101

Scott Paul RainsPublisher of Rolling Rains Report

here are two productive ways to enter this topic of

governmental policies that facilitate travel by peo-

ple experiencing disabilities. One way is to look at the

most comprehensive policies. The other way is to look at

the most highly regarded policies or “best practices.” We

will do both – and take quick glances sideways to under-

stand what impact they are having around the globe.

Let me suggest first that the very best resource I have

found on this subject is a book by travel writer Candy

Harrington. Her book, “Barrier-Free Travel: A Nuts &

Bolts Guide for Wheelers & Slow Walkers” is an excellent

English-language resource on travel under US policies

for those with mobility impairments. I am reviewing the

third edition prior to publication and will quote from it

later in my comments.

The United Nations has produced the most compre-

hensive policy. Best practices are generally found in the

policies of the EU and the United States. We will look at

one UN document and a set of relevant US policies. I

focus on US policy because I am better qualified to speak

with authority on them than on European policy. I expect

that my colleagues will be better suited to reporting the

EU situation.

If we were to also examine business policies we would

discover that these are underdeveloped. They react to

governmental policy so we must understand government

policy first. Business policy in the travel industry, with few

exceptions, is still driven by fear of the cost of non-com-

pliance to government enforcement. Development of

mature business policies requires a complete reversal of

assumptions by the industry. The market value of cus-

tomers who experience disabilities must be recognized.

Then business can innovate with policy based on its own

internal logic of producing sustainably profitable product

rather than grudgingly enacted compliance. As I suggest-

ed yesterday this means systemic design thinking where

those who experience disabilities are imagined as vital

customers long before products, policies, or places are

built.

Concentrating our comments on governmental poli-

cies then, let’s begin with the most comprehensive per-

spective. This comes from looking at the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

(CRPD). Within the CRPD Article 30 establishes policy on

leisure travel. Article 30 is entitled, “Participation in

Cultural Life, Recreation, Leisure, and Sport.”

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities or CRPD is an assertion, at the

level of international law, of the human rights of all per-

sons with disabilities. It is unique in that it addresses all

aspects of travel: the right to travel freely, accessibility of

the means of travel and of destinations, and the right to

full participation in society – cultural inclusion. It is also a

legal framework for evaluating the sufficiency of existing

national legislation on these topics.

A Comparative Analysis of Disability Laws in the

United States to the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been

done by the United States National Council of

Disabilities.

Here is a quote from the document’s comparison of

Article 30 of the CRPD to US Law:

Article 30 - Participation in Cultural Life, Recreation,

Leisure, and Sport

The United States’ approach to participation in cultural

life, recreation, leisure, and sport is based almost entire-

ly on an antidiscrimination model. This means that to

T

2ND ROUND TABLE

Accessible tourism: for well-being in disability

s s s

Extracts from the Proceedings of the International Conference

102

the extent that such opportunities exist for the general

population, the federal government provides a legal

right to people with disabilities to participate in such

activities without discrimination.

In terms of enforcement, the Department of Justice has

made accessibility of cultural and recreation facilities a

priority.

But the larger project envisioned by Article 30, includ-

ing enabling persons with disabilities to develop and

utilize creative and artistic potential, establishing sup-

port and recognition of specific cultural and linguistic

identities, and encouraging mainstreaming of sporting

opportunities, is largely left to private actors and advo-

cacy organizations.

Accordingly, a gap exists between U.S. law and CRPD

protection, albeit one that could be filled with aggres-

sive implementation and/or additional Congressional

action.

Let me make one of those side notes I promised. It is

about Asia. It illustrates the dynamics at work in this pol-

icy gap. The dynamic there is being repeated around the

world in different forms.

I consult with government, industry, and advocacy

groups around the world on travel and disability. I

observe that developed nations generally place more

responsibility on government while less developed

nations rely on the actions of business. This has led us in

the advocacy sector in Asia to hold an international con-

ference every two years asserting a rights-based

approach to tourism and disability.

