In a message dated 00-09-05 18:42:33 EDT, I read:

<< >> I am concerned then
 > >> they will use the same stupid logic and ban
 > >> wheelchairs.  What do you think?
 > >>
 > >> Sharon >>

Whoa, pardners!  With my uncanny ability to see both sides of every issue, I
must protest this characterization of the Kimball's logic as "stupid".  I
don't think it was stupid at all.  It is a fact that strollers and, yes,
wheelchairs can be dangerous.  Although the Kimball's staff should have been
trained to be more sensitive and flexible, to be sure (and their policy
should have had some built-in flexibility), they were between a rock and a
hard place.  It's all well and good to say, apropos of their earlier
unfortunate experience with the inattentive man backing into and injuring the
child in the stroller, that he should have watched where he was going, but
the fact was that the child was injured.  Any responsible institution has to
be concerned about taking appropriate steps to minimize the risk of such
injuries, and the no-stroller rule makes sense, to a degree.  If an
able-bodied man fell over a stroller while not watching where he was going
and was himself injured, we'd say it was his own fault and offer no sympathy,
but if an infirm, elderly woman was injured, we'd probably blame the parent
(with or without a bad back), operating the stroller, for negligence,
wouldn't we?  Let me answer that: yes, we would.  Or her lawyer might.  And
the lawyer might also blame the institution for allowing the strollers in the
first place.

I daresay most strollers for children and infants are used for the parents'
convenience, not necessity.  Depending on the institution and its particular
layout, it may well make sense to restrict the use of strollers.  However,
the institution should certainly have a policy of accommodating the special
needs of any patron whose circumstances require it and grant an exception to
the normal rule--both to comply with ADA and to extend a common-sense
courtesy.  The rule should have been, "No strollers allowed, except for
special circumstances."

There was a time when people with wheelchairs and disabilities or special
health problems just couldn't go some places.  In this enlightened age, we
try to accommodate everyone as much as possible, even to the extent of
requiring architectural modifications and other reasonable steps, but that
sometimes entails risks.  Any vehicle, including strollers and wheelchairs,
can cause accidents and injuries, and it's not unreasonable to take
precautions.  As someone who is an occasional caregiver for a handicapped
person in a wheelchair, I know whereof I speak.  My best friend is the mother
of a 22-year-old young man who uses a motorized wheelchair, and although he
is an amazingly adept, "excellent driver" (amazingly, because he basically
operates his chair with only one finger), he sometimes runs into people or
runs over their feet.  His mother constantly bears an assortment of bruises
from too-close encounters with his chair.  When I push him in a manual chair
(as I did a few years ago in Paris and Versailles), it's hard to gauge
distances in crowds, and I have been known to clip heels and shins, and yes,
people have fallen over him and probably narrowly escaped serious injury on
more than one occasion.  I think it's important to consider the other side of
the equation--that a collision with a stroller or wheelchair, as well as with
a bicycle or any other kind of vehicle--could end up putting an able-bodied
person in a wheelchair.

While my museum certainly does not restrict strollers, by the way, sometimes
I wish there were a rule against the multiple-passenger behemoths which I've
seen.  Several times I've nearly run into wide-bodied, wheeled contraptions
which hold from four to six kids at once.  These things seem to me to be a
very bad idea in a crowded museum where people tend to walk in zigzag paths,
backing up without warning to get a better view of an exhibit, stopping
abruptly, making sudden turns, and darting around while looking in the
opposite direction.  The reality of museum visitors is that they don't walk
in straight lines with their eyes ahead, and I don't see how you can force
them to be more careful.  I suppose the more interesting and "compelling"
your exhibits are, the greater the potential for accidents.

These are just a few other factors to consider when we're worrying about
strict compliance with ADA.  A responsible museum or similar institution must
be concerned about the safety and well-being of all its visitors, even the
temporarily able-bodied--who should not have to have their health and welfare
be TOO temporary.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).