Connecticut Segway Accident Illustrates Potential Danger - DigitalJournal.com (press

[gbrandwood]

Originally Posted by QuadSquad

If you want to spend the money to collect statistics that's fine but until they start collecting data on all mobility devices and quite frankly walking etc. then the picture is unclear.

Remember our issue was with their advocating for a specific E code for Segways, they advocated for nothing more than that.

We spend a lot of money collecting statistics on things that are gonna happen with or without them. Until we start figuring out who's gonna pay for things and the cost benefit ratio, we need to quit advocating for the collection of statistics and passing regulations that hamper progress.

I'm not sure how much money is involved in collecting such statistics.My suggestion wasn't a judgement call based on the cost versus the benefit. I'd find it difficult to quantify either. If that call was made by someone "in the know" and it was found not viable, then I wouldn't lose any sleep. But if stats were collected, it would provide useful information to those who are interested. And if stats were collected, and they did prove to be low compared to other forms of personal transportation, then surely that would increase the rate of progress, not slow it down - actually, the fact that such stats exist would add some credence to the fact that the Segway has landed and is being treated like other devices (which I assume also have such codes).

[gbrandwood]

Originally Posted by JohnM

Counting Segways is like counting dancing angels on the head of a pin.

So long as the angels are wearing helmets under their halos!

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by gbrandwood

So long as the angels are wearing helmets under their halos!

Burt seriously folks....
How can you ever expect to develop any meaningful statistics when the manufacturer won't even disclose how many units have been produced?

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by JohnM

Burt seriously folks....
How can you ever expect to develop any meaningful statistics when the manufacturer won't even disclose how many units have been produced?

That particular question isn't even particularly relevant. It's worse. What you really need to know is how many passenger-miles or passenger-hours are ridden annually. Even if they wanted to, INC would have a hard time with that one.

I think it would be a lot easier to get such numbers for, say, power chairs. There are a lot of well-defined points of contact, such as physicians or insurance, who could drive a representative sample for a survey.

Segways don't come in for repairs often enough to estimate it very well from repair records. You could probably get a good estimate of mileage for the first year or so with a mail survey to new owners based on warranty information, but that will screw your results toward new users. It might be worth doing anyway, with the understanding of the limitations involved.

But, of course, INC isn't going to do that. And I can't say I blame them, from a business perspective.

[gbrandwood]

INC asked users of their Segway Social site to proivde details such as mileage. They used the info to claim millions of miles have been travelled. I think the site has fallen by the wayside a little since.

Also, we have a rough idea on numbers (of machines) based on the serial number. Get a fresh one from the factory and check the number. About 9 or 10 thousand a year based on recent estimates.

[KSagal]

I have to agree that this is looking like a collection of data for the sake of having a collection of data.

It is not going to illuminate anything, unless it is accurate, and there is no way to make it accurate in any real sense, so it will just be a tool to manipulate any direction you wish, which will make it not data, but propaganda.

The report from that hospital is a great example. There were 41 injuries that showed up at their emergency room, that someone somewhere claimed were segway related. No pertinent data was verified, or even requested, as the people injured were never interviewed. There was no effort to collect accurate objective data, just to make a point.

We have no idea of how many miles were glid by these same 41 people. We have no idea how many thousands of people did the exact same thing these 41 people did and did not wind up at this one hospital. We do not know how many times these same 41 or anyone else fell from their segway but did not wind up at that hospital.

It is making wild claims of increases in segway accidents based on no or inaccurate presumptions. I could say that segway accidents are up 100 fold over the past decade. Of course they are, a decade ago, 6 people had segways. I could say that segway accidents are up 1000 fold over just 15 years ago. OF course they are. No one had a segway 15 years ago.

To have an inaccurate and incomplete voluntary collection of data about segway accidents will simply be used by the ignorant to fill a suspected imagined danger about that which they do not understand.

How many of us have had to deal with people telling us that the inventor was killed by his own crazy device by having it throw him over a cliff? Not accurate on so many levels, but no one really cares. It makes a compelling press story, so I have had to explain dozens or maybe 100 times that it was not the inventor, and while he was found at the bottom of the cliff, no one knows what happened. If he was found with a bicycle near by, none of us would know at all. Surely no one would have said that that proves that bicycles are dangerous.

Look at the press this one accident is having. Big headlines, big settlements claimed. (who knows where the final settlement will be, because no one will care) Ambulance chasers making press releases claiming segway injuries out weigh total pedestrian accidents over a 4 year period. And no one questions that. It is crazy.

