Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: DOJ's proposed rules cloud future.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Tarkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida/Mantoloking NJ
    Posts
    294

    DOJ's proposed rules cloud future.

    DOJ’s proposed rules cloud future of America’s Disabled and Seniors
    By Jerry Kerr


    President George W. Bush talks with wounded veterans Sgt. Kortney Clemons, USA (Ret) left, of Little Rock, Miss., and Sgt. Ryan Groves, USMC (Ret) of Kent, Ohio, who both use a Segway as a mobility device, on a visit to the Oval office Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007, attending a meeting of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors.
    Both veterans lost legs serving in Iraq and are prohibited by Disney Exec's from visiting their parks unless they trade their Segways for a wheelchair.
    White House photo by Eric Draper


    The Department of Justice threatens to deal a severe setback to America's disabled community and senior citizens with proposed regulations that discriminate against technology devices which improve the quality of their lives.

    Some federal rule makers are so eager to compromise that they caved to pressure from other federal agencies, including the United States Forest Service, and to corporate interests, such as the Walt Disney Company, with proposed accessibility standards that treat electronic personal assistance mobility devices, such as the battery powered Segway, differently from wheelchairs.

    The distinction is a false one. The DOJ catchall category for ....other'' mobility devices lumps Segways with riding lawn mowers and golf carts. This ignores the real life experiences of thousands of disabled Americans, military veterans and seniors who have discovered and embraced this new technology and adapted it to their needs. While the Segway was originally designed to be a commuter tool, in practice it has become one of the most effective assistive devices for many Americans with difficulty walking.

    In the past two years, http://www.Segs4Vets.org has presented 150 Segways to severely injured veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the recipients lost one or both legs in IED blasts. They use the Segway to excel in their physical therapy, continue military service, attend college, go to work and participate more fully in activities with family members, particularly young children.



    (Click photo to read report)

    Disability Rights Advocates for Technology (DRAFT), a 501(c)(3) rated as one of America's best charities, created the program for veterans because DRAFT members wanted these wounded warriors to enjoy the benefits of the Segway as many of us have.
    The Segway makes an enormous difference in the day to day lives of those who have multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, COPD, Arthritis, amputations and those with limited vision who cannot drive an automobile.

    The Veterans Health Administration was so impressed by the experience of our Segs4Vets recipients that it will launch a pilot program this summer using Segways for other veterans with mobility limitations related to various orthopedic, neurologic and cardiopulmonary impairments.

    This isn't the first time that the US Forest Service and Disney attempted to thwart the use of new technologies to benefit the disabled. The Forest Service refused access to power wheelchairs to some areas under their control until the US Congress scolded them in 1990 when passing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), reminding them that the 1973 Rehabilitation Act compelled them to do so, and Disney had to be forced in 1996 by the US DOJ to adopt policies utilizing new technologies which would benefit the deaf and hard of hearing.

    The rules proposed last week may allow a company like Disney to impose additional regulations on a device like a Segway, a universally designed assistive mobility device, beyond those on medical devices such as a power wheelchair or scooter, simply because the Segway was designed utilizing the principles of Universal Design even though the Segway has a smaller footprint, weighs less, and has a better demonstrated safety record interacting with others than power wheelchairs and scooters.

    The Walt Disney Co. is not against all Segways. It offers tours on Segways in their parks for visitors willing to pay a fee yet the company has long fought the use of the Segway by people with disabilities in their parks. The reason? The company is allegedly concerned patrons visiting their parks will attach some stigma to the Segway's use by people with disabilities and be less inclined to pay for a Segway experience and tour.

    The United States Forest Service has been vehemently opposed to the use of Segways in areas under their control by people with disabilities and those who have difficulty walking because of fears that it will encourage visits by too many Segway riding aging baby boomers.

    The proposed rules are at odds with the growing belief that Universal Design is the only, sustainable approach to improve the quality of life and independence for America's disabled and aging baby boomers. The rules also fundamentally upend a 17-year-old requirement that a device must pose an actual danger, not an imagined one, in order to be restricted.

