Here is part of the problem.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Sven

... let's not make disability, or more specifically mobility impairment, a fuzzy concept when it isn't. I can't walk for more than a few yards before pain forces me to stop, nothing fuzzy about that.

Not fuzzy? How many is a few yards? What's the threshold?

Originally Posted by Sven

... My orthopedic doc says I'm medically impaired in that regard, again nothing unambiquous.

So, please educate me. Is "mobility impaired" (as determined by a doctor) the same as "entitled to a handicap hang-tag? Are there other qualifications?

In any case, using your words, I intended to say that lots of folks who are not officially "mobility impaired" could still have improved quality of life, in some situations, through the use of technology - like scooters, Segways, etc.

Why should those folks be denied an improvement in quality of life?

And, although I'm not "fat-assed", why should those who are in the "fat-assed" category be denied an improvement in quality of life?

Note: many "fat-assed" folks are that way because of medical conditions, and many are that way for other lifestyle issues. Who decides?

Note 2: many "fat-assed" folks are clearly "mobility impaired". Regardless of what is cause and what is effect, should they be denied an improvement in quality of life?

I support the rights of disabled (including mobility impaired). I support the disabled having priorities beyond those that I have. But I don't support taking things away from me.

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

Not fuzzy? How many is a few yards? What's the threshold?

So, please educate me. Is "mobility impaired" (as determined by a doctor) the same as "entitled to a handicap hang-tag? Are there other qualifications?

I say yes. An individual should be certified to be mobility impaired by a medical professional and, hence, is able to receive the appropriate state designation. This, then, eliminates any "fuzziness".

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

In any case, using your words, I intended to say that lots of folks who are not officially "mobility impaired" could still have improved quality of life, in some situations, through the use of technology - like scooters, Segways, etc.

Why should those folks be denied an improvement in quality of life?

They shouldn't be. But they also shouldn't be allowed to use the associated devices in order to gain "special" privileges reserved for those who are "officially mobility impaired".

Originally Posted by dale@thecoys.net

I support the rights of disabled (including mobility impaired). I support the disabled having priorities beyond those that I have. But I don't support taking things away from me.

And that is a big part of the problem. Some think it is an entitlement or right to ride a Segway but it isn't, it is a privilege, much as it is a privilege to drive. Yet that privilege doesn't allow one to set the rules or choose what rules to follow.

Steven

[KSagal]

Wow. The Segway community, thru this forum is going to solve the age-old problem of how to appropriately legislate morality.

First, a couple quick stories. I have had major reconstruction of my knees, thanks to damage while in the US Army. Now, 25+ years later, the original problems and accelerated arthritis is an additional factor... I am legally a disabled veteran, by medical and legal standards.

I also have taught skydiving for more than a decade during that 25 years. I have hiked a good portion of the Appalacian Trail, over several mountains, and raced many bike races, and was one of the first in Connecticut to enjoy the infant sport of mountain biking... I have also fallen down with no notice and have dislocated my knee several times, and had more than a couple surgeries on them as well.

Having been severly damaged when I was 20, should I have suspended all my future physical activities?

SInce I have days when I can hardy walk, and use a cane, and have a parking plackard from the state of Massachusetts, but on most days can ambulate just fine, should I give up that plackard?

Because I have a high threshold for pain, and more good days than bad, should I not have the ability to use some services that are available to me because of my medical infermaties?

I say no! I do not usually ever park in handicapped spots, because as bad as I get, if I can drive there, I know others are in worse shape. I do not play the handicapped card when I can, but I am part timed handicapped, by function. (THe cat scans and MRIs usually show the same damage, but my body does not know that, and I often have good days when I should not, and bad days when no one can figure out why)

I have a moral obligation to use services that I may need, and to not use them when I do not need to. I don't think that capital hill, nor Beacon hill here in Massachusetts can legislate that appropriately. I need to be a stand up guy (Pardon the pun) and not be a burden to society, but that cannot be codified, in my opinion.

If some legislation is forwarded, wouldn't it put that person at the turnstile in the subway stop into the position to diagnose who gets to have mobility assistance, and who does not? Hasn't anyone ever noticed the high occurance of some Pol's brother in law with choice contracts and connections?

Regulating people's behaviour is not something that can easily be codified into law. Encouraging people not to take that which is not intended for them will not affect those who do not want to play by the rules, laws or not.

