Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just received this news alert from American Trails.

http://www.americantrails.org/enewsletter/accessible_Jan_2011.html

ALERT! On March 15, 2011, new Department of Justice rules will allow "power-driven mobility devices" to be used on trails by "individuals with mobility disabilities."

This is big news. The final draft of the new Ontario legislation (released July 2010) is before the Minister for approval right now, but doesn't go to this extent (yet).
 

·
namagomi
Joined
·
2,884 Posts
So, uh, not only do we have to dumb down the technical features for the XC crowd, but now things will have to be accessible by power-driven mobility devices? I am thinking grandpa on his schoooter. :skep:

When do i get to ride my bicycle!
 

·
sock puppet
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
electrik said:
So, uh, not only do we have to dumb down the technical features for the XC crowd
wow... are you one of those tough dudes that puts 20 pounds of body armour, leans his bike against the fence at Blue Mountain square and drink beer all day wondering if girls look at you?

No need to dumb anything down for XC crowd... Come to Buckwallow or Hilton Falls and let's ride some rock, that is if you can pedal on flat. Pushing up the hill is ok - there are no chairs at Buck... or Hilton Falls FYI.

what a dumb statement... :yawn:

electrik said:
When do i get to ride my bicycle!
how do i know? ask HIM. but first you have to drop the keyboard... seriously...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
osokolo said:
but first you have to drop the keyboard... seriously...
....kettle pot situation goin on in here...

Not to start a riot, but there appears to be a pattern on this forum, a select group of people post things, the osokolo feels the need to berate them for what they posted...often siting that they are keyboard jockeys...when to fight with keyboard jockeys, you yourself must be one...

just an observation...

To weigh in on the real topic of the post... seems like powered "mobility" device isnt a far throw from dirt bike to me, and we all know what happens when they get onto bike trails...
 

·
sock puppet
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
k1lluaA said:
....kettle pot situation goin on in here...

Not to start a riot, but there appears to be a pattern on this forum, a select group of people post things,
no kidding - a "select group" is definitely visible, albeit very minor. the only pattern that i see is that this "select group" talks shite about XC and "sausage suits" and "dumbing down trails for XC" etc, etc... and it always starts the same... always one way... you must be the "select one" as well?

as much as the "select group" and you are entitled to your opinion - why deny it to the others, including me?

the osokolo feels the need to berate them for what they posted...often siting that they are keyboard jockeys...when to fight with keyboard jockeys, you yourself must be one...
the select guy electrik asked a question. i offered my suggestion, based on my observation, which is again - an opinion.

just an observation...
really? i hope it is not a privlege of just a "select group" to have one...

To weigh in on the real topic of the post... seems like powered "mobility" device isnt a far throw from dirt bike to me, and we all know what happens when they get onto bike trails...
i wonder how many disabled people will get on a 4x4 or a dirt bike and go thrashing the trails... those that are not disabled and do it daily, illegally, are much bigger issue... this law will not change existing situation much... just my OPINION... ;)
 

·
namagomi
Joined
·
2,884 Posts
osokolo said:
wow... are you one of those tough dudes that puts 20 pounds of body armour, leans his bike against the fence at Blue Mountain square and drink beer all day wondering if girls look at you?

No need to dumb anything down for XC crowd... Come to Buckwallow or Hilton Falls and let's ride some rock, that is if you can pedal on flat. Pushing up the hill is ok - there are no chairs at Buck... or Hilton Falls FYI.

what a dumb statement... :yawn:

how do i know? ask HIM. but first you have to drop the keyboard... seriously...
:lol: Totally busted!!

I am looking into those new e-bike kits for my DH rig!! All that pedaling up hill was winding me.

Doesn't wearing lycra get more looks? It's like wearing nothing at all! I'm gonna go practice my "putting out the vibe" pose now... spring is almost here!

A keyboard is a weapon of mass destruction and for sure you can't have mine!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Excerpts from the American trails news alert....

"What IS an "other power-driven mobility device?[...] In short an other power-driven mobility device is anything with a motor that can be driven, regardless of size or horsepower, if it is driven by a person who has a mobility related disability."

"Who is to be allowed to use the other power-driven mobility devices? [...] The DOJ rules say anyone who has a mobility disability. A person using an other power-driven mobility device may be asked to provide a "credible assurance" that the mobility device is required because of the person's disability. That credible assurance can be showing a valid, State-issued, disability parking placard or card, or other State-issued proof of disability, or if the person doesn't have any of those with them, they may simply say that the other power-driven mobility device is being used for a mobility disability. A person may not be asked if they have a disability or anything about their disability."