    Apparently DOJ has concluded that people with disabilities cannot behave themselves when interacting with others, citing concerns about the ability of the Segway to reach a top speed of 12.5 mph, even though its speed is infinitely variable between 0-12 mph, is the same as that of many power wheelchairs and scooters and about the same rate as 94-year-old James Hammond ran in the 100 meter run at the 2005 National Senior Games.

    The Department of Justice will hold a public hearing beginning at 9:00 a.m. on July 15, 2008 in Washington D.C. to provide those who are interested an opportunity to express their views directly to Department officials.

    You will also have until August 18, 2008 to submit written comments to the Department of Justice concerning the proposed rules. There are two NPRM's, one covering State and Local Government Services, the other covering places of public accommodation in commercial facilities. Comments can be submitted electronically by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov or mailed to ADA NPRM, P.O. Box 2846, Fairfax, VA 22031-0846.

    In addition to submitting comments to the Department of Justice, since this is an election year it might be a great opportunity for all Americans to find out where those who seek to represent you in Washington stand on these issues.

    The results of this process will have a dramatic impact on all of Americans for decades to come and if allowed to take effect in their present form they will send thousands of Americans back to their wheelchairs as their only dependable source of mobility and extinguish the hope that universally designed technology solutions offer our parents, our children and us.


    ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******
    Email recived from Major Daniel Gade, US Army,Sunday June 22,2008


    As many of you know, I was seriously wounded in Iraq in 2005, and lost my right leg. I am not alone: the war has produced more than 800 amputees of various degrees of severity, and many more with burns, joint fusions, and other issues resulting in decreased mobility. For many of us, the solution to our mobility issues the thing that enables us to get around our college campuses, places of work and worship, golf courses, and other locations, is the Segway. A Segway is to a person with a mobility problem as a guide dog is to a person who is blind.

    Originally designed as a "hip and cool" device for people to get around their communities, the Segway has become, in some respects, a 'standing wheelchair' for many of us for whom a wheelchair is not required. It offers unlimited indoor and outdoor mobility, quiet operation, safety, and increased longer-distance mobility. In addition, it offers greater health benefits because of the reduction in the amount of time we spend sitting on a daily basis, and greater dignity because of the ability to carry on conversations at eye height with a standing person instead of at navel height. This is not to say that a wheelchair is not dignified in any way- those who rely on wheelchairs for their mobility are undoubtedly grateful for the mobility they offer- but simply to point out that standing is more similar to walking than sitting is.

    However, for a variety of reasons, certain venues which allow wheelchairs (Federal law requires it) choose not to allow Segways. Part of this is the perception that Segways are dangerous- in fact, no person has ever been hurt by a person with a disability riding a Segway- and part of it is a fear of new technology. In any case, Disney Corporation and its affiliates, as well as numerous mall conglomerates, choose to allow their fear of the unknown or new to overrule their compassion and common sense, and force those with Segways to use rented, unfamiliar wheelchairs to negotiate their parks and venues. Interestingly, Disney World in Orlando offers Segway tours of its parks in the morning (for a sizable fee), and its executives use Segways to get around the park, demonstrating that it is not the device which Disney fears, but the use of the device by a person with a disability. In other words, Disney is choosing to discriminate on the basis of disability, in clear violation of the spirit of Federal Law and common decency.

    The problem with Disney is not theoretical: in December of 2006, I was staying at a Disney property and planning on going to the park the next day with my wife and friends, but was informed by my host (a Disney executive) that my Segway was not welcome. As you can imagine, this would have been crushing to my daughter, had she been along on that trip. I, and many others like me, have worked very, very hard to be able to stand and walk- to be told that I'm only welcome if I'm willing to sit is insulting to me. I suppose it's a matter of pride in some ways, but I am proud of my service and sacrifice, and have no intention of allowing Disney or anyone else to force me to use a wheelchair when my injuries don't require it. The Segway is a means of resuming my life as closely as possible to what it was before.

