ADA now covers the use of Segways

[fredkap]

The Americans with Disabilities Act as of today covers the disabled use of Segways!

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/title3_factsheet.html (http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factsheets/title3_factsheet.html)

Paragraph 6

[KSagal]

Great news. This will help a large number of people.

[Lily Kerns]

Great news. This will help a large number of people.

We hope! I have to admit that the last year and a half have made me very skeptical about the willingness of some to do anything they really don't want to or think they don't absolutely have to...

Scroll down to see my earlier post on this http://forums.segwaychat.com/showthread.php?t=24654

Lily

[fredkap]

Sorry Lily, I didn't see your post. Thanks for a great post!

[IcanGlide]

That is FANTASTIC!!! Thanks DRAFT for all the work you did on this.

Frank

[Tarkus]

That is FANTASTIC!!! Thanks DRAFT for all the work you did on this.

Frank

Thank you Frank as it was people like you and all those with mobility disabilities that use a Segway that helped make this happen.

From those who depend on their Segways to all who took the time to let the DOJ know how they felt about our cause, we say THANK YOU !

Your comments were of great impotence in this decision .

There is power in numbers if we remain unified in our beliefs .

From all at DRAFT we thank all of you.

Be Big,
AMAC

[Lily Kerns]

That is FANTASTIC!!! Thanks DRAFT for all the work you did on this.

Frank

I'll second that motion! None of us could have accomplished this alone or without leadership.

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/factshee...factsheet.html
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/ADAregs2010.htm
http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/reg2_2010.html

I think the fact that wheelchairs and other mobility devices have been assured pedestrian access is an enormous victory. (Of course many state EPAMD laws already classify Segway users under pedestrian law, but it is not always taken seriously by authorities if they are even aware of such a thing.)

I think the two tier classification was necessary as new technology develops new possibilities and until those new devices have been accepted as viable wheelchair alternatives. (As Segway users we have the time and use advantage there.)

I think it was also was necessary in order to be fair both to businesses and the disabled. To take an extreme example, suppose someone is using a tractor to get around his farm and then decides to use it as his mobility device in a city park. Being required to allow that would be carrying pedestrian access beyond the reasonable.

I believe that allowing authorities to ask for a disability ID for those who use other mobility devices is also a fair and necessary step especially when, like the Segway, those devices can also be used for recreational or other purposes. I'm glad they added the personal observation option for those who do not have such ID--or don't have it with them. If your disability is not a visible one, however, carry that ID in your bag!

But let's do a reality check. I think it is critical for us as the disabled to be aware that the rules do NOT say that they can require this ID in order to get that pedestrian access, but, as I read it, only that they can ask for it if they wish to question our eligibility to claim that we are using something as a mobility device. I feel pretty certain that this will become an issue at some point with some authority who wants to regulate the use of other mobility devices.....

I also feel certain that this other mobility device classification is going to open a whole can of worms because the paragraphs added do not clearly specify that they can't impose as much regulation ( permits, a la the Missouri Department of Conservation or registration and waivers, a la Simon Malls) or anything else to make that mandated access as difficult as possible. Such entities have been ignoring the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements up to this point and I doubt if this will deter them in the future.

As big a victory as this is, I don't think the battle is over and the need for education has simply increased... We all bear the responsibility at that point.

I'm sorry to add a note of gloom to the celebration. I've been battling the MO Department of Conservation for a year and a half on this with still no satisfactory resolution. The Interior Department when they investigated my complaint that I had been denied physical access, held that the MDC permit system was a reasonable solution. I have also filed a new ADA complaint based on the unreasonable provisions of the new revised permit policy the MDC put in place immediately after that decision, but who know what will happen with that when the new rules go into effect. I do know that I will NOT accept the MO Human Rights Commission as a mediating body! but that is another story....

I finally decided to work within the new MDC rules that require any disabled person to get a separate permit to use a Segway at any MDC property. I have requested special use permits for (evil grin) all 800+ of their properties. (They made the rule. I am just doing what it requires.) The required 30 day waiting period has passed--and I have no permits. I did get an indication that they might grant a permit just for those sites that are officially designated Disabled Accessible, but these new rules on pedestrian access will give me ammunition there.

I've offered a compromise but their response to that too will probably drag on until the new year. At least they are now on notice that they will have to adjust to new regulations... Since they have already offered me a permit that didn't restrict the use of a Segway beyond normal safety and courtesy that would be expected of any wheelchair user, they can't use the excuse that its use is not feasible or safe or is disruptive.

We shall see what we shall see.... Lord, grant me patience--right now!

Lily

[Lily Kerns]

This site now has links to the full new text of the 2010 ADA regulations for both Title II and Title III. The new parts are in bold type to make it easier to find the changes...

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/ADAregs2010.htm


Lily

[MowTin]

Does this mean a disabled person can use a Segway anywhere a wheelchair is allowed? What about Disney?

