Physiologic burden
HR, RMSSD, recovery context, HR per mile, distance per mean HR, duration tolerated, and RMSSD deltas when available.
Wearable and mobility burden evidence
Current Corpus Model
Wearable data helps explain why skating functions as my mobility aid, not recreation.
Walking is not simply low activity for me. In the record and in my wearable data, walking can be associated with elevated physiologic response, reduced function, and higher burden per unit of mobility. Skating can support longer tolerated activity at lower HR while still requiring separate review of mechanical motion exposure.
Current Corpus Model
The refined corpus contains 2,171 records. Body coupling context exists for all records. Physiologic efficiency exists for all records. RAG facets are expanded. Eighty one records have ACC shock component metrics. The impact shock index remains components only because no normalization baseline is defined.
Walking median HR is 130 bpm, PT skating median HR is 113 bpm, and mall skating median HR is 78.6 bpm. Walking duration median is 40 min, mall skating duration median is 33.7 min, and PT skating duration median is 143.5 min. Walking versus mall skating is the cleanest duration comparable physiologic contrast. PT skating supports longer tolerated activity at lower HR than walking.
Active ballistic median HR is 130 bpm, active controlled median HR is 109 bpm, passive passenger median HR is 88 bpm, and recovery baseline median HR is 53.1 bpm. Controlled walking versus PT skating subset still needs manual audit.
Mechanical motion exposure
ACC dynamic RMS, jerk RMS, shock spike rate, and cumulative dynamic shock. These quantify motion exposure at the sensor, not pain by themselves.
Body coupling and control
Active controlled, active ballistic, passive passenger, and recovery baseline describe how the body is coupled to the activity or vehicle.
Why this dashboard exists
I built this dashboard to show the functional difference between high burden walking, adaptive skating, motorcycle travel, wheelchair labeled use, ParaTransit, commuting, and other mobility contexts.
The goal is simple: make invisible mobility burden reviewable.
Walking can impose higher burden
For my pelvic/SI/hip disability, walking can be associated with higher physiologic and functional burden even when distance is short.
Skating can preserve mobility
Inline skates support smoother, more horizontal movement and may reduce the repeated impact pattern that makes walking difficult in this within person record.
Forced alternatives can increase burden
When public systems deny skates, the alternatives can include high burden walking, unstable ParaTransit rides, or unnecessary wheelchair use.
What the Data Shows
The data page is the public evidence layer. It connects skating as a lower burden mobility aid, walking and ParaTransit burden, wearable HR/HRV evidence, FSI/CSS metrics, physiologic burden context, and accommodation relevance.
Mobility modes differ
The dashboard organizes walking, skating, wheelchair labeled use, motorcycle travel, ParaTransit, commuting, and related cohorts as distinct mobility contexts.
Within person burden matters
The useful signal is not HR or HRV alone. It is the within person pattern across HR, HRV/RMSSD, RRI quality, duration, mobility mode, distance, recovery, and mechanical exposure.
Functional Mobility Efficiency
Distance is mobility achieved, not automatic burden. Functional Mobility Efficiency asks how much useful mobility is achieved per unit of physiological and mechanical exposure.
ParaTransit burden is part of the mobility evidence
Functional Mobility Efficiency applies to transportation as well as ambulation. A ParaTransit ride should not be judged only by whether a vehicle arrived. It should be reviewed by the access achieved and the physiologic, mechanical exposure, posture, motion, and duration burden imposed.
The ParaTransit Burden page explains why cutaway buses, vans, back seat shared sedans, SilverRide/front seat service, rail, and direct routing are not functionally equivalent for my documented pelvic/SI/hip disability.
Review ParaTransit BurdenSource-linked FSI/CSS case study results
The current FSI/CSS work treats Kubios/Polar H10 as the activity specific biomechanics stream, WHOOP as longitudinal physiology context, and Strava as functional distance and route capacity context. The results are source linked decision support evidence for accommodation evaluation; they do not independently decide pain or legal entitlement.
Dynamic burden
FSI compares dynamic burden instability using features such as vertical dynamic ratio, movement variability, peaks per minute, and impact shock. Long skating distance is treated as functional capacity unless paired with high impact, high physiologic burden, or low activity specific HRV.
