Tech4Life

Upfront I should declare my interests. I chair the Australian Standards Committee responsible for assistive technologies (ME067), and I am currently Convenor for the ISO (TC173 SC1) working groups responsible for wheelchair testing systems (WG1) and seating (WG11). So yes I get standards.

But I also hear a prevailing counter argument, namely that standards hinder innovation, or they make it hard for end-users to get what they need. This is the reason given by so many I talk to (and I hear my colleagues around the world with similar stories) why they don’t have much time for standards.

There have been studies published that have clearly demonstrated the improved performance of wheelchairs (for instance) that have meet agreed international standards (see Hartridge & Seeger, Assistive Tech, 2000; Fitzgerald, Cooper et al, ArchPhyMedRehab, 2001 etc). At the ISO working group meetings, manufacturers will reflect on what they see happening in the field, vs. what happens in their test labs. And the ISO standards rarely include elements that don’t link to some real life problem or issue. They are set as a minimum benchmark so when an end-user parts with hard earned cash/voucher/entitlement they have some hope that the device will deliver reasonable service.

Does this keep AT more expensive that it could be? Yes it does. I have seen/heard of the results of $50 manual wheelchairs (available for sale) undergoing fatigue testing that simply disintegrate half way through the test. It costs money to build devices with quality materials, to design out pinch points, to ensure that upholstery has a degree of fire resistance. I think that is money well spent though.

Does it stop/hinder innovation? No I don’t think so. Let’s take the case of the iBot3000. This was ground breaking technology. Few people had conceived of any device operating by balancing on two wheels – let alone a wheelchair. Yet the DEKA research & development pushed ahead having demonstrated the concepts. What is particularly impressive though is that they engaged with the standards process. As a result many of the standards were redrafted so that the performance required did NOT force a design restriction – i.e. assuming chairs had to have 3 or more wheels on the ground. It was achieved, and the IBot passes the ISO tests, and more.

A current focus for those in wheelchair standards is the more challenging conditions in less resourced settings (aka the developing world). Some of our tests are not tough enough for them!

Can standards help? Yes. Apart from better product, it also makes it possible for products to work together. The IT/telecommunications sector is full of standards so my mobile phone will work seamlessly in most places, and my computer’s IP port will connect even if I’m in Ireland. Same for AT. Standards aim to make it possible for users to get their chair into a bus, and tied down in a taxi. Communication devices are full of IT standards so they can use peripherals. And the list could go on.

So if we put some effort into good international standards that were readily available (yes I agree the cost of the standards is daft) we could eliminate some trashy and dangerous products – that just don’t do the job. We could then focus on innovating to address issues end users have every day, and perhaps creating even better options to the iBot. I look forward to the day when our standards committee has to wrestle with testing a levitating support frame as a mobility solution!

Peter Slattery, one of my colleagues from Royal Brisbane Hospital, sent the rehab engineering gang this video on Honda’s

The special wheel is really clever, but it does limit the unit to indoors or at best smooth surfaces. I think though it gives us some idea of the technology that may soon be gracing power wheelchairs and helping to reduce their weight and footprint – a big issue for so many from users to transport providers. Just imagine the difference between lugging a scooter into the car vs. a seat on top of one of these?! Still hanging out for the hover wheelchair…

Lloyd.

As one of my various tasks I chair the Australian Standards ME067 Committee responsible for standards for assistive technology here. We had a meeting Monday a week ago and ended a little up in the air on the vexed question

To label or not to label!

It’s that challenging area of transport. Clearly the safest place for most wheelchair users is in a vehicle seat with the manufacturer’s seatbelt firmly fastened. For some though, they need the postural support their wheelchair provides when they travel, and/or transferring to a vehicle seat is just too difficult, painful or not possible (without lots of carers/hoists etc) so they generally travel in their wheelchair. So the wheelchair is considered ‘suitable for use as a seat in a motor vehicle.’  In Australia we can assess this through compliance to AS/NZS3696Prt 19. This is much the same as ISO7176.19 or the USA standard ANSI/RESNA WC19 (which is generally tougher).

How do you tell if your chair’s been tested? Either its in the user manual or sales blurb, and/or you find little stickers in four places that look like a carabineer. The USA approved symbol is shown to the right.

But the standard only started in Australia in 2009 and the USA some 5-6 years ago (seriously with teeth). So while the USA has got quite a lot of chairs that have now been tested (See USA RERC on Wheelchair Transport Safety tested wheelchair list) there are stacks of people in Australia with chairs that haven’t been tested.

And if you ride a scooter (i.e. the tiller variety not the moped lot), you note I’ve been leaving you out. To my knowledge none of them has been found safe to use in a vehicle – mainly because of that hard, heavy and jagged tiller right in front of your face/chest.

Taxi drivers in particular would like to have some way of being sure that a wheelchair is safe for the user to ride in – the safety of the user, the driver and others in the cab can depend on it! I thought it would be good if all NEW wheelchairs were clear one way or the other – either the Prt19 symbols to indicate they are, or a small sticker in a similar place to indicate the chair hasn’t met requirements. Then when you buy the chair, or you’re assessing it, you can tell before you get to the taxi.

