Segway safety concerns and Disney's policy dispute

Courtesy: huntingtonbeachsegway.com

Segways: A compromise of safety in Disney Theme Parks

The use Segways as personal mobility devices in theme parks, opposing argument

Segway is an electronic transporter based on two-wheels. The device can carry one rider to travel in different terrains and allows the rider to balance on two wheels. The scooter uses network control mechanism, propulsion, sensors and mechanical assembly. The scooter has a stabilization technology, and the device uses software to adjust according to terrain and the rider. The device was invented by Dean Kamen but has been recalled several times owing to the product malfunctions and defects (Weiss, 2013).

The Department of Justice (DOJ) 2010 ADA Title III regulations has stirred controversy as DOJ requires that public accommodations must make reasonable modifications for giving permission for using Personal mobility devices (PMDs) in their premises. DOJ specifies two PMDs. One is the wheelchair and other is power-driven PMDs. Segway is amongst the second category of PMDs. After several cases of injury caused by the use of Segways, Disneyland decided to disallow the use of Segways in their theme parks due to several cases of injury. Powers (2007) reported that Segway has sued Walt Disney World (WDW) to let guests use Segway scooters. However, DOJ forces public accommodation to impose safety requirements for using Segways that are not speculative but should be based on actual risks. Disney Land has come up with some alternatives to the issue by introducing their own stand-up four wheel mobility devices or from companies such as Chariot 4-wheel scooter. Still, DOJ has forced Disney to allow using Segways, and this causes serious business issues for Disney. Following are highlights of injury cases filed by Segway customers regarding lack of safety and malfunctioning of Segway scooter.

The incidents

Jimi Heselden's death: Jimi Heselden, owner of the firm Segway who bought the company dies in a tragic accident falling off the cliff of a mountain while riding Segway PMD (Reuters, 2010). The news caused deep concern regarding safety and security of Segway as a PMD.

Don Greenfield, Pennsylvania: Don Greenfield dies while riding his two-wheeled Segway scooter in Pennsylvania. Don hit a path hole while driving Segway, but his wife survived.

Marchelle Syverson: He was an IBM employee who died while being hit by a drunken driver when Marchelle was on his Segway scooter. It was also observed that 18 complaints were received by the city authorities against Segway drivers in Honolulu (Metcalfe, 2012).

Richmond dealer lawsuits: A Segway dealer in Richmond was sued three times after the customers using Segway scooter fell off while trying to control the scooter. Lunging and lurching incidents of scooters are routinely reported in the media. The dealer says he is covered with liability insurance but facing three lawsuits at once renders his business severely impacted. The plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against Richmond-based Segway dealer are named Marge Pritchett, Jenny Honeycutt and Jeffury Whitt. Schwartz (2011) reports that all three Richmond-based plaintiffs are also going to sue Segway Incorporated.

Another inconsistency in the stance of DOJ is that it used Metro Segway Program to substantiate its stance on forcing Disney to allow Segway use its theme parks. The department authorities said that since D.C. Metro permits disable commuters to use Segway as a mobility device by showing Metro's disability related program, Disney should also allow the same. However, Burgin (2011) mentions that DOJ's direction to Disney is inconsistent with the department's recent ADA amended regulations. The ADA regulation requires that WDW should accept verbal representation as a credible assurance for allowing disabled persons to use Segway as a mobility device in the Disney theme parks.

The design gurus mark the Segway design a failure

Apple's co-founder Steve Jobs also criticized the design elements of Segway scooter by terming the design as being "stupid" (Caulifield, 2010). What triggered Job's comments was the failure of the Segway executive team to understand that the firm shall not be developing proprietary software for the scooter. Jobs criticized the Segway being launched in two models rather than one and also lamented that the company has failed to anticipate the need for a strong team of technologists if the software is to remain proprietary. Jobs pushed the company to adopt open source software that can be modified by technologists and code writers if the company comes across some issues related to software. However, Dugh Field and Scott Waters did not approve of the idea and let the scooter launch with a proprietary software that was later responsible for failing the machine. One high profile public relations campaign of Segway that failed was when former President George W. Bush stumbled while driving a Segway scooter (Caulifield, 2010).