Now, some want to add more potential mis-information to the ether.

Collect the data if you like, in a controlled environment, where the data has some validity. Contact a number of dealers and tour operators and have them collect specific data. Try to develop a small controlled test group from that, and extrapolate what you want. Then there may be a bit of accuracy. Ask the general public, or the government to do it, and you will get useless data.

End of rant. Sorry for the use of your time...

[gbrandwood]

I had no plan to add mis-information. Just recording facts about events. Sounds like my suggestion is not a popular view. Oh well. Each to their own.

I could respond to many of the points you raise Karl but it sounds like there is not much love for the suggestion and I don't have an axe to grind, so I'll let it be.

As an aside, I personally record stats on all accidents that occur on my tour. I find it extremely valuable information and have learned a great deal from it. Although I do appreciate it is a different thing.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by gbrandwood

I had no plan to add mis-information. Just recording facts about events. Sounds like my suggestion is not a popular view. Oh well. Each to their own.

I could respond to many of the points you raise Karl but it sounds like there is not much love for the suggestion and I don't have an axe to grind, so I'll let it be.

As an aside, I personally record stats on all accidents that occur on my tour. I find it extremely valuable information and have learned a great deal from it. Although I do appreciate it is a different thing.

Have you gathered any useful insights from those that you can share?

It's not at all the same thing because you have a full and consistent set of information. So it's very good that you collect them. No, I'll go further, and say you'd be foolish not to (and you're no fool!)

[gbrandwood]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

Have you gathered any useful insights from those that you can share?

Most of the insights have come from the tour routes we run. Specific twists, turns, dips etc. Despite all of the risk assessments carried out, nothing quite prepares you for genuine "customers". They will find the bumps, gaps, alternatives, tree roots etc. that you disregarded as troublesome. Your definition of a hill or slope changes quite early on, and the things that can go on behind your back continues to surprise me. Each accident is recorded taking into account the speed setting, location, weather condition, age of rider, specifics of the incident, comments, injuries. As a result I have changed the emphasis in training, the route, the speed, the way particular obstacles are approached, the number of stops etc. Great info if you do tours where I do, not so useful elsewhere

People "forget" how to stop. People struggle on hills. People get too close. People get into mischief if you stop too long in a group. People try riding backwards despite instruction to the contrary... I had one guy decide he was going to try riding up a 6" kerb! It's all good fun - usually. But I don't want to take this too far off topic.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by gbrandwood

Most of the insights have come from the tour routes we run. Specific twists, turns, dips etc. Despite all of the risk assessments carried out, nothing quite prepares you for genuine "customers". They will find the bumps, gaps, alternatives, tree roots etc. that you disregarded as troublesome. Your definition of a hill or slope changes quite early on, and the things that can go on behind your back continues to surprise me. Each accident is recorded taking into account the speed setting, location, weather condition, age of rider, specifics of the incident, comments, injuries. As a result I have changed the emphasis in training, the route, the speed, the way particular obstacles are approached, the number of stops etc. Great info if you do tours where I do, not so useful elsewhere

People "forget" how to stop. People struggle on hills. People get too close. People get into mischief if you stop too long in a group. People try riding backwards despite instruction to the contrary... I had one guy decide he was going to try riding up a 6" kerb! It's all good fun - usually. But I don't want to take this too far off topic.

The specific cause of your accidents may be very local, but I bet they repeat themselves all over the world. Segways are pretty much the same. For the most part, people are too. (on average).

I like the idea of you collecting your specific data, as you have said, it is a useful tool. Just as you said, your compatriot in the next town with a tour may collect data too, but has his own twist on how it is collected. Still, that would make a more complete data base.

My problem was going to non-segway people and asking them to collect the data. They would all be that guy who tried to climb a 6 inch curb on his first glide. They may get the concept, but fail in assessing the actual difference between a 3 inch curb and the 6 inch one.

I am not against the collection of data, just the method suggested. And surely the resultant mis-use and damage to the segway community it would make.

I kind of like the concept. It would be nice to know as an example that the average segway owner has a minor fall every 240 miles, or every 9.3 months, or whatever. Then you could judge yourself as behind the curve, or ahead of it, or due for something... I just fear the way the public will take that kind of thing and run with it. And run and run and run. "By the way, did you know the inventor of the segway was killed by one? Seems if malfunctioned, and no matter how hard he tried to stop it, it just headed for the nearest cliff and went over." See how that works?

The only good thing about that is it stopped the mall cop comments.