PDA

View Full Version : rental idea...and seattle owners...




pt
06-03-2003, 10:08 PM
okay-

in seattle we have the burke gilman trail, it's a multi-use trail that everyone can use, even segways-- until this week. as per the city, the rental issue forced a quick ban on the park and trails, they can't just say one park, so they needed to hit them all and the trails are part of that.

so, we're going to meet with the city soon, or at least we hope so and find out what it will take to allow us where bikes and skates go, if that's possible.

one solution, only insured owners. that way rental places who choose to have real segway insurance that cover the rentals are fine and owners (like me, terry, etc..) who have insurance are also fine.

it's not ideal, but i'm thinking that this might be a solution if we meet them and they're worried about liability.

just a thought.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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




Blinky
06-03-2003, 10:10 PM
What would be an easy way for park officials to check insurance papers?

Its not a bad idea, there has to be a way to work with the responsible owners in Seattle.


edit: post was edited

http://www.bl.com/ben/gifs/Blinky.gif http://www.harpy.net/paul/blinky.jpg

pt
06-03-2003, 10:13 PM
well-

let's put it this way, if you're on a segway on the trail as of now-- they're going to stop you... so this way, they can say "okay, you're fine" or warn you / ticket you if you don't carry the insurance.

it's not quite fair, bicylists and skaters do not need to carry their insurance cards, but we might need to think this way we if want to use the burke trails we used to be able to.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

Balance
06-03-2003, 11:43 PM
Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

They could also set speed limits (all the time or better yet...just when the trails are congested.) To lessen the impact of rentals, it might make sense to set rules such as Segways can't ride side by side and how close they can ride together.

pt
06-03-2003, 11:45 PM
balance-

can you email me directly, i'm collecting wa state owners for this effort, thanks.

i think we can win the burke back for owners.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

mzokc
06-03-2003, 11:47 PM
State Farm issues a Segway insurance card just like the car. The HT serial number is on the card, so it could be checked easily.

Mark

terryp
06-04-2003, 12:46 AM
Progressive does that too. They even sent me a plastic tag for my Segway key chain with my policy number on it!

Practicing Safe Segs in Seattle

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 01:24 AM
Good luck folks. This is really bad for you guys.

How are all those Seattle Meter readers going to get around?

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

pt
06-04-2003, 01:29 AM
bruce-

there are not any meters in the parks or on the burke-gilman trail :-]

i think what we are about to do explore will be some great learning, i'm looking forward to it.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

whistler
06-04-2003, 03:32 AM
Maybe hiring a guy to run along the trails in front of any Segway rider, waving a flag and

yelling "Danger... Danger... Segway coming through!!!", might be a feasable answer to

reversing the ban... after all that's what was required in some places when the first

automobiles were driven... and they too didn't require registeration or liscensing or

insurance at first.
There seems to be a pattern here.......... and people are falling right in line with what

"Somebody else" is requiring.
The only way to really stop this infringement on peoples rights is to make sure the Segway

is considered a "pedestrian" in ALL aspects... and not a "motorized vehicle"... then NOBODY

should be able to ban it as an "electric scooter" or "motorized vehicle"...then anyone with

a Segway could and should be able to go anywhere they might want to go if they were walking.
It's really the only way.............. to be allowed to use Segways... now and in the future

when there are thousands in every city. Kamen knew this... that's why he started at the

state level... soooooooooooo.... go back to the STATE level and get them to require cities

and parks to consider Segway a "pedestrian".......... problem solved! If they then ban

Segway from a trail or sidewalk (and yes even inside buildings such as shopping malls), they

will also be banning walkers.... and that won't last long...............
Also remember........ bans can be reversed........ they are NOT permanent.

pt
06-04-2003, 03:56 AM
bahaha, whistler! the flag waiver isn't a bad idea and might be worth it :-]

-- you bring up some great points.

our first step is to talk with the parks dept and hear their needs, all of them.

i think we'll be able to reverse the ban on the burke-gilman.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

hubbahbubbah
06-04-2003, 04:11 AM
Suggesting that owners be insured does put the Segway in a different class from pedestrians and other non-vehicular modes of travel. It might be setting a dangerous precedent.

