Response from Busch Gardens

[davegood]

Thank you for your interest in Busch Gardens Europe. Unfortunately, no, the
use Segways is not permitted. The safety of both park guests and crew members is paramount to the daily operation of SeaWorld Orlando and Discovery Cove. Through careful deliberation, it has been determined that two-wheeled guest vehicles, regardless of the type or usage, will not be permitted at the parks. This policy includes, but is not limited to, two-wheeled scooters, "Segways" and other similar vehicles. Also excluded from use at the parks are roller skates, roller blades, skateboards and other similar equipment.

The variables for safe operation by guests including but not limited to user training, current software, proper maintenance of the vehicle and familiarity with the pathways are outside of the park's control and ability to foresee and prevent accidents and injuries. Additionally other park guests may not be able to see or avoid these two-wheeled vehicles and the ability of the operator to safely operate and maneuver a two-wheeled vehicle could be compromised. By their very nature, two-wheeled vehicles are inherently more unstable than three- or four-wheeled vehicles and are more likely to fall over. For example, when a two-wheeled vehicle bumps a curb or another object, it is possible for the operator to easily lose control of the vehicle.

As an alternative, the parks have available for rent manual wheelchairs and electric convenience vehicles. Guests may also bring their own personal wheelchair or electric convenience vehicle, providing it has more than two wheels and fits the design parameters of standard, recognized medical equipment.


Thanks again for visiting our website. Should you require additional information, please contact our Customer Information and Service Center at 1-800-343-7946.

[Tarkus]

A/B Entertainment loves us as much as The Mouse !

Be Big,
Alan

[KSagal]

Again, this is not my personal fight, but that letter is just wrong. Any person who believes it clearly does not understand how a segway works...

Their assumption that a segway is more unstable than the Q is factually wrong, and if this were my fight, I would show up with both, at the author of this letter, and show them how wrong they are...

I do not believe that this is a function of anything other than ignorance. I surely would start with an attempt at education as a solution before all else...

[Tarkus]

Again, this is not my personal fight, but that letter is just wrong. Any person who believes it clearly does not understand how a segway works...

Their assumption that a segway is more unstable than the Q is factually wrong, and if this were my fight, I would show up with both, at the author of this letter, and show them how wrong they are...

I do not believe that this is a function of anything other than ignorance. I surely would start with an attempt at education as a solution before all else...


That's why after 2 1/2 years of hearing about and reading those responses I no longer bother to communicate with any form of "Guest Services" at any of these places.

They either can not or chose not, more likely the latter, to be "educated". They have been offerd the chance many, many times.

Their education will only come after they are forced.
What they should do is follow UNIVERSAL/ORLANDO's example.

They all know they are in violation.

Keep those cards and letters flowing though.

Be Big,
Alan

PS-Sometime when I'm really bored I'll tell the story of the "Reedy Creek Improvement District". That will shed some light on why "The Mouse" is so arrogant. All the others follow.

[ArtL]

Seems to me that as these parks are publically traded companies, someone who was concerned enough about these issues could buy one share of stock in each corporation, or their parent holding companies, then submit a shareholder initiative for vote at their annual meetings. They usually don't pass, but I think you'd have a good shot if one was to be well written, meaning that it would not be perceived by other stockholders as likely to have a negative effect on the stock's value or increase costs. I further believe that using Segways in theme parks would meet that standard.

You could include in the shareholder proposal things such as required orientation by company employees, or short demonstration of proficiency prior to being turned loose in the park. By doing so it might get past the knee jerk Board reaction to recommend a No vote.

The key would be to get the corporation's big institutional investors to back the initiative, which could require quite a lot of research and lobbying activity, something that DRAFT appears to be adept at doing. Partnering with INC's regulatory folks wouldn't hurt.

[Desert_Seg]

Like Alan I've tended to not respond to these types of posts because they tend to generate some very intense emotional responses. But, just so we are clear:

1. Busch Gardens' response is clear, concise, and defensible. It also provides the first clear picture of the legal positioning (at least that i've seen) that the parks are using.