Society, showing itself to respect those who do the right thing, and reject those who do the wrong thing, will be the only way that this trend will reverse. That is far more the job of the family and the spiritual leaders, than the corrupt legislators...

[Tarkus]

Dale,

By "Problem" I meant as Steven said that many of the arguments for the use of Segways are based on "how can we determine who really needs it". I also believe it will make it hard for those in chairs for a variety of reasons.

"Disability" I never mentioned it but I agree with you, we are talking a wide range. It could be a person with a heart condition who may look fine to a guy that needs knee replacements.

I don't define whats "legally" disabled. I liberal with it. It could be very temporary or very permanent. I've gone from chair to walker to cane in a short time. I only use my Segway now for anything more then about a 1/2 mile, and that was a "milestone " for me at therapy. So I don't try to put definition to it, I'm trying to get off the list.

By "disturbing" Meant that in both articles there were young healthy people willing to say they just didn't feel like walking. When I was younger I wouldn't have even thought of it, that's all.

Let anyone rent them, I don't have a problem with that but over time it's my opinion that this will just cloud who and what a mobility device is for.

Steven,
Thats what I was getting at, thanks.

JohnM,
Your right ! If the Ht was much more universally accepted this would not even be a topic of conversation.

I just thought it was an interesting topic, I didn't think it would create this kind of moral thing, knda wild indeed.

I'll be out of net range far a few more days so I'm sorry it took so long to respond.

Be Big,
Alan

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Tarkus

By "Problem" I meant as Steven said that many of the arguments for the use of Segways are based on "how can we determine who really needs it".

The answer, in my opinion, is "there is no way" (meaning no practical way)

Just as there is no way to determine who needs a cane, or a walker, or a wheelchair, or ....

There are few places that ban entry of somebody using a cane, walker, or wheelchair - and even fewer places that would question whether I need it.

Originally Posted by Tarkus

Let anyone rent them, I don't have a problem with that but over time it's my opinion that this will just cloud who and what a mobility device is for.

Not to be simplistic, mobility devices are for mobility.

A "cane" may well be prescribed by a physician, but anybody can use a "walking stick". A wheelchair may be prescribed by a physician, but as a practical matter anybody can buy and use one.

An EPAMD is a mobility device. Fundamentally, my wife and I use ours for the same purpose as do the Vets.

Now, I recognize that the above arguments do make things harder - especially for relatively new technology. But in my opinion, they are the real world.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Now, the above probably sounds negative (although I don't think so). Let me add a couple of "positive spin" comments.

======================

First - new technology items that primarily (or exclusively) serve the disabled (mobility-impaired or otherwise) have a hard time in the marketplace. There just isn't enough manufacturing volume to achieve a reasonable price.

Witness the iBot. Essentially a "prescription only" device. Very sophisticated, very helpful to the wheelchair-bound, and not particularly useful (of fun) for anybody else.

How many years has it taken for "electric wheelchairs" to achieve general acceptance, and then enough different manufacturers (and TV ads) to have a reasonable price? Of course, that now means that they can be available for rental at various vacation destinations.

My point: It is good when a device that aids the impaired, is able to attract users who are not impaired.

==================

Secondly - and this applies generally, but I'll say it in terms of Segways:

There are many reasons for supporting the "unrestricted" use of Segways by those who are mobility-impaired, everywhere. Yeah, we start with places that can be reasoned-with, and proceed to malls, amusement parks, and to lawsuits, etc.

Of course, primary is the rights of those who can benefit.

However, there's a big advantage to having visible demonstrations that Segways can be used without "hazard" -- "even by the disabled".

And public familiarity with just seeing the things.

And pretty soon, the "used by the impaired" gets to be a non-issue, and we're all allowed to use them.

Guess what: Success

Result: "People who don't need them" can use them, and can rent them.

[Sven]

Dale@thecoys.net has made a counterpoint to my post regarding disability. I conceed that he is right as indeed it is a fuzzy concept. He also makes the case that anyone can use any mobility aid they wish, which also is correct. But we need to factor in social acceptance. If an able-bodied person chooses to propel him/her self in a wheel chair (or have someone push them around) I would think most others would treat them the same way as they would treat a financially-able person who cops a free meal at the local Mission- with scorn. In the real world, wheel chairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, etc. are viewed as aids for people who actually need them, regardless of the legality of their use. My point is if individuals who are not impaired according to medical standards behave as if they were, they shouldn't be surprise by a negative public reaction (or by that of their own conscience). Such behavior is what the original focus of this thread labeled "disturbing".