[Lily Kerns]

Does this mean a disabled person can use a Segway anywhere a wheelchair is allowed? What about Disney?

Exactly! And wheel chairs are to be permitted anywhere that a pedestrian has access.

I'm am rapidly coming to the conclusion is that the only thing that has really happened is that Segways are now mentioned in the ADA rules... That is a start but I'm betting that it is going to take lawsuits to establish what "equal" and "no discrimination" really mean...

Call me Gloomy Gus... or a realist?

Lily

[MowTin]

I was all excited but then I actually read it....

"Other power-driven mobility devices" must be permitted to be used unless the covered entity can demonstrate that such use would fundamentally alter its programs, services, or activities, create a direct threat, or create a safety hazard.

I remember a bouncer at a club once tried to deny me access stating that my cane would be a safety hazard in the dark night club. Someone could trip over it.

Technically, it's true. People have nearly tripped over my cane before. So you see "safety hazard" is avery large loophole.

Fortunately, some other bouncer overruled that idiot.

Places like Disney only care about protection from lawsuits. If the ADA said you must allow Segways in then they would be covered in case of some accident involving one of their customers. They would say we were required to allow the Segway in by the ADA.

Right now, if an accident happened they could still be sued. The plaintiff could argue that the Segway should have been considered a safety hazard. The accident would prove that it is a hazard.

I think the positive here is that it's no longer an issue of "reasonable accommodation." It's more, "you have to prove that it's a safety hazard."

So, for places like Disney another lawsuit would be required.

[KSagal]

But 'proving' it to be a safety hazard is very different than saying you believe it to be a safety hazard.

Proof would be statistics, or a legally recognizable and fair comparison of dangers, like a government may run, or even an organization like the AAA.

All the studies that I have heard of, like from the US government, and other ones, show that the segway is far safer than many conveyances, and many that are already well accepted.

It would be hard to prove that segways are more dangerous than bikes, where bikes are accepted as an example.

It would be likewise hard to prove that segways are more dangerous than many mobility scooters that are accepted in many places.

You could claim that segways are more dangerous, but not likely prove it.

[Lily Kerns]

I was all excited but then I actually read it....

... I think the positive here is that it's no longer an issue of "reasonable accommodation." It's more, "you have to prove that it's a safety hazard."

So, for places like Disney another lawsuit would be required.

Good point and I missed that. I think that the "reasonable accommodation" has probably been behind the rulings that permits, etc were a satisfactory solution however unequal their application might be.

Hmmm... does that mean that when the new rulings go into effect that those permits etc are no longer valid? Nah, it will take a lot of lawsuits since now everybody has to get re-educated.

Lily

[Tarkus]

Hi all,

Reasonable accomidatin is a term used in Title I issues.

In Title III we look at "modifications in policies, practices, or procedures". At first it may appear the same but there are subtle differences..

28 C.F.R. § 36.302 - Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures

(a) General - A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

(b) Specialties

(1) General - A public accommodation may refer an individual with a disability to another public accommodation, if that individual is seeking, or requires, treatment or services outside of the referring public accommodation's area of specialization, and if, in the normal course of its operations, the referring public accommodation would make a similar referral for an individual without a disability who seeks or requires the same treatment or services.

"fudamenntaly alter".....
If the facility is wheelchair ready than it's Segway ready. We require the same things no matter what the offenders will say.

The next route would be "direct threat".
This will be hard for Disney to prove.

C. Direct Threat
The Direct Threat doctrine is an affirmative defense to claims under Title I and Title III. Under Title III, a public accommodation can deny an individual participation in or benefit from “the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.” A "direct threat" is “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or Jservices.”

Title III entities must base their determinations of direct threats on individualized assessments. To succeed as a defense, the threat must be based on real risks, not on stereotypes, mere speculation, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities. To evaluate risks, Title III entities can rely on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence. They should consider several factors including the nature, duration, and severity of the risk, the probability that the potential injury will actually occur, and the likelihood that reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.

For example, in Leiken v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., the court held that the defendant (“Squaw Valley”)’s direct threat defense likely was not valid. Squaw Valley had a longstanding policy that banned wheelchairs because Squaw Valley believed that wheelchair users would pose a direct threat to other patrons in an emergency. The court found that Squaw Valley failed to conduct any studies or introduce any evidence to support its opinion that wheelchairs posed a greater risk the than the risk posed by others. Instead of using documented actual risks, Squaw Valley made its determination based on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations. Thus, the court enjoined Squaw Valley from enforcing its policy because it failed to base its determination on real risks or individualized assessments.

safety than the risk posed by others. Instead of using documented actual risks, Squaw Valley made its determination based on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations. Thus, the court enjoined Squaw Valley from enforcing its policy because it failed to base its determination on real risks or individualized assessments.

