect does not, has the cart? If so, I missed it.
(in answer to your specific question about why I was unable to go to the doctor after I fell - I was on my way to a field trip w/my son’s class. had to leave right then, dealt w/the pain until after the event, then went to the doctor, wished like hell there’d been a cart available to use)
As for ‘what’s the problem’, why should I need to prove to cart dweeb that I’ve got a medical problem at all? It’s really none of his (or your) business. the carts are there for customer’s use. They’re available on a ‘first come, first served’ basis, w/o demonstration of need, in any place I’ve ever seen them.
what’s the problem with that?
you think perhaps some people don’t “need” them (based on your definition of need, for me, if some one asks for one, I assume they’ve made the determination of need), and therefore, what? some people who do ‘need’ them go w/o? again, I’ve not seen a demonstration of proof of that - did you observe folks using crutches turned away? did your cart dweeb tell you that routinely happens??
Let’s assume that your ‘solution’ is implemented. Then what?
Some people who’ve not managed to come up to the bar of your assesment won’t be able to use a cart, and may choose to not go to the park at all. (park out $$).
Some people who have managed to come up to the bar of your assesment will choose not to ‘prove their need’ to cart dweeb (my father wouldn’t have, for example - he’d tell you to frankly go to hell).
Seems to me that the parks/stores have made the business decision to have a certain number of carts available for their customers use, based on their experience of customer requests.
seems to me that they’ve additionally made the business decision to not require a demonstration of need for their use. Perhaps 'cause they fear customer reaction, perhaps 'cause they don’t give a shit, perhaps 'cause they feel that requiring medical proof of need for simple use of a fucking cart is intrusive all by itself, perhaps because they’re not paying the parking cart dweebs sufficiently to require that extra level of task.
Seems to me that they’re quite allowed to do that, and don’t require your permission to give out carts w/o demand for demonstration of physical need.
bottom line:
How the fuck are you harmed? what is your fucking damage?
and your response to my later question is interesting. and gives the answer to your question to me (re: what’s my real issue).
and, as an aside, since you admit that you don’t see ‘mere obesity’ as sufficient cause, whatyergonna do, since at least some of the medical community will?
Let’s take DisneyWorld for example. The Magic Kingdom was designed back in the 1970s. They’ve really done a lot to make accomodations for the handicapped. But the park was not designed to have 30,000 people running around in ECVs because they “feel like it.” There is simply a logistical problem of ECVs taking more space per person than someone walking. There are the safety issues of ECVs simply being more dangerous to pedistrians than other pedistrians. There are the parking issues - where to put the strollers and carts while people go on the rides.
If Disney faces this issue, what do you suggest they do? They have to make accomodation for people with disabilities, but they can request documented evidence of the disability. Scylla’s solution - should ECVs become so prevelent as to become a problem - has merit.
Another solution would be to lower park capacity and let fewer people in. Of course, that would either affect Disney’s bottom line or increase the price of tickets for everyone.
Going back again to your OP, what you claim that we’re all ‘missing’ is your assertions that:
significant numbers of these things are being used by folks w/o a ‘medical need’.
that therefore, people who have a medical need, are denied their use.
that people use them in dangerous ways and constitute a danger to others.
I’d like to see some evidence of these, please - first that there’s a signigicant amount of ‘abuse’ (people w/o a need),
secondly that people are routinely denied the use 'cause there’s too many who don’t need them using them.
and that there’s a significant number of folks being injured by them.
YOur observations about people not being skilled at using them is insufficient (each one may have individual differences, which would mean different handling - I drive a stick shift car, when my clutch wore out, the first 2 times I drove it post repair, it jerked around significantly until I got re-used to it again; plus for all you know it may be that the people using them don’t use them frequently which in no way implies that there isn’t a real need - they may be unable to walk long distances, but don’t often need to, which would explain the lack of skill).
Dangerosa - same question - do you have any real evidence (other than ‘it could happen’) that Disneyworld et al faces having it’s entire park filled w/scooters?
Excellent point, and one I wasn’t recognizing. I had forgotten that most places use these carts on a paying basis. To that extent, ignore my earlier comment.
And the day that Disney Land has 30,000 ECVs touring around, I’ll retract my statement.
Oh wait - actually I won’t because if DL has 30,000 ECVs touring around that means EVERY PERSON THERE HAS AN ECV in which case pedestrians are at no increased risk because there are NO PEDESTRIANS.
Your statement is clearly absurd.
“Need” is a completely subjective thing and it’s rediculous to suggest that any time a person is feeling under the weather or is tired or has hurt their foot they need to visit a physician.
Tell me, if someone was at DL and turned their ankle should they have to leave the park, visit a Dr to get the appropriate note and then return to get their cart?
That would be even more absurd.
Parks/zoos/malls are providing a resource for their customers. Like I said, until you’re paying for it or someone on a ECV runs you over, it’s none of your business which customers use the resource.
And I do have to point out - most golf courses offer carts but the majority of golfers still walk the course.