Just like the proposed Ontario legislation, there will be exceptions....Important to note, do the assessment now so that you have recorded the conditions of your trail. "What do you need to do for your trail to be ready for March 15th when the DOJ rules on other power-driven mobility devices go into effect? [...] The DOJ rules requires an entity open to the public to make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures to allow the use of other power-driven mobility devices by individuals with mobility disabilities, UNLESS: that entity can document that it has completed an assessment of the facility, trail, route or area, before the person requesting use of the device arrived onsite, and the entity found that class of other power-driven mobility device could not be used in that location due to one or more of the following DOJ assessment factors:

(a) "The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device;

(b) The volume of pedestrian traffic (which may vary at different times of the day, week, month, or year);

(c) The design and operational characteristics (e.g., whether its service, program, or activity is conducted indoors, its square footage, the density and placement of stationary devices, and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the user);

(d) Whether legitimate safety requirements can be established to permit the safe operation of the other power-driven mobility device in the specific facility; and

(e) Whether the use of the other power-driven mobility device creates a substantial risk of serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or poses a conflict with Federal land management laws and regulations."
 

·
Evil Jr.
Joined
·
6,859 Posts
TRCA, what is the definition of "trail" in this policy? Does it apply to trails that are designated as multi-use or does it apply to an entire trail network under management?

As a matter of principle, I am all for MUPs being made as accessible as possible to users with genuine disabilities but, as you pointed out, the loop holes here are big enough to drive a power-assisted truck through! :skep:

And, oh ya, all that popcorn is making me thirsty! :)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
garage monster said:
TRCA, what is the definition of "trail" in this policy? Does it apply to trails that are designated as multi-use or does it apply to an entire trail network under management?
From the news alert:
"This DOJ ruling applies to any place, indoors or outdoors, that is open to the public.
Under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II this DOJ rule applies to trails on State or local government lands. Also under the ADA Title III it applies to other "public accommodations" that would include trails open to the public on privately or commercially managed lands. Federal agency managed lands are not directly covered under the ADA, however this rule sets legal precedents the Federal agencies must watch.
"

I'm not entirely sure whether that means that it would encompass ALL trails. It seems like it would. The proposed Ontario legislation (relating to trails anyway) openly states that the requirements are only for pedestrian trails, and don't apply to single-use non pedestrian trails (ie single-use mtn biking, equestrian, etc). Although they do say that regardless they should be designed to provide access to permitted trail users of all abilities. For example, an equestrian trail should ensure that the trail and all provided facilities can be used by equestrians with or without disabilities. This is a tough one to try and work with as I have not found any trail design specifications for a mtn biker with a disability or an equestrian with a disability.

This webpage contains a bunch of Q&A relating to the legislation:
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/accessible/power-mobility-questions-answers.html

"Q. What are the "public entities" and "public accommodations" the rule applies to?
A. 28 CFR 35.104 (Title II) defines "Public Entity" as (1) Any State or local government; (2) Any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and (3) The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority.
28 CFR 36.104 (Title III) defines a public accommodation as a facility, operated by a private entity, whose operations affect commerce (is open to the public) and falls within at least one the twelve listed categories. On that list is (9) A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation. Therefore a trail that is operated by any private entity and is open to the public is a public accommodation and the rule applies to them.
"

"Q. What about nonprofit organizations that manage trails? What if the land is actually owned by another entity but operated by a nonprofit? What about private groups such as those operating equestrian facilities or OHV parks?
A. Whether it is a nonprofit organization or a commercial establishment, both are considered to be public accommodations and the rule applies to both."

"Q. Does the rule apply to natural surface trails as opposed to wide, paved hard-surfaced trails?
A. The rule makes no distinction between dirt and pavement, or even between indoors and outdoors."

"Q. How does this affect trails that are already on the ground? Do we have to make special accommodations or modify our facilities for these motorized units for persons with disabilities?
A. This DOJ ruling deals with the use of the trail and is not about the construction of the trail, nor anything on the trails. It doesn't require any changes in the trail's construction or the facilities that support the trail."


Those last two questions are messing with my head a little bit because it says its not dealing with the trail's construction....but to accommodate certain devices, wouldn't you have to retrofit the actual tread?
 

·
Evil Jr.
Joined
·
6,859 Posts
TRCA said:
Those last two questions are messing with my head a little bit because it says its not dealing with the trail's construction....but to accommodate certain devices, wouldn't you have to retrofit the actual tread?
I'm right there with ya. :crazy:

Even if the Ontario rule applied to "pedestrian" trails, places like Hydrocut, that are meant for hikers and bikers, kinda sorta fit the bill. Holy complicated! :skep:
 

·
humber river advocate
Joined
·
6,395 Posts
TRCA said:
Those last two questions are messing with my head a little bit because it says its not dealing with the trail's construction....but to accommodate certain devices, wouldn't you have to retrofit the actual tread?
retro fit of thread is an old issue with regards to playgrounds as well as building trails for people with mobility issues. i've worked on several such projects and see this as a growing trend as the population ages. this issue has been brewing for quite a few years, it's a good to see things being hashed out.

the issue with motorized vehicles on the trails is an old one. i think motorized vehicles have a valid claim to have their own trails that are built to their specific requirements. just as we build sustainable trails for biking, the same can be done for orv. it is foolish to exclude them, they are a huge revenue source that can be channeled to purchase more land to naturalize and develop trails on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
garage monster said:
I'm right there with ya. :crazy:

Even if the Ontario rule applied to "pedestrian" trails, places like Hydrocut, that are meant for hikers and bikers, kinda sorta fit the bill. Holy complicated! :skep:
Thats a pretty real concern...