I find it hard to believe that there is a safety "smoking gun"that Disney has. They didn't break one out at the class action hearings so I don't think they do.

Or they do have the info but understand that if they were to state that a variety of people will want to file suit. The sell tours on a machine that's fundamentally unsafe .....
OSHA would love to hear that they put their employees in danger everyday .


Bottom line. Disney allows them in or it becomes a legal challenge . That was in the cards no matter what the ruling .

Either way the new regs are a huge step ahead for our cause.

Be Big,
AMAC

[mgalliani]

I believe that allowing authorities to ask for a disability ID for those who use other mobility devices is also a fair and necessary step especially when, like the Segway, those devices can also be used for recreational or other purposes. I'm glad they added the personal observation option for those who do not have such ID--or don't have it with them. If your disability is not a visible one, however, carry that ID in your bag!


Lily

Where do you get such an ID?
I have plates for my car.
I have a Medicare card
I have stickers on my Segway (that i bought on eBay)
I even have a prescription from my Doctor stating that I use my Segway as a medical mobility device.

I have never heard of a disability ID

[Lily Kerns]

Where do you get such an ID?
I have plates for my car.
I have a Medicare card
I have stickers on my Segway (that i bought on eBay)
I even have a prescription from my Doctor stating that I use my Segway as a medical mobility device.

I have never heard of a disability ID

States probably vary, but I believe your car disability hang tag or license should do it. Here in MO you must also have the documentation to prove that it was issued to you, so your drivers licence or state issued equivalent should take care of that if someone want really wants to question your eligibility to use it as a mobility device.

I doubt if your Medicare card or even a blue/white disability placard will be sufficient although the symbol may ease your way at times.

You should not be required to offer your doctor's prescription since, I believe, that would come under the HIPAA medical privacy laws unless they are properly certified to handle that--and the mere asking of such a question will probably make them back off if they do not have that certification.

[Lily Kerns]

Hi all,

Reasonable accomidatin is a term used in Title I issues.

In Title III we look at "modifications in policies, practices, or procedures". At first it may appear the same but there are subtle differences..

28 C.F.R. § 36.302 - Modifications in policies, practices, or procedures

(a) General - A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

"fudamenntaly alter".....
If the facility is wheelchair ready than it's Segway ready. We require the same things no matter what the offenders will say.

The next route would be "direct threat".
This will be hard for Disney to prove.

C. Direct Threat
The Direct Threat doctrine is an affirmative defense to claims under Title I and Title III. Under Title III, a public accommodation can deny an individual participation in or benefit from “the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of such entity where such individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.” A "direct threat" is “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or Jservices.”

Title III entities must base their determinations of direct threats on individualized assessments. To succeed as a defense, the threat must be based on real risks, not on stereotypes, mere speculation, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities. To evaluate risks, Title III entities can rely on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence. They should consider several factors including the nature, duration, and severity of the risk, the probability that the potential injury will actually occur, and the likelihood that reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.

...
I find it hard to believe that there is a safety "smoking gun"that Disney has. They didn't break one out at the class action hearings so I don't think they do.

Or they do have the info but understand that if they were to state that a variety of people will want to file suit. The sell tours on a machine that's fundamentally unsafe .....
OSHA would love to hear that they put their employees in danger everyday .


Bottom line. Disney allows them in or it becomes a legal challenge . That was in the cards no matter what the ruling .

Either way the new regs are a huge step ahead for our cause.

Be Big,
AMAC

I suspect you intended to refer to title II rather than Title I. Title II refers to government agencies and Title III to public accommodations such as businesses.

Actually the term "reasonable accommodation" is not used in the new Title II (I know because I wasn't sure and just searched for it.)

Title II uses the same general modification terms as Title III

§ 35.137 Mobility devices
(a) Use of wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids. A public entity shall permit individuals with mobility disabilities to use wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids, such as walkers, crutches, canes, braces, or other similar devices designed for use by individuals with mobility disabilities in any areas open to pedestrian use. (emphasis added)
(b) (1) Use of other power-driven mobility devices. A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities, unless the public entity can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements (emphasis added) that the public entity has adopted pursuant to § 35.130(h).

The operative word here would seem to be safety as the only reason for denying its use and the Fact sheet makes it clear that the same access is intended.

(h) A public entity may impose legitimate safety requirements necessary for the safe operation of its services, programs, or activities. However, the public entity must ensure that its safety requirements are based on actual risks, not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

There are also general prohibitions of discrimination:


Subpart B -- General Requirements
§ 35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination
(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.
(b)(1) A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability –
(3) A public entity may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration: (emphasis added)
(i) That have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability;

To me this says that permits, registration, waivers and similar administrative devices are excluded as a means of controlling other mobility device usage unless all users have the same regulations...

Boy, I never dreamed that I would be trying to understand this kind of law stuff...