2. Busch Gardens' position does have legs.
- Two-wheeled vehicles are more dangerous than four wheeled vehicles.
- Busch Gardens does not know who has been properly trained or not
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of competence of the glider
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of control the glider has

3. Furthermore, Busch Gardens is right in the statement that if a Segway hits a curb strange things can happen, including loss of control. Of course, this depends on the gliders ability to control the Segway, and there are associated dangers with a wheelchair.

4. On the mobility aid issue, there can be no undue burden placed on Busch Gardens if they were to accept the Segway as a mobility aid. That means that you can't require them to have a mandatory orientation for Segway gliders who use it as a mobility aid (nor would that be legal according to the ADA).

5. On the issue of non-mobility impaired gliders being allowed to glide in parks, this I am totally against for many reasons (not sure if that was part of the scope of ArtL's post).

While I like the concept of those with mobility issues being allowed to use Segways in Theme Parks, Malls, and the like, I also understand that the liability issue is HUGE and the issue isn't as clearcut as it may seem.

Steven

[william collins]

i don't agree to the part of there statement.The following I copied and pasted

"Additionally other park guests may not be able to see or avoid these two-wheeled vehicles and the ability of the operator to safely operate and maneuver a two-wheeled vehicle could be compromised. By their very nature, two-wheeled vehicles are inherently more unstable than three- or four-wheeled vehicles and are more likely to fall over. "

I believe I am much more visible standing at the extra eight inchs making my five foot eight inchs to appear six foot four..Then sitting in a wheelchair and being like only four foot high..

[joebarnin]

From Busch Gardens: Additionally other park guests may not be able to see or avoid these two-wheeled vehicles

That is beyond ludicrous. I use both a Segway and a wheelchair. On my Segway, I'm always noticed, as just another pedestrian. There has never been an issue with someone "not seeing or avoiding" me. In the wheelchair, this happens all the time. I can't tell you how many times I've been backed into, turned into, not seen by people walking right towards me.

Jeff

[4rmgt]

I have frequented many of these places. I have to tell you, that once while at the "MOUSE" I was hurt severely by a stroller. That is right, a lady was pushing a stroller and was not looking and it hit me right in my Achilles as I was stepping.

Yet they continue to rent strollers to people all day long. I agree with KSagal, I think we simply need to band together to do some sort of mass educating. This is more a fear of the unknown. I would love to see how many of those writing these "position documents" have actually ever ridden a segway.

[Tarkus]

I have frequented many of these places. I have to tell you, that once while at the "MOUSE" I was hurt severely by a stroller. That is right, a lady was pushing a stroller and was not looking and it hit me right in my Achilles as I was stepping.

Yet they continue to rent strollers to people all day long. I agree with KSagal, I think we simply need to band together to do some sort of mass educating. This is more a fear of the unknown. I would love to see how many of those writing these "position documents" have actually ever ridden a segway.

At some point when I have the time I will edit the "near misses" by strollers from the UNIVERSAL video.

When I first viewed the whole thing I could not believe they way people use a stroller as a battering ram.

Be Big,
Alan

[Majestic]

Very well said Steven! :)

Like Alan I've tended to not respond to these types of posts because they tend to generate some very intense emotional responses. But, just so we are clear:

1. Busch Gardens' response is clear, concise, and defensible. It also provides the first clear picture of the legal positioning (at least that i've seen) that the parks are using.

2. Busch Gardens' position does have legs.
- Two-wheeled vehicles are more dangerous than four wheeled vehicles.
- Busch Gardens does not know who has been properly trained or not
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of competence of the glider
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of control the glider has

3. Furthermore, Busch Gardens is right in the statement that if a Segway hits a curb strange things can happen, including loss of control. Of course, this depends on the gliders ability to control the Segway, and there are associated dangers with a wheelchair.

4. On the mobility aid issue, there can be no undue burden placed on Busch Gardens if they were to accept the Segway as a mobility aid. That means that you can't require them to have a mandatory orientation for Segway gliders who use it as a mobility aid (nor would that be legal according to the ADA).

5. On the issue of non-mobility impaired gliders being allowed to glide in parks, this I am totally against for many reasons (not sure if that was part of the scope of ArtL's post).

While I like the concept of those with mobility issues being allowed to use Segways in Theme Parks, Malls, and the like, I also understand that the liability issue is HUGE and the issue isn't as clearcut as it may seem.

