Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

journal homepage: www.archives-pmr.org

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2021;102: 1902−9

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Quantifying Mobility Scooter Performance in

Winter Environments
Roger E. Montgomery, MSc,a Yue Li, PhD,a Tilak Dutta, PhD,a,b,c
Pamela J Holliday, PT MSc,a,d Geoff R Fernie, PhD, P. Enga,b,c,d,e
From the aKITE, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario; bInstitute of Biomedical Engineering University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; cRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; dDepartment of Surgery, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; and eDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Abstract
Objectives: To quantify mobility scooter performance when traversing snow, ice, and concrete in cold temperatures and to explore possible per-
formance improvements with scooter winter tires.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Setting: Hospital-based research institute.
Participants: Two drivers (50 and 100 kg) tested 8 scooter models (N=8). Two mobility scooters were used for winter tire testing.
Interventions: Scooters were tested on 3 different conditions in a random sequence (concrete, 2.5-cm depth snow, bare ice). Ramp ascent and
descent, as well as right-angle cornering up to a maximum of 10˚ slopes on winter conditions, were observed. Winter tire testing used the same
slopes with 2 scooters on bare and melting ice surfaces.
Main Outcome Measures: Maximum achievable angle (MAA) and tire traction loss for ramp ascent and descent performance. The ability to steer
around a corner on the ramp.
Results: All scooters underperformed in winter conditions, specifically when traversing snow- and ice-covered slopes (x2 [2, N=8]=13.87-15.55,
P<.001) and corners (x2 [2, N=8]=12.25, P<.01). Half of the scooters we tested were unable to climb a 1:12 grade (4.8˚) snow-covered slope with-
out losing traction. All but 1 failed to ascend an ice-covered 1:12 grade (4.8˚) slope. Performance was even more unsatisfactory for the forward
downslopes on both snow and ice. Winter tires enhanced the MAA, permitting 1:12 (4.8˚) slope ascent on ice.
Conclusions: Mobility scooters need to be designed with winter months in mind. Our findings showed that Americans with Disabilities Act−com-
pliant built environments, such as curb ramps that conform to a 1:12 (4.8˚) slope, become treacherous or impassible to mobility scooter users
when covered in ice or snow. Scooter manufacturers should consider providing winter tires as optional accessories in regions that experience ice
and snow accumulation. Additional testing/standards need to be established to evaluate winter mobility scooter performance further.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2021;102:1902−9
Ó 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Mobility scooter use has increased in recent years in part because
of an aging population.1 Snow and ice can create impassible bar-
riers for mobility scooters on curb and accessibility ramps, even
with ramps that conform to the current code of 1:12 grade for
The methodology for some of the testing outlined in this article was disseminated within a con-
ference paper to the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, August 25-29, 2015,
Milan, Italy.
Supported by a Canadian Institutes for Health Research operating grant (grant no. 125993) and
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC, grant nos. RGPIN-
2017-06655, DGDND-2017-00097). The 2 scooters used in the prototype winter tire testing were
donated in-kind by Shopper’s Home Healthcare.
Disclosures: none
public buildings.2 Snow removal services do not always ade-
quately clear these ramps and sidewalks. For example, the side-
walks of the City of Niagara Falls and the residential areas of the
City of Toronto only have sidewalks plowed after an excess of
8 cm of snow has accumulated during select winter months.3,4
This snow depth is significant because Lemaire et al2 showed that
just 4 cm of snow cover resulted in challenges for wheelchair
users. A recent survey found that over 95% of respondents in Man-
itoba reported getting their wheeled mobility device (WMD) tires
stuck in the snow, and 92% had difficulty ascending slopes.5
Reduced traction on winter surfaces may lead to increased safety

0003-9993/$36 - see front matter Ó 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2021.06.005
Mobility scooter performance in winter 1903