    But you can help:
    On Tuesday the 18th of June, the Department of Justice released a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" which seeks public comment on whether Segways should be accommodated in the same way as wheelchairs when they are operated by a person with a disability. You can help by simply contacting the Department of Justice and stating that disabled veterans and others with mobility issues should be accommodated in all circumstances, whether they use a Segway or a wheelchair.

    It would be best to express your views in your own words rather than quoting me, but only because "form letters" are counted by DOJ as single comments rather than separate ones.

    HOW TO HELP:
    1) You can do it on-line here (do the same thing on both links: they are for government/public facilities like courthouses and for private entities like stores, malls, and amusement parks, respectively:
    http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...0000648062a623

    and

    http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...0000648062a604

    2) You can mail in comments to ADA NPRM, P.O. Box 2846, Fairfax, VA 22031-0846. Reference "CRT Docket 105" in your first note and "CRT Docket 106" in your second note. Again, it's two different things, so write TWO NOTES, one with CRT 106 and one with CRT 105 as the subject.

    3) FORWARD THIS NOTE TO OTHERS. In 2004, when I requested stockings for my soldiers in Iraq, I received over 1500. I'd like this same level of commitment to those who returned on stretchers and are trying to get their lives back!

    Please feel free to contact me with any questions:


    Daniel Gade
    MAJ, US Army


    ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******


    DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES FOR TECHNOLOGY
    (A 501 (c) (3) Public Charity)
    Federal Tax ID 55-0877645
    Website: http://www.draft.org
    314-965-4938

    June 30, 2008
    Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division
    US Department of Justice
    1425 New York Ave NW, Suite 4039
    Washington, DC 20005
    Re: CRT Docket No. 106 Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities.

    Disability Rights Advocates for Technology "DRAFT" represents people with disabilities who refuse to be defined by their disability and whose passionate enthusiasm for participating in life's activities is supported by Universal Design and new and emerging technologies.

    The rules as proposed in this NPRM will have a dramatic and lasting impact on individuals with disabilities and our society as a whole for decades to come.

    We welcome the opportunity to provide comments to the United States Department of Justice at this time on newly proposed rules and questions regarding wheelchairs and other power driven mobility devices.

    We view The Department's attempt, to clarify and further protect the rights of individual disabilities who are using universally designed technology solutions to enhance their quality of life and extend their independent living, as having been handled clumsily and poorly drafted resulting in definitions which will further confuse public accommodations and commercial facilities and ill serve individuals with disabilities and the American public as a whole.

    We ask that The Department adopt the following which will provide a timeless standard and further clarity to regulations intended to implement the law and be in keeping with existing federal law and favored policy benefiting people with disabilities as well as our entire society
    .
    Sincerely,

    Jerry Kerr
    President
    Disability Rights Advocates for Technology
    500 Fox Ridge Road, Saint Louis, Missouri 63131


    Definitions:
    Indoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    Shall mean any assistive mobility device designed to be usable indoors which meets the scoping requirements of the ADAAG which may be modified from time to time, (i.e.: Currently a footprint not larger than 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length and weigh not more than 600 pounds when occupied) and are not propelled by fossil fuel powered engines.
    This definition would be inclusive of manual and power driven wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, EPAMD's, or any other item, piece of equipment which is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of the individual with a mobility related disability.

    Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    Shall mean any assistive mobility device designed with a primary purpose of outdoor use whether or not meeting the scoping requirements of the ADAAG and whether manually propelled or powered by engines powered by batteries, fossil, or other fuels. This definition would be inclusive of golf carts, bicycles, tricycles, or any other mobility aid designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes.

    § 35.137 Mobility devices

    a) Use of indoor assistive mobility devices:
    A public entity shall permit individuals with mobility impairments to use indoor assistive mobility devices in any areas open to pedestrian use.

    b) Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures to permit the use of Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices by individuals with disabilities in the outdoor environment unless the public entity can demonstrate that the use of the device is not reasonable or that its use will result in a fundamental alteration of the public entities service, program, or activity.

