Countering the calls for Segway bans... [Archive]

ftropea

11-05-2002, 05:07 PM

I think the first few months after the reveal/release of the Segway consumer version will be critical. It'll be up to those initial Segway owners to set the standard by which future Segway owners will have to live up to.

From the SegwayChat news room, the following article discusses an effort in Santa Cruz, California to ban the use of Segways on the sidewalks:

http://www.segwaychat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=372

The group is calling for a law banning the use of Segways in order "to keep sidewalks safe." Now, they're assuming Segways are unsafe. I understand their point of view. We don't have any studies or real world test trials to substantiate whether they are safe or not.

That's why I think it's critical for the first test cities to demonstrate that Segways are actually safe. Then the argument won't be - "We want to protect our sidewalks from the Segway because we think it's unsafe." If they want to ban them, they'll have to argue that they don't want Segways on their sidewalks - "Just because!"

Assuming Santa Cruz is successful in banning them at this stage, I would do a test trial right next door to them, as well as in other test cities across the country. Then if they're proven to be safe, Santa Cruz will eventually allow them - or just fall within the small minority of areas which won't allow Segways.

Initial test cities <--- Critical - Critical - Critical.

Regards,

Frank A. Tropea

Casey

11-05-2002, 05:37 PM

My guess is that the same group (Senior Action Network) that tried to ban it in San Francisco is responsible for this.

quote:Oct. 16 — The U.S. Postal Service has tested them out and 32 states including California have legalized them. They are the Segway scooters that are hyped as revolutionizing transportation. But protesters say they're dangerous and a group is hoping to ban them one city at a time. ABC7's Carolyn Tyler reports.

That's from the SF article. Interestingly to me there is a poster at TIQ that I think is involved in this through his grandfather. These people are on a crusade for no apparent reason. But just as the horseless carriage overcame the fearmongers, I think Segway will too. At the turn of the 20th century it was the "they're dangerous because they spook horses" crowd. Now going into the 21st century it's the "they're dangerous because we say so" crowd.

There will never be a shortage of people wanting to meddle in other peoples affairs to get their name in the paper.

Blinky

11-05-2002, 07:37 PM

Ftropea writes...
quote:I think the first few months after the reveal/release of the egway consumer version will be critical. It'll be up to those initial Segway owners to set the standard by which future Segway owners will have to live up to.
I agree, the public's perception will definitely be determined of how the very few Segway-HT's are driven and used.

I am glad you mentioned this because I think Segway is waiting to long to do even this much. There is to much negative campaigning about Segway. Lots of minuses and not enough positives. What are they waiting for?

GlideMaster

11-05-2002, 08:13 PM

You are so right Blinky, there are those few that are just waiting for someone to get seriously hurt or to hurt someone with a Segway so they can say I told you so to try and get them band before they even hit the streets good.

It is very very important that the first riders of the Segway on the streets not give the Segway a bad reputation by hot-dogging, going too fast or bumping into people through neglagent riding. In most cases riding the Segway at a moderate speed (maybe around nine miles per hour on sidewalks) would still allow a rider to get to his location much faster than on foot.

I have what I think would be two great safety slogans for the site and for Segway. Now if I could get ftropea to place the slogans on the site visibly displayed and maybe even get SEGWAY to adopt them.
Now I guess you want to know what they are?????????????:)[8D][^]

quote:Originally posted by Blinky

Ftropea writes...
quote:I think the first few months after the reveal/release of the egway consumer version will be critical. It'll be up to those initial Segway owners to set the standard by which future Segway owners will have to live up to.
I agree, the public's perception will definitely be determined of how the very few Segway-HT's are driven and used.

I am glad you mentioned this because I think Segway is waiting to long to do even this much. There is to much negative campaigning about Segway. Lots of minuses and not enough positives. What are they waiting for?

JohnM

11-06-2002, 01:08 PM

I'm in total agreement with Frank on this one.
But I think that Casey's attitude that the folks in Santa Cruz are neo-Luddites out to get their names in the paper will do the Segway cause no good.

Take a look at the Santa Cruz Municipal Code:

quote:
10.36.041USE OF ROLLERSKATES, SKATEBOARDS, COASTERS AND SIMILAR DEVICES RESTRICTED.
No persons upon rollerskates, riding in or on, or by means of any skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle, or similar device, shall go upon any roadway, or upon the sidewalk in the following restricted areas: Pacific Avenue Mall, the Municipal Wharf, business districts and any park except where signs have been posted permitting such activity.

and
quote:
10.68.030 OPERATION UPON SIDEWALKS.
No person shall ride a bicycle or electric bicycle upon sidewalks fronting and adjacent to commercial establishments, stores, or buildings used for business or commercial purposes. Every person operating a bicycle or electric bicycle upon a sidewalk where permitted shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrians on such sidewalk. In accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 21235(g), the operator of a motorized scooter shall not operate the motorized scooter upon any sidewalk except as may be necessary to enter or leave adjacent property.