Oskolo's dick remarks aside, this was what i was talking about up there, loop holes that allow people to DRIVE with handicap stickers who are in no way, shape, or form handicapped are the very same style of loop hole that will, as it seems, inevitably allow people who claim "handicap" or"mobility issues" to ride dirt bikes and other such things on trails that many people spend a lot of time building and maintaining..

Ftr oskolo, i only posted my "opinion", of which you are welcome to have one, after observing literally too many posts to count, of endless arguing... Just thought id jump in this one time, as i agreed with elctrik, and read the article for what it was saying, and why TRCA posted it...

oh, and you cant claim that you are being oppressed when you yourself do some oppressing...think about it...
 

·
sock puppet
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
hey, you must have stayed in Holiday Express last night...

k1lluaA said:
Just thought id jump in this one time, as i agreed with elctrik, and read the article for what it was saying, and why TRCA posted it...
So you agree with this shyte:

electrik said:
Well, I don't want to mention all those "honour" killings... but oops. Disobey and daddy sends your ass to India on a vacation you never return from or return from the same.
or

electrik said:
So, uh, not only do we have to dumb down the technical features for the XC crowd
to mention just a couple, which is completely within your rights. However, if you call my comments on shyte like that "dick", then dick i am my friend, for people like electrik and seems you as well, since you agree with that CRAP. good for you.

on the "oppression" comment, no... i do not feel oppressed at all. i happily share all trails with other user groups, no matter what shorts they wear - lycra or baggies, or both... i am perfectly happy with man built features, as long as they are safe, and ride them as much as i can. i love what Peter and his group did to agreement forest/hilton falls, and i enjoy riding their structures. i even go down the blue mountain on my xc bike, so that i can pedal up again... i am not your enemy because i wear lycra, most of the times. you guys need to realize that... then there would be no "dicks" at least on this subject...

back on this thread. those that abuse trails now illegally will continue to do that. they are real threat, that has not been dealt accordingly with. those that will abuse "handicapped" stickers will not make the situation quantifiably worse. at least in my opinion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Bringing other threads into this doesnt make much sense...i agreed with his post in this thread...just saying that arguements seem to start when certain peoples get involved...thought id jump into one..

And think about it, if people are abusing trails now illegally get some kind of ability tolegalize what they are doing, doesnt that make the situation worse?

or if people who arent trail abusers get the law on their side to essentially abuse built trails?
 

·
sock puppet
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
it's not certain people...

it's certain statements... the fact that certain statements usually come from same certain people is just a coincidence... it's about shyte statements... and i told you exactly which statements... they incite intolerance and ignorance... like we need more division within our group... wear what you want, ride what suits you... there is enough trails for everyone's taste...

somehow i doubt that a few hundred mobility challenged people are just waiting for this legislation to pass, so that they can hop on their motorized bicycles or whatever other motor or electric powered devices to start ramming trails that we use...

quite honestly, if this legislation calls for some sort of enforcement - maybe current illegal users on their motorized devices will be discouraged from breaking the law... we'll see what happens when it happens... i don't think anyone would put their money on this bet, either way...

k1lluaA said:
Bringing other threads into this doesnt make much sense...i agreed with his post in this thread...just saying that arguements seem to start when certain peoples get involved...thought id jump into one..

And think about it, if people are abusing trails now illegally get some kind of ability tolegalize what they are doing, doesnt that make the situation worse?

or if people who arent trail abusers get the law on their side to essentially abuse built trails?
 

·
Team NFI
Joined
·
5,303 Posts
k1lluaA said:
Bringing other threads into this doesnt make much sense...i agreed with his post in this thread...just saying that arguements seem to start when certain peoples get involved...thought id jump into one..

And think about it, if people are abusing trails now illegally get some kind of ability tolegalize what they are doing, doesnt that make the situation worse?

or if people who arent trail abusers get the law on their side to essentially abuse built trails?
There was a news story on Yahoo this week. It focused on the fact there are a huge number of bogus claims of handicaps in the system. It's not the first time this has been brought up. There are alot of people who milk the system to get that handicap symbol on their cars.

And like a local woman here, have no apparent handicap. I have seen her jump, dance, and so on. Kind of odd really considering she is so challenged. Yet will park there. Meanwhile I see guy's with canes who struggle to walk who refuse to use the handicap spot.
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top