Update on California Regulatory Activity

[Spinmeister]

Dear Segway Chat members,

Hello! Matt Dailida, Segway's Director of Regulatory Affairs, asked me to post this letter regarding the status of California regulatory efforts. Those of you gliding in California will be interested in this information. Neelix will be conducting an interview with Matt for SegCast in the coming weeks. If you have questions for Matt, you can 1) Post them here 2) send an e-mail to media@segway.com or 3) send them to Neelix so he can address your questions in his upcoming interview.

-----------------------------------------------------

Dear Segway PT Owners of California,

As some of you have already read on Segway Chat and SEGAmerica.com, a bill to renew the current EPAMD Law in California has been filed and is now ready for public viewing.

Assembly Bill 470 has been filed by Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord). The bill and its status can be viewed at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_470&sess=CUR&house=B&author=desaulnier.

Assemblyman DeSaulnier is a member of the Assembly Transportation Committee and is well known throughout the California Legislature as a leading proponent of alternative transportation and Smart Growth.

The current EPAMD Law is set to expire on January 1, 2008. AB470 seeks to extend the current law indefinitely while making some minor adjustments to address changes in the Segway product line and comments gathered from constituents during the last 5 years. AB470 will continue to allow California communities to further regulate the use of EPAMDs as they deem necessary.

The more notable changes to the bill include:

1. Clarification that EPAMDs can be operated on public sidewalks, bike paths, trails and bike lanes (current law is vague on whether an EPAMD can be operated on bike paths and lanes).
2. Add additional safety language that instructs EPAMD operators to “yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians on foot, including persons with disabilities using assistive devices and service animals”.
3. Restrict the use of EPAMDs that have a footprint larger than 20x25 inches from operating on public sidewalks. This is targeted at Segway XT and Segway x2 which by manufacturer standards is not developed for sidewalk use.

At this time AB470 has been referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee but a public hearing has yet to be scheduled. Segway Inc. and its representatives in Sacramento are working aggressively to line up support among several leading organizations including those representing California communities, police, and environmentalists. We also know that dealers and owners throughout California want to become involved in the legislative process to ensure victory and certainly when the need for widespread involvement becomes necessary, we will seek it. Look for future notices on Segway Chat and from SEGAmerica.

The Government Relations Team at Segway Inc. welcomes your questions and comments. They can be directed to media@segway.com.

Regards,
Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory Affairs, Segway Inc.

[drmarty]

Here, here.

Great news. We all certainly stand willing (on our Segways) to help make this happen.

Marty

[Sal]

Wonderful news, and great communication!

Bravo!

-Sal

[wwhopper]

Glad to see this is happening.

And glad to see that Carla found her password for her SpinMeister logon to chat as well.

Keep us informed of the progress of this bill.

[Mr_Laurenzano]

Glad to see this is happening.

And glad to see that Carla found her password for her SpinMeister logon to chat as well.

Keep us informed of the progress of this bill.

If the segway were a hinderace on the poulation in the form of emmisions, saftey, or continuty, why would you ban it? Its just a sidewalk, with no cars, going to the same places you are. Segway Locally, Think Globally,
Keep it simple. Anybody got a tall cool glass of water?
CRASH

[KSagal]

Good Job, nice to see it.

[dynk]

I am a new member from Massachusetts 2 towns from K Sagal. I also would like to see a Segway law passed in Massachusetts and am willing to get active for it.:) BTW my name is Paul

[Timezkware Tim]

Should there be any wording on using Segways on public transportation? Can they be taken on the subway in LA (yes, we have one), or on busses with wheelchair lifts?

Just wondering.

Tim

[KSagal]

Should there be any wording on using Segways on public transportation? Can they be taken on the subway in LA (yes, we have one), or on busses with wheelchair lifts?

Just wondering.

Tim


Does the subway still work? I thought the tunnels were all full of Lava. I think I saw it in a movie...

[Timezkware Tim]

They actually did have a tar problem once from the LaBrea Tar Pits, lol.

Tim

[Mr. Protocol]

Does the subway still work? I thought the tunnels were all full of Lava. I think I saw it in a movie...

That was a good documentary. I'll sure miss the Los Angeles County Museum of Art - we lost an incredible amount of art, not to mention the loss of mankind's legacy. Still, I'll never forget the sight of all those manhole covers on Wilshire Boulevard blowing 250 feet into the air.

The Sierra Club has announced that they'll be leading hikes to the top of Mt. Wilshire on Saturday mornings, come summer. No chance to take even an XT on that trail, though - the lava rock is just too sharp and rips up the tires something fierce. The hikers will have to wear "sacrificial" tennies and junk 'em after the hike. They'll be in ribbons.

[cmonkey]

I went into the MTA customer service office a few weeks ago, and using their cust service phone (because the lady at the counter wasn't sure), I was told that Segway use was OK on MTA subway trains. (no word on the busses, as I didn't ask). I was on hold for about 10 minutes as the gal who answered, told me she had to go up 2-3 levels to a V.P. who had the answer.


Should there be any wording on using Segways on public transportation? Can they be taken on the subway in LA (yes, we have one), or on busses with wheelchair lifts?

Just wondering.

Tim

[SEGsby]

That's useful information.

Thanks,
SEGsby

I went into the MTA customer service office a few weeks ago, and using their cust service phone (because the lady at the counter wasn't sure), I was told that Segway use was OK on MTA subway trains. (no word on the busses, as I didn't ask). I was on hold for about 10 minutes as the gal who answered, told me she had to go up 2-3 levels to a V.P. who had the answer.

[polo_pro]

So folks, I'm up in Sac now. And I have time during the week to show up at the legislature. So when and where am I suppose to be?

ps - I'll be gliding from Las Vegas to Los Angeles starting mid next week, but hopefully that won't conflict with any planned meeting times.

[Neelix]

I've posted my interview with Matt Dailida on the podcast.

It was very informative and encouraging to hear the current state of affairs in California. It's certainly not "doom and gloom" like some of us (including myself, at first) thought.

However, I noticed that in Carla's post, it's bill 470. Matt said in the podcast that it was 486. I'll have to put an addendum on the blog page...

Anyway, head over to the SegCast page to listen in.

[Sal]

Keep 'em coming!

-Sal

[polo_pro]

For anyone who's considering making the trip to Sac to comment in person on AB470 when it comes up for discussion in committee, you are more than welcome to stay in my house. I have 2 spare EMPTY bedrooms and numerous people could crash in the living room if you don't mind the "dormitory" atmosphere.