Santa Cruz seems to be a town with a serious concern over speedy wheeled devices using the sidewalks in certain areas of town. They aren't "on a crusade for no apparent reason". They just don't see wheels and pedestrains mixing on busy sidewalks and have written that attitude into their town ordinances. All they have to hear is the state EPAMD definition, "a self-balancing, nontandem, 2-wheeled device, that can turn in place, designed to transport only one person at a maximum speed of less than 12.5 miles per hour" and they will lump it in with all the other devices that they don't approve of for sidewalk use. Wheels and speed, that's a good enough reason for most people. They will be more impressed with their town's historical and legal perspective than with Segway's marketing retoric. The "they're safe because we say so" crowd will not impress them.

You may not feel that its' fair to put Segways in the same category as skateboards or electric bikes. Well, that's the challenge you and Segway LLC have to rise to and overcome. Taking Casey's attitude will not aid you to that end. Frank's attitude will.

Casey

11-06-2002, 01:47 PM

quote: Taking Casey's attitude will not aid you to that end. Frank's attitude will.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And I see people fighting against a device that has not been proven to be harmful nor dangerous in any way. And there does not appear to be a valid reason to perceive Segway as such.

If their antics had come as the result of some evidence to support their allegations of Segway being a hazard, I would accept your argument. As it is, I see them just the way I defined them. In no way is my opinion intended as aiding and abbeting or harming Segway or anyone else. It is just the way I see these panic mongers. Or in the case of many of them, publicity hounds.

JohnM

11-06-2002, 02:13 PM

quote:Originally posted by Casey

quote: Taking Casey's attitude will not aid you to that end. Frank's attitude will.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em. And I see people fighting against a device that has not been proven to be harmful nor dangerous in any way. And there does not appear to be a valid reason to perceive Segway as such.

If their antics had come as the result of some evidence to support their allegations of Segway being a hazard, I would accept your argument. As it is, I see them just the way I defined them. In no way is my opinion intended as aiding and abbeting or harming Segway or anyone else. It is just the way I see these panic mongers. Or in the case of many of them, publicity hounds.

Casey, you are working in a vaccuum, not looking at history. Its' as if you believe that Kamen not only inventent DS but the wheel as well. The "allegations" of the Santa Cruz opposition come as a result of a long history of dealing with wheeled devices on sidewalks. If you choose to ignore your opponents prior history and the laws they have previously enacted, then your efforts to gain public acceptance of Segway will be DOA. Odds are Santa Cruz will not write an Anti-Segway ordinance. All they have to do is insert 'EPAMD' into either orinance I quoted. It will be incredibly easy based on their history. No panic mongering required.

Your's is an acceptable attitude in dealing with your opposition on the internet, but it won't play at city hall.

Casey

11-06-2002, 02:39 PM

Using your logic John. Everything should be outlawed at inception. Then if it can overcome the uphill fight of proving it is a perfect and perfectly safe item, the bans against it can be lifted.

I have nothing to gain or lose in any way by Segways success or failure. I simply find the panic banning of anything until it is proven safe a completely backward approach with no logic involved. Those fighting against Segway have no leg to stand on other than "I said it should banned so it must be banned". They have NO evidence that Segway should be grouped with toys such as skateboards, and vehicles that take a large footprint when mixed with pedestrian traffic, such as bicycles. It is such a unique device that it deserves the benefit of the doubt unless it is shown to be hazardous in any way. Had the attitude of these protesters prevailed with the introduction of the automobile, you would still be using a horse, or horse and buggy.

JohnM

11-06-2002, 04:19 PM

quote:Originally posted by Casey

Using your logic John. Everything should be outlawed at inception. Then if it can overcome the uphill fight of proving it is a perfect and perfectly safe item, the bans against it can be lifted.

My logic, or yours, is immaterial. The people of Santa Cruz have already restricted the sidewalk access of any wheeled devices currently in use that are capable of speeds exceeding a walking pace; bikes, skates, scooters, etc. That's the history that you choose to ignore. Whether or not they had any proof before making those restrictions is also immaterial. I say this because one ordinance is so vague as to list 'similar' devices. Is there any proof that 'similar' unnamed devices are dangerous? How could there be? These folks are just being pre-emptively protective of their walkways.