    (c) Development of policies permitting the use of Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    A public entity shall establish policies to permit the use of outdoor assistive mobility devices in the outdoor environment by individuals with disabilities when it is reasonable to allow an individual with a disability to purchase or participate in a service, program, or activity.
    Whether a modification is reasonable to allow the use of an outdoor assistive mobility device by an individual with a disability shall be determined based on;
    • The dimensions, weight, and operating characteristics of the device.
    • The actual risk of potential harm to others by the operation of the Outdoor Assistive Mobility Device.
    • The actual risk of harm to the environment or natural or cultural resources or conflict with federal land management laws and regulations in relation to other permitted means of mobility such as horseback

    (d) Obligation to stow Outdoor Assistive Mobility Device
    A public entity shall be under no obligation to stow an Outdoor Assistive Mobility Device when not in use.

    (e) Inquiry into the use of Assistive Mobility Devices.
    A public entity may ask a person using an Indoor Assistive Mobility Device, or an Outdoor Assistive Mobility Device if the mobility device is needed due to the person's disability. A public entity shall not ask a person using a mobility device questions about the nature or extent of the person's disability.

    (f) Behavior
    A public accommodation may prohibit an individual's use of an assistive mobility device if the individual is operating the device in a manner which poses a direct threat to the safety of others that cannot be eliminated by modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures or if the individual's behavior in the operation of the device causes a fundamental alteration of the nature of the service that the public accommodation provides.
    Responses to questions posed by DOJ related to Assistive Mobility Devices:

    Question 8 (page 25)
    "Please comment on the proposed definition of other power-driven mobility devices. Is the definition overly inclusive of power-driven mobility devices that may be used by individuals with disabilities? The Department's proposed regulatory text on accommodating wheelchairs and other power-driven mobility devices is discussed in § 35.137 of the section-by-section analysis."

    The Department's proposed categorization and definitions of assistive mobility devices are
    fundamentally flawed and should focus solely on the design and operating characteristics of an
    assistive mobility device i.e. whether it's designed to be usable indoors or its primary design purpose
    is for outdoor use, and if the device meets the size and weight scoping requirements of the ADAAG.
    Rather than adopting a definition which is not supported by federal law The Department should
    adopt a category of “Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices” defined as “any assistive device designed
    with a primary purpose of outdoor use whether or not meeting the scoping requirements of the
    ADAAG and whether manually propelled or powered by engines operate on batteries, fossil, or other
    fuels.
    This definition would be inclusive of golf cars, bicycles, tricycles, or any other mobility aid designed
    to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes.”

    Question 12 (page 32)
    "As explained above, the definition of "wheelchair" is intended to be tailored so that it includes many styles of traditional wheeled mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs and mobility scooters). Does the definition appear to exclude some types of wheelchairs, mobility scooters, or other traditional wheeled mobility devices? Please cite specific examples if possible."

    The Department should adopt definitions in keeping with existing federal law and favored policy benefiting people with disabilities and our society as a whole. The 1973 Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1998, defines an assistive technology device as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, which is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities".
    Rather than attempting to modify the definition of a wheelchair to include things that are not wheelchairs The Department should adopt a category of Indoor Assistive Mobility Device, defined as:
    Any assistive mobility device designed to be usable indoors which meet the scoping requirements of the ADAAG which may be modified from time to time, (i.e.: Currently a footprint not larger than 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length and weigh not more than 600 pounds when occupied)and are not propelled by fossil fuel powered engines.
    This definition would be inclusive of manual and power driven wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, EPAMD's, or any other item, piece of equipment which is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of the individual with a mobility related disability."
    An attempt by The Department to define assistive devices beyond that which is provided for in The 1973 Rehabilitation Act As Amended in 1998 can only result in the narrowing of rights of individuals with disabilities and inhibit the use of Universal Design and new technologies in improving the quality of life of people with disabilities, extending their independent life and providing economic benefits to our society as a whole.
    In 1991 when publishing the first regulations implementing the ADA US Attorney General Richard Thornburgh consistently made reference to the fact that there would be no exhaustive list of devices and services because any attempt to do so would eliminate the new devices that will become available with new and emerging technology.
    After reviewing the current NPRM and the sections applicable to EPAMD's the wisdom of Attorney General Thornburgh has never been more apparent.