If you prefer a hotel, I'd suggest the Extended Stay America in Rancho Cordova because with Priceline (2 stars, Rancho Cordova and $31 offer regardless of what they advise) you can get a GREAT deal. You do have to do this about 36 hours in advance of your arrival, but it's a great option for anyone wanting to do this at the last minute.

ps - Word of warning...I'm still setting up my house, so don't expect much in the way of amenities. Heck, the Extended Stay America probably has more amenities than I do at the moment!

[Mr_Laurenzano]

Dear: Plo
From: Antonio
Subject: AB470 attendance and comment.

If per chance I dont get a chance to attend (wouldnt miss it) I would like you to submit the following to the legistation listening.


To whom it may concern:
In reguard to the Segway Human Transporter, every effort has been made by the adopters of this mode of transportation, to create a contiunial mode of community.

In my use and opporation of this vehicle: saftey, education and use of the I2 is the only aspect of its continued growth. If you [see one] in the flesh 'per say', it becomes a much less intimidating mode of transportation.

Safety, I myself, have never encountered a direct opporational situation that resulted in colateral damage while opporating the SegwayHT[i2]. Each and every accident, under my direct suppervision, was atributed to opporater error. The vehicle itself conducted, little if none, damage. 1:38sec

Education, I bought my segway in 2003, one wise man said, "regenitive breaking" one day. I ran demos on my orriginal for a dollar just to take a picture, to see what could go wrong. [Do one] 2:12sec
In closing, after a prudent time line to approve or disapporve of a mode of transportation that clears our skys, beaches, and by ways, ~ not only influances progression but sets a standard. I hope you all are as happy to be a part of that as I am.
CRASH 3:12sec

[t1perry]

I too am in Sacramento and would be willing to help with an event re legislation.
From the messages, I cannot tell who is organizing and what is happening.

Maybe i am just early in the process, but I will keep my Segway with Segseat fully charged.
Ted

[jrvcd]

I dont normally use my xt on the street but i think it is crappie that segway is allowing the ban on the xt use on the street but since i doubt an oficer will no what he is talking about i will still ride mien to 7 11 to get the paper on sunday mornings.

[drmarty]

Well here is the status of the bill:

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 470
AUTHOR(S) : DeSaulnier.
TOPIC : Electric personal assistive mobility devices.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 03/01/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on TRANS.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM TRANSPORTATION
HEARING DATE : 04/09/2007

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 313 and 21280 of, to amend and
repeal Section 467 of, to add Section 21281.5 to, and to
repeal Section 21283 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to
electric personal assistive mobility devices.



You will note the next activity seems to be a hearing on 04/09/07!!! That is a Monday in two and a half weeks. Egad.

Plo, though I want to I don't think I can come to Sacto. I hope the move is going OK. And right now you should be halfway between Vegas and Santa Monica. Good luck on that.

Folks keep the letters going to Sacto. Remember our long winded (usually) explanations of why to do this are not needed and may even hurt. They really do just count yea's and nay's. The staffers will tell the legislators we got 500 responses about this legislation and it was 85% for or whatever. So you don't have to fret and worry about what to write. Just repond to the form in one of the early posts.

Ride on.

Marty

[drmarty]

Here is the post for a quick comment. This is from Tim.

Thanks Tim and all who use it.

Short form to show your support for CA AB 470 here:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/legcomment/legcomment.asp?bill_number=ab_470&author=desaulnier

It only takes a second to do.

Marty
(Hope it is working. If not go to Tim's earlier post.)

[Mr. Protocol]

Unfortunately the Web page gave an SQL error of "duplicate key" when it tried to insert my comment into the database. Looks like this page doesn't work.

[eJM]

The page does produce a Server 500 error at this time. I called to let them know about the malfunction. In the mean time, please call Assemblyman Mark De Saulnier at 916-319-2011 to voice your support. You should also call your own assembly person to do the same. If you do not know your assembly person's phone number or district, call Mr. De Saulnier's office and they will direct you.

Jim

[Timezkware Tim]

Hey, guys,

Here's a post with my sig again. The links work for me, but if you have a better link, let me know. I also included Assemblyman Mark De Saulnier's phone number.

Tim

[eJM]

Tim, there's no question the link works. It's when you click the submit button that gives an Internal Server Error 500. For now, do as I indicated in my previous post: call the number I (and Tim) gave and ALSO contact your own California Assembly person to encourage their support and vote for this bill.

Thanks,

Jim

[Timezkware Tim]

Thanks, Jim. I emailed the site and Mr. DeSaulnier about the problem. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Tim

[Spinmeister]

Dear California Segway PT Owners:

As you have read on the chat, the Assembly Committee on Transportation has tentatively scheduled a public hearing on Monday, April 9 at 1:30 p.m. regarding California Assembly Bill 470. There is a slight chance that the hearing might be postponed. We are keeping tabs on the situation and will keep you informed. If the hearing takes place it will be held at the State Capitol located in Sacramento, California. A specific room has yet to be announced.

Many of you have expressed an interest in participating in the legislative process and regardless of the meeting schedule or your proximity to Sacramento, you can act now! Segway Inc. suggests that you contact Assembly Member and Chairman Pedro Nava and Assembly Member and Vice Chair of the Committee, Michael Duvall, via letter or email expressing your support for AB470. Contact information for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman can be found on the Committee’s website at http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=24.

Segway Inc. also suggests that you contact your own California State Senator and State Assembly Member expressing your support for AB470. You can identify your state legislator by logging onto http://www.legislature.ca.gov/ In the bottom right hand corner, under “Find My District”, type in your zip code. This will provide contact information for both your State Senator and State Assembly Member.

As a suggestion your correspondence should be kept succinct and include your name, the city where you reside, when you purchased your Segway PT, how you use it and a polite request that the elected official support AB470.

As always, if you have a question or comment please send them to us at media@segway.com.

Thank you,
Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Segway Inc.

[Spinmeister]

Hi!

I would just like to add my two cents to the regulatory update. I support and reiterate Marty's suggestions to keep the letters you send to the legislators succinct. I'd also suggest you consider the following when preparing your correspondence:

- Don't refer to the Segway PT as a "vehicle". We are asking the legislature to continue to give riders access to the sidewalk, a privilege a vehicle does not have. DO call the product a Segway Personal Transporter, a transportation device, etc.
- DO focus on the positive, NOT the negative
- DO check the spelling and grammar in your letter before sending

If you are planning to attend the hearing on April 9th we’d like to hear from you. We may consider scheduling a conference call or meeting in advance of the hearing to compare notes on testimony and prepare a game plan. Please drop me a line at media@segway.com if you plan to attend. We look forward to hearing from you!