The Segway is a wheeled device that is capable of speeds exceeding a walking pace. That's a given in the state EPAMD law. Segway has the key traits that all the other Santa Cruz restricted devices have. The Segway is fast wheels. Santa Cruzians will not be against Segway just because it is new and unknown. Fast wheels are not new and they have not been welcome on some of the local sidewalks for some time. If Segway promoters can't come up with something better than marketing retoric, something like what Frank suggested, I don't expect the citizens of Santa Cruz to put Segway into a class by itself. It's just fast wheels to them.

Casey

11-06-2002, 04:44 PM

quote:I don't expect the citizens of Santa Cruz to put Segway into a class by itself.

The fact is though that state laws are being passed that DO put Segway in a different class than the devices you mention, and those in the Santa Cruz laws. And one of those states is California. If they wish to go against state law they will have to name Segway and its class of devices as outlined in the California statutes. That right is given them by the state. But that won't be accomplished by trying to include it as a similar device in existing laws.

I personally feel there ARE places nothing but foot traffic should be allowed. But to make it a crusade as these protesters are has no basis in logic or reason.

And what you, I or anybody else thinks most certainly is material. The laws are not made only for the lawmakers. They are supposed to reflect the values of the community or other territory that has jurisdiction in a given area.

If Segway or anything else is to be outlawed anywhere, it must be done by proper methods, not by cowtowing to a group of radical protesters seeking attention or unwaranted control over what is public property. ie sidewalks.

JohnM

11-06-2002, 05:55 PM

quote:Originally posted by Casey

The fact is though that state laws are being passed that DO put Segway in a different class than the devices you mention, and those in the Santa Cruz laws. And one of those states is California. If they wish to go against state law they will have to name Segway and its class of devices as outlined in the California statutes. That right is given them by the state. But that won't be accomplished by trying to include it as a similar device in existing laws.

I personally feel there ARE places nothing but foot traffic should be allowed. But to make it a crusade as these protesters are has no basis in logic or reason.

And what you, I or anybody else thinks most certainly is material. The laws are not made only for the lawmakers. They are supposed to reflect the values of the community or other territory that has jurisdiction in a given area.

If Segway or anything else is to be outlawed anywhere, it must be done by proper methods, not by cowtowing to a group of radical protesters seeking attention or unwaranted control over what is public property. ie sidewalks.

Radical protesters? When does an advocacy group like Mission Pedestrian <http://www.missionped.org/> become radical protestors? When they voice concerns that are unfavorable to Segway? Is the vice mayor also a radical for being sympathetic? Name calling may feel good on the internet, but won't sell Segways to city hall.

If the laws reflect the values of the community, then don't the laws I quoted tell us something about how the people of Santa Cruz value their sidewalks? They don't want to share some of their sidewalks with fast wheels. That's their business. Sure the state laws put the Segway in a new category. That EPAMD definition will enable the citizens of Santa Cruz to change their existing ordinances with only 5 additional letters.

Proper methods? An advocacy group that has done valuable work towards making their city safe contacts the vice mayor (and the press). The vice mayor talks to the city attorney. At some point it will go before the city council, which has shown its colors by restricting wheeled use of the city's sidewalks in the past. It all looks above board and democratic to me. What's improper?

Going againt state law? Read the law Casey:
quote:
21282. Notwithstanding Section 21966, for the purpose of assuring the safety of pedestrians, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and others using sidewalks, bike paths, pathways, trails, bike lanes, streets, roads, and highways, a city, county, or city and county may, by ordinance, regulate the time, place, and manner of the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices as defined in Section 313, and their use as a pedestrian pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 467, including limiting, prohibiting entirely in the local jurisdiction, or prohibiting use in specified areas as determined to be appropriate by local entities. State agencies may limit or prohibit the time, place, and manner of use on state property.

These folks want to exercise the law as it was written, not as you might interpret it.

FWIW I live in the most Segway friendly community on earth, ManchVegas NH. There are very few local laws restricting any kind of sidewalk use, and they are universally ignored by both the police and citizenry. And I like it like that, Live Free or Die, you know. I am a firm believer in local control and applaud the legislators who have written local over-rides into all the state EPAMD laws. For you to suggest that the citizens of Santa Cruz would 'go against state law' in rejecting the Segway leads me to believe the you are the one advocating 'unwaranted control over what is public property'. Let the people decide.

Casey

11-06-2002, 06:04 PM

quote: Let the people decide

Yes, all the people. Not some group with a questionable agenda.

