Here is part of the problem.

[KSagal]

I always thought that part of the magnificence of the segway lie in the fact that it is a very universally designed device...

If I were to enter into a foot race with the following people, we would see many differences...

I am in the race on a good day...(47, 210 lbs, 5'9", strong but not in my best shape, marginal pegs)
My Nephew ... (22, strong as an ox, +/- 200 lbs, 5'10", strength, not speed)
Another nephew... (26, fit, +/- 160 lbs, 6'3, runs like the wind)
My Mother ... (75, overweight, poor circulation, 5'2", not much strength nor speed)
My neighbor ... (84, 210lbs, 5'5", handshake like a vice, having problems on his 3rd replacement knee, a bit wobbly)
etc, etc...

In my foot race, we would see all kinds of separation. Ben and Sam, my nephews would clearly be out front. Those that did not hurt them selves in the effort may not even finish the 100 yards...

Now, everyone gets onto segways... No one has the clear advantage (Accept possibly me, because my Ketts are a fraction of an inch taller than the rest of the segway tires)

That is the beauty of the segway. Once you are on it, you are just like the 20something guy in capacity...

I know this is not about races. This should be about empowerment. I have personally seen how people who will not use a wheel chair will use a segway, and how it makes adult people out of them for the first time in years!

I believe that segregating out "handicapped" segways from "those who don't need a segway" is going against the poetry of the concept.

Clearly, everyone uses tools differently. One person can use a small brush to paint a beautiful picture, another the same brush to apply BBQ sauce to good rack of ribs, another will use the brush to oil a squeeky hinge... It is just a tool.

Segways have the advantage of being a tool that unites many who would be different, into those who would be the same.

Personally, I believe that segways are safe, and should be accepted in most public places. I believe that some users are in protected classes, and can use their tools as they see fit, and the rest of us are not in those protected classes, and do not have the legal right to use those same tools, but that they will soon be accepted as reasonable, and therefore will be availble to us...

Till then, I will support the right for those who are protected under the law to exercise their rights, and I will support those who are not currently protected under the law to get access, thru acceptance. At no time will irresponsible behaviour be endorsed by me, mobility issue or not.

I do not currently feel it is necessary to diminish or embarrass, or segregate out in any public way those who use the segway for this reason or that...

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

... As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), the user of an assistance device is not required to prove anything to the store or mall owner. To me, that seems to fundamentally change the equation.

Well, yes and no. According to the law, a disabled person does not have to prove their need of a mobility device beyond that which is evident. However, the crux of the problem are those who try to sneak by, the very same people in the article you referenced earlier.

In order to "qualify" for the special rights afforded to the handicapped (all encompassing, not just mobility impaired) one has to have been certified as handicapped in some way. This doesn't mean that a pregnant mother can't use a wheelchair or that somebody who just went through knee surgery can't use a wheelchair. After all, those people aren't handicapped and despite other assertions you don't need a prescription to use a wheelchair. However, it does mean that they can't use the handicapped parking spot.

Hence your question "how do we determine who can use a Segway" and my answer "they should have a certified need" and by this I mean they should be handicap placard carriers.

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

Also, I would like you to explain what you mean by "need the Segway" in your last paragraph.

I know a couple who have two Segways. One has an identified need and is categorized as handicapped (mobility impaired), the other is, currently, able bodied. They have both stated that when the time comes that the spouse with the handicap is able to glide in malls that the other spouse will do the same. I'm sorry but that is wrong. He has no need. She does. To me that's akin to parking a car with a handicap placard in the handicapped spot even if you aren't the one that has the mobility issue.

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

Regarding court decisions, there's a settlement conference in a Federal case in Las Cruces today. Although the case applies to only one mall, it may be exactly what you are saying about "force the issue".

Even worse. The case applies to the one individual at that one mall. However, it is precedent and precedent is a powerful thing.