Thanks!

[Timezkware Tim]

Thank you, Matt and Carla. :)

Tim

[drmarty]

My speelling is always prefect. What could she mean?

This is all very helpful. First it guides us to the right place so our efforts are not wasted. And we don't need to spend a lot of time on lengthy diatribes like we have done in the past for other issues - Sannibel Island, National Mall -- but can merely indicate support - Yeah or Nay. We can keep from accidentally causing harm. You all know about the Law of Unintended Consequences.

I would point out that the active members here is but a handful of the true supporters. Now I think there are a lot of lurkers (you know who you are) who are hereby put on notice to help but we active members need to try and get the message out to a few others each. I personally find those with what should be the most intense interest don't usually know what is up. The dealers. So we might also each get in touch with our local dealer and alert them.

Karl,

What can SA do? Do You have a California list? Can someone call on them?

Any other ideas? Or comments?

Marty

[KSagal]

I know that the original note from Carla was sent to our members (At least it was requested to be sent out, I will have to confirm that)

I will include it in a note to members very soon...

[polo_pro]

Again, I have a few spare (and empty) rooms in my townhouse, if anyone wants to make the trip to Sacramento for the Apr 9th public hearing. Just PM me and we'll work out the details.

[Spinmeister]

Hi Californians!

The public hearing on AB470, scheduled by the Assembly Transportation Committee for April 9th at 1:30pm in Room 4202 of the State Capitol, will go on as scheduled. However, on that day the Committee will be hearing public testimony on over 25 bills and may limit public testimony to 1 or 2 persons per bill. Matt Dailida, Director of Regulatory Affairs, will be there to represent Segway Inc., its California customers and dealers.

Based on this information from the committee, we politely suggest that you elect to show your support for AB470 by submitting a letter or email. At this time, we don’t feel public testimony is required as we originally thought. If you do plan on attending, it is highly urged that you keep your Segway PT outside of the building, unless of course use of you depend on it for your mobility. Segway Inc. will have a unit on display and available for demonstration at the hearing. If you have additional questions or comments, please email them to us media@segway.com.

Thank you,
Carla Vallone
Communications Manager, Segway Inc.

[polo_pro]

Thanks for the update! It heartens me to see communication like this coming from Segway INC before the meeting happens.

[Timezkware Tim]

Just some advice from one Segger...

If I was against Segways and a sabateur, I would pick this occasion to create an "incident" in the building right before the hearing.

It's important that supporters leave their Seg outside that day, or even at home, IMO. Bringing one there will have no impact on the hearing, and has the potential for harm if anyone wants to start trouble by "creating" an accident.

My thanks to Matt Dailida and Segway Inc. Good luck, Matt.

Tim

[pam]

This sort of situation actually did happen once with someone, and was reported on the Chat. Gosh, it's been over 4 years ago, but it was during the time of the Ticket-to-Ride events before the release, and some anti-segwayer got up on a unit and proceeded to take it at speed into a bunch of chairs sitting at the side of the room. When they untangled him, his (louder and louder) comments were to the effect of "See, I told you they were dangerous."

California, if I recall. I bet the yahoo is still there. <G>

Pam

[1madman]

The folks at Metrolink still restrict Segs (by Name) in their documentation. It is true that the Subway has no restrictions, but since they are administered by separate entities, I find myself out in the cold. The irony, of course, is that I used to be able to take my HT on the train until about a year ago. The official reason is that there is no way to secure the device. I have offered to buy whatever they deem necessary, but my offers have resulted in thundering silence.

If I needed my Seg for a disabled reason, they have said that they cannot refuse. This is BS. If it os OK for a disabled person to use their Seg on the train, then able-bodied folks should be able to use theirs as well.

I would loke the legislation to specifically mention that these devices should be allowed on public transportation.

[polo_pro]

If I needed my Seg for a disabled reason, they have said that they cannot refuse. This is BS. If it os OK for a disabled person to use their Seg on the train, then able-bodied folks should be able to use theirs as well.

I'd be careful using this logic. First let me say that I'm able bodied, so I can see your perspective. However, you may have overlooked one important fact. There are significantly less disabled people than able bodied people.

When some transportation entity decide to purchase equipment to help restrain segways, they first look at projected use to see how much of the equipment to buy. If they were to buy equipment to restrain everyone's segway, they might need to purchase 2 or 3 restraining systems per bus/train and modify several more seats to make room for when the equipment is used.

Here's an example that demonstrates another problem accomodating customers by installing restraining equipment for segways. Let's say that for whatever reason, the transportation entity bought only restraining equipment for only one segway per bus/train. Let's now say that you get on the bus/train planning to go across town. You secure your segway, and the bus/train goes half way across town. Now someone disabled gets on the bus/train, do you now give your spot to them? Do you get off the bus/train because there's no place for you to restrain your segway?? What if it's a really bad part of town???

See what I mean...if they only allow disabled people to use segways on the bus/train, this scenario is much less likely to occur.

[Cube128]

So, how did it go? I'd have loved to hear Matt's testimony. Did anybody show up and intentionally run into some chairs again? :P

[polo_pro]

Based on the earlier post from folks at Segway INC, I didn't bother going. They'd said they appreciate the support, but because of the format of the meeting didn't think owners would be able to contribute much. I think they felt "it was in the bag"...let's hope they're right.

In some senses, I think this speaks volumes about our government and its processes. I'm an owner who's has the time to be there and is quite willing to express my unbiased (in the sense that I have no financial gain) opinions about segways. I'm probably one of the most informed people in this city (besides the Segway INC folks, of course), yet the whole process is set up NOT to take my "valuable" input. Ah well...

OPTA - Matt sent me an email specificly asking that I not bring my polo mallet to the meeting (regardless of whether I left Eeyore outside or not). Something about "looking menacing" with it slung over my shoulder as I walk about the meeting room. (Who needs a foam brick, eh?) 8^) 8^) 8^)

ps - For the humor impared the last OPTA paragraph was just a joke.

