CA Acadamy of Sciences -- NO GO

[Bob.Kerns]

Having promised my daughter, I went with my family today.

They were not at all receptive to my entering with my Segway -- though only after I purchased my family membership!

They were reasonably polite, but sadly misinformed on a number of fronts. Like several reference to "not ADA approved". Excuse me? Your wheelchairs are not ADA approved either, there's no such thing!

"It's a very heavy machine". not nearly so heavy as the powered wheelchairs they allowed in!

"We've researched the matter. Even their inventor says they're not a disability aid".

"There are a lot of small children around!"

Interestingly, when I did give in (after canceling my membership) and use their wheelchair -- I ended up getting a nice tour being pushed by their head of customer services -- we had several wheelchair-pedestrian collisions -- including with said small children. No injuries, but he was MUCH more aggressive about working our way through pedestrians than I would have been!

This whole thing ended up separating me from my family for most of our time there. When we finally did locate each other (NO CELL PHONE SERVICE in the aquarium area!), my daughter pushed me around. I managed to keep her from running anyone down -- barely. But then when I took over, I ran into her.

That's pretty much my typical experience with wheelchairs in crowds. They don't interact very well at all -- Segways do MUCH better. I've done crowded days at the Exploratorium in both modes, and there's no doubt in my mind -- Segways are safer.

And if you get your toe run over, there's no question which one you want. I've got my daughter's ER medical bill to prove that manual wheelchairs are dangerous. When she pulled my Segway over her toe (with me on it with my hands full), she did so in slow motion, and it didn't stop her from doing what she was doing! (Trying to get a book out of my bag). (It did produce some discomfort, but no injury).

Their wheelchairs were all very wide. I initially intended to go look for my family under my own power, but I found that configuration had my arms tired out almost immediately.

Anyway, I intend to pursue this, and try to get the policy changed. (I especially want to blow up this notion of "not ADA approved!". Even if i lose, they need to not try to justify their policy on a mistaken idea of the ADA).

Anyway -- the reasons I'm posting, are first, to alert people as to the situation, and to ask for advice.

I'm not looking to screw them over, or get back at them. I can deal with people being wrong -- I hate it when it happens to me! I just want to get the policy changed, preferably through education.

I do plan to contact DRAFT, though I'm not sure what help they can give? Hopefully at least good advice.

[Nelda]

I've just read their policy on accessibility:

http://www.calacademy.org/visit/plan...A_Overview.pdf

Wheelchairs may be obtained, free of
charge, with the deposit of a photo I.D.
at Coat Check. They are available in
limited numbers, on a first-come,
first-served basis,

Now, in this age of identity theft, how can they possibly think that one would leave a driver's license in a place that you have no idea who has access to it. I would never, ever consider giving a stranger my license for any reason.

Nelda

[QuadSquad]

Originally Posted by Bob.Kerns

I do plan to contact DRAFT, though I'm not sure what help they can give? Hopefully at least good advice.

Forget the ADA, in California you also have the protection of the UNRUH Civil Rights Act which will allow you to pursue this in Small Claims court and pick up $4000-$6000 in damages for violating your civil rights.

That's the best advice we can lend at the moment

JK

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by QuadSquad

Forget the ADA, in California you also have the protection of the UNRUH Civil Rights Act which will allow you to pursue this in Small Claims court and pick up $4000-$6000 in damages for violating your civil rights.

That's the best advice we can lend at the moment

JK

Thanks. I'm not sure from the wording of your response (i.e. "we") if this is intended as a response from DRAFT, or the group here, or some other value for "we"?

I'll definitely look at the UNRUH Civil Rights Act; I don't have any knowledge about it. I'm not looking to get rich (even figuratively), but to get the policy changed. I'd prefer to educate and get enthusiastic acceptance than litigate and get grudging acceptance, and I'm not looking to harm an otherwise fine institution. That's not to mean I wouldn't sue to make the point (for all).

This is the first time I've been turned away, and even negative reactions are rare (other than security guards consulting their superiors when challenged, and only then giving their blessing -- the latest being the local hospital).

Thanks again.

[Persona]

Bob,

I recently contacted the Cal Academy of Sciences in advance of my visit to be sure they granted permission to use my Segaway (as my mobility aid). Here is my letter to them, and their response:


From: GP
To: accessibility @ calacademy.org
Cc: nlosey @ calacademy.org, mod @ sfgov.org, DRAFT ...
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 4:24 pm

Dear Cal Academy Management and ADA Coordinator,

I have a medical need for which I use a Segway PT (EPAMD) as my primary and sole mobility aid if and when I require the benefit of such a device.

