Consider this example paraphrased from the NPRM:

Although people who do not have mobility disabilities are prohibited from operating Segways at a

theme park, the public accommodation has developed a policy allowing people with disabilities to

use Segways as their mobility device at the theme park. The policy states that Segways are allowed

in all areas of the theme park that are open to pedestrians as a reasonable modification to its

general policy prohibiting Segways. The public accommodation determined that the venue provides

adequate space for a device such as a Segway and that it does not fundamentally alter the nature of

the theme park's goods and services. The theme park's policies do, however, require that Segways be

operated at a safe speed limit. A theme park employee may inquire at the ticket gate whether the

Segway that the theme park's policy requires that it be operated at or below the park's designated

At the same time, it should be noted that case law interpreting the

ADA imposes very high standards when a public accommodation wishes to use the "direct threat to the health

and safety" or "risk of harm" as a defense to not allowing persons with disabilities what would otherwise be a

reasonable accommodation and legal counsel should be consulted if "direct threat to the health and safety" or

"risk of harm" is going to be all or part of the basis for not allowing unfettered use of a Segway in a place of

public accommodation.

I'd like to know more also about what it means by "very high standards" regarding the ADA and case law in litigation. Does this mean the entity who denies

access has to prove their case in a clear and undeniable manner or the opposite as in they can just make the statement of "risk of harm"

and it is easy for them to just say no. All in all as I read this particular document, it seems that the DOJ is wishing to recognize the Segway as a disabiity aid and therefore place it more (if used by a person with a disability as a mobility aid) in the category with the powered wheelchair and scooters which few would deny any more. The direction appears correct to me.

I'd like to think that this may lend itself is some way to the situation you and your wife face with the Zoo. If the DOJ is taking a position in your favor it may work to your advantage by simply pointing it out with an ADA attorney involved. (and ultimately perhaps a win with disney as well)

Jim