Government Support!?

[fcfactory]

In Canada, there really is no official law allowing segways on the road, however, the Quebec government is actually doing a study (48 segways)in the city of st-jerome (20 miles north of montreal).

They completed phase 1 (preliminary testing)and found the segway to be technically sound and generally safe.

Now they are doing a REAL LIFE STUDY with regular citizens. Basically, they have to use it 1 hour per day, 7 days a week and write a report about their experience.

It shows that our government is open-minded about the Segway.

This is very positive...you have no idea how long I have waited.

[Dragan]

Actually, the study you're referring to isn't a Quebec Government study; it was commissioned by Transport Canada and the center for electric vehicle research was selected to conduct it.

The overall levels of acceptance (or tolerance,depending on where you are) in Canada is pretty good. Canadians seem to be more accepting of the technology without reservation. Ontario seems to be the toughest nut to crack so far, but hopefully even they will come around and recognize what a valuable addition the Segway is to the Frozen White North!
Wayne

Segway of Alberta - Calgary
www.mysegway.ca

[KSagal]

Fcfactory,

Your language seems to indicate other than your words. To say that the testers "have" to use it one hour a day and write a report about it seems to put them on a spot.

You also stated that there is no law authorizing segways use in the road. It is designed for the sidewalk. This may just be your choice of wording, or maybe you do mean the road... I ask, is there a law that prohibits pedestrians that have a device? Is there a law that authorizes a walker, or a tricycle, or crutches? Of course not.

Generally, things are legal, unless specified somewhere as illegal.

Knowing nothing more than your post, I would say that forcing segways thru these hoops and dog and pony show does show curiosity, not open-mindedness.

Thanks Wayne for your clarifications...

I don't want to come off too negative here. I thought it was supposed to be a negative report till I got to the end. I don't really have a problem with governments or test groups that are conservative or skeptical. I am involved in local government. I believe that a major responsibility of government is to protect the masses from dangers and potential dangers...

The key is not to test or not to test, the key is how is the slant of the test. And don't attempt to tell me that most of these tests are not slanted...

Pro segway, (or bicycle, or motorcycle, or any other specialty group) set up tests to prove their safety. Anti segway groups set up tests to prove they are a menace.

To all I say, good luck with the test, and lets hope it goes positively for the pro segway group...



Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.

[JohnM]

quote:Originally posted by KSagal

You also stated that there is no law authorizing segways use in the road. It is designed for the sidewalk. This may just be your choice of wording, or maybe you do mean the road... I ask, is there a law that prohibits pedestrians that have a device? Is there a law that authorizes a walker, or a tricycle, or crutches? Of course not.

Generally, things are legal, unless specified somewhere as illegal.
Generally, vehicles and motorized devices are illegal on sidewalks in both the US and Canada. (In Quebec it is technically illegal to even walk a bicycle on the sidewalk.) Without a law in place that makes the Segway a non-vehicle or grants it an exemption to existing sidewalk law, in remains at best in legal limbo. The reason for the rush to get EPAMD laws passed in the US was because there were so many laws on the books that, if strictly enterpreted, would have made Segways illegal. Dean Kamen even went so far as to give Manchester's mayor and police chief a pre-release look at the Segway so that he would not run afoul of the local sidewalk ordinances.

With over a hundred years of traffic law out there, the generalities are pretty well covered. Do something radically different on the roads or sidewalks and you'll find its already illegal.


JohnM
If riding 2 hours is fun, then riding 20 hours is 10 times more fun.
RUSA #235

[fcfactory]

"In Canada, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act makes Transport Canada responsible for establishing safety standards for motorized vehicles manufactured or imported into Canada to be used on public roads. Because the Segway HT is not a motorized vehicle intended for use on the road, it doesn't fall under Transport Canada's jurisdiction. It is up to the provincial governments to decide the future of the Segway HT on the public right-of-way."

Transport Canada is sponsoring the study, but it is a study initiated by a provincial organization.

Semantics aside, it would be nice for the QC government to make it official/legal for use on sidewalks.

FcFactory



Evaluation of the Segway™ HT Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device (EPAMD)




Objective
To explore the Segway Human Transporter (HT) technology, examine human and technical factors that have an impact on the safety of users and pedestrians, identify specific areas for their use, and determine potential environmental benefits.

Description
This project is part of a study by the Centre d’expérimentation des véhicules électriques du Québec (CEVEQ) aimed at assessing the technical characteristics and performance of EPAMDs, including the Segway HT. The first phase involved a technical and ergonomic assessment in a test area, while the second phase will take place under normal use conditions. During this second phase, a number of users will take turns using a Segway during the course of their work, travelling to and from work, or travelling short distances in the city.

Participants of various ages and physical conditions and from various walks of life were asked to fill out a questionnaire after they used the vehicles.

Progress to date
A technical evaluation carried out at the PMG Technologies Test and Research Centre in Phase 1 found that Segways are stable, run quietly and smoothly, and give users a feeling of being in control. They are easy to manoeuvre, accelerate gently, run silently and can stop quickly in case of emergency. They compare favourably with other types of vehicles, particularly bicycles or mopeds.

A human factors study conducted by Systèmes Humains-Machines Inc., on a target group of 49 people who tested a Segway in a closed environment recommends that users should be at least 14 years old, wear safety helmets, and undergo a recognized training program. Obtaining a driver’s licence was not considered mandatory.

Planning is underway for the second phase of the work, which involves trials in real-use conditions. This phase will consider:

reliability and safety of these devices when used in urban areas
social acceptability of scooters and Segways in Quebec
ability of these devices to replace automobiles for short trips in urban areas

[KSagal]

JohnM,

I agree. The issue could just be one of my understanding of the language.