    Question 13 (page 32)
    "Should the Department expand its definition of wheelchair to include Segways®?"

    Segways should be classified identically to a wheelchair. The definition contained in federal law, The 1973 Rehabilitation Act as Amended in 1998, is inclusive of the Segway.

    By adopting the following category The Department will provide a timeless standard and further clarity to regulations intended to implement the law and focus attention on the behavior of individual users.

    Indoor Assistive Mobility Devices:

    Any assistive mobility device designed to be usable indoors which meet the scoping requirements of the ADAAG which may be modified from time to time, (i.e.: Currently a footprint not larger than 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length and weigh not more than 600 pounds when occupied)and are not propelled by fossil fuel powered engines.
    This definition would be inclusive of manual and power driven wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, EPAMD's, or any other item, piece of equipment which is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of the individual with a mobility related disability

    Question 14 (page 32)
    "Are there better ways to define different classes of mobility devices, such as the weight and size of the device that is used by the Department of Transportation in the definition of "common wheelchair"?

    We believe that the following method of defining assistive mobility devices fundamentally complies with federal law and favored policy benefiting individuals with disabilities and our society as a whole.

    Indoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    Any assistive mobility device designed to be usable indoors which meets the scoping requirements of the ADAAG which may be modified from time to time, (i.e.: Currently a footprint not larger than 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length and weigh not more than 600 pounds when occupied)and are not propelled by fossil fuel powered engines.
    This definition would be inclusive of manual and power driven wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, EPAMD's, or any other item, piece of equipment which is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of the individual with a mobility related disability.

    Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    Shall mean any assistive device designed with a primary purpose of outdoor use whether or not meeting the scoping requirements of the ADAAG and whether manually propelled or powered by engines operate on batteries, fossil, or other fuels and be inclusive of golf cars, bicycles, tricycles, or any other mobility aid designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes.

    Question 15 (page 32)
    "Should the Department maintain the non-exhaustive list of examples as the definitional approach to the term "manually powered mobility aids"? If so, please indicate whether there are any other non-powered or manually powered mobility devices that should be considered for specific inclusion in the definition, a description of those devices, and an explanation of the reasons they should be included."

    The Department should continue to follow the lead of former US Attorney General Richard Thornburgh who in 1991 consistently stated that there would be no exhaustive list of devices and services because any attempt to do so would eliminate the new devices that will become available with new and emerging technology.

    Question 16 (page 32)
    "Should the Department adopt a definition of the term "manually powered mobility aids"? If so, please provide suggested language and an explanation of the reasons such a definition would better serve the public. The proposed regulation regarding mobility devices, including wheelchairs, is discussed in the section-by-section analysis for § 35.137.

    By adopting our proposed categories for assistive mobility devices any need for further defining "manually powered mobility age" would be moot.

    Question 17 (page 37)
    "Are there types of personal mobility devices that must be accommodated under nearly all circumstances? Conversely, are there types of mobility devices that almost always will require an assessment to determine whether they should be accommodated? Please provide examples of devices and circumstances in your responses."

    Indoor Assistive Mobility Devices are examples of the types of personal mobility devices that must be accommodated under nearly all circumstances.

    Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices should be accommodated if they are of a size and weight that meet the scoping requirements of the ADAAG, their operation would not pose an actual risk of potential harm to others.

    Question 18 (page 38)
    "Should motorized devices that use fuel or internal-combustion engines (e.g., all-terrain vehicles) be considered personal mobility devices that are covered by the ADA? Are there specific circumstances in which accommodating these devices would result in a fundamental alteration?"

    Motorized devices that use internal combustion engines should be considered personal mobility devices covered by the ADA and their use should be permitted by the development of policies creating those conditions which would permit the use of Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices.

