Design of built environments to accommodate mobility scooter users: part II.

PURPOSE.Accessibility standards for wheeled mobility devices currently use a 1.5 m turning circle, designed to accommodate manual wheelchairs. Scooters are less manoeuvrable than wheelchairs, so allowing a full turning circle would require too much space. Instead, we propose using a rectangle that provides space for a three-point turn. Here, we determine the area requirements of this approach. METHOD. For rectangular 'rooms' of varying aspect ratios, we measured the minimum dimensions in which two four-wheeled scooters (the Celebrity-X and Fortress-1700), which combine good outdoor performance with reasonable indoor manoeuvrability, could enter the space, perform a three-point turn and exit. Moveable Styrofoam walls defined each 'room', and a doorway was located either near the corner of the space or in the middle of one wall. 'Room' size was decreased until our expert driver could no longer perform the manoeuvre. RESULTS. Compared to the area required for a turning circle, 42-54% savings were achieved. Relative to existing requirements, 53-95% more space is required to accommodate the Celebrity-X; 173-223% increases are necessary for the Fortress-1700. CONCLUSIONS. When accommodating four-wheeled scooters, our proposed three-point turn definition would require more space than the current standards, but considerably less than if a full turning circle were used.

Design of built environments to accommodate mobility scooter users: part I.

PURPOSE: To determine the minimum dimensions needed to allow five models of powered mobility scooters to manoeuvre within five commonly encountered indoor spatial configurations. METHOD: We measured manoeuvrability of five scooters judged by their manufacturers to have a good combination of indoor mobility and outdoor performance (including in rural environments). We determined the minimum space needed to manoeuvre the scooters through the following five spatial configurations: turning 180° in a corridor, performing U-turns around 50 mm (2″) and 1200 mm (4') obstacles, turning 90° from a doorway and approaching a counter or work surface from the side. Free-standing styrofoam walls were used to define each configuration. An expert driver repeatedly manoeuvred the scooters through each configuration while we incrementally decreased the dimension of interest until it was no longer possible to complete the manoeuvre. Each scooter's turning diameter was also measured and compared to the manufacturer's specification. RESULTS: Minimum space requirements for each scooter for five spatial configurations are given and compared to existing standards. CONCLUSIONS: None of the scooters tested were capable of completing all manoeuvres within the space allowed by existing standards. These findings will contribute to recommendations for new standards for built environments that can accommodate scooter users.