I am visiting the Bay Area and I plan to attend the opening of the Cal Academy of Sciences tomorrow, Saturday, Sept. 26th and will require use of my Segway i167 PT (EPAMD) the entire time.

I believe that current Federal ADA Law does not specify or discriminate any specific type of mobility aid for medical mobility needs in the United States.

In your ADA Overview brochure, at the top of page 6 it states the following policy:

"Only seated assistance vehicles are approved for indoor use in the building"

See: ADA_Overview.pdf, top of page 6 for reference to your published document on your website.

I believe that this policy is in violation of ADA law and that he city of San Francisco allows the usage of a Segway PT electric personal assistive mobility devices (E.P.A.M.D) anywhere in the city as a legitimate medical mobility aid solutions to those that use them. This accommodation would include any structures built on city owned / leased property and/or parks.

It is important to note that I do not own, nor require the use of a "wheel chair" and I believe, that I cannot be compelled to use a wheelchair in place of / nor abandon my present mobility solution to meet facility specific mobility restrictions as long as I display an ADA Placard and agree to obey customary rate of motion trends (pedestrian walking speed).

Please have the Cal Academy of Sciences ADA Coordinator / Consultant provide me with published documentation as to the reason(s) why only a "seated" mobility aid is allowed in the facility. Please include any safety data, statistical information, incident analysis, and/or supporting data that makes reference to the usage of "Segway PT" EPAMD devices and their specific exclusionary criteria.

Respectfully,

GP

cc: Susan Mizner, Mayor's Office of ADA concerns, City of San Francisco
cc: Nancy Losey, Cal Sciences Academy of Sciences, ADA Coordinator
cc: Fred Kaplan, Co-Founder D.R.A.F.T
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the response I received:

Dear (GP),

Thank you for your e-mail; we look forward to your visit. Unfortunately, Segways are not approved ADA mobility devices and are, therefore, not allowed inside our building. We have worked extensively with the City of San Francisco on our ADA policies and procedures – we are a fully ADA accessible building. Unfortunately, due to safety concerns for our patrons, two-wheeled mobility devices are not allowed indoors. Our Guest Services staff will be happy to assist you with other mobility options for your visit.

Sincerely,

Nancy Losey
Director of Operations

California Academy of Sciences
415.379.5470 ph.
415.379.5716 fax
nlosey @ calacademy.org


--------------------------------------------------------------------

It is too bad the City of San Francisco isn't "minding the store" when it comes to approval of ADA policy for what is supposed to be a "state-of-the-art", super green, efficient, futuristic 500 million dollar science center build by a world renown architect!

Do you think the architect, Renzo Piano knows that his science center took a 20 year step backward in time when it comes to present day mobility accommodations? I wonder what he would think?

My advice it to take this up with the Mayor's office and to take legal action the next time you (or anyone) shows up and are refused access. Just take notes when they are in the process of refusing you your rights. Eventually, the legal bill will get their attention and they will wake up and get with the program.

This is real embarrassment for the City of San Francisco and for futurists the world over that this amazing new Segway accessible science center is off limits to the mobility solution both present and future!

GP

[Bob.Kerns]

Thank you for sharing your communication.

This is the part that really gets my goat:

Segways are not approved ADA mobility devices

It's wonderful that you got that in writing. Their wheelchairs that they are providing to people are not approved ADA mobility devices either, nor was the power wheelchair they admitted.

Because there is no such thing. Explicitly.

I just found a new DRAFT report today that looks very helpful and well put together. Jerry Kerr has done a wonderful job of putting this together, and I hope to get them to read it. I would hate to waste my time and the financial resources of a fine institution on legal bills.

The other approach their response brings to mind is to attach a small third wheel. First choice -- right in the middle, inline between the other two. If that doesn't make them happy, spring-loaded on the front. Add a seat if needed...

It's going to be a few more days before I can get my response put together for them. I have Jury Duty tomorrow, and I face the challenge of getting in on my Segway.

On the one hand, I don't expect they'll have any outrageous legal theories. On the other hand, due to some historical events, they take security very, very seriously at Marin courts, and it'll be understandable if it takes some figuring out what to do.