Hubbah

::: http://stinkyshorts.blogspot.com :::

pt
06-04-2003, 04:15 AM
hubbah-

it sure does and it's not a solution that any of us want, that said-- there is a group of owners in seattle that now cannot use the multi-use burke-gilman trail, so we need to see what it will take to allow the hts on them. our first step is to talk with the parks dept and hear their needs, all of them.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

JohnM
06-04-2003, 11:11 AM
pt,
You might want to do some additional homework and see if you can find out if the trails in question come under the US Code, Title 23, Chapter 2, Section 217, 'Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways'. In a nutshell, this law says that if certain federal $$$ went into the trails then they are off limits to all motorized devices except maintenance vehicles, wheelchairs and ,in some cases, electric bikes and snowmobiles, or 'such other circumstances as the (DOT) Secretary deems appropriate'. Seattle may have their hands tied by this law and risk loss of federal funding if they violate it. Could be worth looking into.

This is the law that former Sen. Bob Smith (R NH) was trying to get amended last year when his political career took a nose-dive. The bill died in committee. As far as I know, nobody has resurrected it.

pt
06-04-2003, 11:34 AM
johnm-

i'm all about doing additional homework. the goal is to get all the info from the parks dept and seattle dot in regards to multi-use trails and see what their needs are, you may be 100% accurate in your assessment. here are some comments:

according to state law here, the segway is -not- classified as a motor vehicle, so they cannot lose their funding if that is the explanation:
Sec. 2. RCW 46.04.320 and 1961 c 12 s 46.04.320:
"Motor vehicle" shall mean every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails. {+ An electric personal assistive mobility device is not considered a motor vehicle.+}

that said, it can be restricted off the multi-use trails:
(c) A state agency or local government may regulate the operation of an EPAMD within the boundaries of any area used for recreation, openspace, habitat, trails, or conservation purposes. +}

since the trail is ran by the seattle department of transportation we might be able to talk with them and see if there really is a ban. from my chats so far, the ban was encacted because to the rental issues that were raised, the parks dept. can restrict this and it might not change.

it's hard to explain the burke-gilman trail system here, it's not a skinny path, it's a wide paved multi-use "road":
http://www.cityofseattle.net/parks/BurkeGilman/bgtrail.htm

it's a non-car way to get around all over seattle, i would say most of the use come from cyclists for exercise, followed by commuting.

people take electric-assisted bikes, skateboards, longboards, rollarblades, bikes with carriers, trailers, you name it. speeds are zero to well over 30 mph. there isn't a line which divides pedestrian and bikes, but usually it self-forms. you do need to be careful on weekends, i've been "tapped" a few times while jogging.

this is an important route for segway owners since many destinations do not have sidewalks or streets (25 mph and up or it's a highway).

cheers,
pt


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

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

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

pt
06-04-2003, 11:48 AM
in march of 2002 the pedestrian group in my area was most worried about the following:

"As one of our members has pointed out, we could see these rented to tourists this summer, and the inexperienced drivers could be trying to force their way through the Pike Place Market".

i think that some of the groups in seattle are turning their attention to the segway as well, i'm a member of most of the groups, so i'm sure i'll hear something next meeting or event i have to participate in.

cheers,
pt





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

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

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

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 12:29 PM
As a follow-up to JohnM's point about federal mandates.

If a Federal law prevents motorized vehicles from a trail, a STATE law can't get around it by describing a motorized vehicle as "not a vehicle". Otherwise we'd have no federal system of government.



-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

pt
06-04-2003, 12:51 PM
that's good point bruce. hmm, it's not a federal "law" though -they just won't give you any funding, which is most likely worse than a law :-]

"sure, you can do stuff we don't like, we just won't pay for it"...

johnm, do you have any links to the data, articles, info, etc...?

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 01:19 PM
Anything Congress enacts and the President signs is a law, I think.

It's a law that provides for funding in certain circumstances. In this case, it wouldn't be Segway owners disobeying the law, it would be the parks department.

But the description of what is a motor vehicle and what isn't would depend on the verbiage of the federal mandate, and would be subject to the interpretation of a federal court.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

JohnM
06-04-2003, 01:25 PM
quote:Originally posted by pt

that's good point bruce. hmm, it's not a federal "law" though -they just won't give you any funding, which is most likely worse than a law :-]

"sure, you can do stuff we don't like, we just won't pay for it"...

johnm, do you have any links to the data, articles, info, etc...?

cheers,
pt


The United States Code is the "LAW", second only the the US Constitution. When Congress passes a law and the Prez signs it, it goes into the Code.