The purpose is to bridge gaps between the laws in

Asian nations and the CRPD vision. It also allows us to

influence business practice. I traditionally give the open-

ing keynotes which I can provide to anyone who would

like copies to research this in more depth.

Our first conference was held in Taipei in 2005, our

second conference, hosted by the United Nations, took

place in Bangkok in 2007, and our current conference,

partially funded by the sister of the king of Thailand, is

about to occur in Singapore. The conferences arose from

the United Nations’ Biwako documents and the

Millennium Plan. In other words, this initiative for

Inclusive Tourism by the advocacy sector represents a

continent shifting toward comprehensive government

policy as tool for the economic development of nations

and specifically as a tool for the socio-economic inclusion

of persons experiencing disability.

I feel that the historic significance of our gathering

here sponsored by the Carlo Besta Institute holds the

promise of bringing a fourth informed voice to policy

development – the medical community – as well as a

deepened commitment by Italy which is already well-

respected globally for its economic development and

disability projects. Hopefully this side note will stir some

creative thinking about how and where you can become

involved in policy development.

Now to return to analyzing the US situation.

The legal situation in the United States is somewhat

confused. There are two main pieces of legislation

impacting the process of travel for those who experi-

ence disability. These laws are the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Air Carriers Access Act

(ACAA). Two other laws are also important. These are

relevant during travel but also before travel during the

planning, decision-making, and reservation process.

The first law is known as the Telecommunications Act of

1996. It deals with telephone and television accessibili-

ty. The second law is referred to as “Section 508”

although the full title is Section 508. It deals with online

communication.

THE ADA

Part of the confusion in the US over the ADA and the

ACAA (besides the fact that it all sounds like alphabet

soup) is that not even the experts in charge of enforce-

ment know where enforcement of one stops and the

other begins. In general the ADA protects you on the

ground and the ACAA once you are in the airplane.

Another area of confusion exists because laws

become more or less powerful through amendments,

judicial action, or further policy decisions.

A quote from the United States National Council of

Disabilities about what the ADA (the Americans with

Disabilities Act) covers is helpful:

Coverage of United States Law

United States domestic law has several provisions that

prevent discrimination against people with disabilities

in cultural life, recreation, leisure, and sport. Many such

NEUROLOGY OF THE THIRD MILLENNIUM

103

activities take place at privately owned places of public

accommodation – that is, privately owned businesses

or establishments that open themselves up to the pub-

lic – and are covered by Title III of the ADA. As such,

the owners and operators cannot discriminate in the

full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommoda-

tions.

Title III’s reach has therefore extended significantly into

recreation and cultural opportunities for people with

disabilities. The organizers of sports and recreation

activities must make reasonable accommodations

unless such accommodation would fundamentally alter

the nature of the goods or services being provided.

Thus, for example, the Professional Golf Association

had to provide a golf cart as a reasonable accommoda-

tion to a professional golfer to allow him to participate

in tournament play. A requested accommodation also

does not have to made if it causes a direct threat to the

health or safety of others. Title III has been applied to

sports leagues; i.e., its coverage is not limited to actual

locations.

Similarly, as with any Title III covered entity, facilities that

house cultural and recreational opportunities have

accessibility obligations. Facilities that predate the ADA

must be accessible to the extent that doing so is “read-

ily achievable,” and new facilities (and modifications to

existing facilities) must be more fully accessible to peo-

ple with disabilities in accordance with the [US building

code known as] ADAAG standards. The accessibility of

entertainment venues (sports stadiums and movie the-

atres) has been a heavily litigated area. In particular,

there have been several “line of sight” cases, involving

the issue of whether people who used wheelchairs are

entitled to seats where they can see over people who

stand in the rows in front of them. Another frequently

litigated issue is whether wheelchair seating in stadium-

style movie theaters must offer choices of position with-

in the theater, and to what extent wheelchair seating

must be integrated into the stadium seating section of

the theater.

