Center for Inclusive Design & Environmental Access, School of Architecture & Planning, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Assist Technol. 2021 Mar 4;33(2):105-115. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2019.1604582. Epub 2019 May 9.
Design challenges in wheelchair securement for fixed-route, large accessible transit vehicles (LATVs) often create difficulties for passengers who use wheelchairs and operational inefficiencies for public transit agencies. Recent innovations in wheelchair securement technology for LATVs may reduce these challenges. This study explored the usability of three commercially available wheelchair securement systems in a static laboratory environment: a four-point, forward-facing (4P-FF) securement system, a three-point, forward-facing (3P-FF) securement system, and a semi-automated, rear-facing (SA-RF) securement system. Three groups of mobility device users (manual wheelchair users, power wheelchair users, and scooter users) ( = 36) completed wheelchair securement tasks in a full-scale mock-up of an LATV. For the 19 participants who did not use the occupant restraint system (ORS), perceived usability and securement time were compared across the securement systems. Using multiple usability rating scales, most participants reported that each of the systems would be acceptable for regular use. However, the majority indicated an overall preference for the SA-RF, and most rated the SA-RF system as easier, faster, and requiring less assistance to use than the 4P-FF and 3P-FF systems. Alternatives to conventional 4P-FF wheelchair securement in LATVs may thus improve boarding efficiency and transit independence of passengers who use wheelchairs.
为固定路线的大型无障碍交通车辆（LATV）固定轮椅的设计挑战经常给使用轮椅的乘客带来困难，也给公共交通机构带来运营效率低下的问题。最近，LATV 轮椅固定技术的创新可能会减少这些挑战。本研究在静态实验室环境中探索了三种市售轮椅固定系统的可用性：四点前向（4P-FF）固定系统、三点前向（3P-FF）固定系统和半自动后向（SA-RF）固定系统。三组移动设备使用者（手动轮椅使用者、电动轮椅使用者和滑板车使用者）（=36）在 LATV 的全尺寸模拟装置中完成了轮椅固定任务。对于 19 名未使用乘员约束系统（ORS）的参与者，比较了跨固定系统的感知可用性和固定时间。使用多个可用性评级量表，大多数参与者表示每个系统都可接受常规使用。然而，大多数人表示总体上更喜欢 SA-RF，并且大多数人认为 SA-RF 系统比 4P-FF 和 3P-FF 系统更容易、更快，并且使用起来需要的帮助更少。因此，LATV 中替代传统的 4P-FF 轮椅固定方法可能会提高使用轮椅的乘客的登车效率和交通独立性。