Steven

[X-man]

It would seem to me that if I can navigate a trail on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, the Presidential trail in Sequoia, the approach to the lower ruins in Tonto NM, the Petroglyph trail at Chaco Culture, or the back country trail that leads to the waterfall at McArthur-Burney Falls in NoCal, as a few examples, it would seem that I should be able to navigate the treacherous trails of these parks that won't allow me to enjoy their attractions.
As far as crowds are concerned, try Taste of Chicago or exit the Oriental Theater with the rest of the post theater crowd after a production.
These people are wearing blinders and I could care less. So they don't get in my pockets - their loss, not mine. I refuse to get my shorts in a knot because of them. My money will be spent elsewhere.

[ArtL]

5. On the issue of non-mobility impaired gliders being allowed to glide in parks, this I am totally against for many reasons (not sure if that was part of the scope of ArtL's post).


Steven

It was not. I was merely attempting to show a way to force compliance through action of the owners of a corporation - the shareholders own a publicly traded company, not the management or the Directors. I know that's a shock for many of them.

[X-man]

Like Alan I've tended to not respond to these types of posts because they tend to generate some very intense emotional responses. But, just so we are clear:

1. Busch Gardens' response is clear, concise, and defensible. It also provides the first clear picture of the legal positioning (at least that i've seen) that the parks are using.

2. Busch Gardens' position does have legs.
- Two-wheeled vehicles are more dangerous than four wheeled vehicles.
- Busch Gardens does not know who has been properly trained or not
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of competence of the glider
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of control the glider has

3. Furthermore, Busch Gardens is right in the statement that if a Segway hits a curb strange things can happen, including loss of control. Of course, this depends on the gliders ability to control the Segway, and there are associated dangers with a wheelchair.

4. On the mobility aid issue, there can be no undue burden placed on Busch Gardens if they were to accept the Segway as a mobility aid. That means that you can't require them to have a mandatory orientation for Segway gliders who use it as a mobility aid (nor would that be legal according to the ADA).

5. On the issue of non-mobility impaired gliders being allowed to glide in parks, this I am totally against for many reasons (not sure if that was part of the scope of ArtL's post).

While I like the concept of those with mobility issues being allowed to use Segways in Theme Parks, Malls, and the like, I also understand that the liability issue is HUGE and the issue isn't as clearcut as it may seem.

Steven

Have you ever considered that you are one split second from joining the list of being considered "disabled".
You never know.

[Suzined]

I believe the issue is legal liability, not safety. Until a corporation is ordered to allow Segways for the handicapped, the corporation can be sued for allowing these highly dangerous, etc., etc. on their property. Once ordered by a court, their legal defense is "we were required to". Once a few legal judgments are upheld on appeal, establishing a solid track record, we'll start getting a bit more compliance with what appears (to me) to be rather clear statutes.

Safety is just a convenient smoke screen. The issue at corporate level is what degree of risk is the corporation willing to face? After getting mumble-mumble from the legal staff, the CEO (or Mayor, County Commissioner, whatever) will say yes or no. That, then, will be the policy (until the outcome of the next lawsuit changes the odds).

Publicity must also be factored into the mix. No corporation can stand negative publicity by denying handicapped access but every corporation would love to see an article on how hard they work to insure patron safety. The "Segway ambassador" concept gives Segways an edge--lots of emotional stories, good vibes, etc.

Don't count on Attorneys General to do the suing on our behalf. They face hugh demands with scarce resources. As a result, when prioritizing enforcement activities a small group (Segways) just doesn't get much attention. Better luck getting public interest law firms (like ACLU) interested as in the New Mexico case.

Let's hope for a favorable outcome with the New Mexico law suit!

[Desert_Seg]

Have you ever considered that you are one split second from joining the list of being considered "disabled".
You never know.

More than once as I am considered disabled by the US Military and have some nice scars to go along with the "title". Furthermore, while I'm not mobility impaired, I do have a daughter who is.

So, you see, I'm very close to this issue yet I also understand the position of the malls, theme parks, etc.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

I believe the issue is legal liability, not safety. Until a corporation is ordered to allow Segways for the handicapped, the corporation can be sued for allowing these highly dangerous, etc., etc. on their property. Once ordered by a court, their legal defense is "we were required to". Once a few legal judgments are upheld on appeal, establishing a solid track record, we'll start getting a bit more compliance with what appears (to me) to be rather clear statutes.