JohnM

11-06-2002, 06:19 PM

quote:Originally posted by Casey

quote: Let the people decide

Yes, all the people. Not some group with a questionable agenda.

What's questionable? Their agenda is totally in line with existing city laws restricting sidewalk use by wheeled devices. They have taken their concerns to the appropriate city officials and the press. The press, in all fairness, contacted Segway for their opinion. Where's the big conspiracy?

Casey

11-06-2002, 06:44 PM

The agenda I speak of is their reason for wanting to ban something that has not been shown to be in any way harmful, and prohibit other people from using that device. It is akin to executing someone then trying him for an alledged murder. Put the horse in front of the cart. If Segway proves to be in some way hazardous, complain about it then, not ahead of time.

Their agenda is not based on any fact or reason to suspect Segway would not be perfectly compatible with foot traffic, just as Segway LLC says it is. Don't condone execution before the trial.

You and those groups remind me of an old joke only in reverse. "Hang him then give him a fair trial".

I do understand the feelings of a bicycle afficionado who sees the possibility of Segway riders being able to go where he can't on a bike. I
don't believe however that that is an appropriate reason to ban Segways from sidewalks.

JohnM

11-06-2002, 07:48 PM

Casey, this gets us right back to Frank's original posting. For cities like Santa Cruz he said, "I understand their point of view. We don't have any studies or real world test trials to substantiate whether they are safe or not."

The people of Santa Cruz are skeptical. They see Segway as just another wheeled device wanting to use the sidewalk. The state has given them a law that let's them opt out of Segway use. They are showing signs of exercising that right. Everything that is going on is legal and above board. (This seems to bother you.) The only hope of changing their course is with hard evidence, which is not forthcoming from Segway LLC. Until such evidence is available, the solution is not to name-call or belittle people's legitimate concerns. In the long run it doesn't benefit your cause.

quote: I do understand the feelings of a bicycle afficionado who sees the possibility of Segway riders being able to go where he can't on a bike. I don't believe however that that is an appropriate reason to ban Segways from sidewalks.

???????
My feelings on sidewalks/bicycles are posted elsewhere. You are WAY, WAY off the mark. This is either a joke or troll designed to take us off topic. I'm not laughing or biting. I'll just say that I ride everywhere I want to, as far as I want to, as fast as I want to.

Casey

11-06-2002, 08:22 PM

quote:Everything that is going on is legal and above board. (This seems to bother you.)

NO, what bothers me is the actions of people trying to ban something that has not been shown to be harmful in any way. That is a knee-jerk reaction. What I am saying is for them to quit trying to issue punishment whan there is no known infraction of rules, laws or safety.

quote:the solution is not to name-call or belittle people's legitimate concerns.

That indicates to me you can't tolerate someone not accepting your side of an argument. You must insinuate I am doing something improper by not agreeing with you. A counter argument can't be made without using countering terms. What you call "legitimate concerns" is unjustified panic in my eyes.

The very act of trying to ban something without any evidence it is harmful, is in itself "belittling" that item and those who support it. These banning attempts are being done for no legitimate reason. You talk about not being fair to the protesters, and yet you seem to think it IS FAIR to issue punishment without reason, ie banning a harmless device (or at least one that has not been shown to be harmful in any way). You don't take someone out and hang him because you think he might commit a crime. That is vigilantism and is radical. What I just said is not name calling, it is stating a fact.

quote:My feelings on sidewalks/bicycles are posted elsewhere. You are WAY, WAY off the mark. This is either a joke or troll designed to take us off topic. I'm not laughing or biting. I'll just say that I ride everywhere I want to, as far as I want to, as fast as I want to.

I have read everything you have posted here. And it is quite easy to see that your main concern is that Segway will somehow get an advantage that bicycles are not allowed. That is an observation, not name calling. And accusing me of being a troll sounds very much like trolling in itself. Lets stay away from the personal attacks.

JohnM

11-06-2002, 08:49 PM

quote:Originally posted by Casey
I have read everything you have posted here. And it is quite easy to see that your main concern is that Segway will somehow get an advantage that bicycles are not allowed. That is an observation, not name calling. And accusing me of being a troll sounds very much like trolling in itself. Lets stay away from the personal attacks.

You keep getting in further and further over your head. Almost laughable. Go search out my positions. Way, way off the mark. I'm not biting.

ftropea

11-06-2002, 09:13 PM

Good discussion.. keep it clean. That's what separates us from animals and TIQ'ers :)

Remember, we're just having a little fun here. Don't get too worked up over it... there are more serious issues out there. You guys are both very rational and intelligent, however both have a difference of opinion on this particular issue.