[owen]

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/10/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 9).
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 313 and 21280 of, to amend and
repeal Section 467 of, to add Section 21281.5 to, and to
repeal Section 21283 of, the Vehicle Code, relating to
electric personal assistive mobility devices.

[eJM]

Can someone translate that?

Thanks,

Jim

[owen]

The transportation committed voted unanimously (13-0) to refer the bill out of their committee and to refer it to the next step in the process.

[KSagal]

I dunno...

When I hear about people saying, "Aye", I usually think, Pirates!

Are there pirates on that committee?

I am sure Gareth will remember my fondness for all things 'pirate'!

[Cube128]

Nice. The bill doesn't seem to be encountering any opposition at all.

"Do what you want 'cause a pirate be free! You are a pirate!"
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/861/praterf0.jpg

[polo_pro]

Nice. The bill doesn't seem to be encountering any opposition at all.

But then again, what's there to oppose? This is a device out that's been out in public for YEARS, and the number of "serious incidents" involving it could be counted on one hand. Heck, if the media wasn't so fixated on segways, you'd never even heard of those few incidents!

Besides, remember this is the land of "fruits and nuts", and segways look green. No state lawmaker wants to be on the wrong side of a potential ecological issue in these parts, eh?

[JohnM]

But then again, what's there to oppose? This is a device out that's been out in public for YEARS, and the number of "serious incidents" involving it could be counted on one hand. Heck, if the media wasn't so fixated on segways, you'd never even heard of those few incidents!

Besides, remember this is the land of "fruits and nuts", and segways look green. No state lawmaker wants to be on the wrong side of a potential ecological issue in these parts, eh?

Sometimes the opposition is not aimed directly at EPAMDs, but at the wording of the proposed EPAMD law, as in the case of the Colorado EPAMD debacle which tried to amend existing bicycle law. Local cycling organizations, feeling that their rights were in jeopardy, would have none of it and the Colorado EPAMD bill went down in flames. I think Segway Inc learned their lesson and has made sure that the California bill steps on no one's toes.

[Spinmeister]

Hi Folks,

As you've already heard the EPAMD bill did successfully pass the Transportation Committee. No one voiced any opposition. We were the last bill heard that day and the committee members were ready to move the bill forward, so Matt didn't even deliver any testimony. As the "Ayes" were made our eyes were getting bigger and bigger! We were very pleased with the unanimous vote.

Of course we aren't counting our chickens yet, we still have a ways to go. But thus far we haven't heard of opposition.

We will want to garner more letters or support when we get to the big dances - the House and the Assembly. As Owen pointed out to me, the committee records show that only two letters of support were filed. We'll want a lot more than that as we enter the Assembly and House.

Matt and I will be in touch in the coming weeks and months with new information and requests for letters.

Thank you all for your interest and support.

-Carla

[polo_pro]

I want to thank Carla, Matt and of course, Segway INC for their efforts. Almost 2 years ago, I made the decision to buy a segway. Sure some of the reason was because of the "gee wiz", but much of the reason was the redundancy (compliments of engineering) and attention to legality (compliments of Segway INC's legal dept).

I'm a conservative engineer who doesn't like to take risks. (Despite playing polo and gliding for hundreds of miles during long distance glides, I take EVERY precaution possible to make sure nothing goes wrong.) I could have spent my thousands on any mode of transportation (probably a Prius otherwise), but I chose Segways.

Earlier this year, I expressed concern about the upcoming sunset clause in the SB 1918. I was heartened by Carla's recent post about Segway INC activity in Sacramento, and now I'm quite thrilled with their successes!

Simply put (vs moving)...this is why I bought a segway!!

ps - Carla, I'm more than happy to write letters and appear in person. Remember, I do llive in Sacramento. The only reason I held off was because your earlier posts indicated you didn't want anything to interfere with the smooth ride your new bill is taking through the California legislature. By the way, is a "segay smile" wider than a "unanimous vote" smile? 8^) 8^) 8^)

[Timezkware Tim]

When this bill passes, it will be a turning point for Segway in CA. The towns that are currently banning Segs because they "might" be dangerous will have to think twice in the future, and the people who didn't buy because of the sunset law will have a reason to say yes.

Californians must write in on this one. Long live Ginger, dudes.

Tim

[JohnM]

When this bill passes, it will be a turning point for Segway in CA. The towns that are currently banning Segs because they "might" be dangerous will have to think twice in the future, and the people who didn't buy because of the sunset law will have a reason to say yes.

Californians must write in on this one. Long live Ginger, dudes.

Hey Dude,
Where do you get this stuff? People who didn't buy because of the sunset law? Who? How many? Come on, most folks here didn't even know about the sunset clause in the current law. When this was discussed a Segfest, the turnout was described as apathetic. And 2 letters letters received by the transportation committee. Jeesh.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad things are moving along smoothly. But why will towns have to think twice in the future about banning Segways? The section of the law allowing towns to place restrictions on Segways remains in place. No town in California has a total 'ban' on EPAMDs anyway. Just restrictions on gliding on sidewalks or in certain areas where they feel it is inappropriate. There's nothing here to change that.

This bill will pass, just as easily as the first one. The state law will be extended with some needed clarification on where and how Segways can operate. But final Segway exceptance will remain at the local level where it ultimately belongs. Nothing wrong with any of this, just don't read things into it that aren't there. If everything continues on course, its business as usual.

[KSagal]

JohnM,

I have a question for you. I have noticed your Yellow marker on your posts, and I believe I have seen that image as a sign and bumper sticker...

If I were to use your last two posts as information, it seems that you feel some opposition from Bicycle groups is that they feel that their turf and their rights are potentially being risked by the acceptance of segways...

The sign says, "Same road, same rights, same rules" but it seems that they don't believe that for segways. It is same rights and rules for us, but you are wrong to say we don't count, and okay for us to say that those other guys don't count...

You have stated that you personally feel that segways are good in that they do help to reduce the car population, but why do you feel that it is not a popular opinion among bikers?

[Timezkware Tim]

Hey Dude,
Where do you get this stuff? People who didn't buy because of the sunset law? Who? How many? Come on, most folks here didn't even know about the sunset clause in the current law. When this was discussed a Segfest, the turnout was described as apathetic. And 2 letters letters received by the transportation committee. Jeesh...
Hey John, it's OK if you want to come here to stir up trouble with your self important sounding posts, I don't think anybody really takes you seriously anyway when you get like that. I sure don't. In any event, I still find your posts entertaining even when you rant like that.