The Code is on the web at several websites, but the most easly searched at read verion I've found is at the Cornell Law School:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

Title 23, Chapter 2, Section 217, 'Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways' is at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/23/217.html

What we have here is just another case where HT use is outrunning our legal system. Segway LLC might want to ask Bob Smith's sucessor, Sen. John Sununu III (R NH), who used a Segway during his campaign, to get Segways added to the list of exceptions to Sect. 217.

pt
06-04-2003, 01:26 PM
more great points bruce-

i would say , yep--it would be subject to how a court would define it if pushed. since states do not classify the ht as a motor vehicle, who knows. i hope that's not the outcome, resources devoted to court battles that is-- i'm pretty sure there's a solution here somewhere.

these are good exercises to prepare our talks and thinking.

for now, it's 100% intake, then we'll regroup, talk to segway and see what they suggest, etc...

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 01:34 PM
Wow, great reference to the code, JohnM.


Look at the definitions. I think we fall under the "electric bicycle" part of the code, pretty strongly.



"The term ''electric bicycle'' means any bicycle or tricycle with a low-powered electric motor weighing under 100 pounds, with a top motor-powered speed not
in excess of 20 miles per hour." "


and...


Motorized vehicles may not be permitted on trails and pedestrian walkways under this section, except for -

when State or local regulations permit, electric bicycles;

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

pt
06-04-2003, 01:49 PM
this is great info johnm and bruce, thanks for finding this.

electric bikes are on the burke-gilman every day, some times it's hard to tell since they look like bikes, but they're there each day.

i've seen a few dozen each weekend. i guess i'll take some pictures soon or video.

so...if that's the case, they need to allow us? or get rid of electric bikes on the trail and inspect bikes that might be motor assisted? that sounds horrible, so perhaps we can work out a solution or at least have this to talk about.

there's even a testimonal online about how someone uses their ebike on the burke:
http://www.electricvehiclesnw.com/main/testimonials.htm

it's "e. schulman"'s one.

this article states the following:
http://www.washington.edu/upass/profiles/bicycling/jim_portugal.html

"Electric bikes do not require licenses or insurance, are allowed on most bike trails including the Burke-Gilman, cruise up to 20 mph, and cost no more than what some people pay for a pedal-only bicycle".

time to find out more...

cheers,
pt

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

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

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

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 01:58 PM
If "electric bicycle" includes things with 3 wheels, surely any two of those are non-tandem. If this is the law they use to restrict you, velcro a caster to your standing platform and call yourself an electric tricycle.

http://shop.itwplastiglide.com/images/medium-duty-caster.jpg

We don't fall outside the spirit of that law, which is primarily for transportation, and allows for low powered electrical two-wheelers.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

pt
06-04-2003, 02:05 PM
bruce-

this is funny and a great way to look at things too.

wayne! get ready to take some orders for a few dozen seg-on segway to electric tricycle kits!

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 02:10 PM
If it came to that in discussions with the city, It would be a helpful and humorous point to illustrate. You could whip off the front valence that is velcroed on anyway, and replace it with a wheel. It wouldn't need to touch the ground to make the point.

The point being, the Segway falls squarely between the description of an electric bicycle and an electric tricycle, both of which are permitted.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

wayne
06-04-2003, 02:16 PM
I was already ahead of this. Did you see the F Carrier (front carrier) with an attached wheel.

If it takes a third wheel, why not. We can also add training wheels to the side and call it a wheelchair.

Seg-On

JohnM
06-04-2003, 02:54 PM
I don't think you can argue that you are an electric bike on a federally funded trail and at the same time say you are an EPAMD on a city sidewalk without appearing a wee bit hypocritical. ;) Best to push for federal recognition. As pointed out, EPAMDs are certainly within the spirit of the existing federal law.