Table 1 Ambient environmental conditions

Surface Type Surface Temperature (˚C) Air Temperature (˚C) Relative Humidity (%) Snow Density (kg/m3) Snow Hardness*
Single-axis platform − phase 1 (maneuverability testing)
Concrete
3.75§0.34y
1.15§2.15 75.05§0.13 NA NA
Snow
3.76§0.34y
2.03§1.27 76.02§0.09 323.75§62.45 66.35§7.29
Ice
3.75§0.35
1.35§2.09 79.02§0.07 NA NA
Six-axis platform − phase 2A (slip resistance testing)
Concrete
1.89§0.39 0.30§0.88 73.67§0.04 NA NA
Snow
3.02§0.30
0.32§0.57 76.09§0.04 378.89§26.67 67.11§5.98
Ice
3.68§0.69 0.21§0.91 78.50§0.04 NA NA
Single-axis platform − phase 2B (winter tire slip resistance testing)
Bare Ice
3.00 4.05§0.12 ND NA NA
Wet Ice 0.00 7.08§0.49 ND NA NA
NOTE. Values are mean § SD.
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; ND, no data.
* Snow hardness is measured on a 100-point scale: 50-70=soft pack snow, 70-84=medium pack snow.
y
Ice temperature recorded not actual driving surface.

risks for WMD users. For example, snow and ice may cause a
scooter to slide off the sidewalk leading to tips, falls, and user
injury.6,7 The increased difficulty with WMD operation in winter
can result in a reduction in the number of people who use their
device every day in winter compared with summer by 50%.5
Reduced mobility can negatively affect one’s quality of life.8
Therefore, it is crucial that we better understand the performance
capabilities of current mobility scooters in winter.
The objectives of this study were divided into 2 phases: phase 1
was to compare the steerability of a variety of 8 commonly used
mobility scooters driving on simulated concrete as well as ice and
snow covered surfaces. Phase 2A was to measure the slip resis-
tance of the same 8 scooters. Phase 2B was to determine whether
winter tires could improve the slip resistance.
Methods
Setting
All testing took place in a climate-controlled laboratory. The labo-
ratory is a 6.0-m £ 5.6-m self-contained chamber with a 4.5-
m £ 4.9-m glycol refrigerated ice floor and 3.2-m ceiling height.
The chamber is climatically controlled with an operable air tem-
perature range of
10˚C to 10˚C.
The ambient temperature was maintained at 0˚C for phases 1
and 2A, and it was maintained at 4˚C for bare (fully frozen) and 7˚
C for melting (partially frozen) ice conditions for phase 2B
(table 1). Ice temperature was maintained between
3˚C and
4˚
C for all testing except the melting ice condition, where it was
kept at 0˚C (see table 1).
Driving surfaces
The scooters were driven on 3 surfaces: (1) snow-covered con-
crete; (2) bare ice (additionally melting ice for phase 2B); and (3)
bare concrete. The simulated concrete driving surface was
List of abbreviations:
MAA maximum achievable angle
WMD wheeled mobility device
composed of (0.6 £ 0.9m and 1.5 £ 0.9m) plastic panels (ACC-S-
3660-XX, ACC-S-2436-XXa) covered with an antislip coating
(AS-150 grayb), which has similar frictional properties to con-
crete. The panels were secured with screws to help anchor the
walkway to the ice floor. The corner driveway for steerability test-
ing covered a 4.0-m £ 3.7-m rectangular area, and the path was
0.9-m wide (fig 1A). The total straight driveway dimensions were
4.9 m £ 0.9 m (fig 1B) and 3.0 m £ 0.9 m for slip resistance test-
ing and winter tire performance testing, respectively.
Snow was artificially created with the use of a snowmaker (All-
Weather Snowmakerc) (fig 2A). Approximately 500 L of snow
was collected over a 10.5§0.5-hour period from the snowmaker
and transported to the laboratory before each testing session using
a wheeled insulated cooler (All-Terrain 165d) (see fig 2B). The
snow was stored on a plastic tarp within the laboratory for the
duration of testing. At least 24 hours were given for the snow to
settle and reach a stable density within the laboratory before it
was used for testing. The snow was applied to the concrete panel
driveway using a shovel, after which the test scooter was driven
back and forth twice to compact the snow, creating a uniform sur-
face. Finally, a custom-made levelling tool (see fig 2D, E) was
raked across the driving surface to create a consistent 2.5-cm deep
snow-covered driveway. Further, after each drive trial, the snow
surface was groomed with a shovel and the leveling tool to main-
tain consistent snow conditions across all trials. The snow surface
was considered adequately groomed when no tire tracks were visi-
ble. Snow consistency was monitored for density (Pocket 100e)
(see fig 2C) and hardness (CTI Snow Penetrometerf) (see fig 2B)
prior to each test session (see table 1).
Equipment
For phase 2A testing, a 12-camera (Raptor-E digitalg) optical
motion capture system was used to record the performance of
each mobility scooter at 250 Hz. Three additional (Raptor-E
digitalg) cameras were available and used during the phase 2B
testing. Retro-reflective markers were affixed to the scooter
body and wheels. Markers were also placed at specific points
on the ice surface to identify where scooters started, steered,
and stopped.
A data logger (Smart Reader Plush) was used to collect sur-
face and air temperature data during both phase 1 and phase