And it's not just the Segway -- I have a significant amount of metal in my body -- skull and femur.

[IcanGlide]

Thank you for your e-mail; we look forward to your visit. Unfortunately, Segways are not approved ADA mobility devices and are, therefore, not allowed inside our building. We have worked extensively with the City of San Francisco on our ADA policies and procedures – we are a fully ADA accessible building. Unfortunately, due to safety concerns for our patrons, two-wheeled mobility devices are not allowed indoors. Our Guest Services staff will be happy to assist you with other mobility options for your visit.

Now if it is true that they "worked extensively with the city of San Francisco," how, praytell, is it that SF allows the use of Segways on their sidewalks and streets while banning their use by the able bodied? Someone has a hold of somebody's leg.

Follow this:
http://www.draft.org/draft3/Portals/...0Francisco.pdf

Frank

[Tarkus]

As we all know there are no ADA approved devices. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made that clear when implementing ADA:

One of the dangers of definitions that they may be imprecise with ever-growing changes in technology, in 1991 Attorney General Richard Thornburgh in publishing the first regulations in implementing the ADA consistently said that "there would no exhaustive list of devices and services protected under the ADA because any attempt to do so would omit the new devices that would become available with emerging technology".

FDA approved yes, ADA approved no.

Nowhere in the ADA does it state that a device must be FDA approved. The argument here is fundamentally wrong. In fact in the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 congress defined Assistive Technology as “any device item piece of equipment, or products system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individual with disabilities.”

and the plot thickens........

That "approved device" line is standard BS for what they already know is a violation of many laws.

The ADA was just the beginning, not the end.

I'm happy to see you have Jerry's "White Paper" on the Segway and People with Difficulty Walking. There is alot of important info on the DRAFT site and it's worth making a visit every now and again.

If you are new to using the Segway as a mobility aid this thread gives a quick overview:
http://www.draft.cc/draft3/DRAFTCHAT...c/Default.aspx



Be Big,
Alan

PS-Forget the extra wheels, they have been tried by many and failed.

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by Tarkus

PS-Forget the extra wheels, they have been tried by many and failed.

The extra wheel idea was intended as a rhetorical device / prop. I'm certain it would NOT work, but it would possibly, in some purely hypothetical circumstances, force them to come up with a reason you can work with, and illustrate that the stated reasons are not the actual reasons.

Sort of along the lines "but it HAS three wheels. Can we get serious?" The ADA requirements for exclusion on safety grounds are pretty stringent:

For other activities, identification of the "essential eligibility requirements" may be more complex. Where questions of safety are involved, the principles established in {36.208 of the Department's regulation implementing title III of the ADA, to be codified at 28 CFR Part 36, will be applicable. That section implements section 302(b)(3) of the Act, which provides that a public accommodation is not required to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of the public accommodation, if that 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 services. In School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized that there is a need to balance the interests of people with disabilities against legitimate concerns for public safety. Although persons with disabilities are generally entitled to the protection of this part, a person who poses a significant risk to others will not be "qualified," if reasonable modifications to the public entity's policies, practices, or procedures will not eliminate that risk.

The determination that a person poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability. It must be based on an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical evidence or on the best available objective evidence, to determine: 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 will mitigate the risk. This is the test established by the Supreme Court in Arline. Such an inquiry is essential if the law is to achieve its goal of protecting disabled individuals from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear, while giving appropriate weight to legitimate concerns, such as the need to avoid exposing others to significant health and safety risks. Making this assessment will not usually require the services of a physician. Sources for medical knowledge include guidance from public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Institutes of Health, including the National Institute of Mental Health.

In other words, stating that it is dangerous because it has two wheels does not meet legal muster. Changing the number of wheels does not change the risk. (Actually, I can see a third wheel forward mitigating a hypothetical risk of excessive forward acceleration, but...)

[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by QuadSquad

Forget the ADA, in California you also have the protection of the UNRUH Civil Rights Act which will allow you to pursue this in Small Claims court and pick up $4000-$6000 in damages for violating your civil rights.

That's the best advice we can lend at the moment

JK

I just put the pieces together and figured out who was responding here. Thanks for your response (I'm still reading up on UNRUH).

And especially, thanks for all you've done pioneering and clearing the road. You have done incalculable good, both for current users, and quite possibly for generations to come.