Safety is just a convenient smoke screen. The issue at corporate level is what degree of risk is the corporation willing to face? After getting mumble-mumble from the legal staff, the CEO (or Mayor, County Commissioner, whatever) will say yes or no. That, then, will be the policy (until the outcome of the next lawsuit changes the odds).

Publicity must also be factored into the mix. No corporation can stand negative publicity by denying handicapped access but every corporation would love to see an article on how hard they work to insure patron safety. The "Segway ambassador" concept gives Segways an edge--lots of emotional stories, good vibes, etc.

Don't count on Attorneys General to do the suing on our behalf. They face hugh demands with scarce resources. As a result, when prioritizing enforcement activities a small group (Segways) just doesn't get much attention. Better luck getting public interest law firms (like ACLU) interested as in the New Mexico case.

Let's hope for a favorable outcome with the New Mexico law suit!

BINGO! While there are safety issues (how else could there be liability issues?) the driving force is the liability issue.

Personal injury cases are expensive, the flop isn't, and "soft" injuries hard to disprove.

Things will be resolved but slow and steady is the way and emotions often get in the way of logic!

Steven

[drmarty]

Well, as always when this subject comes up there is a total lack of understanding of ADA. And it keeps getting quoted but for some reason (the same one that causes the parks to ban Segways) it does not sink in. Or more probably, the writers just can't grasp it as it is not intuitive and since they "like" their position better they keep saying things that are flat out wrong.

Their position is NOT defensable. They are not complying with ADA. PERIOD.

I will not quote it again as that has done absolutely no good, even with people you would think are on our side. If people who know and own and even sell Segways can't remember from one post to the next (or don't want to remember, or don't believe the law) how can we expect companies that don't want us (or their boards or shareholders) to get that perceived safety issues do not matter. The fact that they say it has two wheels so it is unsafe is in violation. And again according to the Federal Government a wheelchair is a medical device. They even allude to that when they say "has more than two wheels and fits the design parameters of standard, recognized medical equipment." A doctor needs to prescribe a wheelchair which is regulated by Federal regulations.

And all of the other requirements that supposedly "give them legs"

"2. Busch Gardens' position does have legs.
- Two-wheeled vehicles are more dangerous than four wheeled vehicles.
- Busch Gardens does not know who has been properly trained or not
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of competence of the glider
- Busch Gardens does not know the level of control the glider has"

are not required of any other class of people. They know nothing about the wheelchair and electric scooter users that they let in. There is no age requirement, no experience or training or any other check. They just let them in.

Please read ADA and pay attention to the area about safety or danger. Then let me know how this is any where near in compliance. It is not.

Marty
Here we go!

[Desert_Seg]

Ah, I do love a good discussion

...Their position is NOT defensable. They are not complying with ADA. PERIOD.

Their position is 100% defensible. So say lawyers at two of the largest law firms in the world. Even more intriguing is that these lawyers brought up a good point...the Segway may be banned at indoor venues simply because of state or city EPAMD classification. Why? 'Cause if it is classed as a vehicle in most instances it CANNOT be indoors. Yikes...who knew.

...A doctor needs to prescribe a wheelchair which is regulated by Federal regulations.

Uh no. I asked. I asked the lawyers mentioned above and I asked the FDA. The lawyers response was simple. No, a wheelchair is not regulated. The FDA's response (I added the emphasis):

"There is no FDA law or regulation of which you refer to below. I would suggest you contact your state medical licensing board to learn if perhaps it is a state law."

After a couple of other questions, the FDA added:

"According to our classification database, there are 28 different types of FDA-regulated wheelchairs listed, most of which are Class 1, exempt devices. This means they do not have to go through the premarket notification process, rather the manufacturer is only required to list their product with the FDA. This also means that most of these products are not regulated by the FDA as prescription devices. You can view this list by searching our database at www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm (http://forums.segwaychat.com/www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm)

...They know nothing about the wheelchair and electric scooter users that they let in. There is no age requirement, no experience or training or any other check. They just let them in.