I appreciate what was posted, but was confused. I also may have presupposed my understanding of local laws to be more universal than it is.

I believe you stated it better than I. I feel that we aught be more focused on exempting segways from a current law that may make them illegal, as opposed to expecting lawmakers to make a special law that makes them legal.

My thought is this. example: All electric vehicles are illegal to be on the sidewalk... Have segway defined as to not be an electric Vehicle as opposed to be an electric vehicle that is approved.

example: (True example) No vechile is allowed on the streets in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that is not registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV has many classifications of vehicles and registering different rules for each, from a simple helmet law for minors on bikes up to the House moving trailers we occationally see.

Again, I say, let's not make another classification specially for segways, but again have the official defination of the segway as not a vehicle and therefore not subject to this law.

It all goes to do you want more laws, or better laws. Do we write it like, "this is illegal unless you do that, and that, but not this" or do we write, "this is illegal under these conditions..."

Still and all, it is far better that the testing is going on, if it is fair, than laws are being written in ignorance. I thank Fcfactory for bringing it to our attention.


Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.

[fcfactory]

http://www.segway.com/aboutus/press_releases/pr_061903.html

Here is segway link

[Dragan]

All good, and valid points. Canadian legislation regarding Segways struggles with the same issues; it's much easier to try and stuff the Segway into an existing legal "cubbyhole"than it is to actually look at the machine, evaluate it's effectiveness and safety, then write and enact laws to address the technology in an appropriate fashion.

That's a VERY easy trap to fall into. A case in point is the Mayor of a resort community near Calgary who is absolutely infatuated with the Segway, and firmly believes it is just what they need in their community. However, as soon as his staff started researching the legalities of it, and commenced with the Compartmentalizing, they advised him that it just wouldn't work. He almost went with that, however with a lot of effort to convince him that if the law didn't fit the product and the product didn't fit the law, a new law was required, he is looking at it again, from a different perspective.

We've actively encouraged municipal governments to educate themselves before legislating. It is paying off; it happened in the U.S. and we really want to see this same thing happen in Canada too
Wayne

Segway of Alberta - Calgary
www.mysegway.ca

[JohnM]

quote:Originally posted by KSagal

example: (True example) No vechile is allowed on the streets in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that is not registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV has many classifications of vehicles and registering different rules for each, from a simple helmet law for minors on bikes up to the House moving trailers we occationally see.


Sorry, but your example is false.

JohnM
If riding 2 hours is fun, then riding 20 hours is 10 times more fun.
RUSA #235

[JohnM]

quote:Originally posted by fcfactory

http://www.segway.com/aboutus/press_releases/pr_061903.html

Here is segway link

The evaluation of the Phase 1 study (which included electric scooters) is at http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/14200/14285e.htm
Phase 2 ends December 2005.

FWIW, Transport Canada has already run a successful evalutaion of electric bikes that drew entries from Canada, the United States, Japan, and Europe (Honda, Ford, Yamaha, Peugeot, Renault, ZAP, EV Global Motors, Groupe Procycle, etc.). Findings were very positive. http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/13700/13732e.htm

JohnM
If riding 2 hours is fun, then riding 20 hours is 10 times more fun.
RUSA #235

[KSagal]

quote:Originally posted by JohnM

quote:Originally posted by KSagal

example: (True example) No vechile is allowed on the streets in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that is not registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV has many classifications of vehicles and registering different rules for each, from a simple helmet law for minors on bikes up to the House moving trailers we occationally see.


Sorry, but your example is false.

JohnM
If riding 2 hours is fun, then riding 20 hours is 10 times more fun.
RUSA #235


I was trying to make a point, not looking for a fight. I omitted the word "motor" in the first line, and misspelled "vehicle".

I did some research regarding NEV's. Currently Mass has no legislation at all about them, and the basic premise, as modified, is accurate as far as I know...

By the way, I enjoy riding my bike for 2 hours. I do not enjoy riding my bike for 20 hours, therefore your sign off is false.

Let's call it even.


Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.

[JohnM]

quote:Originally posted by KSagal

Let's call it even.

Even it is.

But you do see how the addition/omission of a single word (in this case, 'motor') or the erroneous assumption of an underlying definition (see the street/sidewalk definition in the Sanibel thread) can flip your legal status. Assumptions may not help you if find yourself in an unfortunate accident where you are operating in a manner that is outside of current law, even if you are operating in what most people here would consider a safe manner. You could be without any legal recourse in such a situation. Know the relevant law, thoroughly. Especially if you taking on the role of pavement underdog.

And you assume my old sig refered to bicycle riding. Are you sure? It is sufficiently ambiguous to cover anything, machine or beast, that might be ridden. Your sig refers to roads being traveled. Do you mean this literally or figuratively? Are the roads being traveled by Segway? What about those roads that are off limits to Segways? Do you know when someone is yanking your control shaft?

JohnM
Anything worth doing for 2 hours is 10 times more worthwhile if done for 20 hours.
RUSA #235

[KSagal]

John,

wait...err...ah... There. Got the waders on now...

Your own subtitle calls you a senior cyclist. Of course, you don't specify how many wheels or how senior, or for that matter, senior to what?

I caught myself on the last one as your sign off doesn't specify 20 hours all at once, but that slid past.

I did a good chuckle at the new sign off.


Mine, by the way, I have used long before I knew what a segway was, and it is both figurative and literal. I believe it works for me both ways...

As far as having traveled down a road, on the sidewalk, bike lane, or along the wires atop the poles, I would offer that when you got to the end, it is reasonable to say you traveled the road, regardless of your conveyance or the lane used...

Well, that's it. waders off. topic closed for me.

It's been fun...

Karl Ian Sagal

Each road you travel should be just a bit better for having had you pass.