Steven

[dale@thecoys.net]

OK, let me tackle this one first:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net
Regarding court decisions, there's a settlement conference in a Federal case in Las Cruces today. Although the case applies to only one mall, it may be exactly what you are saying about "force the issue".

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Even worse. The case applies to the one individual at that one mall. However, it is precedent and precedent is a powerful thing.

Steven

I don't comprehend why you think it's "even worse".

Or who you think would bring a suit that is initially filed on behalf of everybody everywhere. [Also, see Notes 1 and 2 below]

The suit was brought by one determined person. At the settlement conference, he may be determined to not settle unless the settlement includes all individuals at that mall - the alternative decision by the mall lawyers being to go to trial. Mr. Funk understands all of that, and we'll see what he (with the advice of the ACLU) decides to do.

Note 1: The mall chose to get this moved to Federal court, increasing the power of the precedent. Note that this was a decision of the mall's lawyers.

Note 2: When I say "the mall", I'm really referring to the management company that manages a large number of malls across the country. So, the management company is (apparently) hunting a precedent. [And in my opinion, which you may agree with, a Federal-court-approved settlement would absolve them from significant liability]

Note 3: see my other posting about the public protest about this in Las Cruces. Or just go to:

http://www.ktsm.com/home/ticker/7703867.html

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Hence your question "how do we determine who can use a Segway" and my answer "they should have a certified need" and by this I mean they should be handicap placard carriers.

Steven

Disregarding the practicality of that (e.g., anybody determining remotely whether somebody has a placard)... [Yeah, but it's at home, so I parked in a the far corner of the lot and rode my Segway over here] [Yeah, that's my SUV over there - see the tag?]...

And even if I agreed with your "certified need" (which I do not)...

In that case, in my state, someone would be qualified if they had lost total use of one hand.

Of course, my state's placard is valid in all other states - and other states may have requirements that are equally non-significant in the context of the Segway.

So, as a practical matter, how do we determine who can use a Segway?
=====================

Also, you said:

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

"This doesn't mean that a pregnant mother can't use a wheelchair or that somebody who just went through knee surgery can't use a wheelchair. After all, those people aren't handicapped and despite other assertions you don't need a prescription to use a wheelchair. However, it does mean that they can't use the handicapped parking spot.
Steven

So, why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to who can use a Segway?

[Desert_Seg]

Dale,

I may be wrong but you seem to be advocating that everybody be allowed to use a Segway, anytime, anyplace.

I don't. I think that premise is foolish and dangerous and I, obviously, am totally against it.

Remember, the Segway wasn't developed in order to replace walking, it was developed to replace the short trips in cars.

Therefore, are you also advocating that bicycle riders be allowed to ride in malls? Why not?

How about skateboarders? Why not?

As you allow users of one device you begin to create a separate class of people. It could be folks who use bicycles to get around and, hence, have the same rights as a non-mobility impaired Segway glider, it could be the skateboarders, it could be virtually anybody.

You now have a choice, either ban the cyclists, skateboarders, et al, or allow them all. Of course, if you ban them but still allow the non-mobility impaired Segway glider you are now discriminating against the others and boy are you now in for a legal battle.

To me it is simple. Do not allow non-mobility impaired gliders into malls, theme parks, and the like.

Steven

[KSagal]

Steven,

I know your comments were not directed toward me, but I see a flaw in your logic.

You are putting the segway in the same catagory as bikes and skateboards, in your last post. The segway cannot be lumped into a group like that, as it does not have the same characteristics.

A segway can maintain itself at 0 mph. It can function quite well, at a stop, and when operated at speeds of less than 2 mph, does not suffer any loss of control at all.

A bicycle cannot claim that. A skateboard cannot claim that. Neither of the latter can easily interact with a walking crowd, yet the segway can.

Further, you say that a segway was designed to replace short trips in the car, and was not designed to replace walking. From where do you get this statement?