You are right. However, as the lawyers at Denton Wilde Sapte pointed out, Segway does have SPECIFIC usage requirement assigned to it, usage requirements that are not applicable, in most instances, to wheelchairs. Therefore, in any court of law the Defendant will rightly point out that if the developer of the product places limitations on it (such as age, weight, training, and even that it isn't a medical device) than the venue operators have the right to assume that those are there for a reason and apply the same regulations. This is NOT an ADA violation.

And both law firms agreed that if the venue were basing their ban on valid reasons and offered a free of charge alternative, say a wheelchair, then there a reasonable expectation that they would win in a court of law.

...Please read ADA and pay attention to the area about safety or danger. Then let me know how this is any where near in compliance. It is not.

I have, and they are.

However, that being said, DrMarty and I will likely never agree on this. So I then asked a loaded question to my two law firms.

"Would they ever take a Segway mobility issue to court as the ACLU is doing?"

Unanimous "probably not". Reasons were too many variables, too many unknowns, and too many hours to spend on what could well be a losing case. They all agreed, get the ACLU to do it and you achieve two things. Lots of notoriety and a free lawyer who will really fight for you.

Funny enough, they also recommended "civil disobedience" as a way to get the message out and the rights afforded. The consensus was the the court of public opinion was a good way to force the issue and get regulations applied (although we may not like the regulations).

Steven

[Tarkus]

"If I had ever been here before I would probably know what to do, would you?"

CSN&Y
Deja Vu

That's the beauty of Lawyers, I have spoken to many that see it just the opposite. Funny Huh ?

Be Big,
Alan

[Sven]

This topic seems to go round and round. I suggest that the lawyer wannabees pontificating on the question of what is and what is not legal should ask themselves a much higher order question- Is it right and just to deny a mobility impaired individual the use of a Segway? If the answer is no, let's dispense with this ongoing intellectual masturbation about the ADA. If we are for justice for the disabled, we should be fighting whatever roadblocks are in the way whether or not they are encoded in the law. Most of all, we should be providing encouragement to those who are actually walking the walk in this battle.

[Desert_Seg]

Alan,

Your last comment was uncalled for. While you are busy talking up everything you are doing behind the scenes, or talking up how you are going to go out and get arrested, other are doing the work and bringing this issue to the forefront. Furthermore, many are trying to educate themselves and others, using more than Wikipedia to do so.

While you use emotion, others are using logic, or at least trying to. You see, I never proffered my opinion, only that of the three (3) organizations with whom I spoke. Sure, DWS doesn't have attorneys that specialize in ADA cases but that doesn't mean they don't know the law. And to clarify, there is no such thing as ADA Practice. There are lawyers who specialize in ADA cases but since this normally falls under Civil Rights violations many firms handle this. And in case you are wondering, my other firm LLGM, has handled these cases, but usually under Class Action.

While you apparently do good things with Segs4Vets, and you say you are doing things behind the scenes you can't accept that your point of view might be incorrect, or swayed by your circumstances?

You have an opinion. I respect that. I have one too...try to respect it also.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

This topic seems to go round and round. I suggest that the lawyer wannabees pontificating on the question of what is and what is not legal should ask themselves a much higher order question- Is it right and just to deny a mobility impaired individual the use of a Segway? If the answer is no, let's dispense with this ongoing intellectual masturbation about the ADA. If we are for justice for the disabled, we should be fighting whatever roadblocks are in the way whether or not they are encoded in the law. Most of all, we should be providing encouragement to those who are actually walking the walk in this battle.

Sven,

Unfortunately it isn't as simple as that. A very basic tenet is that when implementing a law you cannot create a class of people that are then discriminated. Therefore, while the ADA is a great act, implementation can be tricky. After all, you cannot give rights to the mobility impaired that then discriminate against the non-mobility impaired.

Easiest way to explain:

If I (a non-mobility impaired individual) show up at Disneyland in a wheelchair they have to presume that I have a need and let me use the wheelchair. Same would apply if somebody showed up on a Segway (presuming that Disney allowed Segways).

Same would apply to a mall or other locations. It really isn't an easy issue.

Therefore, the correct question would be - Is it within the law to allow a mobility impaired individual to use a Segway and deny the same right of a non-mobility impaired individual?