    A public entity shall establish policies to permit the use of outdoor assistive mobility devices in the outdoor environment by individuals with disabilities when it is reasonable to allow an individual with a disability to purchase or participate in a service, program, or activity. Whether a modification is reasonable to allow the use of an outdoor assistive mobility device by an individual with a disability shall be determined based on;
    • The dimensions, weight, and operating characteristics of the device.
    • The actual risk of harm to others by the operation of the Outdoor Assistive Mobility Device.
    • The actual risk of harm to the environment or natural or cultural resources or conflict with federal land management laws and regulations in relation to other permitted means of mobility such as horseback
    A public entity should be under no obligation to stow an Outdoor Assistive Mobility Device when not in use.

    Question 19 (page 38)
    "Should personal mobility devices used by individuals with disabilities be categorized by intended purpose or function, by indoor or outdoor use, or by some other factor? Why or why not?"

    Assistive mobility devices should be categorized by their design and operating characteristics which determine the areas appropriate for their use. Assistive mobility devices should be categorized in one of the two following categories:

    Indoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    Shall mean any assistive mobility device designed to be usable indoors which meets the scoping requirements of the ADAAG which may be modified from time to time, (i.e.: Currently a footprint not larger than 30 inches in width and 48 inches in length and weigh not more than 600 pounds when occupied) and are not propelled by fossil fuel powered engines.

    This definition would be inclusive of manual and power driven wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, crutches, canes, braces, EPAMD's, or any other item, piece of equipment which is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of the individual with a mobility related disability.

    Outdoor Assistive Mobility Devices:
    Shall mean any assistive device designed with a primary purpose of outdoor use whether or not meeting the scoping requirements of the ADAAG and whether manually propelled or powered by engines operate on batteries, fossil, or other fuels. This definition would be inclusive of golf cars, bicycles, tricycles, or any other mobility aid designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes.

    ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******

    Top 10 Reasons the Segway should be classified Identical to a Wheelchair

    1. The Segway is battery-operated and specifically designed to interact with people in both the indoor and outdoor environment.

    2. The footprint of the Segway is smaller than a wheelchair and consistent with the footprint of the average framed human being.

    3. The Segway is designed to operate at infinitely variable speeds consistent with human behavior.

    4. The top speed of the Segway 12.5 mph is consistent with other power wheelchairs and scooters. The Segway is slower than a human being can run as noted by the top speed of 74-year-old Bobby Whilden, 17.5 mph and 94-year-old James Hammond, 11.3 mph in100 meter run at the 2005 National Senior Games.(1)

    5. The Segway weighs less than power wheelchairs and most scooters (2).

    6. The tires of the Segway, made of silica, are non-marring, generate virtually no shear force and have less soil compression force than a human footprint making it less likely to cause damage to flooring or other walking surfaces than human foot traffic.

    7. The Segway is among the safest of all mobility devices interacting with others as evidenced by studies done by four independent agencies representing interests from around the world.(3)

    8. In the more than five years since its introduction, people with disabilities have not caused any substantive injuries to others while using the Segway.

    9. The Segway was designed utilizing the principles of Universal Design, principles which provide extraordinary benefits to our society as a whole including economic benefits, and integrate people with disabilities at the highest level possible. The ability to stand while using a Segway provides dramatic health benefits for its user and allows them to interact with others at eye level.

    10. Federal law defines an assistive technology device as "any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, which is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities".

    1 In the 100 meter run at the 2005 National Senior Games Whilden placed 1st in the 70‐74 age bracket and Hammond placed
    1st in the 90‐94 age bracket.
    2 A Segway PT i2 weighs 105 pounds in comparison to scooters which weigh in excess of 200 pounds and power wheelchairs
    some weighing in excess of 400 pounds.
    3 Studies performed by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, US Department of Transportation, Centre for Electric Vehicle
    Experimentation In Quebec, and the Institute for Mobility & Transport.


    Be Big,
    Alan
    L4/L5 CES

    www.DRAFT.cc
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1024602574

    Messages from Alan Maccini and are produced utilizing voice recognition software. As a result of this on occasion a misrecognition of a word will occur and while spelled correctly will result in an unintended word appearing. We apologize for any errors.

