Excellent Reply

[macgeek]

Disability' label clouds issue of Segway use

Dec. 1, 2007 12:00 AM
Regarding your Tuesday article, "Convenience becomes controversy: Segways aid disabled but businesses fear backlash":

This takes us back to a similar circumstance years ago where Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, argued that he should be allowed to use a golf cart during the PGA tour to accommodate his disability. Unfortunately, when we put a "disability" label on someone's authorization to use a mobility device, we create a circumstance where the person must prove his disability.

Since many people, like the man in your Segway story, have only a partial or temporary disability, this creates backlash for people with disabilities, especially hidden ones, that they are languishing or taking advantage of businesses and others.

There is a simple solution: Forget the disability!

We live in a world where technological conveniences are commonplace. We all use them whether we have a disability or not (e.g., moving walkways in airports).

The Segway is such a device. It doesn't matter whether it is categorized as a "wheelchair." If someone chooses to use it, let him or her do so. It simply doesn't matter why they choose to use a Segway any more than it matters why they choose to drive a car as opposed to walking.

However, if we accept Segways in our buildings, then those who use them must take responsibility for any damage they may cause.

If a Segway user damages property or injures someone, they must take responsibility for that damage or injury just like any other circumstance in which such damages might occur. Businesses should be held harmless in such a circumstance so long as the business properly adheres to the accessibility guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Those guidelines are useful for everyone, not just those with disabilities.

If that solution were to be implemented, I suspect businesses wouldn't be expressing such concern about their use, and Segway users would use the device responsibly just as those of us who use motorized wheelchairs do today. - Susan Webb,Phoenix

The writer is director of business development, Arizona Bridge to Independent Living.

[BillK]

That was a great article - wasn't it! Well put. Well said - well done! Spot on.
Bill

[Tarkus]

Thanks Jon, good article.

I read that story good but didn't want to post it. It brings up interesting ideas.

Thanks Again.


Be Big,
Alan

[quade]

It is an interesting idea, however, it brings up a couple of points;

Doesn't the wording of the article admit that the current situation places the liability at the hands of the property owner rather than the operator of the device? If so, then shouldn't the property owner be allowed to decide how much liability he is willing to assume or limit?

If laws were changed and this sort of thing implemented, would the operator actually have the financial ability to compensate for something as great as, for instance, a permanent disability or loss of life claim? Would Segway riders, regardless of disability status, be forced to carry liability insurance?

One last point, the reply seems to want to frame the argument is monetary terms only. That is clearly an objective measure of redress in financial terms, however, I find it difficult to believe that anyone on either side would ever be able to look at the argument in only those terms, or should have to.

[BillK]

Originally Posted by quade

It is an interesting idea, however, it brings up a couple of points;

Doesn't the wording of the article admit that the current situation places the liability at the hands of the property owner rather than the operator of the device? If so, then shouldn't the property owner be allowed to decide how much liability he is willing to assume or limit?

If laws were changed and this sort of thing implemented, would the operator actually have the financial ability to compensate for something as great as, for instance, a permanent disability or loss of life claim? Would Segway riders, regardless of disability status, be forced to carry liability insurance?

One last point, the reply seems to want to frame the argument is monetary terms only. That is clearly objective measure of redress in financial terms, however, I find it difficult to believe that anyone on either side would ever be able to look at the argument in only those terms, or should have to.

If someone comes on my personal property and gets hurt, then I can be liable. That is why I carry insurance. I think that it is OBVIOUS that if I visit a store and get hurt that the store owner is covered by insurance because they cannot be guaranteed that the person getting hurt will have insurance and also they would have to proove that they did nothing wrong (like have a wet floor etc).

As a Segway rider I have insurance and IF I had / caused a problem I would have my insurance pay for it or I would myself. I think as a rider of ANY vehicle I would certainly have insurance that would cover me if I got hurt or caused any damage that would help me cover that damage.