The fact is that I personally know of buyers who backed off because of the current legal limits. And while the DOT may have gotten only 2 letters, letters of support were sent elsewhere in support of this bill, so don't jump to conclusions to critisize me or other Segway supporters.

See you on the bikepath, John.

Tim

[Mr_Laurenzano]

...from pasedena said ... "I'll sell you my car for xxx bucks?"
It run's great, good milage, 'an odd plate' : refering to the gas crisis of the last energy crisis. ..."I'LL TAKE IT", a little spit shine and low and behold a way to get arround and be free.
...the little'ol lady cashed the check...next thing you know there's... an I2.
Kinda like the wake of a tide. You will never know what you will find.
I use the same policy when i glide no matter what recalled fall is on the road.
Iv'e been watching these pogo stick's roll thier way through many a crash, crosswalk, smile, and pure amazment. One thing I find is a group that repects the reponsibility of walking the the longest mile to make the events of now be worth the effort are the ones who should voice thier oppions.
Welcome to the fourm, kudos to frank. Up a Crub. tro~pi_Ahhh.
Welcome a smile and share it.
:)
..."Its only broken if you dont fix it."...

[JohnM]

JohnM,

I have a question for you. I have noticed your Yellow marker on your posts, and I believe I have seen that image as a sign and bumper sticker...

If I were to use your last two posts as information, it seems that you feel some opposition from Bicycle groups is that they feel that their turf and their rights are potentially being risked by the acceptance of segways...

The sign says, "Same road, same rights, same rules" but it seems that they don't believe that for segways. It is same rights and rules for us, but you are wrong to say we don't count, and okay for us to say that those other guys don't count...

You have stated that you personally feel that segways are good in that they do help to reduce the car population, but why do you feel that it is not a popular opinion among bikers?

Karl,
A quick lesson in bicycle law: In all the US state vehicle codes there are variations of the 'Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules' message. To keep us on topic, let's look at California Vehicle Code Section 21200-21212 as an example:
Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway (ROADS) has all the
rights (RIGHTS)and is subject to all the provisions (RULES)
applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division.

In other words, as long as bicyclists follow the rules of the road they have vehicular rights. Simple. Bicycle groups fought hard in the 60's and 70's to make this idea uniform in the vehicle codes of all 50 states.

No EPAMD law in any state has a similar provision. In order to gain sidewalk acceptance, most EPAMD laws have stressed the pedestrian nature of EPAMDs. (It all originated with the first EPAMD law here in New Hampshire. NH law forbids all vehicles, including bikes, from using the sidewalks, so the Segway had to become a pedestrian device.) In any state where an EPAMD user is defined as a pedestrian, vehicular rules and rights have been forfeited and 'Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules' is not applicable.

Now, lets look at the Colorado EPAMD bill that got the local cyclists mobilized. You can find the bill text here (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2006a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/525E1594767EAFB5872570EB006FD132?Open&file=168_01.pdf). It had the standard EPAMD as pedestrian clause: Pedestrian means any person afoot or any person using a wheelchair OR AN EPAMD. But then the bill dipped down into the bicycle portion of the vehicle code and repeatedly substituted the word 'bicycle' with the phrase 'bicycle or EPAMD', somehow equating a vehicle with a pedestrian device no less than 8 times. Then it went on to state that EPAMDs can be used highways where the speed limit is 35 mph or less. WHOA! If Segways are unsafe on roads with speed limits over 35mph, and Segways and bikes are equals, then it might be implied that bikes are unsafe on roads with speed limits over 35mph. "Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules" was in jeopardy and this was enough to get the the local cyclists into the Senate hearing room to argue against the bill.

The current California bill is smart in avoiding any correlation between bikes and Segways. It's a good bill in that it gives the Segway user the right to operate on a "sidewalk, bike path, pathway, trail, bike lane, street, road, or highway", but since it doesn't alter the definition of Segway as a pedestrian it leaves the rules and rights of Segways up in the air. It ignores the duality of the Segway's nature. On the sidewalk, bike path, pathway or trail a Segway functions well as a pedestrian. On the bike lane, street, road, or highway vehicular rules should apply. Same Roads, Same Rights, Same Rules. For the safety of all road users, the same rules of the road have to to be in effect. Unless EPAMD laws recognize this duality, your rights are questionable whenever you decide to venture into the street. There is still need for improvement, but for the present it's an ok bill.

Karl, I don't want to speak for other cyclists but I'd guess that most don't give a hoot about Segways, one way or the other. Those cyclists that do toss out a rude Segway comment on the road are probably the same elitist bigots that won't return my friendly wave because I don't wear their prescribed spandex uniform. But if an EPAMD bill even comes close to cutting into cyclist's rights to the roadway, you will find a strong unified opposition to that bill and that opposition may spill over onto Segways in general. So it goes.

[KSagal]

JohnM,

In many ways I am loathe to expand this conversation with you regarding the attitudes of bikers, especially after you used sooo many words to not answer my question, but I do believe it has a value in that it needs to be considered...

On mixed use trails, the most vocal and obvious 'group' to rise in opposition is the bicycle riders... Perhaps it is because they are often the only organized group, but that is my question...

I would contend, that when you have pedestrians, baby strollers, roller skaters, segways, and bikes on one trail, the ones that least fit are the bikes. Yet, often segs are scrutenized for safety, on a scale that bikes could not hope to comply with...

You bring up segways as pedestrian devices, then say that a seg in the street is proof of something else... Well, I believe that they do span elements of several existing transportation modes. That notwithstanding, it is usually legal for people to walk along the edge of most roads. Very few roads are prohibited to pedestrians. Just because a seg is in the road does not make it a different thing, but it suggest that it act a bit differently, considering the other items in that road, compared to the other items on a sidewalk...

I personally feel a seg should be on the sidewalk where available. WHere that is not available, and the bike is in the street, that does not mean the world is comming to an end.

Bikes have been among the primary alternates to cars for some time now, and because of this, lanes that are restricted to cars and are in the road have been called bike lanes. That is not forever. Soon, as more and more alternatives to cars become common place, like NEVs, segways, EPAMDs, and who knows what for the future... I suspect that the days of "Bike Lanes" are numbered, even as those lanes will get more popular and more use, their concept of multi-use will be better accepted and they will be called by more appropriate names...

AGAIN, I ask, if you feel that the same rules, same rights on the same road apply to bikes, why do so many bikers who proclaim this not apply it to others?