Some of my colleagues aren’t so sure. They suspect that we shouldn’t use these labels because someone maybe denied travel. Personally I feel chair users should know whether their chair is up to the task. A cheap chair may be great around the home (or beach) but when you’re going out, take the one that can be used in the taxi/car – and demand it from your funder/supplier. If there is no way to tell, few suppliers are going to face pressure to offer a chair that meets the grade!

What do you think?

Lloyd

Recently I wrote a piece highlighting some issues around the use of wheelchairs and other personal mobility devices on footpaths etc. You can see the details here.

Today I received the first detailed reply from the Departments, but critically from Infrastructure & Surface Transport Policy – those who regulate these things (motor vehicles) in Australia. It is really encouraging to see the Dept (Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development & Local Government) not only read the letter but took time to respond to the issues. Their responses summarised are:-

1. Government recognition “of the need to provide personal mobility devices as an aid to people with impairment.”
2. That the regulations with regard to exempting power wheelchairs from the ADRs (the basis of the Determination) was driven by the recognition of them in the Australian Road Rules as ‘pedestrians.’
3. The recent concerns about deaths and injuries about scooters, that had lead to the National Transport Commission working to seek harmonisation with all states and territories. (The letter has been forwarded to the NTC)
4. That the Department has a different understanding of ‘self propelled’ to the wheelchair community. For their purposes:-
   

   “Self propelled” is a reference to the wheelchair itself, not the person riding the wheelchair. This can be likened to motorised lawn mowers which are either the push type (not self propelled) or the self propelled type (with hand operated clutch).

5. My suggestion to extend the arrangements to include other EPAMDs (including the Segway) as they are considered road vehicles. Consultation with the States & Territories agencies (through the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board) gained no support for exemption.
6. HOWEVER, should an individual with mobility impairments could benefit from using such a vehicle, and the state or territory authority supported that use, an application to import would be considered favourably.

SO… It would seem the Federal Department is open to the use of a range of technology solutions to assist those with disabilities.

They do seem to have a very unusual way of defining ‘self propelled’ that does not relate to current standards to wheeled mobility solutions.

Critical to enhanced use of EPAMDs is getting one or more states/territories to support that use (the Feds clearly suggest they would be advised by the States). I am now very tempted to push the envelope in Queensland and see if I can get my Segway approved by Transport for my use for mobility. Not sure how I do that but worth exploring I think.

Anyway at least I have a contact, AND some useful hard discussion – and the Department and NTC know others have something to offer as we look to improve our mobility access options.

Lloyd.

A: When it’s a motor vehicle!

No I’m not being silly, nor am I talking about that wonderful footage from the UK a few years back of the man who strapped a jet engine on to the back of a manual chair (how he wasn’t killed by the inherently unstable unit still amazes me). The issue has been around almost since the day that wheelchairs were used on the footpaths.

The reason is that in Australia (and other places I guess), footpaths are classed as ‘road related areas’ under the Australian Road Rules. That permits the regulators to decide what can and can’t use footpaths. So pedestrians are usually OK, but a motor vehicle shouldn’t be on a footpath. In some states bicycles can use the footpath (with appropriate care). So if the device is human powered (eg bicycle, manual wheelchair etc) generally you can use the footpath (and in some cases bike paths).

But what about an electrically powered wheelchair – or more commonly – electrically powered mobility scooters? They generally have four wheels, some controls and some power source with connected motor(s)… hang on – so does the regular car! Under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act, the Federal Government requires all vehicles to be assessed under the Australian Design Rules (depending on the vehicle class). In general, virtually all powered wheelchairs and scooters meet the minimum power required to be caught under the Act.

In 2003, the Federal Government realised this was a problem so issued the Motor Vehicle Standards (Road Vehicles) Determination 2003. This document creates a special definition of wheelchair (that bears no relation to the Australian Standard by the way) thus:

“wheelchair means a chair mounted on 3 or more wheels that is built to transport a person who is unable to walk or who has difficulty in walking, but does not include a pram, stroller or trolley.”

Not only did it exclude scooters, but in the end the definition excluded virtually all powered wheelchairs by setting these requirements:

The class of motorised wheelchairs comprises wheelchairs each of which:
(a) is self-propelled; and
(b) accommodates only 1 person; and
(c) is designed so as not to be capable of more than 10 km/h on level
ground; and
(d) has an unladen mass of 40kg or more.

Mmmm. As I noted to the Federal Minister for Transport, basically the very document that is supposed to say that wheelchairs aren’t motor vehicles is so confused, it ends up making them vehicles!

I’ve suggested a way forward in my letter:

Can I urge you to intervene and revise the 2003 determination to create a transportation solution called a “Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device” which could include wheelchairs, scooters, Segway PTs and the like founded around a performance requirement that considers the purpose and risk (based on evidence that exists internationally now). This would require the device to be:

(a) capable of carrying one person only; AND

Either (b) self-propelled using power assist wheels;

OR (c) designed so as not to be capable of more than 15 km/h on level ground; and

    (d) of an unladen mass not exceeding 80kg, and

     (e) certified as achieving the stability, braking and steering system performance requirements of AS3695.

Even I get things wrong. My colleagues have pointed out that quite a number of the power wheelchairs currently available are above 80kg, so the number should probably be 110kg. I hadn’t realised how heavy these things have become.

Anyway lets hope there’s sense soon. In the meantime, wheelchair users – make sure you buckle up before you take to the road in your new motor vehicle!

Lloyd.