When I came home for Christmas in first year university I went for a walk in my home town. I happened to run into a friend of mine from high school riding one of those mobility devices. He was always a little overweight but never had any trouble walking in the past.
After exchanging pleastantries, I asked him if something happened and why he needed one of those motorized scooters. He told me he got in a car accident and now had a horrible time walking. To be nice, I then asked him if he needed help running his errands that afternoon. He said he wouldn’t mind and I spend 3 or 4 hours helping him out with various things.
When I was about to go home, guess what he said to me?
“Actually, I never had a car accident and I can walk just fine, I just have one of these because I really don’t like walking.”
Take that for what you will
Because their presence in pedestrian areas represents both an inconvenience and a safety hazard, specifically to small children.
Yes I am. There is less space available because carts occupy more space in pedestrian walkways. Increased cart usage results in faster overcrowding. I am obligated to grow eyes in the back of my head and alter my path and get out of the way of people proceeding on these carts. A heavy machine driven on a pedestrian walkway represents a danger to pedestrians, specifically children. To simply offer them without controls to ensure safety, and minimize abuse and invonvenience is stupid.
I responded to this in my last post citing a specific example that someone else mentioned. It seems reasonable and logical that it occurs. I have no evidence that the handicapped spaces would be unavailable if it was simply a discretionary thing rather than a placarded privilege. Nevertheless I am confident that it is so.
Well I’m sorry about that. Under my scenario you probably would have to decide whether you wanted to gut it through the fieldtrip, or be late and get a cart pass from a Doctor.
You’re repeating the exact same question that I responded to in my earlier reply. I think that it is wrong that the carts are available on this basis for reasons I’ve outlined repeatedly. If it’s too much of a hardship to present a cart pass to a cart dweeb than don’t take a cart.
Do you complain that you have to present a ticket to get into a play? Is it so much of a hardship that you don’t go? For that matter if this is such a horrible thing, how do you live with the ignominy of having to present a gate pass to a gate pass dweeb when you enter the park in the first place?
I don’t trust a person to make that determination for themselves any more than I trust them to make discretionary use of a handicapped parking space without a placard.
Less overcrowding per capita admission = more admissions. Park in $$$.
I’m sure some people who would be entitled to handicapped spaces feel the same way about getting placards and don’t do it.
That’s their choice and I have no problem with it. If it’s too much of a hardship to present a pass don’t get a cart. For that matter how would your father get into the park in the first place if he resents presenting evidence? You are required to present evidence (in the form of a ticket) that you are entitled to enter the park. If your father is fine with this yet offended by the concept of presenting a pass or a ticket showing he is entitle to a cart that’s his problem.
And I’m sure it was with the best of intentions. However it seems quite clear that this service is being abused to the detriment of pedestrians and that should be addressed.
All kinds of institutions make business decisions and change them as circumstances warrant. The old paradigm is being abused and needs to be replaced.
Car makers used to make the business decision not to fix safety problems with their cars. Quite correctly we have prevailed upon them to change that decision. This is no different.
Yes, but I have the decision not to attend the park. And, if I do, and their business decision of handing out these devices without reasonable precautions results in the injury of my child they are going to face a large lawsuit.
With the current situation as it is at Hershey park it seems inevitable that this will occur in short order.
My experience at the park as a paying customer is compromised by having to deal with unnecessary and unsafe cart usage on pedestrian walkways as is the safety of my daughter.
It doesn’t give you the answer to my “real issue” unless you want to be a real jerk about it, and pretend that it’s my real issue.
You asked for my opinion and I offered it to you without evasion.
The real issue here is the real issue that I’ve stated. I made no effort to hide from you accusing little question, and if it was the real issue I would state flat out that it was.
You’ve seen more than enough of my posts to know that is true. I have no possible motivations for hiding a secret agenda if I had one, and I resent the implication from you that I do.
In fact I find it hurtful to come from somebody I like and respect.
Abide by their decision. You asked me for my personal opinion and I gave it. I think a Doctor’s professional opinion concerning their patient far outweighs my personal beliefs, and see no basis under which I would take issue with it.
So **Scylla, ** basically, you think that if I have one of my rare “bad ankle days,” I should have to choose between a) staying home, b) going for an unnecessary medical appointment to document a medical condition which I already know how to deal with and has been essentially stable for years, or c) getting a mostly unnecessary authorization from my doctor to use on the off chance that I have a bad day sometime during the (what I would hope would be limited) validity period of a little plastic card?
I actually find strollers quite inconvenient. The get in the way - clog up pathways, take up space in line.
I’ve had my ankles based into quite a few times by distracted parents who weren’t paying attention to where they were going.
I think that parents should have to visit a physician and have their children declaired “too young to walk on their own” before they’re allowed to rent a stroller at a park.
Most of people I see using the carts are senior citizens. When I start to become annoyed by one (or ANY senior citizen, for that matter), I always try to remember that that might be me someday, and that when that old person was 25 they never dreamed they’d be in the condition they are today.
I still laugh every time I see the “Hoverround” commercial, though. I can’t help it!
I actually find strollers quite inconvenient. They get in the way - clog up pathways, take up space in line.