www.archives-pmr.org
1904
Fig 1 (A) Steerability drive course (snow condition depicted): (1) cross-slope to up-slope; (2) up-slope to cross-slope; (3) cross-slope to down-
slope; (4) down-slope to cross-slope. (B) Slip resistance drive course (concrete condition depicted).
Fig 2 Standardized snow track creation: (A) all-weather snowmaker
chamber; (B) snow hardness penetrometer, snow cooler, tactile pan-
els; (C) snow density gauge; (D) snow grooming process with leveling
tool; (E) detailed view of snow leveling tool, (A) steerability drive
course, and (B) slip resistance drive course.
Fig 3 Laboratory on (A) single-axis motion platform and (B) 6-axis motion platform. Both platforms shown titled to 10˚.
R.E. Montgomery et al
2A testing. Thermistors were placed on or embedded in the
test condition surface or suspended at the height of ~0.3 m for
air temperature. Relative humidity was recorded using built-in
laboratory sensors.
To simulate slope angles, the laboratory was secured on a sin-
gle-axis (fig 3A), or 6-axis motion platform (see fig 3B), depend-
ing on test type. Phase 1 and phase 2B used the single-axis
platform, and phase 2A testing was conducted with the 6-axis plat-
form. Both motion bases were able to create static slope angles of
up to 10˚ for the purpose of the test protocols. The scooter driver
participants were asked to don protective equipment, including a
helmet, insulated clothing, and a safety harness that was attached
to an overhead robotic gantry to minimize injury risk. Collision
barriers (mattresses) were also used at strategic locations as an
added safety precaution.
Eight used mobility scooters were rentedi for testing dur-
ing phase 1 and phase 2A protocols. The phase 2B protocol
tested 2 lightly used mobility scooters that were donated.
The winter tires tested in phase 2B were custom built with
a milled aluminum wheel and winter tire (X-Ice Xi3j) tread
segment secured to the wheel circumference with screw
shank nails (fig 4). The combined wheel and tread formed a
25-cm diameter and 8-cm wide solid tire, similar in size to
the stock pneumatic tires they were compared against. The
scooter models varied in weight, 3- or 4-wheel design, tire
type, and tread depth (table 2). Each mobility scooter was
driven by the same 50-kg and 100-kg participants.
www.archives-pmr.org
Mobility scooter performance in winter 1905

Fig 4 (A) 4-wheeled Fortress 1700 DT with manufacturer installed tires. Frontal and profile views of a manufacturer installed tire shown to the
right (B) 4-wheeled Fortress 1700 DT with prototype winter tires. Frontal and profile views of a prototype winter tire shown to the right.

Protocol
The protocol used in this study was approved by the hospital
research ethics board (protocol 14-7692), and all participants pro-
vided their informed consent before participating. Participants
were familiarized with each scooter before they drove them under
test conditions. During testing, participants were instructed to sit
upright with feet resting on the floor of the scooter chassis and to
minimize body movement during each trial as indicated in electric
wheelchair testing standards.9
Scooters were stored in a climate-controlled, indoor environ-
ment for at least 24 hours before testing. Within an hour before
each testing session, participants had their clothed weight mea-
sured (Model 450KLk). Second, the tire pressure was measured
and adjusted with the use of a pressure gauge (MotoMaster
Aluminum Digital Tire Gaugel) and manual air pump (Via Velo
Floor Bike Pumpm) for those scooters that had pneumatic tires.
The tire pressure was adjusted to the maximum manufacturer rec-
ommended setting. Third, the forward scooter speed was adjusted
to 1.0 m/s. The mobility scooters were then placed in the labora-
tory to sit for 30 minutes prior to the start of the test to allow for
tire pressure to stabilize within the colder environment. The 30-
minute wait before testing also simulated a reasonable time
scooters may be exposed to winter temperatures based on an aver-
age trip length for scooter users of 7.2§0.5 km.10
Phase 1: steerability measurement
This phase involved driving trials with 90˚ turns on 3 surfaces
(bare ice, snow, concrete) on 0˚, 3˚, 6˚, and 10˚ (uphill and

Table 2 Mobility scooter characteristics

Manufacturer Model Weight (kg) Wheel No. Wheel Type Average Tread Depth (mm)*
Phase 1 and 2A
Invacare Lynx L-3 42.84 3 Solid 1.25§0.07
Pride Go-Go Elite Traveller 48.23 4 Solid 1.21§0.37
Pride Go-Go Elite Traveller Plus 51.90 3 Solid 1.39§0.20
Pride Victory 10 79.95 3 Solid 1.27§0.92
Pride Victory Twin 90.24 3y Solid 1.59§0.32
Pride Victory 10 DX 93.51 4 Pneumatic 2.68§1.14
Fortress 1700 TA 105.34 3 Pneumatic 3.02§0.90
Fortress 2000 105.64 4 Pneumatic 1.76§0.68
Phase 2B
Fortress 1700 DT 112.44z/122.83x 3 Pneumaticz/solidx 3.48§0.22z/7.78§0.85x
Fortress 1700 DT 119.67z/133.54x 4 Pneumaticz/solidx 3.29§0.23z/7.78§0.85x
* Values are mean § SD.
y
Scooter has dual front wheels.
z
Manufacturer tires.
x
Prototype winter tires.

www.archives-pmr.org
1906
downhill) slopes. Participants were asked to repeat each unique
trial 3 times for each of the 8 scooters. There were 4 different 90˚
corners that participants attempted to negotiate in the forward
direction. Successful navigation of a corner turn was defined by
completing the turn while keeping the front tire(s) and at least 1
rear tire within the bounds of the 0.9-m wide drive path (see
fig 1A). Extra leeway was permitted with the corners to better
match the curb ramp landings size recommendations (1.2m) in
current accessibility design guidelines.11 After each corner was
completed, the scooter was brought to a stop.
Phase 2A: slip resistance measurement
(manufacturer installed tires)
This phase involved both drive directions (forward, reverse) on
the same 3 surfaces and slope angle selection as in phase 1 for
each of the 8 scooters. Differing from phase 1, beyond the ini-
tial 4 slope angle conditions, when a scooter was unable to
successfully complete an initial angle selection, the slope was
incrementally decreased by 1˚ at a time to find the maximum
achievable angle (MAA). The MAA score for each scooter
was defined as the successful execution of drive instructions
on at least 2 out of 3 attempts. Participants were instructed to
begin each driving trial with the scooter’s rear tires (or front
tire[s] if reversing) on the edge of the driveway and then
apply even and continuous throttle control to traverse the set
path. Participants were instructed to drive along the path and
release the throttle to bring the scooter to a stop within the
last 0.6 m of the driveway as demarcated by floor markers.
Participants were given 1.2 m or approximately 1 scooter
length to brake within (see fig 1B). If scooters ended up out-
side of the pathway at any point either by loss of steering or
braking control or if scooters lost sufficient traction, which
stopped the motion of the device prematurely, the attempt was
considered a failure. The reverse drive trials were conducted
at approximately half the speed of forward trials, or about
0.5 m/s. The order in which each scooter attempted the differ-
ent surface conditions was randomized.
Phase 2B: slip resistance measurement (prototype
winter tires)
Prototype winter tire testing followed a similar protocol to phase
2A slip resistance testing except that initial slope angles were
increased more gradually, 1˚ at a time. Only 2 scooters were tested
for phase 2B (see table 2), with manufacturer installed tires
(fig 4A) and custom-made winter tires (see fig 4B).
Data analysis
The motion capture data were processed using Cortex (version
5.2.0.1518) software.n These data were used to calculate all kine-
matic scooter performance measures including braking distance,
peak velocity, and tire traction loss (tire slipping and skidding).
Missing data were gap filled through cubic spline and rigid body
virtual join interpolation methods. Velocity data were filtered with
a second order, 4-Hz low pass Butterworth filter, and then calcula-
tions were performed on this data to find the scooter performance
measures within MATLAB (2012b).o A tire slip or skid was
defined by a difference >0.1 m/s between scooter chassis and tire
velocity for >0.5 s.12,13 All parametric statistical tests were
R.E. Montgomery et al
Fig 5 Mobility scooter corner steering performance on winter surfa-
ces. The scooter success rate was statistically higher on concrete than
snow (P<.01) and ice (P<.05). Bars represent the mean. Error bars
represent §1SE.
performed using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1.p Parametric statistical
tests took the form of repeated-measures analysis of variance with
Bonferroni post hoc tests for multiple comparisons and paired t
tests. Nonparametric data were analyzed through MATLAB
(2015b)n in the form of Friedman tests with Bonferroni post hoc
tests for multiple comparisons and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
Results
Phase 1: steerability measurement
Figure 5 shows the steering performance for all scooters tested.
The percentage score is the aggregate success rate of completing
all 4 corners at all 4 slope angles (0˚, 3˚, 6˚, 10˚) with 3 attempts
for the 2 drivers (in other words, the number of attempts that were
successful of 96 attempts). All scooters had a near perfect
(96.88%) success rate when completing corners on the concrete
condition. A main effect for surface condition on cornering perfor-
mance (x2 [2, N=8]=12.25, P<.01) was observed with a Friedman
test. Both ice and snow corner performance averaged at 35.68%
and 31.25% successful corner completion, respectively. Post hoc
tests showed that concrete performance was superior to ice
(P<.05) and snow (P<.01). On all surfaces, the performance of
the scooters was similar with only some minor differences. For
example, the Fortress 2000 was unable to successfully complete
any corners on the snow condition.
Phase 2A: slip resistance measurement
(manufacturer installed tires)
MAA performance
Figure 6 shows the MAA performance (with and without traction
loss observations) for all scooters tested for both upslope and
downslope forward and reverse trials, respectively. All scooters,
with the exception of the Go-Go 4W and Pride Victory 4W were
able to complete up to 10˚ on concrete under all drive conditions.
Friedman tests revealed significant differences (P<.001) for MAA
performances across surface conditions regardless if traction loss
observations were a factor or not. Post hoc comparisons revealed
significantly better performance (P<.01) on concrete than ice
under all situations. Some situations, such as reverse-drive up-
slope, also showed statistically better MAA performance (P<.05)
www.archives-pmr.org
Mobility scooter performance in winter 1907

Fig 6 Maximum achievable angle. Bars represent the mean for both 50- and 100-kg drivers. MAA results on the left and right side of the figure show
MAA angles achieved when traction loss is and is not used, respectively, as a condition for determining if an angle is passed or failed. On all graphs:
main effect ranges (x2[2,N=8]=13.87-15.55, P<.001). Concrete MAA superior to ice MAA (P<.001) on both left and right sides of the graph, (A) for-
ward upslope: snow MAA superior to ice MAA when ignoring traction loss (right side of the graph) (P<.05), (B) forward downslope: concrete MAA com-
pared with snow MAA had P=.093 with traction loss (left side of the graph), (C) reverse upslope: concrete MAA superior to snow MAA (P<.05) on both
sides of the graph, (D) reverse downslope: snow MAA superior to ice MAA when ignoring traction loss (right side of the graph) (P<.01).

on concrete compared with snow. No scooters significantly outper-
formed each other. The figures generally show that snow and ice
have a marked detrimental effect on the MAA and steerability for
all scooters.
Braking distance and peak velocity
Figure 7 depicts the average braking distance and peak velocity of
all mobility scooters when driven forward on the level ground across
differing surface conditions. A repeated-measures analysis of vari-
ance revealed a significant main effect of surface conditions on brak-
ing distance (F2.14=50.06, P<.001) and peak velocity (F2.14=15.66,
P<.001). Post hoc tests showed a significant difference in braking
distances between all 3 conditions (concrete vs snow [P<.05], con-
crete vs ice [P<.001], snow vs ice [P<.001]). Ice had the longest
braking distance, whereas snow had the shortest. A significantly
slower peak velocity was observed on snow compared with the other
2 conditions (snow vs concrete [P<.001], snow vs ice [P<.001]).
Phase 2B: slip resistance measurement (prototype
winter tires)
Figure 8 depicts the average MAA for 2 mobility scooters (For-
tress 1700DT 4-wheel and 3-wheel) and 2 driver weights (50 kg
and 100 kg) when driving on stock tires vs winter tires. Figure 8A
represents upslope performance, whereas figure 8B conversely
shows downslope performance. Paired t tests showed significantly
better MAA performance for the forward downslope drives on
bare ice (t[3]=
3.66, P=.0439), reverse downslope drives on bare
(t[3]=
5, P=.0154) and melting ice (t[3]=
4.2, P=.0246) on win-
ter tires compared with stock tires.
Discussion
Steerability
Unsuccessful cornering attempts usually were due to under-
steering, with the scooters tending to continue traveling for-
ward when the front tires were turned. Most of the weight of
a scooter is placed on the rear tires because this is where the
battery, seat, and driver are usually positioned. During pilot-
ing, we found that a commonly used scooter (Fortress 1700 4-
wheel) with a 100-kg driver had an approximate weight distri-
bution of 25% front and 75% rear. It is possible that shifting
more weight forward toward the front tires to increase traction
may help reduce understeering and therefore improve steer-
ability on winter surfaces.

www.archives-pmr.org
1908
Fig 7 Average level-ground braking distance and peak velocity
across conditions. Ice had a longer braking distance than both con-
crete and snow (P<.001). Snow had shorter braking than concrete on
level ground (P<.05). Snow also had a lower peak velocity than both
concrete and ice (P<.001). Bars represent the mean for all 8 scooters
tested. Error bars represent §1SE.
Slope performance
Where previous studies2,14 have linked snow-covered surfaces to
underperformance of WMDs, we have observed similar results
with mobility scooters. Half of the scooters we tested were unable
to climb a 1:12 grade (4.8˚) snow-covered slope without signifi-
cant wheel slip. All scooters, except the Fortress 2000 model,
failed to ascend an ice-covered 1:12 grade (4.8˚) slope. Perfor-
mance was even more unsatisfactory for the forward downslope
drives on snow and ice. Forward downslope performance could
have been improved by selecting a slower speed setting to reduce
the amount of skidding. However, reversing downslope with a
speed that was approximately half of the forward drive still
Fig 8 Maximum achievable angle tests for stock and winter tires. (A) Upslope drives for both ice conditions and forward/reverse drives, (B)
downslope drives for both ice conditions and forward/reverse drives. Scooter MAA performance was statistically better on winter tires when com-
pleting forward and reverse downslope drives on bare ice and reverse downslope drives on wet ice when using winter tires compared with stock
tires (P<.05). Bars represent the mean for both 50 and 100 kg drivers. Error bars represent §1SE. Abbreviations: FWD, forward drive; REV, reverse
drive.
R.E. Montgomery et al
resulted in significant skidding and a relatively low MAA on ice
compared with concrete.
Curb ramps do not always comply with guidelines and can
often be much steeper than allowed.15 Curb ramps can also
become more challenging to negotiate with snowbanks and/or
slush accumulation.16 The scooters that we tested struggled to per-
form adequately even on Americans with Disabilities Act−com-
pliant slopes covered in snow and ice. Extrapolating our results
with real-world observations would imply that mobility scooters
are currently underperforming winter slope navigation and should
be enhanced to deal with snow- and ice-covered slopes up to at
least 6˚ (>1:10 gradient) to meet the needs of mobility scooter
users throughout all seasons.
Winter tire performance
A recent study found that it would be feasible to create trac-
tion devices for wheelchairs in the winter to improve slip
resistance and steerability.17 Currently, winter tires are not
readily available for mobility scooters. With customized solid
254-mm (10-in) diameter prototype winter tires, the 2 scooters
that we tested had an improved upslope and downslope perfor-
mance of 18.6% and 33.4%, respectively, compared with stock
tires. Furthermore, although not statistically significant, for-
ward upslope performance was improved from 4.5˚ to 6.3˚
with winter tires. This improvement means that where 1:12
(4.8˚) Americans with Disabilities Act−compliant slopes were
inaccessible with stock tires, slopes >1:10 (5.7˚) are accessible
with the customized winter tires.
Study limitations
All scooters were tested with tires of varying amounts of wear (see
table 2). However, no scooter had tread wear that was less than the
recommended amount according to manufacturer guidelines.18 It is
possible that scooter users may increase the speed of their devices
beyond what we were able to safely test within the laboratory.
Increased speed may reduce traction and increase braking distances.
www.archives-pmr.org
Mobility scooter performance in winter 1909