  2. #2
    I don't understand Walt Disney's position on this. Their reasoning is silly and cannot withstand critical scrutiny. These are veterans who are disabled and who use the Segway. So, why can't they use their Segways while Disney itself can operate Segways? Wise.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Tarkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida/Mantoloking NJ
    Posts
    294

    I don't get it either

    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young
    I don't understand Walt Disney's position on this. Their reasoning is silly and cannot withstand critical scrutiny. These are veterans who are disabled and who use the Segway. So, why can't they use their Segways while Disney itself can operate Segways? Wise.
    Seems so simple doesn't it.
    Strange world, who knows. At least the DOJ is having public comment on it. We will see.........

    Alan
    L4/L5 CES

    www.DRAFT.cc
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1024602574

    Messages from Alan Maccini and are produced utilizing voice recognition software. As a result of this on occasion a misrecognition of a word will occur and while spelled correctly will result in an unintended word appearing. We apologize for any errors.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarkus[B
    The Walt Disney Co. is not against all Segways. It offers tours on Segways in their parks for visitors willing to pay a fee yet the company has long fought the use of the Segway by people with disabilities in their parks. The reason? The company is allegedly concerned patrons visiting their parks will attach some stigma to the Segway's use by people with disabilities and be less inclined to pay for a Segway experience and tour.[/B]
    If this is true, I'd like to know who decided this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Tarkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida/Mantoloking NJ
    Posts
    294

    Sad but true....

    Quote Originally Posted by JAYCUE
    If this is true, I'd like to know who decided this.
    It is true and the people at Dinsey are the Board of Directors:
    http://corporate.disney.go.com/corpo...directors.html

    Living here Florida I have found the "What the Mouse wants he gets".

    Disney is well aware of the value of the Segway, they are one of Segway Incs. top customers. Why they insist on taking a position that is above existing law is beyond me. Of course they are used to having things their way.

    Thats why the DOJ's ruling on this and a host of other issues is so important.

    "Public Comment" on this issue is HUGE, Disney and others that feel they are above the law will have no other choice but to comply.

    Now in fairness to Disney they are not the only violators. On the shopping mall side there is Simon Properties, General Growth Management and others.

    The "Theme Park" side also includes Bush entertainment (Seaworld, Bush Gardens etc.) and many other parks that are 'Places of public Accomodations".

    They follow Disney's lead even if it flies in the face of the ADA, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as am mended etal.

    It has proven to be a fruitless effort to deal with these places individually. They have had the chance but always had an excuse.

    Now the public will weigh in and the DOJ will rule. We hope that the powers to be see the benefits of products such as the Segway, and whatever products of "Universal Design"comes next.

    With approx. 12,000 Americans reaching retirement age each day the need for new mobility devices will be of the essence.

    Thank you for your interest and what we all can do is leave comment with the DOJ. The websites are in the above documents.

    The most interesting is UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. They welcome people with disabilities and their Segways.

    They refuse to "cave " to the pressure from other industry giants.

    Be Big,
    Alan
    L4/L5 CES

    www.DRAFT.cc
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1024602574

    Messages from Alan Maccini and are produced utilizing voice recognition software. As a result of this on occasion a misrecognition of a word will occur and while spelled correctly will result in an unintended word appearing. We apologize for any errors.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Tarkus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida/Mantoloking NJ
    Posts
    294
    THE ADA IS NOT THE FINISH IT IS JUST THE BEGGINING

    Here are the transcripts of the Public hearings on these changes. I was there in DC to make my comments and so were the corporate interests. It's a long read but very insightful on how corporate America would like us to disappear.

    http://www.ada.gov/NPRM2008/public_h...transcript.htm


    Be Big,
    Alan
    L4/L5 CES

    www.DRAFT.cc
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1024602574

    Messages from Alan Maccini and are produced utilizing voice recognition software. As a result of this on occasion a misrecognition of a word will occur and while spelled correctly will result in an unintended word appearing. We apologize for any errors.

Similar Threads

  1. Medicare change could cut down on ability to get rehab
    By Max in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-23-2003, 11:23 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-13-2003, 04:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •