Small business owners guide to ADA

[Lily Kerns]

This is now available at

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbus...primer2010.htm

Its reference to Segways is pretty much is a quote of the relevant rules for OPMDs--and somewhat more readable. <G>

It does not answer all my questions, <G> but it does seem to make it clear that Segways and golf carts are not necessarily to be treated identically.

"Using these assessment factors, a business may decide that it can allow devices like Segways® in its facilities, but cannot allow the use of golf cars in the same facility. It is likely that many businesses will allow the use of Segways® generally, although some may decide to exclude them during their busiest hours or on particular shopping days when pedestrian traffic is particularly dense. Businesses are encouraged to develop written policies specifying when other power-driven mobility devices will be permitted on their premises and to communicate those policies to the public."

Question: Anyone have a specific reference to security style use of Segways in settings where the pedestrian traffic is greater than that likely to be found in almost any business, save perhaps when customers are likely to stand in line for hours and stampede when the doors are finally opened... Such a reference could be useful if businesses are being what we know to be unreasonable in this attempt to regulate their use..

I'm waiting eagerly to see how DRAFT's report will clarify the rules further...

[Tarkus]

Thanks for the post Lily.
DRAFT along with our legal team is working on a summery . We will post the moment we have it ready to go.

Be Big,
AMAC

[Rolacoy]

I read thru what you posted and it seems it gives businesses many ways to say no.

[Lily Kerns]

Originally Posted by Rolacoy

I read thru what you posted and it seems it gives businesses many ways to say no.

And you can bet some of them will find them...

My guess--at this point-- is that our best argument will be the section (h) which mandates that any regulations must be based on actual risks. If I understand correctly, this item was added because they apparently recognized this possibility. We, I suspect, will have to argue that that means actual risks for that site, not in general.

Also important will be the statement that the the rules they make canot be based on speculation about the behavior of disabled individuals.

"Such safety requirements must be based on actual risks, not on speculation or stereotypes about a particular class of devices or how they will be operated by individuals using them."

Hopefully this can deal with the perennial assertion that Segs go too fast. The mandate to allow pedestrian access for wheelchairs and mobility devices assumes that these persons are able to know what is a reasonable speed no matter how much their device can go beyond the "walking" speed of 3mph. To impose a walking speed limit for Segways, as I have been encountering, assumes that because your disability calls for a Seg, you are too impaired to have enough intelligence and common sense to know what is a reasonable speed for the circumstances, and that I will automatically be hot-dogging through their facility simply because my machine can go 12.5 mph. At least that is what I am going to argue. <G>

I have no problem with a requirement that they be operated at a reasonable speed. The problem here will be that--as my neighbors often remark--you are usually perceived as going faster than you actually are. It will behoove us to keep an eye on our actual speed! Also keep an eye on how many pedestrians you pass....

As for requiring a permit to enter their property, registering as you enter, etc., I guess our argument will have to be to ask how what safety risk that will deal with. Seems to me that is an administrative ploy to keep control, not a safety issue and probably based on that stereotype of Segways as dangerous--too big, too clumsy and too fast. I hadn't thought of it before, but the inclusion of "devices" as well as "individuals" at this point in the rules may prove to be significant.

The provision that they can stop you and ask to see your documentation, visual confirmation etc should do away with the requirement to prove in advance that you are disabled by submitting a doctor's prescription for a permit because that ignores the provision for other ways of proving your disability. At least that is what I am going to argue.

The list of standards on which these decisions must be made, seem to me to be pretty straightforward and reasonable and not a particular problem--from a Seg rider's point of view. How these will be applied--and upheld-- remains to be seen... Also so far unanswered, are questions about how they must "demonstrate" the basis for the rules they try to impose.

I am disappointed that this particular document says that businesses are "encouraged" not required to make their policies known:
"Businesses are encouraged to develop written policies specifying when other power-driven mobility devices will be permitted on their premises and to communicate those policies to the public." That too is an issue that I am sure I will have to address locally based on past experience.

And we shall see what we shall see!