|
|||||||
| Notices |
| Tours and Rentals Issues, experiences & opinions relating to Segway rentals and tours. |
06-04-2003, 03:56 AM
|
#11 |
|
Advanced Member
   Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: seattle, wa, USA.
Posts: 3,000
|
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 |
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 04:11 AM
|
#12 |
|
Member
  Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA, .
Posts: 313
|
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 ::: |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 04:15 AM
|
#13 |
|
Advanced Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: seattle, wa, USA.
Posts: 3,000
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 11:11 AM
|
#14 |
|
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ManchVegas, NH
Posts: 2,148
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 11:34 AM
|
#15 |
|
Advanced Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: seattle, wa, USA.
Posts: 3,000
|
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/B...an/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 |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 11:48 AM
|
#16 |
|
Advanced Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: seattle, wa, USA.
Posts: 3,000
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 12:29 PM
|
#17 |
|
Advanced Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sherman Oaks (Los Angeles), California, USA.
Posts: 3,296
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 12:51 PM
|
#18 |
|
Advanced Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: seattle, wa, USA.
Posts: 3,000
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 01:19 PM
|
#19 |
|
Advanced Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sherman Oaks (Los Angeles), California, USA.
Posts: 3,296
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
06-04-2003, 01:25 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ManchVegas, NH
Posts: 2,148
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Linear Mode