Altruism and generosity are great things...however, somebody will always abuse them so you have to follow the law not the emotions.

I strongly support the rights of mobility impaired to use Segways....but how do you police it?

Steven

[drmarty]

Steven,
You keep saying the same things. My attornies say... and the FDA says... and I still cannot find anything to support you except your own statements.

Here you say:

Uh no. I asked. I asked the lawyers mentioned above and I asked the FDA. The lawyers response was simple. No, a wheelchair is not regulated. The FDA's response (I added the emphasis):

"There is no FDA law or regulation of which you refer to below. I would suggest you contact your state medical licensing board to learn if perhaps it is a state law."

After a couple of other questions, the FDA added:

"According to our classification database, there are 28 different types of FDA-regulated wheelchairs listed, most of which are Class 1, exempt devices. This means they do not have to go through the premarket notification process, rather the manufacturer is only required to list their product with the FDA. This also means that most of these products are not regulated by the FDA as prescription devices. You can view this list by searching our database at www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm

Well here is the URL and the list of Class I and Class II exemptions and if you go through them (I have) there is no exemption for a wheelchair. Wheelchair accessories, wheelchair scales and several other minor items but not wheelchair, either mechanical or electrical is listed anywhere. Of course they would most likely be in Part 890 Physical Medicine Devices but I went through all of the items just in case. Wheelchairs do not appear on the list of exempt devices as you seem to think.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/315.cfm

Class I and Class II Exempt Devices

PART 862 CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY DEVICES
PART 864 HEMATOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY DEVICES
PART 866 IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES
PART 868 ANESTHESIOLOGY DEVICES
PART 870 CARDIOVASCULAR DEVICES
PART 872 DENTAL DEVICES
PART 874 EAR, NOSE, AND THROAT DEVICES
PART 876 GASTROENTEROLOGY-UROLOGY DEVICES
PART 878 GENERAL AND PLASTIC SURGERY DEVICES
PART 880 GENERAL HOSPITAL AND PERSONAL USE DEVICES
PART 882 NEUROLOGICAL DEVICES
PART 884 OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES
PART 886 OPHTHALMIC DEVICES
PART 888 ORTHOPEDIC DEVICES
PART 890 PHYSICAL MEDICINE DEVICES
PART 892 RADIOLOGY DEVICES

Database Updated 5/08/2007


And now here is the regulation you say doesn't exist. Here it is. It is in the CFR and you can look it up. Please do. You keep saying wheelchairs don't need premarket notification or don't have to go through the process. Then what the hell is this???

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/346.html

Guidance Document For the Preparation of
Premarket Notification [510(K)] Applications For
Mechanical and Powered Wheelchairs, and
Motorized Three-Wheeled Vehicles

I really don't want to post the entire regulation for you, Steven, to see but can if you still somehow don't believe me.

And of course there is the labelling. Now I have looked and do not find the required statement on the wheelchairs in our clinic. I admit that. But that fact and the fact that you bought them without a prescription means absolutely nothing. So in the interest of completeness I have includeded a link about labelling which points out that the "Device," in this case a wheelchair, is misbranded if the Caution does not appear. By the way the Method of Application wording is probably exempted. But not the Caution. And as I posted the last time the labelling is spelled out in the 510K application.


http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/g91-1.html

Device Labeling Guidance
March 8, 1991 (G91-1)

A prescription device, other than surgical instruments, is
misbranded if its label does not bear:

(1) the statement, "Caution: Federal law restricts this
device to sale by or on the order of a ",
the blank to be filled with the word "physician",
"dentist", or with the descriptive designation of any
other practitioners licensed by the law of the
State in which that person practices to use or order
the use of the device; and

(2) the method of application or use of the device.


So although you keep saying it isn't so, you have presented nothing but your reputation to back it up.

Perhaps all these people (this is the first page of many listing 331 records) who did go through the 510K process for mechanical wheelchairs would be interested to know you know more than they do and that they did not have to do all this work. Heck you might make a good business advising these people to fire their attornies and use yours from the biggest law firms in the world and not waste their money to go through the 510K process.