[ArtL]

Great point Karl. It does seem that nobody questions the safety issues of bikes the way they do Segways. I think that's a result of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) regarding Segways...

Who didn't ride a bike, and fall off it or have some sort of collision more than once, as a kid? Everyone still alive obviously survived those accidents, and learned from them. Because of that experience, almost everyone (at least secretly) considers themselves to be very knowlegeable about the safety of bicycles, and in truth they probably are. By comparison, few have experience with Segs and their safe operating envleope, hence the FUD. I suspect that if kids rode Segs instead of bikes from here on out, the situation would be reversed within 30 years.

It would be very refreshing to see bikes in the street actually observing those same rules that are required as a prerequisite for being granted the right to use the street, and I'm referring to things like stopping when the vehicle ahead of them stops, instead of continuing on between cars and the curb to then bcome an obstacle to be avoided when traffic starts moving again.

[JohnM]

AGAIN, I ask, if you feel that the same rules, same rights on the same road apply to bikes, why do so many bikers who proclaim this not apply it to others?

Karl,

If I feel that the same rules, same rights on the same road apply to bikes? I don't feel anything. As noted in my earlier post, it's the law in all 50 states.

Why do so many bikers proclaim this does not apply it to others? Who are all these bikers? Can you name any bicycle organization that stands against Segways using the roads? If you can locate such a group (and I doubt it) and they have website, then read what they have to say and report back.

Sorry Karl, you're asking me to knock down straw men and then complaining that I don't answer your questions.

[nora k]

Great point Karl. It does seem that nobody questions the safety issues of bikes the way they do Segways. I think that's a result of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) regarding Segways...

i disagree! our tours are operated in a town where the trail rules are enforced for bikes and bikers are held accountable. and i know of several local town councils and neighborhood associations who bring in police officials at monthly meetings to discuss patrolling trails and greenways for walker, biker, glider, and skater infractions.


It would be very refreshing to see bikes in the street actually observing those same rules that are required as a prerequisite for being granted the right to use the street, and I'm referring to things like stopping when the vehicle ahead of them stops, instead of continuing on between cars and the curb to then bcome an obstacle to be avoided when traffic starts moving again.

I agree - and i see the concept of sr,sr,sr as an accountability tool for bikers. they get to use the same roads and so should follow the same rules to have the same rights as drivers. i hope the statement isn't used just to instill a sense of entitlement, and i wonder if it was created with that intent at all.

[Timezkware Tim]

Hearing today: April 18, 2007: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_470_cfa_20070417_145819_asm_comm.html

Tim

[polo_pro]

Unfortunately, I missed the first half hour of the meeting. So I didn't get to see what happened for AB 470. But I did see that it was listed, and in the hour and a half that passed, I saw that most the bills were "suspended".

This was also an appropriations hearing, so much of the focus was on cost of implementing bills. Some brief testimony was heard, but clearly all the decisions had on what bill progress forward had been made already. There was no opportunity to "change someone's mind". So Timezware Tim's request to write the congressmen is the correct way to go about asserting your influence.

For anyone who was thinking of gliding down to the capital on their segway, I'd have to agree with Carla and Matt on this one. Don't do it. The security is tight, the halls are VERY crowded and there is no nooks to park it.

ps - First time I used my car in 2 weeks (well, except for meeting someone to carpool to polo this weekend)!

[owen]

According to an assembly web site update this morning, the appropriations committee voted unanimously to refer the bill out of committee and onward.

[Timezkware Tim]

According to an assembly web site update this morning, the appropriations committee voted unanimously to refer the bill out of committee and onward.

Yeah, Baby. :)

Tim

[Spinmeister]

Hello California Segway PT Owners,

As you've already discovered, on Wednesday, April 18, the Assembly Appropriations Committee unanimously passed AB470. The bill now moves to the full Assembly for a vote. For all those who wish to continue to express your support, now is the time to contact your local Assembly Member, if you have not already.

To find who your local Assembly Member is, please go to http://www.legislature.ca.gov/ In the bottom right hand corner, under “Find My District”, type in your zip code to locate the contact information for State Assembly Member. The best way to contact the Assembly Members is via email and your message should be short and simple: “My name is (your name) and I reside within your Assembly District. I am respectfully requesting that you vote in favor of AB470. Thank you for your consideration.”

We’ll certainly keep you posted on additional developments.

Regards,
Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory Affairs, Segway Inc.

[polo_pro]

Now I know this may not seem short, but looking at my other posts, I feel I was as succinct as I could possibly be!

"I am respectfully requesting that you vote in favor of AB470 allowing existing laws covering Segway to continue indefinitely by removing the sunset clause.

I've commuted to work on my Segway for the past year and a half. This meant there was one less car on our crowded roads, and my travel to and from work (while I wearing a suit) had the smallest possible impact on the environment!"

ps - Note this is just the comment...I was asked for my name, address and other information in other fields.

[beckpm]

Has there been any change at all in the status of rules for use of Segways on the National Mall or the National Park Bike paths? Is there anything happening or is this issue on the permanent back burner? Anyone have info?

[polo_pro]

Anything coming up in May where you need our support? Is there an ETA for the bill in the Senate? June? July??

Remember folks. Write your legislator as Carla suggests below. We don't want another embarassing situation where only TWO people took the time to send their comments and letters of support. It makes your legislator wonder if this bill is even worth the trouble.

Hello California Segway PT Owners,

As you've already discovered, on Wednesday, April 18, the Assembly Appropriations Committee unanimously passed AB470. The bill now moves to the full Assembly for a vote. For all those who wish to continue to express your support, now is the time to contact your local Assembly Member, if you have not already.

To find who your local Assembly Member is, please go to http://www.legislature.ca.gov/ In the bottom right hand corner, under “Find My District”, type in your zip code to locate the contact information for State Assembly Member. The best way to contact the Assembly Members is via email and your message should be short and simple: “My name is (your name) and I reside within your Assembly District. I am respectfully requesting that you vote in favor of AB470. Thank you for your consideration.”

We’ll certainly keep you posted on additional developments.

Regards,
Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory Affairs, Segway Inc.

[owen]

According to the website the bill was passed by the full assembly last week. it has now moved on to the senate where it is awaiting committee assignment.

Owen

[polo_pro]

According to the website the bill was passed by the full assembly last week. it has now moved on to the senate where it is awaiting committee assignment.