Lily

[QuadSquad]

Lilly reasonable accommodation is a title I reference. He was referring to the fact that reasonable accommodation is not germane when referring to title II & the title III

[QuadSquad]

States probably vary, but I believe your car disability hang tag or license should do it. Here in MO you must also have the documentation to prove that it was issued to you, so your drivers licence or state issued equivalent should take care of that if someone want really wants to question your eligibility to use it as a mobility device.

I doubt if your Medicare card or even a blue/white disability placard will be sufficient although the symbol may ease your way at times.

You should not be required to offer your doctor's prescription since, I believe, that would come under the HIPAA medical privacy laws unless they are properly certified to handle that--and the mere asking of such a question will probably make them back off if they do not have that certification.


In lieu of a valid, State-issued disability parking placard or card, or State-issued proof of disability, a public accommodation shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability.

[Lily Kerns]

Lilly reasonable accommodation is a title I reference. He was referring to the fact that reasonable accommodation is not germane when referring to title II & the title III

Sorry about that. I guess my conflicts have been entirely with title II and title III. Not all that surprising since I've been retired for 17 years... <G>

If reasonable accommodation is not germane then I'd sure like to know how the Interior Department can find that a permit system or requiring the use of an alternate device instead of a Segway is "a satisfactory solution" under title II to allowing access for the disabled who use Segways.

[QuadSquad]

Sorry about that. I guess my conflicts have been entirely with title II and title III. Not all that surprising since I've been retired for 17 years... <G>

If reasonable accommodation is not germane then I'd sure like to know how the Interior Department can find that a permit system or requiring the use of an alternate device instead of a Segway is "a satisfactory solution" under title II to allowing access for the disabled who use Segways.

I don't think they'll maintain that stance in 6 months or perhaps even sooner.

[Lily Kerns]

I don't think they'll maintain that stance in 6 months or perhaps even sooner.

I'm not a lawyer.... <G> so what happens for those who were "victims" of the Interior Department's stisfactory solution rulings? Another expensive lawsuit?
At least some of those rulings certainly ignored any "equal, non discriminatory" concepts...

[bgrh@mac.com]

Very good point. Is there an available database of scooter related accidents? i.e. taking people out at the knees, etc? Useful to have...

But 'proving' it to be a safety hazard is very different than saying you believe it to be a safety hazard.

Proof would be statistics, or a legally recognizable and fair comparison of dangers, like a government may run, or even an organization like the AAA.

All the studies that I have heard of, like from the US government, and other ones, show that the segway is far safer than many conveyances, and many that are already well accepted.

It would be hard to prove that segways are more dangerous than bikes, where bikes are accepted as an example.

It would be likewise hard to prove that segways are more dangerous than many mobility scooters that are accepted in many places.

You could claim that segways are more dangerous, but not likely prove it.

[bgrh@mac.com]

Very interesting. One thing, the while paper I did awhile ago regarding the relative merits of the stand up scooter vs. the segway brings out safety features that are in the segways favor.

Instinctive action triggers breaking, not the squeezing of a break lever.

Segway impact at chest level vs. knee level strike with scooter.

Segway reacts to forward impact by rocking back, triggering deceleration. Scooter doesn't notice impact.

etc...

[bgrh@mac.com]

Lily:

I think the key here is "legitimate safety requirements" - you can't just claim safety, it has to be "legitimate", which is likely to be at the heart of the next challenge to Disney's access policies.

Brian

unless the public entity can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements (emphasis added) that the public entity has adopted pursuant to § 35.130(h).

The operative word here would seem to be safety as the only reason for denying its use and the Fact sheet makes it clear that the same access is intended.

[Lily Kerns]

Lily:

I think the key here is "legitimate safety requirements" - you can't just claim safety, it has to be "legitimate", which is likely to be at the heart of the next challenge to Disney's access policies.

Brian

unless the public entity can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements (emphasis added) that the public entity has adopted pursuant to § 35.130(h).

The operative word here would seem to be safety as the only reason for denying its use and the Fact sheet makes it clear that the same access is intended.

Isn't the burden of proof to be on the denier not the user? I'm understanding you to mean that they will have to prove a legitimate "lack of safety" i.e. that they are dangerous.... as well as that their requirements are legitimate. Is this an either/or or a both/and...?

Words do get us into trouble, don't they? I say "dog"--I'm thinking Chihuahua--and you are thinking Great Dane...

[KSagal]

Very interesting. One thing, the while paper I did awhile ago regarding the relative merits of the stand up scooter vs. the segway brings out safety features that are in the segways favor.

Instinctive action triggers breaking, not the squeezing of a break lever.

Segway impact at chest level vs. knee level strike with scooter.

Segway reacts to forward impact by rocking back, triggering deceleration. Scooter doesn't notice impact.

etc...

A safety white page? Is it published? I would be curious to read such a thing.