I also carry insurance for myself when I am NOT in or riding a vehicle and I think that is prudent. The problem comes when there are un-insured people out there in cars or vehicles. THOSE are the situations that Disney and other store owners have to watch out for and be covered for.

A cool thing that I saw when I visited the "Makers Faire" in Austin Texas recently - I took my Segways and a friend and I Segged around - they stopped us at the front and we signed a waiver that said if we got hurt we would not hold them liable and then put a wrist band on us to show that we had signed. As long as we had the wrist band on we were ok on the Segs. This would be cool for wheel chairs and Segs and other vehicles - as long as you sign a waiver (and possible show proof of insurance) I would be fine with that. (oh - include baby carriages as well in that list please? <grin>)
Bill

[quade]

Originally Posted by BillK

A cool thing that I saw when I visited the "Makers Faire" in Austin Texas recently - I took my Segways and a friend and I Segged around - they stopped us at the front and we signed a waiver that said if we got hurt we would not hold them liable and then put a wrist band on us to show that we had signed.

The "waiver", a dubious document at best BTW, is an attempt to protect the property owner or event organizer from being liable for your injuries.

Who is liable if you injure a third party; if you are insured, if you are not insured?

[GlennO]

Hasn't this whole problem been about money from day one?

Everybody knows how insurance companies work/pay out - and if everybody had insurance, then I have a feeling that there wouldn't be a problem.

The problem comes up when someone doesn't have any insurance and gets hurt. Who pays for their bills, especially if this uninsured person caused the accident?

Best guess - the property owner, which is probably how this whole mess started in the first place, eh?

Glenn

[macgeek]

Now everyone is on the same page (good point Glenn)
It is about money, not disabilities, and nor ADA.
Its about what happens when the POOP hits the FAN!

IF a glider had proper insurance and someone was hurt,
the glider is responsible. BUT what happens if a floor is wet
and the glider loses control and hurts someone.. is it the building
or the glider?

Its a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE (and you know segs don't do well climbing those!)

As a Glider in NYC, I carry insurance.
NOT because I have too / required to I do it because NYC is VERY litigious
and you can sued for LOOKING at someone the wrong way.
I don't want to lose my home and my car and my money because some jack hole
decided NOW is the time to walk in front of me, against the light, with traffic moving.

Jonathan

[quade]

Originally Posted by GlennO

Hasn't this whole problem been about money from day one?

I think that's a simple way of looking at it, but no, I don't think so. I think it's more complicated than that and there are a number of motivations going on here.

1) Some disabled people feel it is there right to have access; anywhere, any place, any time, on any device whether or not that device was mentioned or even existed at the time the ADA laws where enacted. To a certain extent, I can understand their feelings even if I don't necessarily agree with them.

2) Liability. Yeah, this probably is most of what Disney is concerned about.

3) Safety of the rider. I feel personal risk is up to the individual to decide.

4) Safety of others. I don't think many mothers care as much about the money as they do their own children.

5) Eric postulated that some Segway riders, like myself, don't want to be associated with a device for the disabled. Well, I don't think so, but there may be other psychological factors involved by some people so I'm going to leave this one open as a place holder.

So, that's at least 5 different motivations right there.

[BillK]

If I was disabled and could ride a Segway I would like to be able to take it anwhere, and I would use the ADA to support that and try to force my way in to all the places that I wanted to go to. Period.

Now - if I was RICH ENOUGH to be able to afford a Segway AND a motorized wheel chair and other vehicles then I MIGHT fight less because I could at least go. But - if all I had was a Segway then that is what I would want to take into stores etc.

I have taken my Seg shopping and personally I have not found it that useful. If I am TOURING it is great - but once I want to purchase something - not so much - no where to put my "stuff" that I purchase.

O well - I am fortunate enough not to NEED the Seg for anything other than enjoyment and you are all lucky for that as well - cause I would be one militant SOB if it was my only mode of transportation and I was disabled. <grin>
Bill