Conclusions 2. Lemaire ED, O’Neill PA, Desrosiers MM, Robertson G. Wheelchair

ramp navigation in snow and ice-grit conditions. Arch Phys Med
All of the scooters we tested had difficulty driving on winter surfa- Rehabil 2010;91:1516–23.
ces. This study provides evidence that current mobility scooters are 3. City of Niagara Falls. Winter maintenance policy plan. Available at:
ill designed to deal with winter conditions and that maintaining https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/municipal-works/winter-maintenane-pol-
wheeled mobility year round remains a concern. This study also fills icy-plan-revised-march-8-2017.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2020.
a knowledge gap19 on mobility scooter performance and safety in 4. Infrastructure and Environment Committee. Sidewalk and transit snow
winter. Improving the design of mobility scooters to handle winter clearing level of service table. Available at: https://www.toronto.ca/
environments through more rigorous testing as well as making win- wp-content/uploads/2019/12/93fc-TS_Snow-Table-3_Side-
walks_2019_2022.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2020.
ter tires available for purchase may help.
5. Ripat J, Brown CL, Ethans KD. Barriers to wheelchair use in the win-
ter. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96:1117–22.
Suppliers 6. Daveler B, Salatin B, Grindle GG, Candiotti J, Wang H, Cooper RA.
Participatory design and validation of mobility enhancement robotic
a. ACC-S-3660-XX, ACC-S-2436-XX; Access Tile. wheelchair. J Rehabil Res Dev 2015;52:739–50.
b. AS-150 gray; American Safety Technologies. 7. Kleinschroth L. Mobility scooter use for community access: an explo-
c. All-Weather Snowmaker; Snowtech Co Ltd. ration of individual and environmental factors on use and safety.
d. All-Terrain 165; Igloo Products Corp. Available at: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/18696. Accessed May 19,
2021.
e. Pocket 100; Brooks-Range Mountaineering Equipment.
8. Perry TE. Seasonal variations and homes: understanding the social
f. CTI Snow Penetrometer; Smithers-Rapra.
experiences of older adults. Care Manag J 2014;15:3–10.
g. Raptor-E digital; Motion Analysis Corp. 9. International Organization for Standardization. Wheelchairs - part 2:
h. Smart Reader Plus; ACR Systems. determination of dynamic stability of electric wheelchairs. Available
i. Mobility scooter; Inmotion Services Inc. at: https://www.iso.org/standard/57753.html. Accessed May 25, 2018.
j. X-Ice Xi3; Michelin. 10. Sullivan J, La Grow S, Alla S, Schneiders A. Riding into the future: a
k. Model 450KL; Pelstar LLC/Health-o-meter Professional snapshot of elderly mobility scooter riders and how they use their
Scales. scooters. N Z Med J 2014;127:43–9.
l. MotoMaster Aluminum Digital Tire Gauge; Canadian Tire. 11. Newell WR. City of Ottawa accessibility design standards, 2nd ed.
m. Via Velo Floor Bike Pump; Canadian Tire. Available at: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/docu-
ments/accessibility_design_standards_en.pdf. Accessed January 27,
n. Cortex, version 5.2.0.1518; Motion Analysis Corp.
2020.
o. MATLAB 2012b; MathWorks.
12. Phetteplace G, Shoop S, Slagle T. Measuring lateral tire performance
p. SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1; SAS Institute. on winter surfaces. Tire Sci Technol 2007;35:56–68.
13. Ohri V. Developing test methods for the evaluation of scooter perfor-
mance in winter conditions. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/
Keywords 43277. Accessed April 11, 2014.
Architectural accessibility; Climate; Ice; Quality of life; Rehabili- 14. Smith L. Weathering the winter in a wheelchair. Available at: https://
web.archive.org/web/20060321030543/http://www.rehabpub.com/
tation; Safety; Self-help devices; Snow
ltrehab/10112000/4.asp. Accessed January 27, 2020.
15. Bennett S, Kirby RL, Macdonald B. Wheelchair accessibility: descrip-
tive survey of curb ramps in an urban environment. Disabil Rehabil
Corresponding author Assist Technol 2009;4:17–23.
16. Li Y, Hsu JA, Fernie GR. Aging and the use of pedestrian facilities in
Roger E. Montgomery, MSc, KITE, Toronto Rehabilitation Insti-
winter - the need for improved design and better technology. J Urban
tute − University Health Network, 550 University Ave, Toronto, Health 2013;90:602–17.
ON, M5G 2A2, Canada. E-mail address: roger. 17. Morales E, Lindsay S, Edwards G, et al. Addressing challenges for
montgomery@uhn.ca. youths with mobility devices in winter conditions. Disabil Rehabil
2018;40:21–7.
18. ActiveCare Medical. ProwlerTM3310/3410 mobility scooter owner’s
manual. Available at: https://www.rehabmart.com/pdfs/prowler_ma-
References nual_5_12.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2020.
1. Smith EM, Giesbrecht EM, Mortenson B, Miller WC. Prevalence of 19. Ripat J, Sibley K, Giesbrecht E, et al. Winter mobility and community
wheelchair and scooter use among community-dwelling Canadians. participation among people who use mobility devices: a scoping
Phys Ther 2016;96:1135–42. review. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl 2019;2:100018.

www.archives-pmr.org