Regards,

Frank A. Tropea

Blinky

11-07-2002, 09:24 PM

Back to the topic at hand, I agree with Casey on this one. Although it may sound a little extreme to call the protesters 'radical' in some people's opinions, I think that the Segway-HT should be given its chance to shine too.

Why fight against the Segway when there is no substance in their fight against Segway. Yes they are fighting to get them off the sidewalks, but what are they basing their arguments on?

People should realize that there is a lot of potential in having Segway's roaming around the sidewalks and in our streets. There are a lot of environmental benefits as well. If you over look the price of the Segway-HT what is there to really say other than assuming that it will be a harmful device?

This may sound very pro-Segway, but I use this same judgement for everything in life. I don't hate something because someone else hates it. I am old enough to realize everything deserves it chance in this world.

JohnM

11-07-2002, 11:33 PM

quote:Originally posted by Blinky
Why fight against the Segway when there is no substance in their fight against Segway. Yes they are fighting to get them off the sidewalks, but what are they basing their arguments on?

If a city, like Santa Cruz, has regulations limiting sidewalk use of virtually every other type of wheeled device, why should they make an exception for Segway? These folks just don't like wheels on their sidewalks. They are going to need some solid proof that Segway is different before they will allow its use. If they make an exception for Segway without some valid reason for that exception, then the cyclists, skaters, scooters and 'toy vehicles' will be demanding equal space, too. Santa Cruz doesn't need an basis for their arguement, which boils down to either 'wheels and sidewalks don't mix' or 'just because'. You can condemn this attitude till you're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that each community sets some of it's own rules. Blame it on Thomas Jefferson, a true radical.

In this case Segway has to prove itself first. Other places like here in Manchester, with hardly any sidewalk rules in force, Segway is more than welcome. Different towns, different attitudes. One size does not fit all. That's why the lawmakers left the ultimate decision to each municipality. Its going to be a long drawn out process before you see universal acceptance of Segway. If you think Segway deserves a chance to shine in your community, you better be prepared to work for it.

larrybob

11-08-2002, 04:06 AM

Bicycles ride in the street and in bike lanes, and not on sidewalks. Why can't Segways follow the same rules as bicycles?

ftropea

11-08-2002, 12:20 PM

Well maybe Segways belong on the streets, bike lanes *AND* sidewalks. We could debate this one all year long (and believe me, we have) but I don't think the issue will be settled until some independent testing results are published.

Regards,

Frank A. Tropea

n/a

11-08-2002, 01:08 PM

quote:If they make an exception for Segway without some valid reason for that exception, then the cyclists, skaters, scooters and 'toy vehicles' will be demanding equal space, too.

Bikes have been around so long that everybody has a pretty good idea as to how well they mix with pedestrians. So have most of the other modes of transportation u mentioned. Werent most of these means of transport, at some point, allowed on sidewalks until they proved to be unsafe or to be a nuisance?

JohnM

11-08-2002, 02:05 PM

quote:Originally posted by Lawrence
Bikes have been around so long that everybody has a pretty good idea as to how well they mix with pedestrians. So have most of the other modes of transportation u mentioned. Werent most of these means of transport, at some point, allowed on sidewalks until they proved to be unsafe or to be a nuisance?

Some were. But the specific case of Santa Cruz goes so far as to restrict the sidewalk use of 'similar devices', i.e., vague undefined/unnamed/unknown/yet-to-be-invented devices that someone just doesn't want on their sidewalks. Maybe something like a new type of scooter.
They don't need to give a new device, especially an EPAMD, a chance to prove intself. You would like to think so, but the state law doesn't read that way:
quote:Notwithstanding Section 21966, for the purpose of assuring
the safety of pedestrians, including seniors, persons with
disabilities, and others using sidewalks, bike paths, pathways,
trails, bike lanes, streets, roads, and highways, a city, county, or
city and county may, by ordinance, regulate the time, place, and
manner of the operation of electric personal assistive mobility
devices as defined in Section 313, and their use as a pedestrian
pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 467,
including limiting, prohibiting entirely in the local jurisdiction,
or prohibiting use in specified areas as determined to be appropriate
by local entities. State agencies may limit or prohibit the time,
place, and manner of use on state property.
If their purpose is to assure safety, Santa Cruz can regulate it. Nothing in the law says they have to supply evidence, one way or the other. If there is any question of safety, banning it would certainly assure safety. The job of Segway LLC and potential Segway riders is to convince any skeptics that the device is safe. Wishing it to be otherwise won't get the job done. Don't expect a free ride. (Unless you live here in beautiful ManchVegas NH!)