[fredkap]

Go on the DRAFT website under Education & Advocacy, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Docoments & Links". There are several notable papers there, one by Jere Fabick, one by Brian Hughes and one by Jerry Kerr - all good papers each with its own emphasis. We will need to have a link to the new ADA rules which should be shown on page 1 of the web site. Brian's discusses safety, Jere's discusses myths and Jerry's discusses the whole gamut of reasons that the Segway should be an approved device under the ADA.

[Lily Kerns]

Go on the DRAFT website under Education & Advocacy, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Docoments & Links". There are several notable papers there, one by Jere Fabick, one by Brian Hughes and one by Jerry Kerr - all good papers each with its own emphasis. We will need to have a link to the new ADA rules which should be shown on page 1 of the web site. Brian's discusses safety, Jere's discusses myths and Jerry's discusses the whole gamut of reasons that the Segway should be an approved device under the ADA.

And while they are working on that, please make the link to this page a bit more conspicuous and easier to find

[bgrh@mac.com]

Isn't the burden of proof to be on the denier not the user? I'm understanding you to mean that they will have to prove a legitimate "lack of safety" i.e. that they are dangerous.... as well as that their requirements are legitimate. Is this an either/or or a both/and...?


There is some excellent language that sets a high standard for denial in the revised ADA language. For example, a commercial establishment could deny access if they can show a "direct threat", which is defined as follows:

Direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services, as provided in § 36.208.

They can't just arm wave "direct threat" and deny access.

Furthermore, the rules spell this out in the language below.

Sec.36.208 Direct threat.

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

(b) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.

Folks - I suggest we start gathering "the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk." You've been out there - how many miles have you got on your segways? How many "incidents" have you had? Data will be very helpful! This is one area where Segs4Vets could be invaluable - 500 plus Segway riders - a potentially rich source of data on safety and benefits, etc.

[Lily Kerns]

Folks - I suggest we start gathering "the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk." You've been out there - how many miles have you got on your segways? How many "incidents" have you had? Data will be very helpful! This is one area where Segs4Vets could be invaluable - 500 plus Segway riders - a potentially rich source of data on safety and benefits, etc.
__________________
Brian Hughes
SegSaddle - San Antonio - Texas

And I'm sure that someone will want to argue that anecdotal is just that and worth only that much. On the other hand, I think it is worth doing...

How about a new thread on the subject for that purpose only to keep the information easy to access--or does someone have a better idea? It would probably be more valuable if someone would do some statistics from that gathered information....(Not my thing! <G>)

What kind of information would be needed--or advisable?? # of miles, incidents where an accident happened or was narrowly averted by the maneuverablility of the Seg, personal accidents and the reason for them, at what stage of learning??? A list of questions to be answered or purely anecdotal or a combination of both??? As usual I have more ideas and questions than solutions....

Would dealers be in a position to assist with getting the idea of this out to the disabled? DRAFT, of course, if this is something they could handle...

I'll get this started
Date: 8/10/20

Model: i2, SegSaddle seat--used very little up until now.

Experience: purchased Feb. 2009

Location: Midwest USA

Mileage to date: 400 +

Where and how used: primarily small town access to stores, etc.; some shopping and bike trails in a larger city; used at several national quilt shows in municipal auditoriums; Silver Dollar City, Branson, MO; state and national park trails.

Falls/personal accidents: Two. Allowed wheel to run up over small rocks edging a path and it threw me off to the side --still learning the need to know where wheels are. A couple scrapes. Second, I had it leaning against the car on a slope, and when I stepped on it overbalanced backward--I_ think_ I had it turned on <G>. No damage other than my dignity because the helmet protected me.

Incidents involving others: In a large busy outdoor mall, a small child darted out in front of me. I instinctively swerved and did not even come near her. When I stopped shaking, I realized that such a sudden maneuver could easily have thrown me off the Segway. I have a whole new respect for both this machine's maneuverability and stability.

I have had to intimidate a few dogs, but never any kind of problems or close calls of any kind with other individuals.

Benefits: This has given me a mobility i thought I had lost forever.

Lily

[Lily Kerns]

Giving this some more thought--and more questions <G>

Does anyone have any idea of wheelchair mileage? I'm sure it would vary with hand vs power chairs... How many wheelchair users commute in them? some I'm sure, more in the cities? Anyone have any figures on number of Seg users who commute, use daily, use primarily for recreation?

I wonder if the ratio of miles to incidents for Segways would be a significant factor worth giving prominence in discussion... I'm finding it hard to imagine any of the wheelchair users I know equalling my 400 miles, let along several thousand as I know some seg users do...