If the law is not ammended, I guarantee you will see some local walking/cycling groups who worked hard to get the trails built become very possessive about 'their' trails and fight you tooth and nail on this issue.

pt
06-04-2003, 03:01 PM
johnm-

i think it's clear bruce used this as a humorous example.

right now, the goal is to stick to getting all the information and needs from the park dept / dot.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

ftropea
06-04-2003, 03:04 PM
Well, I've heard cyclists say their bicycles are "vehicles" - and that helps make the argument they should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of automobiles on roads. If that's the case, what are "vehicles" doing on park trails?

Regards,

Frank A. Tropea

[/sc] Admin - "Keep your wheels on the ground!" - Contact Me (segwaychat@segwaychat.com)

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 03:13 PM
Sometimes I think we would have had an easier time if LLC just introduced the Segway as a non-tandem electric bike with better stopping and a slower top speed than an e-bike.

That's what it is, after all.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

Linc2000
06-04-2003, 03:24 PM
I don't think requiring insurance for a Segway is unreasonable. It sends two messages: 1. The Segway owner has taken responsibility for actions on his/her Segway. 2. An insurance company believes the risks of possible damage by Segway operators are minimal. Two good messages to send to politicians who must provide for the safety of the public. Lincoln [8D] I put my Progressive Insurance tag (there is a place to write your policy number on the tag)on the keychain with my Segway key.

<center> http://www.wwwebhosting.com/tm3wwwlogo.gif</center>

pt
06-04-2003, 03:26 PM
frank has a great question.

on steve's site it says this (http://www.humantransport.org/universalaccess/page5.html):
Bicyclists are drivers of vehicles; every street is a bicycle facility. ...Traffic law in every state assigns bicycle operators all of the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles on roads.

so my thought is...bikes seem to be treated "different" depending where they are being operated. johnm said "wee bit hypocritical" is that the same here? i don't think so, i think each method of use needs to be looked at, and it does matter where you are.

in my city, a bike is allowed on the street (vehicle) sidewalks (pedestrian) and all parks and trails (pedestrian).

perhaps it's fair to suggest or ask if segways could do the same?

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

BruceWright
06-04-2003, 03:45 PM
pt..


I think it's a very light grey area. ;)



I do think that taking the electric bicycle point of view would be a good way to find common ground. The Segway is fundmentally the same as an electric bicycle in every way, except the ways a Segway would be even less obtrusive.

-Bruce Wright

Segway: Vehicle of Dream

fredkap
06-04-2003, 03:53 PM
PT, I know that your thought is to show proof of insurance to raise the bar so to speak, but the rental company might have insurance that covers all of their riders. Also, the City won't want to have to verify each year that a policy was renewed. However a deposit required for each separate rider would be prohibitive for a rental company and having the deposit or the bulk of the deposit refundable in a year would be too unreasonable for a casual renter but no big deal for an owner. ($100 Safe Segging Deposit refundable in 1 year if you have practiced safe segging.)

JohnM
06-04-2003, 03:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by pt
i think each method of use needs to be looked at, and it does matter where you are.


Good point.
This is why one of the more thorough EPAMD laws so far is the one in Wisconsin. Maybe too thorough. It's extremely difficult to follow because they went through the entire traffic code and added 'and EPAMDs' almost everywhere the word pedestrian or bicycle occured. They recognize the that on the sidewalks and crosswalks, EPAMDs are to be treated as pedestrians, while on the streets they are given the same status as bikes. They don't call an EPAMD a vehicle or pedestrian, just an electric personal assistive mobility device that has different rights a responsibilities depending on where it is used.

You Segway owners have a unique conveyance that can be equally at home
on the street, sidewalk and indoors. Attaching a single definition of 'vehicle' or 'pedestrian' on yourself doesn't do you justice.

pt
06-04-2003, 04:33 PM
johnm-

this has been a great dicussion. thanks for helping us define and refine some thinking.

hopefully we can score a meeting with the park and dot folks asap and see what they're doing.

cheers,
pt



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

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

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

scepter77
06-04-2003, 05:52 PM
Sorry to ask a question that all of you have probably discussed a hundred times, but what are the drawbacks of trying to get the state to issue licenses, not for the segway but for the individual. (or maybe for both) Even if it meant experienced owners volunteering at the dmv occasionally to certify people. I assume it would just mean added revenue for the state and would certify that the owner has some skill on the device. You could even require insurance verification for annual renewal of your segway registration.

What are the roadblocks you may have discussed?