331 records meeting your search criteria returned - ProductCode: IOR
New Search Help | Download Files | More About 510(k)


Device Applicant 510(k) Decision Date

maxhealth mechanical maxhealth corp. K070176 03/01/2007
nissin pediatric ser nissin medical inc. K063521 02/05/2007
fuze mechanical whee pdg product design g K063736 01/17/2007
catalysy ki mobility llc K062660 10/24/2006
karma manual wheelch karma medical produc K062309 10/10/2006
karma manual wheelch karma medical produc K062311 10/04/2006
jan mao wheelchair, jan mao industries c K062218 08/16/2006
cougar wheelchair r82 a/s K061810 08/07/2006
medcare mechanical w medcare manufacturin K061694 07/05/2006
astrotilt manual whe pdg product design g K061475 06/14/2006


You state above in the quoted section that "The laywers response was simple. No, a wheelchair is not regulated." But then you quote someone which I can only assume is the FDA and say "there are 28 different types of FDA-regulated wheelchairs listed,"

We keep wasting everyone else's time here. We keep going round and round. We keep wasting my time here. You have yet to ever put one word of proof on this thread. All you post is "I said..... the laywers at two of the largest law firms in the world said..... the FDA said......"

Well, if you want to continue this discussion then quit pussy footing around. Find the regulations like I did. Like I have done each time. If you are so sure then find and post them rather than just saying they exist or saying the lawyers say they exist. If they are exempt it will say so. Or open a different thread labelled "My personal opinions and nothing else." I may well be wrong but I for one have backed up every thing I say with a regulation or a link and not just a link to a search engine.

And remember, everybody, this is an exercise in thought, in logic, in research. I do this to learn the topic (I research it) and to formulate thoughts so that if I have to give them on the fly and not carefully edited like here, I have at least gone through them before in an attempt to present a cogent arguement.

And finally I really do not have the time to hash the same things out over and over and over when 1) I absolutely can not understand the negative seeming position of some people, and 2) there is no change in the arguements but more importantly no back up, no research, just what can only be called at this point personal opinion.

Marty

[Sven]

Desert Seg:

First, a point of correction.

Quote:

"After all, you cannot give rights to the mobility impaired that then discriminate against the non-mobility impaired."

Not true. Handicap parking spaces force those who are not disabled to park further away from their destination.

Second, you have no standing when you assert that you are for the rights of the disabled while offering no CONSTRUCTIVE critcism regarding how to achieve those rights.

Third, you have even less standing when you post against one of the few forum participants who is actually doing something constructive regarding disabled rights.

[Tarkus]

Steven,

Your right, it was out of hand and that's why after better judgement I pulled it off. Must have been just before you replied.

But being you want to address I will.

First off don't tell me what I do or not do for the cause because you have know clue what I do.

I loved your "while you..........others"....what did you do for the cause today Steven?

Furthermore this forum is far more littered with your dribble than posts of me "talking myself up" (your words). Matter of fact I can find but one post where someone asked and I answered about what I do.

As far as admitting my attorneys position may be incorrect, I know better than most that this is a slippery slope. I also know only a fool would address such things in public.

You may see it as I'm not flexible but by the same token you have played the other side so long you also show zero objectivity.

See there's the rub my friend. I know I'm not being objective, get it.


Your sources are overseas lawyers who you admit are looking for a fast buck, ADA type case may be to hard for them to cash in on.

That's law, you find one that says "blue" I'll find one that says "red".

I will not address any other issues with or to you Steven and I'm sure the part you disliked the most was when I called you an "Internet Attorney", never have taking the bar I see your legal view, and that of overseas attorneys as mere "speculation".

So Esquire the floor is all yours from this point forward and I'll stay out of it.

You may blow smoke up some butts , not mine.

I have a psychology degree I never used, would you like my half azzed view on why you have the need to practice law here ?

Now that was uncalled for, so sorry.

Alan

[GlennO]

It is a part of perception. If I asked someone to name a device to help out someone that is mobility impared, a wheelchair come to mind, but so do canes and walkers, yet few people think of them.

I did know a a guy once that borrowed a wheelchair from his attic, and got a good "seat' at a concert.

I had to use a cane for a few weeks after an accident, and it was amazing how much extra room I had. As I came up to an intersection once, a car wizzed past me, but then suddenly stopped. The driver got out and apologized for not giving me the right of way. He was truly sorry!