I believe I have personally heard Dean Kamen, on several occasions, say that the segway was designed to fill the gap between walking and driving. More specifically, it is for that trip that is just too far to walk, or just too close to drive... That means it is designed to replace both short car trips and long walks.

I maintain that a person on a segway is a person on a segway, and should not be further segregated. I don't think there is a practical way to do it. A person with mobility issues may require some mechanical device or advantage to do the same thing that a person without that mobility issue. A cane is not designed to separate a person from people who do not need one, it is designed to allow a person who cannot walk as well as another, the advantage to be equal.

I would maintain that for all mobility devices. Person 'G' with infermaty XX cannot walk from point A to point B as well as Person 'Q'. Person G uses a mechanical device so that they can do what person Q can do without assistance. This makes persons G and Q equal, where they were not when they started.

A segway is designed so that both Person G and Person Q, who do not start out even, become even as soon as they both get on a segway.

Now, the odd part is that the segway is so much fun to glide on, it is hard for some people to catagorize it as an equalizing tool, and some would say that in the hands of a healthy person, it is a toy, a novelty, and extravagance. I disagree here as well. It is the same tool for everybody... IT is a device to simply get from point A to point B.

While it is reasonable to realize that person G may have less options on how to get from point A to B than person Q, I believe it does not matter.

It is almost the same as finances. Is it different when a person with a thousand dollars in the bank buys a pair of pants for $25 then when a person with 500 dollars in the bank buys pants for the $25? No. As long as they each have their $25 in hand, they can each buy. The first person may have more resources, and therefore more options for pants, but that does not matter in this instance. They both are even at the point where they both spend the $25.

I believe your argument that able bodied people may be restricted from malls on segways, and mobility impared persons cannot be restricted is flawed in the same sense that saying a person with knee problems is allowed in a wheel chair, but a person with a heart condition is not, because a person with a heard condition may be able to walk farther than a person with a knee problem. Who are you, or how can you expect mall personel to make that determination? What about your pregnant lady? can she use that chair? How about the 80 year old who is having a bad day? I don't believe that a person can or should be allowed to draw that line for another.

I understand that some lazy people, or self involved people may take advantage of situations that were not designed for their manipulation, but in my world that is less aggregious than to deny a person who should have the benifit of the doubt.

Of course, there is room for all positions. We do not have to agree. You are welcome to your position, even if it is Wrong, wrong, wrong...LOL

[Desert_Seg]

Karl,

I understand your premise and the difference between the Segway and those other devices I mentioned. However, the law doesn't.

Discrimination is when you create a class of people who don't have the same rights as others. When you allow Segways for non-mobility impaired but don't allow bicycles, skateboards, etc, you are then creating a class of people.

That discrimination is a major issue that has to be addressed. Allowing Segways for mobility impaired....no brainer. Allowing it for non-mobility impaired...won't happen.

As for allowing Segway usage for all, well that needs some thought by all. After all, today, with 30K or so units out there, it is odd that you will get mass confusion at any one location. But what happens when there are 1M out there....it is very hard to take back "given" rights. Better to legislate properly now than to hope to change them later.

Oh, and me wrong? NEVER.

Steven

[IcanGlide]

I'm with Karl on this one. How can it be considered creating a class of people when it is the nature or design of the device that causes it to be regulated? The "No bikes on sidewalk" sign has been around a lot longer than I have, and for very good reasons.

The Segway is a walking aid, irregardless if the user qualifies medically or not. There will always be people that take advantage of programs designed to benefit the impaired, and I see no way to stop that.

Frank

[KSagal]

I'll go one further. A person on a segway is not a person in a class of people. It is simply a person with a particular device.

To say that a person with a segway has to be allowed or can be restricted is missing the point. The person may or may not be in a protected class, the device is just a tool.

Cars are allowed on the interstate highway system, as they fit. Airplanes are not allowed because they do not fit. It is not because auto drivers are in a different class of protected people than pilots, it is because some devices have charateristics that allow some behaviour and some do not...