Owen

Looks like AB470 was on the fast track through the assembly. I'd hope the fact that AB470 has been passed by the general assembly means the senate will quickly push it through too. Looking at the history of the bill it says Apr 26 "To Com. on RLS. for assignment". I wonder what RLS is?

ps - By the way, the Assembly passed AB470 unanimously. All but five assemblymen were not present (or chose to abstain). If you live in California and your assemblyman is named Anderson, Bass, Davis, DeVore or Soto, you may want to send an email asking why they didn't show direct support for segways.

[mjdbos]

Greetings California Segway PT Owners,

As many of you have already read, on Thursday, April 26, the California State Assembly unanimously passed AB470. The bill is currently before the Senate Rules Committee where it is awaits assignment to appropriate committee - most likely the Senate Transportation Committee.

Your numerous letters, emails and phone calls to Assembly Members played a significant role in this success and I hope we can call on you to do the same with Members of the State Senate.

Once we learn of the Senate Committee assignment for AB470, we will post appropriate contact information, etc.

Thank you again and as always, if you have a question or comment please send them to us at media@segway.com.

Thank you,
Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Segway Inc.

[polo_pro]

Matt, once again, thank you for keeping your customers informed as to the status of this bill. I've been very happy with Segway INC's involvement in this matter. I really like how folks at Segway INC have taken the time to make owners a part of this process. (Historically, Segway INC hasn't had the best record when it comes to "communication".)

As I've said before, I've moved to Sacramento and I have several spare rooms. And folks from SoCal have even offered to take time off and come up here to show support in person. (OPTA - Though I think they're really offering to come up just about the time of the first and third weekend of the month when the Aftershocks play polo!) So please give us as much warning as possible about when you might need owners to testify...I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how many will come to the hearing!

ps - Also with a very active Segway Enthusiast Group in the Bay Area, I'm sure you could get a good turn out any time you needed.

[mjdbos]

Greetings California Segway PT Owners,

AB470 has been referred to the Senate Transportation & Housing and a public hearing has been set for June 12th (room and time to be announced). At this time we are not recommending that Segway PT owners make plans to be in Sacramento for this hearing.

However for those of you wishing to remain involved, it is suggested that comments be sent to Senator Alan Lowenthal, Chairman of the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee at:

Senator Alan Lowenthal
State Capitol, Room 2302
Sacramento, CA 95814

Or by logging onto the Senator’s website at:
http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.aspx?district=SD27

And to Senator Tom McClintock, Vice-chairman of the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee at:

Senator Tom McClintock
State Capitol, Room 3070
Sacramento, CA 95814
senator.mcclintock@sen.ca.gov

Segway Inc. also suggests that you contact your own California State Senator expressing your support for AB470. You can identify your state senator by logging onto http://www.legislature.ca.gov/ In the bottom right hand corner, under “Find My District”, type in your zip code. This will provide contact information for your State Senator.

As in the past, we suggest that your correspondence to the Senator’s be kept succinct and include your name, the city where you reside, when you purchased your Segway PT, how you use it and a polite request that the elected official support AB470.

As always, if you have a question or comment please send them to us at media@segway.com.

Thank you,

Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

Carla M. Vallone
Communications Manager
Segway Inc.

[polo_pro]

Well, this looks like pushing this bill through the first stages of the Senate is going to fall squarely on the shoulders of SoCal riders.

Senator Lowenthal's district sits between LA and OC and includes Downey on the north side, Long Beach on the south side, Lynwood/South Gate/Parmount on the west side and Ceritos on the east side. Bellflower, Lakewood and Artesia all sit in the middle of Senator's Lowenthal district. Besides Segway of Long Beach, what other dealers reside in this area? Is there any segway owners in this area who'd be willing to organize owners and folks for a letter writing campaign over the next month?

Senator McClintock's district is simply put Ventura and south Santa Barbara counties plus one or two cities on the north side of LA like Santa Clarita and Stevenson Ranch. I spent most of my life in Senator McClintock's district, and 99% of my hundreds of demos were to folks in that area. Also all of my family and most of my friend reside in his district. It's time to call in favors for all those rides I gave, eh? Sadly, there's only one Segway dealer in his whole district in Santa Barbara (and yes, I'll inform Jerry of this upcoming legislation). Also I only know of only four other segway owners who reside in his area and are active in the online community or polo.

[Timezkware Tim]

Thanks, Matt & Carla.

I reposted the contact info from your post to my sig for more exposure as a reminder to Californians and others to write in their support. I will keep it there until June 12.

I also really enjoyed your interview on Segcast re: this bill. Thanks for all your efforts.

Tim

[polo_pro]

So is there anything on the schedule for June? I've got a bunch of people in Tom McClintock's district poised ready to contact him in support of moving the Segway bill forward.

Has anyone been getting a segway owners in Long Beach (and Artesia plusa a few other cities just north) ready for this letter writing campaign?

[mjdbos]

Greetings California Segway PT Owners,

As you know a public hearing on AB470 has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 12 @ 1:30pm in Room 4203 of the State Capitol. Segway Inc. is confident of success thus your presence is not recommended. Representatives of Segway Inc. will be on-hand to answer any questions or address any concerns. We will post an update shortly after the conclusion of the hearing.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has offered an amendment which will be incorporated into AB470. The CHP amendment defines an EPAMD as a having a footprint of "no more than 20x25 inches". CHP believes this amendment is consistent with Segway Inc.'s messaging that an XT and X2 should not be operated on sidewalks.

So what does this mean for the XT/X2? It is still considered an EPAMD in the truest sense but regulation-wise, it will be treated more like a motorized scooter. This means current and future XT/X2 owners can still enjoy their device on paths and trails and other off-road areas while maintaining all of the other rights of an EPAMD - no license or registration required.

CHP is an instrumental advocate for use of Segway PTs throughout the state (they helped draft the original EPAMD Law) and their support is crucial. Without it, the entire future of Segway PT use in the State could be jeopardized.

Segway Inc. continues to recommend that you send comments to Senator Alan Lowenthal, Chairman of the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee at:

Senator Alan Lowenthal
State Capitol, Room 2302
Sacramento, CA 95814

Or by logging onto the Senator’s website at:
http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLC...?district=SD27

And to Senator Tom McClintock, Vice-chairman of the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee at:

Senator Tom McClintock
State Capitol, Room 3070
Sacramento, CA 95814
senator.mcclintock@sen.ca.gov

We also suggest that you contact your own California State Senator expressing your support for AB470. You can identify your state senator by logging onto http://www.legislature.ca.gov/. In the bottom right hand corner, under “Find My District”, type in your zip code. This will provide contact information for your State Senator.

