ACTUAL-RISK REVIEW
Identify the hazard. Then test the response.
The proposed standard distinguishes identifying a setting-specific hazard from justifying total exclusion.
Proposed standard
Use a structured actual-risk record.
An unfamiliar form, a general policy, or a label such as “recreational” does not complete an actual-risk analysis. The record should make facts, assumptions, uncertainty, safeguards, mitigation, and scope visible.
Actual-risk model
Worksheet sequence
What the reviewer records.
- Identified hazardName the specific potential harm.
- Setting-specific mechanismExplain how that harm could occur in this setting.
- Exposed person or propertyIdentify who or what may be affected.
- Likelihood and severityState both rather than treating either as assumed.
- User control and safeguardsRecord relevant operating ability and existing protective conditions.
- Mitigation and residual riskTest feasible conditions, then state the scoped decision.
This worksheet is a proposed standard. Record the quality and uncertainty of the evidence at every stage.
Mitigation before exclusion
Consider a narrow condition first.
The proposed “narrowest effective condition” principle asks whether a setting-specific concern can be addressed through pedestrian-speed operation, restricted zones, narrowly defined dismount locations, escort, alternate boarding, storage, security procedure, designated path, or a justified time/place condition.
It does not say that every mitigation is legally required or appropriate in every setting.
Current-law / guidance parallel
Keep legal source scope attached.
DOJ mobility-device guidance discusses actual-risk safety requirements and setting factors for other power-driven mobility devices. That guidance does not itself classify every unfamiliar aid, including inline skates. The proposed worksheet extends a general review structure; it is not presented as a legal mandate.