A person with a heart condition may be allowed on a segway in a mall, because the segway and that person can deal with that situation. That same person cannot get onto a bike in that same mall, because the bike cannot handle it, not because the person cannot.

I believe it is important to realize that there is a common fault in the way we often look at situations, and although we often like to group things into catagories, we have to be sure to draw the lines in the right places...

I hear all the times of reports in the newspapers of drunk drivers. They say that a drunk driver did this or that, or had this accident or that... I agree with that. Then you will hear of another accicent, and the press will talk of this SUV did this or that. THis SUV rolled over, that SUV hit a minivan full of kids... whatever... There they blame the tool, not the driver. You never hear of this sedan hit this or that. In a sedan, they speak of the driver, in an SUV, they speak of the tool. It is a common bias in the press. I am not saying it is some conspiracy, it has just become the common lexicon.

We need to take effort to be clear in that which we say. We need to be clear in the legislations we support.

Segways, as a result of their design, when used in the manner they were intended, can navigate a mall with safety.

Bicycles, as a result of their design, when used in the manner they were intended, cannot navigate a mall with safety.

I don't believe it matters who is using them.

And if you really want to get into it, I believe that a segway used in a reasonable manner is far less likely to bump or hurt someone than a wheelchair, in a mall. This does not in any way mean that I feel that a segway should be promoted over a wheelchair, as they have different uses, and provide different service, but as a device, they also have different limitations. Because of the tremendous service that a wheelchair can provide, it is not restricted. Just because some are unwilling to recognise the service available to be provided by a segway does not mean it cannot provide it...

My Brother teaches SCUBA diving on the left coast. He owns a company that modifies autos and other devices for the disabled. He combines both of those activities, and modifies mobility devices that are commonly used in the water by divers to be useful for those with some extra challenges...

I recall a mobility machine that a diver holds onto and it tows the diver thru the water. It greatly increases the range of a dive, as it typically motivates divers faster and further than they would swim. It is effectively a scooter for underwater. It was designed for able bodied divers. It has been modified with some hand controls by my brother to fit a larger base of user.

I see this device as the same as a segway. When a diver goes by holding onto this device, they are all the same, and only restricted by the capacity of that device. On a segway, once you get on it, all segway riders have similar characteristics...

By the way, this is not new. People have been getting out of their wheelchairs and into the driver's seat of cars for a long time. Once in the car, there are not special rules for this driver or that, only rules for what a person is allowed to do with their car and what they are not allowed to do. There are no special lanes only for cars with hand controls...

Just another perspective to consider...

[Desert_Seg]

Karl, and possibly Frank, have both missed the basic tenets of the law.

First, the flawed analogy. While it is true an airplane is not allowed on the highway it is because it is NOT considered a motor vehicle, which is the requirement for being on our nation's highways (as a rule pedestrians and bicycles are not allowed either). However, please note that our interstate system was designed to serve as alternate runways in times of emergency so, at times, planes can use the highways.

Now, as to the law. Categorization has already taken place.

A person who can walk unaided is one class. A person who cannot is another. However, those classes of people were not created by an individual, laws, or the like, but rather were created by nature and, therefore, there is no discriminatory practice or process.

On the flip side, a person on a Segway is NOT a class of person, it is just a person using a device. The rights afforded to the glider are dependent on the class of person they fit, in this case mobility impaired or non-mobility impaired.

However, if riding the Segway gives the glider rights that are not afforded to others not on a Segway and who are in the same class (mobility impaired or non-mobility impaired), then there you have a discriminatory practice.

Also, it matters not for what the device was invented. That has no bearing on the argument (or the law).

Oh, and we miss another point. On private property (such as malls, theme parks, etc) the law as it applies to the mobility impaired does not apply. The property owner can dictate the usage so long as it does not discriminate. This lead us back to one of the original questions. How do you verify who can legally use a Segway as a mobility tool?

Steven