I’ve had my ankles bashed into quite a few times by distracted parents who weren’t paying attention to where they were going.
I think that parents should have to visit a physician and have their children declaired “too young to walk on their own” before they’re allowed to rent a stroller at a park.
No offense, but I really am getting tired of repeating myself. I’ll briefly requote myself
“Unless you want to hypothesize a sudden epidemic of invisible disabilities, I see no other explanation other than abuse to account for the explosive use of these devices.”
A further discussion in context is available in and earlier post of mine on this page.
I just answered this twice.
My personal experience and the corroboration of other posters on page 1 of this thread.
You will have to read the thread.
I think you just repeated yourself from your point 2
And that’s your point three again.
Oh come on. Are you really going to take this tack? Do you deny that the heavier mass speed size and inertia that these devices have does not present both an inconvenience and a hazard to people not so mounted when used in pedestrian areas?
You might as well say that cars would not be a danger to somebody walking in the middle of the center lane of a highway. They are vehicles on pedestrian routes. That effects my convenience safety, and those of my child.
And personally, I don’t care how badly one needs them. If you can’t operate them safely you should not be allowed to use one no matter how badly you need it.
Because of the potential hazard presented by the Segway they are only being sold to somebody who was completed a safety course.
There is no certification for these devices. Any idiot can take one and go cruising through pedestrian walkways on a heavy machine.
That’s stupid.
Another good reason for the cards is the ability to certify users’ competance.
you feel that carts are a danger to you, your daughter etc.
So, the optimum, then, would be to deny them altogether, since any use could hurt some one else.
But you seem to recognize that’s not a viable (or fair or legal) option, right?
so, do you have a magic number in mind? Of course, the parks/stores have already come up w/a number - they have that many, based on their experience for that place - but you felt there were too many.
What’s the solution? Dangerosa says the park shouldn’t be full of them. I agree. But they aren’t. you feel there were too many that day. But you have zero evidence to suggest that your plan would have had any effect on the number that day.
you still have not demonstrated that :
A. there is any significant abuse of the system as devised by the stores/parks in exisitence. (IOW, that on anything remotely resembling a regular occurance, people w/certifiable disabilities cannot use a cart since they’re all in use. A single day at a single place can be explained by anomolies).
B. that your system, over and above being rudely intrusive to the people needing assistance (it’s different from showing a ticket, and you know that - since everybody must show a ticket to get in. ), would actually have reduced the number of carts used that day that you found it to be ‘excessive’. Merely suggesting that ‘of course it would’ doesn’t do it.
C. that there is any actual damage to people (other than the inconvenience of having to deal w/other folks). Space issues? then why limit it to simply scooter traffic? larger people take up more space. People with strollers take up more space. People in wheelchairs take up more space.
You were a paying customer, so was the person in a scooter. You were offended by their ‘dangerous use’, I was offended by the smokers who would walk along w/their cigarettes held at their sides where it could conceivable hit my child. But, since I was responsible for my son’s safety and made sure he wasn’t next to the yahoo w/a cigarette, I also made sure that he wasn’t in the way of a cart w/a person in it. It wouldn’t have made a difference to me if the person in the cart was there 'cause they had a medical need or not if my child had gotten hurt.
re: people’s quality of use - I’d have no problem w/a short ‘how to use this machine’ being required. but other than that, the jerking around that you see does not mean that the person had never used one before. as I pointed out, although I’ve driven a stick shift car for years and years, each new one required a short bit of ‘how does this one respond’, and even repairs to mine required that same gig. there’s no reason to believe otherwise about a piece of equipment that is used by lots and lots of folks.
and of course, there’s no evidence to suggest that having the ‘card’ would mean any significant change in a person’s skill in using the carts.
Your points A,B,C seem to be reiterations of your earlier points 1,2,3 which I’ve addressed several times. If you still take issue, rather than repeating the same question, I’d ask that you address my answers.
Yes. My magic number is: I will happily accept as many of them as there are people who have a legitimate medical need for them, and not one more.
You keept saying that without addressing the reasoning I’ve presented. My evidence is logical evidence, and I will repeat for you again in what I hope is the last time.
Carts were neither common nor uncommon in the recent past. To my observation 2/3 3/4 of carts observed carried a passenger with an obvious need.
Over the last three to five years cart usage has increased dramatically and to my observation 90-95% of carts observed carry a passenger without an obvious medical need.
Based on this observational evidence one might propose two hypothesis to explain the growing usage:
A sudden epidemic of invisible disabilities.
Increased cart usage among the able-bodied.
A third hypothesis is that the threshhold of socially acceptable use has dropped significantly.
I think we can safely dismiss 1. 2 or 3 represent a problem that needs to be addressed.
I cannot reasonably protect myself or my child from carts approaching silently from behind unless I walk backwards. That creates its own problems.
As a considerate member of society I think it is right and proper that I assume the risk that cart usage presents me in the service of the medically needy.
By the same token I am by no means willing nor should I be expected to assume the risk of abusive or frivolous use.
