`Zero Mishaps'

[n/a]

quote:``I don't think you'd want to operate one of these without insurance,'' said Dan McCarthy, a partner in the law firm of Mellon McCarthy PC of Troy, Michigan, who specializes in defending against civil litigation. ``Are these things dangerous or not? There's no track record.''

`Zero Mishaps'

Cohen said there have been ``zero mishaps'' with the Segway so far in its testing.

The company, he said, believes users would be covered against liability in an accident if they carried typical homeowners insurance.
http://bloomberg.com/feature/feature1034257674.html

Though I am positive to Kamen and Segway, I dont like seeing this kind of thing being said by a Segway representative. We know about the accident in Atlanta which resulted in a hospital visit. We have also recently heard about a rider at a race track falling off a Segway. While I understand the latter being overlooked, I dont understand the former one being overlooked. Does anyone have a plausible explaination for this? Could it be that the marketing director of Segway is not informed about Segways safety record? Do they have a way of defining "mishap" that excludes "rider error" related mishaps?

If they are covering up that accident what else might they be covering up?

[Blinky]

The only thing I could think of about Cohen's "ZERO MISHAPS" could mean only one thing. I think what he wanted to say was "There is nothing wrong with the Segway-HT, there is probably and most likely something wrong with the people who crashed them" :)

But all kidding aside, I don't think they consider these incidents the cause of the vehicle, but just bad driving.

This is just another way of looking at it, of course.

[Casey]

Lawrence, in the litigious US you should not do ANYTHING without liability insurance. It is just a fact of life here. Our brain dead juries are awarding hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars for such frivolous lawsuits as spilling hot coffee on yourself, or falling off a ladder you have improperly secured yourself. Even though there was nothing wrong with either the coffee or ladder.

There will no doubt be many fortune hunters with their ambulance chasing shyster lawyers persuing Segway just as they do everything else in the US>

[n/a]

quote:But all kidding aside, I don't think they consider these incidents the cause of the vehicle, but just bad driving.

In all fairness Cohen could have been more precise about "Zero mishaps". He should have at least added, "no mishaps due Segway's functioning or driving characteristics.

But if they discount all human error, people will get the impression that Segway is so safe, u dont have to exercise normal caution and common sense. I suppose if a Segway tips over because somebody goes over a curb, it will also be discounted as a human error.

[Casey]

quote:I suppose if a Segway tips over because somebody goes over a curb, it will also be discounted as a human error.

That's the kind of thing I want to see Segway come forward on. While they show a Segway being ridden on the edge of a curb, that doesn't explain what would happen in case of a sudden dropoff with one wheel. Will the DS catch in time to save a fall? There are many places where there are broken sidewalks as well as potholes and curbs. I have never seen an official explanation from Segway as to how an HT would respond to those situations. I have pictured that as what happened in the Atlanta accident. ie, Segway caught itself and stayed upright, while the rider did not catch himself, and got pitched off. I have nothing to base that on, just a personal idea of what might have happened.

[n/a]

quote:That's the kind of thing I want to see Segway come forward on...

I suppose one can say about most vehicles that accidents occurr mostly because people dont follow the rules and regulations or take what should be common-sense safety precautions. If that line of argument is followed, Segway will continue to have a "Zero mishap" record for a long time to come as long as the electro mechanical systems dont fail. But surely that would be a misleading statistic. If people are tempted to do things with Segways that are risky and dangerous even after having attended courses, that should be considered as Segway related mishaps. One should consider the learning curve associated with Segway not only with regard to balancing and basic manouvering on the vehicle but with regard to tackling various hazards and conditions. Another factor that should be considered is the "risk temptation factor," i.e., to what extent be people tempted to take risks on a Segway that they would not take if on foot, bike etc. If for example someone believes that they cant fall off a Segway they will attemt manouvers that would increase the likelihood of an accident. If a Segway rider feels very safe on a Segway they might attemt to ride over a very slippery surfact they would not attempt on foot or on some other vehicle.

[Blinky]

Perhaps we should also keep in mind that this article from bloomberg.com's reporting of Cohen may have been very general. We don't have the entire interviewers transcript.

Besides what you said Lawrence,
quote:If people are tempted to do things with Segways that are risky and dangerous even after having attended courses, that should be considered as Segway related mishaps.

Your absolutely right. Just like cars in accidents, regardless of how they were caused(recklessness/technical). They too are both generally considered 'mishaps'.

[n/a]

The "Zero mishaps" statement has been reformulated to "zero incidents of pedestrian injuries caused by Segway HTs " in this article:

quote:While elected officials must protect the public from harm, there have been zero incidents of pedestrian injuries caused by Segway HTs during the year since their introduction -- to young, old, able-bodied or physically challenged, blind or sighted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2002/10/16/ED178939.DTL

I cant protest to that statement.

[Blinky]

Yes, no protest. If this quote came from the same root source as the other, then Bloomberg's article was being very general.