My wheelchair time is very little, just a couple dangerous rides in airport wheelchairs narrowly missing doorways and people and a wilder one in Buchart Gardens when, on a downhill slope, it got away from the person who was pushing me... I'll take the SEG ratio any day! <G>

Lily

[KSagal]

I believe that anecdotal collecting of facts like being discussed here will help the opponents of segway access more than the proponents. There is no way to use this forum to make the data into a fair statistical instrument. So any positive value will be dismissed.

However, any statistics or anecdotal stories of segway failures will be cut and pasted, copied and published out of context, with the tag line that goes something like this:

'Even experienced segway owners admit to falls and segway failures".

It has happened before. I see no reason why it would not happen again.

There is very little statistical data out there, and most that I have seen, done by governments as an example, show segways as safe relatively speaking, and several show them as a safer alternative to many other devices out there today, currently accepted by society.

Collecting this data could be playing with fire.

[Lily Kerns]

I believe that anecdotal collecting of facts like being discussed here will help the opponents of segway access more than the proponents. There is no way to use this forum to make the data into a fair statistical instrument. So any positive value will be dismissed.

However, any statistics or anecdotal stories of segway failures will be cut and pasted, copied and published out of context, with the tag line that goes something like this:

'Even experienced segway owners admit to falls and segway failures".

It has happened before. I see no reason why it would not happen again.

There is very little statistical data out there, and most that I have seen, done by governments as an example, show segways as safe relatively speaking, and several show them as a safer alternative to many other devices out there today, currently accepted by society.

Collecting this data could be playing with fire.

You are undoubtedly right and this will probably happen. But I really can't see how admittedly trying to hide such things will help any either.....

[MowTin]

I wonder if the ratio of miles to incidents for Segways would be a significant factor worth giving prominence in discussion... I'm finding it hard to imagine any of the wheelchair users I know equalling my 400 miles, let along several thousand as I know some seg users do...

I think it would be more worthwhile to measure the force of a Segway collision at various speeds compared to that of a large athletic human being at full speed.

I think it would also help to have collision videos. One person wearing padding and a helmet getting run into by a Segway at various speeds.

I think there is this idea that a Segway can run a pedestrian over. A simple video would show how ridiculous that is.

I would also like to see a measure of human stopping distance versus Segway. This would show that the Segway can react to sudden events faster than a pedestrian.

Also a test of Segway velocity control versus human velocity control.

A video of human racing Segway.

All these would have to be done by an independent testing lab. We would have to put money together to pay for these tests.

Just thinking out loud.

[KSagal]

You are undoubtedly right and this will probably happen. But I really can't see how admittedly trying to hide such things will help any either.....

Who said anything about hiding such things? Stories like those being discussed are all over this forum. All I am saying is that to find those stories, you have to cruise all over this forum and search dozens of threads over 7 or 8 years.

Compiling it will make it easier for lazy opponents of segway access, that is all.

[KSagal]

I think it would be more worthwhile to measure the force of a Segway collision at various speeds compared to that of a large athletic human being at full speed.

I think it would also help to have collision videos. One person wearing padding and a helmet getting run into by a Segway at various speeds.

I think there is this idea that a Segway can run a pedestrian over. A simple video would show how ridiculous that is.

I would also like to see a measure of human stopping distance versus Segway. This would show that the Segway can react to sudden events faster than a pedestrian.

Also a test of Segway velocity control versus human velocity control.

A video of human racing Segway.

All these would have to be done by an independent testing lab. We would have to put money together to pay for these tests.

Just thinking out loud.

I find this an interesting idea, that is not only going to be expensive, and therefore not likely done, but silly and non productive. Let me explain.

It strikes me that you are trying to collect data to prove a negative. The very fact that stories of segways running over pedestrians are rare to non-existent is the proof you need. Making a video of something that never happens in real life will only provide a video of something than never happens.

I don't eat snakes or pennies, but I don't need a video of me either eating them or refusing to eat them to make it real.

We all know that bikes run into things and people all the time. I believe it is fairly common knowledge that if you are standing there, and a bike hits you, you loose. I don't need a video to understand that.

Come to think of it, I cannot think of any clinical tests of bicycles running into people. Maybe some candid 'happen to catch it on video' clips, but not actual studies. You Tube has plenty of what you are looking for, without the clinical control situation. (for both bikes and segways)

Some of your people running into other people, or stuff may be on you tube as well, or maybe some of those Jackass movies (I have not seen them, but have seen some clips).

I just thought of something. Why don't you take your segway onto the field at the next Giants football game. Now, that would make a video on You Tube I might watch![B)];)

I am pulling your leg a bit here. I appreciate your considerations, but think it may be misdirected. I believe that the video you propose would be misused far more than help any segway cause. You will see.

Also, you should look into some of the studies that have been done. One in particular was the one done by the highway safety board (I think) a few years ago, which compared several modes of personal transport, from bikes to wheelchairs to segways to running. I don't recall the particulars or I would offer it up. Hopefully someone familiar with the study I am thinking of (Which I am reasonably sure I have miss named) will chime in with a better way for you to find this study. It had no video, but still did address some of the suggestions you had.

