ADA now covers the use of Segways

[QuadSquad]

Originally Posted by Lily Kerns

Sorry about that. I guess my conflicts have been entirely with title II and title III. Not all that surprising since I've been retired for 17 years... <G>

If reasonable accommodation is not germane then I'd sure like to know how the Interior Department can find that a permit system or requiring the use of an alternate device instead of a Segway is "a satisfactory solution" under title II to allowing access for the disabled who use Segways.

I don't think they'll maintain that stance in 6 months or perhaps even sooner.

[Lily Kerns]

Originally Posted by QuadSquad

I don't think they'll maintain that stance in 6 months or perhaps even sooner.

I'm not a lawyer.... <G> so what happens for those who were "victims" of the Interior Department's stisfactory solution rulings? Another expensive lawsuit?
At least some of those rulings certainly ignored any "equal, non discriminatory" concepts...

[bgrh@mac.com]

Very good point. Is there an available database of scooter related accidents? i.e. taking people out at the knees, etc? Useful to have...

Originally Posted by KSagal

But 'proving' it to be a safety hazard is very different than saying you believe it to be a safety hazard.

Proof would be statistics, or a legally recognizable and fair comparison of dangers, like a government may run, or even an organization like the AAA.

All the studies that I have heard of, like from the US government, and other ones, show that the segway is far safer than many conveyances, and many that are already well accepted.

It would be hard to prove that segways are more dangerous than bikes, where bikes are accepted as an example.

It would be likewise hard to prove that segways are more dangerous than many mobility scooters that are accepted in many places.

You could claim that segways are more dangerous, but not likely prove it.

[bgrh@mac.com]

Very interesting. One thing, the while paper I did awhile ago regarding the relative merits of the stand up scooter vs. the segway brings out safety features that are in the segways favor.

Instinctive action triggers breaking, not the squeezing of a break lever.

Segway impact at chest level vs. knee level strike with scooter.

Segway reacts to forward impact by rocking back, triggering deceleration. Scooter doesn't notice impact.

etc...

[bgrh@mac.com]

Lily:

I think the key here is "legitimate safety requirements" - you can't just claim safety, it has to be "legitimate", which is likely to be at the heart of the next challenge to Disney's access policies.

Brian

unless the public entity can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements (emphasis added) that the public entity has adopted pursuant to § 35.130(h).

The operative word here would seem to be safety as the only reason for denying its use and the Fact sheet makes it clear that the same access is intended.

[Lily Kerns]

Originally Posted by bgrh@mac.com

Lily:

I think the key here is "legitimate safety requirements" - you can't just claim safety, it has to be "legitimate", which is likely to be at the heart of the next challenge to Disney's access policies.

Brian

unless the public entity can demonstrate that the class of other power-driven mobility devices cannot be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements (emphasis added) that the public entity has adopted pursuant to § 35.130(h).

The operative word here would seem to be safety as the only reason for denying its use and the Fact sheet makes it clear that the same access is intended.

Isn't the burden of proof to be on the denier not the user? I'm understanding you to mean that they will have to prove a legitimate "lack of safety" i.e. that they are dangerous.... as well as that their requirements are legitimate. Is this an either/or or a both/and...?

Words do get us into trouble, don't they? I say "dog"--I'm thinking Chihuahua--and you are thinking Great Dane...

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by bgrh@mac.com

Very interesting. One thing, the while paper I did awhile ago regarding the relative merits of the stand up scooter vs. the segway brings out safety features that are in the segways favor.

Instinctive action triggers breaking, not the squeezing of a break lever.

Segway impact at chest level vs. knee level strike with scooter.

Segway reacts to forward impact by rocking back, triggering deceleration. Scooter doesn't notice impact.

etc...

A safety white page? Is it published? I would be curious to read such a thing.

[fredkap]

Go on the DRAFT website under Education & Advocacy, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Docoments & Links". There are several notable papers there, one by Jere Fabick, one by Brian Hughes and one by Jerry Kerr - all good papers each with its own emphasis. We will need to have a link to the new ADA rules which should be shown on page 1 of the web site. Brian's discusses safety, Jere's discusses myths and Jerry's discusses the whole gamut of reasons that the Segway should be an approved device under the ADA.

[Lily Kerns]

Originally Posted by fredkap

Go on the DRAFT website under Education & Advocacy, scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Docoments & Links". There are several notable papers there, one by Jere Fabick, one by Brian Hughes and one by Jerry Kerr - all good papers each with its own emphasis. We will need to have a link to the new ADA rules which should be shown on page 1 of the web site. Brian's discusses safety, Jere's discusses myths and Jerry's discusses the whole gamut of reasons that the Segway should be an approved device under the ADA.

And while they are working on that, please make the link to this page a bit more conspicuous and easier to find

[bgrh@mac.com]

Originally Posted by Lily Kerns

Isn't the burden of proof to be on the denier not the user? I'm understanding you to mean that they will have to prove a legitimate "lack of safety" i.e. that they are dangerous.... as well as that their requirements are legitimate. Is this an either/or or a both/and...?

There is some excellent language that sets a high standard for denial in the revised ADA language. For example, a commercial establishment could deny access if they can show a "direct threat", which is defined as follows:

Direct threat means 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, as provided in § 36.208.

They can't just arm wave "direct threat" and deny access.

Furthermore, the rules spell this out in the language below.

Sec.36.208 Direct threat.

(a) This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.

(b) In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: 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 or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.

Folks - I suggest we start gathering "the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: 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 or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk." You've been out there - how many miles have you got on your segways? How many "incidents" have you had? Data will be very helpful! This is one area where Segs4Vets could be invaluable - 500 plus Segway riders - a potentially rich source of data on safety and benefits, etc.