Telecommunications Act & Section 508

In the interest of time I will comment only briefly that

the Telecommunications Act of 1996 directed the US

Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules

requiring closed captioning of most, though not all, tele-

vision programming. It protects the right to alternative

phone networks for the deaf which are the technological

backbone for the videophones you will now find at

O’Hare Airport and drives some of the manufacturer

interest in Universal Design in cell phones.

Also briefly let me note that section 508 is the US

manifestation of what you may experience in Europe

more directly through the Web Accessibility Initiative

(WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

Section 508 is the mandate to use Universal Design

online that guarantees, for example, applications to read

text aloud for blind or visually impaired users.

Although I pass over these things briefly today I

observe an unresolved problem everywhere I travel and

research. The need for quality information appropriate to

those with limited or different functionality presented

and presented in accessible formats is simply not being

met. Perhaps that should teach me that I must spend

more time on the subject!

THE ACAA

Let me close with one example from the Air Carriers

Access Act (ACAA). It is a quote from one of my favorite

books on travel and disability, Candy Harrington’s

“Barrier-Free Travel: A Nuts & Bolts Guide for Wheelers

& Slow Walkers.”:

Generally speaking, the ACAA outlines procedures that

airlines must follow regarding to passengers with dis-

abilities. Among other things, the ACAA mandates that

people with a disability cannot be denied boarding,

solely because of their disability. It also forbids airlines

from assessing surcharges for the services mandated by

the ACAA.

The ACAA applies to all U.S. airlines and to all commer-

cial flights to and from the United States, including

those operated by non-U.S. carriers…

Although many people take the basic non-discrimina-

tion rights in the ACAA for granted, it’s something that’s

not guaranteed worldwide. Here are some examples of

what can and does happen in places that don’t have

this kind of legal protection:

• Virgin Blue denied passage to unaccompanied

Extracts from the Proceedings of the International Conference

104

wheelchair users, who happened to be para-

lympians.

• A woman with cerebral palsy was refused passage on

a South African Express flight, because she could not

get in and out of her wheelchair without assistance.

• Air Asia prohibited disabled passengers from travel-

ing unaccompanied.

• Tiger Airways, a no-frills Singapore-based carrier,

denied passage to a 24-year-old wheelchair user,

even though she was accompanied by her family.

• Air Sahara denied passage to an unaccompanied

passenger with cerebral palsy, on the grounds that he

needed an escort or a “fitness to fly” certificate.

• Cebu Pacific denied boarding to an unaccompanied

disabled passenger with a “neurological disorder.”

• Disabled passengers who wish to fly on Aeroflot must

be cleared by the company medical department

immediately prior to boarding.

An incident she didn’t mention was wheelchair user

Sminu Jindahl being refused service on Christmas

Day 2007 by Jet Airlines. Sminu’s net worth is $1 bil-

lion dollars.

By the way, the Air Sahara incident Candy mentioned

was Rajiv Rajan last May on his way to do his job testify-

ing to the Indian government in New Dehli about the cur-

rent status of discrimination toward people with neuro-

logical and other impairments while traveling.

Any questions about why I would like to recruit you to

help us improve policy?

¨¨¨

Editors

Ferdinando CornelioScientific Director

National Neurological Institute Foundation “Carlo Besta”Milan

Graziano ArbostiManager

Socio-Sanitary Research, Scientific DirectionNational Neurological Institute Foundation “Carlo Besta”

Milan

Paolo CornelioResearcher

Socio-Sanitary Research, Scientific DirectionNational Neurological Institute Foundation “Carlo Besta”

Milan

Scott Paul RainsPublisher of Rolling Rains Report

Scientific Committee

F. Cornelio, CoordinatorM. FiniL. Tesio

G. FilippiniF.A. Compostella

M. ImbrianiL. Battistin

M. MelazziniG. Filippi

M. Carletti

Organising Committee

G. Arbosti, CoordinatorM. LucianoG. De LeoP. Cornelio

C. GalloG. MavelliaC. PuppoL. VincenziN. Gianotti