Steve Jobs also stated the design to be highly erroneous as it does takes into consideration the likelihood that anyone can fall with little lack of attention. This may cause the person to sue or speak unfavorably regarding the product. The later incidents and happening confirm the anticipated findings of Jobs. Segway was sued by many customers and agencies for failing to make the product safe for drivers.

Settled but still twisted

Burgin (2011) reported that the U.S. Justice Department has violated its legal authority in terms of dictating terms to Walt Disney World (WDW). The department asked Disney management to make arrangements for allowing customers to use their Segway scooters and shall not impose blanket ban on Segways. Despite several lawsuits in favor of plaintiffs and increased safety concerns the department has failed to duly recognize the efforts of Disney in addressing the issue of disabled persons. WDW has developed their own version of stand-up four wheel powered mobility devices. WDW has adequately addressed the issues of safety by removing the essential design flaws present in Segways. The device is four wheeled that improves the balance of rider and provides more safety to nearby people.

Presence of appropriate alternatives

It is contended that despite presence of reasonable alternatives to Segway scooters, the DOJ has forced Disney to make adjustments to its theme parks for paving way for the use of Segways. It is pertinent to mention that the new Q4 Chariot is a better alternative to Segway. The former is a 4-wheeled scooter that has a superior balance compared to Segway. It offers zero learning curve for its users and an affordable price makes it a better alternative. It is stable with four wheels and does not use sensitive sensors to balance the rider. The personal transporter has zero turning radiuses and has rear steering with two trailing wheels. Another feature is that the Chariot scooter has parking brakes, dual disk brakes, handbrakes, and brake lights (Scooter Catalog, n.d.). The researcher contends that DOJ's has shown bias towards forcing Disney to alter its theme parks. Disney is forced to adjust Segway driveways and the move is motivated by a favorable public perception and brand awareness of Segway scooter. Customers and opinion making groups can better shape their demand for PMDs had the customers known a better alternative to Segways that does not compromise their safety.

An important point is that Segway PMDs are two-wheelers which require that the device must contain delicate sensors to balance the rider and make the movements swift. For this to happen, the sensors are used at the rear end of the scooter. The rouged terrains at which customers use these personal transporters make it difficult for the sensors to maintain their compatibility. This fails them at turns, steep heights, and sudden alteration of direction. The Q4 Chariot personal transporters are much safer than Segways and provide more control to the rider in managing the speed, direction and other system of the PMD. Thus, DOJ shall not make it compulsory that Disney alters its tracks and settlements according to the need of Segway users. Instead the department of justice shall run an awareness campaign to educate the users regarding their own safety through four wheeled personal transporters.

The technology factors

It is pertinent to mention that DOJ's enforcement of its decision on Segway use in Disney parks shall not result in Disney being held responsible for any damages that occur due to Segway related accidents. The technological specifications of Segway are way too risky to allow the device to be used a mobility device. The elements such as its high speed (12 MPH) and failure mode makes it a risky device for guests other than the rider. The device also uses self-balancing technique through sensors and its reaction to obstacles is also weird. Majority of plaintiffs who sued Segway contended that once they came across a sudden obstacle, Segway fumbled in self-adjusting to the obstacle.

Conclusion

The analysis of Segway scooters presents adequate evidence that the personal mobility device (PMD) is flawed in its design, technology and self-balancing system. A human being is in h better position to anticipate the obstacles compared to the Segway scooter. The evidence being analyzed was the accident history of Segway scooters, the lawsuits filed against the company and the frequent complaints received by multiple city authorities regarding unsafe driving of Segway. The ruling of DOJ regarding forcing Disney to allow the use of Segway in its theme parks was also analyzed by assessing the inherent flaws in DOJ's own ruling. Finally, the matter was rested in form of a ruling by Fourth District Court of Appeal in which Justice Eileen Moore rejected the lawsuit filed a woman contesting Disney's decision to disallow the use of Segway scooters in its parks. Justice Moore held that expert evidence indicates that Segway cannot be used safely in Disneyland due to the method of operation used by Segway (Ofgang, 2013). The decisions rest the controversy created by DOJ in which the department went overboard in simplifying the situation for Segway users and ignoring the impact of its use in Disney parks on other guests. The evidence presented in the analysis and the final ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal indicates that Segway is unsafe to use in the Disney parks and the park management may risk the safety of their guests by giving permission to disable or other persons to use Segway scooters.