JohnM

11-08-2002, 02:16 PM

quote:Originally posted by larrybob

Bicycles ride in the street and in bike lanes, and not on sidewalks. Why can't Segways follow the same rules as bicycles?

Welcome aboard, larrybob. But watch yourself, you're talking heresy in some peoples eyes. ;)

Frank is coming around:quote:Well maybe Segways belong on the streets, bike lanes *AND* sidewalks.We could debate this one all year long (and believe me, we have) but I don't think the issue will be settled until some independent testing results are published.
And the state of New Jersey will be the test case. They will allow EPAMPs everywhere, sidewalks and streets, and treat them as BICYCLES.quote:An electric personal assistive mobility device may be operated on the public highways, sidewalks and bicycle paths of the State. Every person operating such a device shall be granted all of the rights and be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a bicycle by chapter four of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes except as to those provisions thereof which by their nature can have no application.I love this one. Go Jersey!

Casey

11-08-2002, 03:04 PM

Are you sure you aren't celebrating too soon? The author of this article believes the NJ law could backfire on bicycle riders, and ban the bicycles from using roads in many cases.

quote: Can Segway Legislation be a Threat to Bicycle Road Access?

* From: Peter Rosenfeld
* Subject: Can Segway Legislation be a Threat to Bicycle Road Access?
* Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 06:58:59 -0700

John Boyle recently forwarded the Philadelphia Inquirer article
about bike commuting. In the article was a mention of recent PA
legislation on the Segway as well as upcoming NJ legislation:

> Within months, the Segway - the self-balancing, electric-powered
>"personal transporter" - is expected on the market. Pennsylvania
>lawmakers amended the Motor Vehicle Code in June to allow the $3,000
>superscooter, with a top speed of 12.5 m.p.h., on sidewalks and bike
>paths. New Jersey legislators plan to take up the issue next year.

Note that the Segway is only allowed on paths and sidewalks. I have
heard that this is a start of a trend to reexamine vehicle code
laws having to do with small motor and electric vehicles - things
like mopeds and electric scooters.

Many people are not aware of the fact that bicycles have much greater
road access than vehicles like mopeds. A bicycle is allowed on
any road that is not a limited access highway (with exceptions in NJ
to allow use of certain critical Interstates) or where expressly
forbidden in certain cases ( for instance, a lot of bridges have
restrictions which can cause bicycle access problems.) There have
also been laws that also require bikes to use dedicated bike paths
paralleling a road when available, but not multi-use recreational trails
[Has the status of this changed recently?].

Contrast this to restrictions on small-moter vehicles like mopeds.
They are not allowed on (I'm relying on the NJ moped laws since I have
them handy):

1)Any 4-lane roads divided by a grass or concrete medium - this means I
could not use many of the 25 mph roads here in Camden such as Federal
Street (I recently had a truck driver yell at me saying I couldn't be
on 7th street here in Camden for this reason because I didn't have a motor
larger than 50cc on my bike - he was actually quoting the moped law);

2) Any roads with a speed limit of 50mph or higher, or
40 mph or higher if the Department of Motor Vehicles considers it
unsafe - so ironically the commuter in the Inquirer story certainly
could not get to work under this law.

These two restrictions would make it very difficult for me and most
other transportational bicyclists to get anywhere by bike.

So in any vehicle laws updates, it is very important to make sure
that bicycles don't lose their historic mobility and get lumped in
with mopeds, or, worst yet, something like electric scooters or Segways.
The latter are being restricted to only bike paths, sidewalks,
and possibly bike lanes. The exact same reasoning used to limit these
vehicles can be used to restrict bikes. So far, bicycles have kept
their road status, but I think only by the skin of our teeth.

And I hate to say this, but it is true - all the emphasis on bike
facilities may increase the danger of bicycles being limited only
to paths and roads that have been modified to have special facilities.

Be vigilant and don't let this happen! If it does, the people who actually
use bicycles for transportation will be driven off the roads. I plan
to closely follow any new legislation thrusts. I hope you all do too.

-Peter Rosenfeld
New Jersey

JohnM

11-08-2002, 03:55 PM

Good find Casey.

One thing that bikes have going for them is 100+ years of statistics. For instance, bikes have proven themselves to be more dangerous when ridden on the sidewalks and in some cities, NYC for example, sidewalk riding is already a serious crime. There's plenty of hard evidence out there showing what works and what doesn't.

Another thing going for them is 120 years of lobbying experience. The author is correct in suggesting vigilance, that's why I support the League of American Bicyclists. LAB started in the 1880s by lobbying for safe paved roads before there were any cars. EPAMD users might do well to follow the LAB example and eventually not rely on individual manufacturers to look out for their best interests.