[MowTin]

I think people who have never seen a Segway imagine that a Segway could run someone over. I think that's a myth that needs to be busted. In reality a Segway could knock you down just like someone running could run into your and knock you down.

I was reading on that Disney forum and one poster asked (I'm paraphrasing) "Do we have to wait until some kid is run over by a Segway to know it's dangerous?"

Brings to mind images from "Toxic Avenger."

[DarthSegVator]

This is the one I think Karl was thinking about.

U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration -
Characteristics of Emerging Road Users & Their Safety

The study was undertaken to clarify the operational characteristics of both
motorized and non-motorized transportation. Data was collected to obtain
physical dimensions, turning capabilities, acceleration, speed and stopping
distance of these devices. The Segway PT and its rider were found to have
the second shortest braking distance, highest sight lines, one of the smallest
footprints, and quickest perception-reaction time. The Segway PT met or
exceeded all recommendations made by the American Association of State
Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide to the Development of
Bicycle Facilities.

Publish date: October 2004

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04103/04103.pdf
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04104/roadstechbrief.pdf

Others can be found here (starting on page 17):

http://www.draft.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Education+%26+Advocacy%2fAdvoc acy+Documents%2fSegway+Studies%2fWhite+Paper+-+Public+Myths+Regarding+the+Segway+-+August+2009.pdf&tabid=75&mid=502

[Tarkus]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10025/index.cfm

Be Big,
AMAC

[Lily Kerns]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10025/index.cfm

Be Big,
AMAC

I haven't spent much time with this but a couple things struck me immediately:

This study says it covers 2005-2009 but it uses only i180s which I have not used. Is there enough handling difference between these and i2s that it would affect the results?

The participants were asked to ride at the fastest speed they felt comfortable with. This seems to make the conditions for the test roughly comparable to the local bicycle trails--occasional pedestrians including families, cyclists and/or obstructions and sections where it is reasonable to expect that the user will be traveling at maximum safe speed that is legal and they are comfortable with as in the test.

Under these conditions the expected speed of the user will affect the speed at which the subject passes, meets or moves around an object or person which is one of the things measured. When you combine the expected speed with the width of the trail, the amount of distance allowed by the Segway user when passing or meeting someone --measured by the test--will also be affected by the expected maximum speed.

I need to go back and look at the differences between experienced and novice users in the items tested. As I remember it, there was not as much difference as the average non-Segway user would probably expect to find.

I suspect that the results of this test need to be used very carefully and intelligently. I'm guessing that the results are not fully valid under crowded conditions where the maximum safest speed will not necessarily be the primary concern of the ordinary sensible Segway rider, nor would it be expected to be.

If I'm not reading this correctly--please correct me...

Lily

[Tarkus]

I agree with your assessment there are many variables.
Although I use a Gen I , I have ridden many Gen II and for the most part they about the same.

AMAC

[bgrh@mac.com]

I think it would be more worthwhile to measure the force of a Segway collision at various speeds compared to that of a large athletic human being at full speed.

I think it would also help to have collision videos. One person wearing padding and a helmet getting run into by a Segway at various speeds.

I was asked by Jerry Kerr to do something like this with simulation technology. Point being, if it's good enough to design a fighter jet, it should be good enough to produce useful data.

After my first look I realized this was above my pay grade. With the ADA change I started looking again.

There is a software package called Houdini and I've started a discussion with the developers about finding a student team that might want to take this on. A hell of a lot safer than padding someone - and much easier to control - i.e. once it's set up, we can run various speeds, angles, weights, etc.

Thoughts?

[bgrh@mac.com]

I find this an interesting idea, that is not only going to be expensive, and therefore not likely done, but silly and non productive. Let me explain.

It strikes me that you are trying to collect data to prove a negative. The very fact that stories of segways running over pedestrians are rare to non-existent is the proof you need. Making a video of something that never happens in real life will only provide a video of something than never happens.


Karl - what does make sense is a comparison, of scooter and power chair hits vs. segway hits. In the summary in this paper (http://draft.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=Education+%26+Advocacy%2fAdvoc acy+Documents%2fSegway+Studies%2fPhysics+of+Segway s.pdf&tabid=75&mid=502), which addressed the physics of a stand up scooter vs. a segway, I make the following points:

Summary

The Segway is a uniquely sophisticated machine that uses onboard computers working with multiple sensors and redundant physical systems to sense the motions of the rider, and to react to those motions.

The “Stand Up Scooter” requires the rider to learn how the machine will respond to the throttle and brake, while physically holding on to the machine to counter the unbalanced forces of acceleration and deceleration.

I. Action - Reaction

A. The Segway reacts to motion of the rider. Forces are balanced by the Segway at all times.

B. The rider reacts to the motion of a Stand Up Scooter. Forces are unbalanced during acceleration and deceleration. The rider must compensate for these unbalanced forces to ride the machine.

