ajfelice wrote:I have great respect for the purpose of the ADA. The more people who can safely enjoy rides and attractions, the better. However, I believe some of the benefactors from the ADA have taken things to an extreme in some cases.
In this case, I take the most issue with the following excerpt from the lawyer, "On the other hand, the policy is under-inclusive because it says nothing about those who have hands but choose not to hold on." Before making such a statement, I think some research is necessary. Restrictions that require having hands, feet, arms, legs, etc. are put in place in the case of emergency evacuation like others have mentioned, or they exist because these extremities are needed for the restraints to function properly. This statement basically comes off to me as a poor excuse to whine and try to fault others because something didn't turn out as you wanted it to. For the case of Aquaman Splashdown, I'm not defending whether or not Six Flags violated ADA, as I'm not an expert on the ADA (I just follow their guidelines as best I can). Actually, it could be possible that Six Flags may have not made the new policy for that ride. Maybe it was a combination of their insurance provider or the State of Texas? Overall, I take issue with how the lawyer is stating the case against SFoT.
It is the Lawyer's job to make an argument. It is the judge's call to see through the BS of that argument and rip it to shreds. As long as the six flag's legal team provides sufficient reasons as to why riders need their hands (IE, riders can choose to not hold onto the lap bars, but still have that option where as riders with no hands don't have an option at all) or for various other reasons, the judge will typically rule in their favor.
Likely, this man's legal team will recommend to drag the case out until SF has had enough and will settle out of court. As a result no precedent will be set and will leave the next person who is "discriminated" against the ability to sue.