[dale@thecoys.net]

Sure. Social acceptance, and perception.

Regarding social acceptance, please also see this reference from the first post:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10655557/site/newsweek/

Note that article is from 2005.

Originally Posted by Sven

... Such behavior is what the original focus of this thread labeled "disturbing".

Actually, the original post said
" Is it just me or does anyone else find this disturbing, or another roadblock as to who can use what where?"

I don't perceive it as a roadblock. As you said (emphasis added):

"If an able-bodied person chooses to propel him/her self in a wheel chair (or have someone push them around) I would think most others would treat them the same way as they would treat a financially-able person who cops a free meal at the local Mission- with scorn."

So, you emphasize that this is a person who is blamed. Not the device. Why would the recognized/perceived fault of a person, hinder the acceptance or legitimacy of the device being used?

But...

Originally Posted by Sven

...In the real world, wheel chairs, scooters, crutches, walkers, etc. are viewed as aids for people who actually need them, regardless of the legality of their use.

Agreed. But let me put that another way:

In the real world, if someone is using a wheel chair, scooter, crutches, walker, etc., people usually assume that the person needs the devices.

Do we normally ask someone who appears fully able, if they really need that scooter? [heart attack, or delivering it to a disabled person, or ...]?

Forum rules prohibit me from saying what I call someone who makes an assumption based on appearance.

So, how would you know that someone is "a financially-able person who cops a free meal at the local Mission" (or those other things)?

I presume you wouldn't make an assumption. And probably wouldn't be so impolite as to ask.

Footnote: I've actually copped meals at Salvation Army and so forth - and made substantial donations as I left.

Originally Posted by Sven

... My point is if individuals who are not impaired according to medical standards behave as if they were, they shouldn't be surprise by a negative public reaction (or by that of their own conscience).

OK, but:

1. If my wife and I are using our Segways, what would you assume about our medical condition, impairments, etc.? After all, this forum relates to Segways.

2. The article about scooters in Vegas, indicated that people were not pretending to be impaired. If someone presumes that someone riding a scooter is impaired -- where's the problem? If someone presumes that a rental-scooter-user who looks able is not impaired, where's the problem? [In other words, should we restrict scooter use to people who look impaired?]

3. If an obese person is using a scooter, does this interfere with the acceptance of scooters? Does it make a difference why the person is obese? Does it make a difference if the scooter is prescribed by a physician?

...Just some things to think about...

[Desert_Seg]

Dale,

Unfortunately while your post is a good thought piece the reality is about liability and risk mitigation (some would say it boils down to money but I'm not going there).

Under the ADA, if a store is "forced" to allow a mobility impaired individual on-board a Segway into their store then they are absolved of (virtually) all liability and it (the liability) rests on the shoulders of the glider.

However, if the user is NOT mobility impaired the liability can rest on BOTH parties, thereby greatly increasing the financial risk that the store owner faces.

Therefore, the stores are always going to err on the side of caution and ban all use as it is safer, and less costly, this way.

That's why I keep stressing that we will only see mass acceptance of mobility Segways when a court decision forces the issue (and makes the store owners allow gliders). Unfortunately, abusers of the system, gliders who force the issue just because they are gliding, not because they need the Segway, can hurt the cause.

Steven

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Dale,

Unfortunately while your post is a good thought piece the reality is about liability and risk mitigation (some would say it boils down to money but I'm not going there).

Under the ADA, if a store is "forced" to allow a mobility impaired individual on-board a Segway into their store then they are absolved of (virtually) all liability and it (the liability) rests on the shoulders of the glider.

However, if the user is NOT mobility impaired the liability can rest on BOTH parties, thereby greatly increasing the financial risk that the store owner faces.

Therefore, the stores are always going to err on the side of caution and ban all use as it is safer, and less costly, this way.

That's why I keep stressing that we will only see mass acceptance of mobility Segways when a court decision forces the issue (and makes the store owners allow gliders). Unfortunately, abusers of the system, gliders who force the issue just because they are gliding, not because they need the Segway, can hurt the cause.

Steven

I do understand the liability issues, and fully understand that the stores, malls, etc. will follow the "direction" of their lawyers to avoid all liability.

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.

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

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".