4 ms·
My guess is that current trails that aren't already accessible would struggle to support a machine of that size (secure cabin and then width of legs/etc), and t
by prawn 4y ago
My guess is that current trails that aren't already accessible would struggle to support a machine of that size (secure cabin and then width of legs/etc), and there wouldn't be the demand for immediate upgrade of wilder trails. I've hiked a lot and can't remember the last time I saw a wheelchair on an accessible trail; prams are more common.
National parks have transitioned from trying to attract people to the outdoors to now trying to minimise their impact on the environment, so I assume they'd be reluctant to upgrade non-accessible trails like that. Smaller parks might have smaller budgets.
Then add risks on steep or exposed trails. My father in law is in a wheelchair (MS) and bumps/scraps doorways in our house. Move that to a trail on a slope and it would be very dangerous.
- ShredKazoo 4y agoI'm picturing a seat supported by 4 robotic legs and controlled by a handheld joystick. The seat could be self-balancing, self-stabilizing for a smooth ride, and have embedded cameras, LIDAR, etc. to prevent collisions. It basically walks itself, you just nudge the joystick to tell it which direction to walk in and it finds a smart path in that direction. Probably beyond the reach of current technology, and impractically expensive for the time being. But in the long run, I can imagine that the cost of giving every wheelchair user something like this might be cheaper than the cost of making buildings accessible. Most relevant for newly built cities I guess. Basically run the numbers on the cost of providing exoskeletons vs the cost of making everything ramp-accessible and providing accessible transport. The exoskeleton could sprint over to your house when you summoned it ;-) Possible disadvantage: shortage of exoskeletons during city festivals when everyone wants to go out and there are lots of out-of-town visitors?