Peter iNova

03-06-2003, 09:32 PM

Quote: "Radical protesters? When does an advocacy group like Mission Pedestrian <http://www.missionped.org/> become radical protesters?"

Answer: When they attempt to ban something they have zero experience with.

If they promote a law against physical realities one would deride them as being radical idiots. "Photons banned on Tuesdays!" would make them look like fools. And fools are a radical form of sane people.

When they seek to pass a law with zero real-world experience, they become de-facto perpetrators and/or encouragers of legislation without due consideration, and that qualifies in my book as "radical".

I believe that they are operating from a base of pre-conceived Fear, nothing less. But what is the truth?

Segway HTs are in such low numbers now that gaining experience with them will be slow, gradual and telling. If they turn out to be the public menace these folks think, then reality will reveal that. If not, then reality will prevail there, too.

The last thing we need is incorrect, inappropriate, fear-driven legislation. The first thing we need is supervisors, mayors, city council members who understand the HT from the inside out. Anyone with two hours experience gliding would be vastly better informed to decide what the proper legislation or cautions would be. There is plenty of time in the universe to see what evolves. There is NO need to rush to condemnation.

It's the folks who decide before knowing that deserve the term "prejudiced." And having a prejudice in one's head is a form of inappropriate, radical behavior.

-iNova
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/glidewalk/Home.html

god1138

03-07-2003, 12:04 AM

Point-Counterpoint. This is sounding like a bad SNL sketch. Casey at the Bat. John M at the mound.

All kiddin aside, how about THIS idea: If these pedestrian advocacy groups really value whatever the h#ll it is they think they're doing in trying to ban Segways in the name of pedestrian safety, maybe they ought to think about the long-term consequences of their actions.

What do I mean by that? More people on Segways equals more people on sidewalks. More people on sidewalks equals advocacy for the construction of wheelchair ramps and sidewalk repair and maintenance. If what these people 'value' so much is so important to them, wouldn't it make sense to INCREASE the use of these sidewalks by having more persons on it - EVEN PEOPLE ON EPAMD'S????

People walking, people gliding. Makes no difference except that these so-called 'advocacy groups' that are trying to have the HT banned are putting the <ahem> cart before the horse. Makes no sense to me that that they DON'T want more people on their precious concrete trails - the kind of people (us) that could help lobby for improved pedestrian and handicapped mobility and help push municipalities into a larger sidewalk repair and installation operation.

Given these thoughts, does anyone else here see that these so-called 'advocates' may not have thought their plan through very thoroughly?

-rmo

My other car is a Segway!

BruceWright

03-07-2003, 03:13 AM

Actually rmo, This was brought up very directly by Matt Dailida from Segway at the LA Commission meeting, and it was a very well-considered point. I think people thought about that for the first time.

But really, some people there were really, genuinely afraid that they or someone like them would be run over by a Segway.
They couldn't care less about a cracked sidewalk from that perspective. I didn't see that from their perspective until yesterday.

If I thought I was going to get run down, and you were telling me, but yeah, just be trusting and patient and eventually the sidewalks will be smoother, I'd tell you you were crazy.

I don't know what the answer will be for Los Angeles. I tried to do my best to explain that I would be a respectful user, and that I thought that most Segway users would be safe. I think that people in the disabled community are somewhat at the mercy of the public at large, and that's what makes the Segway a hot button issue. It's an issue that is a symbol of a world that has moved in ways that doesn't include all of it's members.

I wish there was an answer that satisfies all of the concerns of blind people, while at the same time allows for the Segway to operate as safely as it can, especially for people with limited mobility or the elderly.

I don't want my grandfather to have to ride a Segway in the street, but I don't want the blind gentleman I met at the meeting to have to fear my grandfather.

I don't think there's any one perfect answer. What we have to do as a community is strike a balance.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

PoloAk

03-07-2003, 05:20 AM

I think one of us will have to get run over by a car before they figure this out.

But Bruce is right, its a community issue and all we can do is give them information and help them see our perspectives. Really, we're not fit for the streets or the bike paths, so a happy medium has to be reached. I'm just worried that these anti-segers aren't worried enough about OUR safety. "Sure, throw them into the street." Great. And i'll paint a big target on my backside. We can legislate all we want for the blind and feeble, but heaven help us if we protect those that aren't.

Okay. Sorry. I'm just anti-incompetent people.

Kelsey

BruceWright

03-07-2003, 02:06 PM

quote:Originally posted by PoloAk

We can legislate all we want for the blind and feeble, but heaven help us if we protect those that aren't.