Passive mechanical burden
Vehicle comparisons emphasize vertical RMS, peak absolute acceleration, peak-to-peak motion, jerk, movement standard deviation, and cumulative impact shock. SilverRide/front seat/direct service is the current lower burden transportation reference. Generic sedan service should not be treated as automatically effective when it is back seat-only, shared, prolonged, posture-constraining, or mechanically harsh.
Kubios first, context preserved
Kubios/H10 provides the highest specificity for per-activity HRV/RRI and accelerometer burden. WHOOP and Strava corroborate longitudinal heart-rate patterns, recovery context, distance, duration, and functional mobility capacity.
Walking can impose burden. Skating can preserve mobility.
Wearable and activity data compare high burden walking, adaptive skating, motorcycle travel, wheelchair labeled use, ParaTransit, commuting, and forced alternatives.
The embedded Tableau Public workbook is a visual evidence summary. Use it to compare activity cohorts, distance, duration, heart-rate burden, and recovery signals. If the embed does not load, open the public dashboard directly.
How to read this dashboard
Start by comparing walking and skating. Distance alone does not tell the story. The key question is how much physiologic and mechanical exposure is required to move.
A short high burden walk can impose more burden than a longer skate because skating changes the mechanics of movement. A 2 mile skate and a several hundred foot walk should be compared by functional mobility achieved per burden unit, not by distance alone.
Key findings
The corpus is evidence, not a standalone medical or legal ruling. The pattern matters because mobility aids should be evaluated by function, not appearance.
- Skating supports longer functional mobility with a more sustainable burden pattern.
- Walking can produce disproportionate physiological burden relative to distance.
- ParaTransit and forced alternatives may create passive stress, especially when rides are long, unstable, shared, or mechanically harsh.
- Distance should be treated as functional output, not burden by itself.
- The data supports individualized review of mobility aids by function, not appearance.
- This is a real world wearable health AI case study and accommodation evidence layer.
Why this matters to wearable health and mobility-intelligence teams
Most wearables count activity. This project asks a harder question: is the movement lower burden, higher burden, accessible, or forced?
HandicapSkater.com is the research and product development layer for wearable mobility evidence, activity label reconciliation, assistive mobility analytics, and privacy preserving evidence summaries.
HandicapSkater.org is positioned as the standards and civil-rights framework that can translate evidence into fair access language.
Beyond step counting
A disabled person may need fewer steps, not more. The metric should be functional mobility, not conformity to walking.
Adaptive mobility analytics
The dashboard compares skating, walking, motorcycle travel, wheelchair labeled use, ParaTransit, and commuting as different mobility cohorts.
Human-centered AI
The project combines wearable data, biomechanics, legal context, and lived experience to show platform potential for disability aware AI without claiming any current platform partnership.
Evidence Stack
HandicapSkater.com is the public case study, evidence, and product development site. HandicapSkater.org is the standards, doctrine, and accommodation-review site. The notebooks and FSICSS platform preserve the reproducible evidence and prototype layer.
Public site
Dashboard, healthcare brief, story, route maps, platform framing, and precedent summary.
Open public siteStandards site
Public standards and doctrine for reviewing non-standard mobility aids.
Open standards siteEvidence notebook
Reproducible legal and biomechanics notebook context for ParaTransit burden.
Open Evidence notebookWearable notebook
Wearable biomechanical and ParaTransit analysis with source linked activity context.
Open wearable notebookFSICSS platform
Prototype platform layer for FSI/CSS evidence, source maps, retrieval, limits, source quality, missing data, and reviewer-safe summaries.
Review FSICSS platform overviewFrom data to access
This corpus is not a standalone medical or legal ruling. It is evidence that helps explain why skates function as a non-standard mobility aid and why denial of that aid can create reviewable burden.
Public story
The plain English timeline of the disability, mobility aid, and public-access record.
Read the storyPrecedent
Agency, court, DMV, and accommodation records summarized for public review.
View precedentVideos
Video evidence and public documentation of access disputes and mobility use.
Open videos and evidenceHealth AI case study
Why this is relevant to consumer wearable analytics, mobility intelligence, and disability aware AI.
Read Health AI case studyStrava GPS skate maps
COVID-era and long term skate routes showing physical therapy and mobility aid context.
Open route mapsColab notebook
Reproducible Python analysis for public biometric data science review.
Launch public notebookStandards guidance
For standards, doctrine, and public guidance on non-standard mobility aids, visit HandicapSkater.org.
Open HandicapSkater.org