II. Walking Reflex vs. Machine Specific Training

A. The acceleration and deceleration of a Segway is controlled by shifts in the center of gravity of the rider. These are the same motions that are used to initiate and to stop walking.

B. The acceleration and deceleration of a Stand Up Scooter is controlled by throttle and brake levers. The rider must learn to control the machine, and must have the physical capability to use these controls as required.

III. Quick Stops

A. On a Segway

1. The instinctive reflex of the rider to move away from an imminent collision is the action that initiates deceleration on a Segway.

2. If a collision happens on a Segway, the likely point of contact is the rider’s hands on the steering handle, close to the center of gravity of the person being collided with. The collision immediately pushes the Segway steering handle back, tilting the Segway back, further increasing the amount of deceleration of the Segway.

3. Both the instincts of the rider and the geometry of the collision work to decelerate the Segway before the conscious intervention of the rider.

B. On a Stand Up Scooter

1. The instinctive reflex of the rider to move away from an imminent collision has no effect on a Stand Up Scooter. The rider must locate the brake lever and squeeze it to initiate braking.

2. If a collision happens on a Stand Up Scooter, the likely point of contact is well below center of gravity of the person being collided with. The rider must consciously and actively initiate braking by squeezing the brake lever to stop the Stand Up Scooter.

3. Neither the instincts of the rider, nor the geometry of the collision, do anything to slow the Stand Up Scooter before the conscious intervention of the rider.


Nice words - video would be even better. Which takes me back to the simulation idea. I'll chase it down and report back here.

Brian

[KSagal]

Brian brings up great points, but I fear that it is an education that has a long way to go.

Some ignorance is far harder to eradicate than others. People will assume wrongly often, as with that video of a cart pushing a segway into a crash test dummy. They offer it as if it has any value at all, and it does not. Then when told it is wrong, they justify it as close enough.

Well produced and explained video may have a value of education that my previous posts did not recognize.

[sharonfas]

A friend of mine was recently at Disneyworld (July 2010) in FL and was told they still do not allow Segways for mobility. I heard there were a couple law suits against Disney re this. Does anyone know what has or is happening with the law suits?

I actually have a letter, dated 12/13/2007 from Grace Becker, Assistant Attorney General, US Dept of Justice, re the use of Segways in Federal Buildings as a mobility device if anyone is interested (was sent to me when I registered a complaint with my congressman because I was not allowed in the Smithsonian buildings).

[Tarkus]

A friend of mine was recently at Disneyworld (July 2010) in FL and was told they still do not allow Segways for mobility. I heard there were a couple law suits against Disney re this. Does anyone know what has or is happening with the law suits?

I actually have a letter, dated 12/13/2007 from Grace Becker, Assistant Attorney General, US Dept of Justice, re the use of Segways in Federal Buildings as a mobility device if anyone is interested (was sent to me when I registered a complaint with my congressman because I was not allowed in the Smithsonian buildings).

Hello and welcome.

We at DRAFT, literally as we speak, are in the process of a website redesign to make it easier to locate information. Because of that I can't link you over to the site.

Here are two links, one I think is then same as your letter.

http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/ogp/SegwayFRNotice_Final121107.doc

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/ADAregs2010.htm

http://www.fta.dot.gov/civilrights/ada/civil_rights_3893.html

As far as Disney the new rules go into effect for approximate 180 days.
At that point it will be a matter of what Disney decides to do. Allow access or test the ruling.

The lawsuits, we are not a fan of litigation, are not a major issue at this time.
The class action was disallowed and the new regs are out so now it's time to see how it plays out.

The new www.DRAFT.org website will be up and running soon. I promise all we like the site, it will be much less cumbersome.

Be Big,
AMAC

[Notasperfectasyou]

The links that are posted seem to lead to summaries of the law, but not to the actual text of the law as amended. Does anyone know how to find this on line?

[Tarkus]

The links that are posted seem to lead to summaries of the law, but not to the actual text of the law as amended. Does anyone know how to find this on line?

Text can be found on ADA.gov. Search that site for full text.
The second link above has links to the full text.

The other links, GSA and FTA show policy now supported by the ADA. There is nothing else to read on those.


Be Big,
AMAC

[Lily Kerns]

Text can be found on ADA.gov. Search that site for full text.
The second link above has links to the full text.

The other links, GSA and FTA show policy now supported by the ADA. There is nothing else to read on those.


Be Big,
AMAC

And to add one more detail, Title II is the law specifially for government agencies. Title III is for any business or agency that allows the public to enter ("a place of public accomodation"). The new laws have done a pretty good job of harmonizing the two texts.

[Notasperfectasyou]

Thank you.

I was acually surprised that there was not more in terms of legal cites.

Ken