I think it was also noted somewhere here that due to future technology, the ADA didn't specify what devices were legal or not.

Segways just look too cool to be a mobility device is a nice, but incorrect perception. Maybe if I strapped an oxygen tank to the leansteer, they might pay attention!

Glenn

[pam]

As Brooster used to say, "Don't make me lock this thread." :) Please remember that we have children who read the forums, and refrain from using language that parents would just as soon their kids not see. (And don't come back and tell me that the kids are using it anyway...)

Pam
In her moderator hat

[Desert_Seg]

Steven,
You keep saying the same things. My attornies say... and the FDA says... and I still cannot find anything to support you except your own statements....

And finally I really do not have the time to hash the same things out over and over and over when 1) I absolutely can not understand the negative seeming position of some people, and 2) there is no change in the arguements but more importantly no back up, no research, just what can only be called at this point personal opinion.

Marty

Send me an e-mail. I'll send you the entire e-mail chain and you can read it. You can also then write the FDA, which you haven't done yet, get their statement, and then quit posting your OPINION as to what the rules say.

Also, as I've said before, I've read everything you've posted and disagreed with you at that time and still disagree with your opinion.

Again, write the FDA and then you can post the truth not your opinion.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

Desert Seg:

First, a point of correction.

Quote:

"After all, you cannot give rights to the mobility impaired that then discriminate against the non-mobility impaired."

Not true. Handicap parking spaces force those who are not disabled to park further away from their destination.

Oh please, this does not create a class of people. There is no discrimination here.

Second, you have no standing when you assert that you are for the rights of the disabled while offering no CONSTRUCTIVE critcism regarding how to achieve those rights.

Watch what you say before you know the facts. In May 1996 the car in which my daughter was riding was hit broadside and she not only has a partially severed spinal cord but has also lost all use of one of her legs, among other things. I've been fighting for mobility rights since that time both at the grass roots level and at the "C" level of many corporations.

Third, you have even less standing when you post against one of the few forum participants who is actually doing something constructive regarding disabled rights.

Oh, and what proof do you have that he (I'm presuming you mean Tarkus) is doing anything BESIDES his word? Similarly you have to take me at my word, which you don't seem to want to do.

Not a problem because I know what I'm doing.

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

...First off don't tell me what I do or not do for the cause because you have know clue what I do.

Yep, that's true, nor does anybody else. Yet you also don't have any idea what I'm doing behind the scenes. You, however, before I posted it today, knew about my position and my daughter's accident and why I'm vocal on this issue.

... You may see it as I'm not flexible but by the same token you have played the other side so long you also show zero objectivity.

See there's the rub my friend. I know I'm not being objective, get it.

I disagree. I'm trying to be objective. I'm the one who has gone to many of the local malls and gotten their buy-in to allow Segway usage by the mobility impaired. In the same moment I have asked them to ban inside usage by all non-mobility impaired.

However, I'm also well aware of the issues of allowing this mobility access. Issues that nobody has addressed...how do you control it? how do you ensure that ONLY mobility impaired individuals are using it?

Simple example....www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18849135/ (http://forums.segwaychat.com/www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18849135/).

I'm very objective BUT just because you are mobility impaired doesn't mean you shouldn't be.

... Your sources are overseas lawyers who you admit are looking for a fast buck, ADA type case may be to hard for them to cash in on.

Again, incorrect. I have two law firms in the US and two overseas. I asked the two biggest firms I deal with DWS and LLGM. LLGM is US based, DWS has a partnership with more than one firm in the US.

I will not address any other issues with or to you...

Your right...but that shows how close minded you are....Either agree with you or you don't talk with them. Use your psychology degree to render an opinion on that.

I'm sure the part you disliked the most was when I called you an "Internet Attorney", never have taking the bar I see your legal view, and that of overseas attorneys as mere "speculation".

Yep, studied law but never sat the bar. Call me what you want. Name calling doesn't bother me at all.

Unlike you, however, I will continue to debate this issue so that all are aware of both sides of the issue. I know folks won't agree with me and I accept that. But I also know that the more people know they more they are empowered, and the more they are empowered the better off we all are.

Steven

[hellphish]

Guys, please take it to PM if you don't mind. You're shitting up this thread.