Well, Polo, that's where you come in.

You, yourself, personally, need to get involved if you want people to understand your point of view. No number of posts on Segwaychat will do anything at all toward that goal. The only ones reading this are Segwayers.

Get involved at the government level. I know lots of folks who are going out and have gone out this week to give demo-rides to their representatives.

That's how you make a difference.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

patnowak

05-07-2003, 07:17 PM

Hi new segway user here and new to the forum. Can anyone enlighten me on mall policy in general or is it too varied? Also, experience will prove the safety of segway if given a chance. There should be organized efforts to promote the safe use as well as the benefits to cities and business' that welcome Segway. The following bit of history may provide some insight and a chuckle as well. (This letter was written almost 200 years ago)

Dear President Andrew Jackson:

The canal system of this country is being threatened by the spread of railroads. The Federal Government must preserve the canal system for the following reasons:

One- if canal boats are supplanted by railroads, serious unemployment will result. Captains, cooks, drivers, repairmen, and lock tenders will be left without means of livelihood, not to mention the numerous farmers now employed in growing hay for horses.

Two- Boat builders would suffer and towline, whip and harness makers would be left destitute.

Three- Canal boats are absolutely essential to the defense of the United States. In the event of the expected trouble with England, the Erie Canal would be the only means by which we could move supplies so vital to waging modern war.

As you well know, Mr. President, railroad carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by engines which in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should move at that breakneck speed.

Signed - Martin Van Buren
Governor of New York
April 1829
This copy provided by Pat Nowak Segway owner and retired Director of Michigan Department of Transportation

BruceWright

05-07-2003, 07:28 PM

Welcome, pat.

That is a fascinating letter.

As far as mall policies, I suggest you talk to the owner of the mall, as it is private property.

Generally I try to encourage people to not use their Segway in a mall unless it is a restorative device for you.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

05-07-2003, 07:32 PM

malls are private property, we're all working to gain acceptance on public sidewalks and roadways-- which allow us to -get to the mall- lock up our hts and do our biz.

cheers,
pt

======================

segway ht journal:
http://www.bookofseg.com

other stuff:
http://www.flashenabled.com

vpv

05-07-2003, 07:55 PM

I work for one of the largest Mall owners/property management company in the country (wwww.madisonmarquette.com). One of my supervisors is a VP of Operations for all of westcoast malls. I posed her the same questions about use of Segway in Malls. Her response was that of a positive one. She indicated that there's no reason why Segways cannot be permitted on malls. Her only concern is since shoppers buys stuff at the malls, there needs to be someway to carry all these stuff that people buy to carry home. For now, the way Segway is built, it doesn't fully accommodate all that or at least only 75 lbs.

So the issue here is more of utility than policy.

I have taken my Segway inside one of a high class mall in Beverly Hills (Two Rodeo Drive). No one seemed to mind. The tourist were busy taking pictures of the Segway..

BruceWright

05-07-2003, 08:13 PM

Two Rodeo is outdoors, more of a sidewalk roadway than a mall. I wouldn't think they would mind either, as it functions more like an alley than a mall, and it's just a short block in length.

Did they let you in Porche Design? ;)

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

RAG1247

05-07-2003, 08:22 PM

as I previously mentioned in another post, everyone should view their own city council's web site/s. In the case of Ft. Lauderdale, you can sign up to receive advance notice by email of the agenda for each and every commission or council meeting. i did for Ft. Laud and at least someone interested in Segways may get some advance notice if segways are to be discussed in a meeting. if they don't have the advance notification check your respective site periodically and review the agenda of the next meeting.

In the case of Key West, the first reading of the ordinance to totally ban segways last night has been tabled until the next meeting on May 20th. I would like to think that the many emails sent by our members helped along with the contact by Segway LLC personnel.

I believe that Blinky noticed a writeup in the local Key West paper detailing the proposed ban which could then be found on the Key West City site (keywestcity.com). If that article hadn't been noticed I fully believe that the total ban would have passed on the first reading. If anyone hears anything about any locality considering a ban, carla vallone at segway should be notified and the info should be posted in the forum.

I believe that emails from Florida to California city goverments and similar emails from California to Florida city governments has and will continue to help (and from other states to other states, etc.).

One of my concerns is that if bans start being commonplace, then similar activity begins to snowball. Don't ignore a proposed ban in California just because you live in Florida or Utah.

Richard
Ft. Lauderdale
http://www.sonyguy.com/stars_rag2.gif[/img=left] [i]If you can’t change the people around you, change the people around you