As in the past, we suggest that your correspondence to the Senator’s be kept succinct and include your name, the city where you reside, when you purchased your Segway PT, how you use it and a polite request that the elected official support AB470.

As always, if you have a question or comment please send them to us at media@segway.com.

Thank you,

Matt Dailida
Director of Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

Carla M. Vallone
Communications Manager
Segway Inc.

[Desert_Seg]

My only concern about the 20 x 25 measurement is how exact it is. What happens if the Gen3 i series is slightly larger than 20 x 25? Might it make more sense to make the measurements slightly larger, for example 21.5 x 27, which make it smaller than the x series but still allow room for growth?

Steven

[SEGsby]

I think the i2 is as wide as you want to get for sidewalk use in heavy pedestrian areas.

SEGsby

[Desert_Seg]

I think the i2 is as wide as you want to get for sidewalk use in heavy pedestrian areas.

SEGsby

Unfortunately, if there is a fixed measurement of 20 x 25, the minute you add one of the side bags you are now illegal. Or if you add a front bag such as Eric displayed earlier, same problem.

Soooooo, what to do, what to do....

Steven

[SEGsby]

I thought the area of measurement was from the center of the wheels (base of unit), not above the platform? This was to help distinguish between i2 and X2 designs. 20 x 25 is really X and Z, there is no Y specified for the height of the machine to take measurements from...

SEGsby


Unfortunately, if there is a fixed measurement of 20 x 25, the minute you add one of the side bags you are now illegal. Or if you add a front bag such as Eric displayed earlier, same problem.

Soooooo, what to do, what to do....

Steven

[Desert_Seg]

I thought the area of measurement was from the center of the wheels (base of unit), not above the platform? This was to help distinguish between i2 and X2 designs. 20 x 25 is really X and Z, there is no Y specified for the height of the machine to take measurements from...

SEGsby

Not sure. However, if as Matt says the CHP amendment defines an EPAMD as a having a footprint of "no more than 20x25 inches" then there could be a problem.

My understanding is that a footprint means the full length and width of a unit, including all add-ons.

Steven

[SEGsby]

Then that bit of wording needs to be tightened up a bit, so as to prevent any misinterpretation and unnecessary hardship or fines for owners who have attempted to increase the usefulness of their machines by purchasing accessories.

Hmm, I wonder... (runs to get a tape measure)

You know, if you measure an i2 from the front of the handlebar (no bag) to the back of the platform, it's __ALREADY__longer then 20 inches, as the CS leans out past the pivot point at the base from an angle. This is at the lowest height setting for the CS. If you increase the height of the CS, then you're even more out of compliance with the specified 20 inches of depth for an i2.

So clearly, one needs to measure from the base of the unit, as any other interpretation makes **ALL** i2 SEGWAYS illegal, and I don't think that was the point of the legislation.

According to Websters--

Footprint:

1 : an impression of the foot on a surface
2 a : the area on a surface covered by something <a tire with a wide footprint> <the footprint of a laser beam> b : range of operation (as of a service) <a global footprint>
3 : a marked effect or impression <left a footprint in the field of research>
4 : something that identifies <a genetic footprint>

So again, footprint appears to relate just to the surface of the sidewalk as covered by a Segway, i.e., 20 (max depth of platform) by 25 (max tire width). This would suggest that we're talking about the base of the machine only, and only for the purposes of distinguising between X-series and i-series machines.

SEGsby

[hellphish]

I thought the area of measurement was from the center of the wheels (base of unit), not above the platform? This was to help distinguish between i2 and X2 designs. 20 x 25 is really X and Z, there is no Y specified for the height of the machine to take measurements from...

SEGsby

^^^ This right here ^^^

[mjdbos]

Folks, let me nip this in the bud - the dimension within AB470 is for the footprint of the unit itself which actually measures 19x25 inches. The proposed language is not intended to restrict individuals who add side/front bags to their i167, i170, i180, and I2's from the sidewalk. The true intention of this language is to reiterate Segway Inc.'s message that an XT/X2, with a footprint averaging 7.5x8 inches larger than a i167, i170, i180 and I2, should NOT be operated on a sidewalk.

I will request that clarification be made at the hearing and noted in the bill summary when signed into law.

Thank you.

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

[SEGsby]

Awesome, & thanks for adding the clarification into AB470!!!

SEGsby

Folks, let me nip this in the bud - the dimension within AB470 is for the footprint of the unit itself which actually measures 19x25 inches. The proposed language is not intended to restrict individuals who add side/front bags to their i167, i170, i180, and I2's from the sidewalk. The true intention of this language is to reiterate Segway Inc.'s message that an XT/X2, with a footprint averaging 7.5x8 inches larger than a i167, i170, i180 and I2, should NOT be operated on a sidewalk.

I will request that clarification be made at the hearing and noted in the bill summary when signed into law.

Thank you.

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

[polo_pro]

Matt, once again, thanks for stepping in. It's great to hear Segway INC's opinions on this matter as it comes up on this forum. Otherwise people tend to re-interpret clear statements by Segway INC as the matter gets rehashed now and down the road.

Have the dealers been asked to notify potential customers of Segway INC's opinion of proper use of x2's? Otherwise some customers may feel that a "representative" of Segway has misinformed them when laws are passed in their state prohibiting the use of their x2 in places they felt they should (and perhaps were) using it.

Folks, let me nip this in the bud - the dimension within AB470 is for the footprint of the unit itself which actually measures 19x25 inches. The proposed language is not intended to restrict individuals who add side/front bags to their i167, i170, i180, and I2's from the sidewalk. The true intention of this language is to reiterate Segway Inc.'s message that an XT/X2, with a footprint averaging 7.5x8 inches larger than a i167, i170, i180 and I2, should NOT be operated on a sidewalk.

I will request that clarification be made at the hearing and noted in the bill summary when signed into law.

Thank you.

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

[mjdbos]

PLO, thanks for your post. Segway Inc. has and continues to make it very clear via all of our marketing material, sales collateral, and public comments that the XT and X2 are "not intended for sidewalk use". See our webpage on the X2 - http://www.segway.com/personal-transporter/model_x2.html.

I would hope that our dealers are communicating this message to all current and potential owners.

Thanks,

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

[mjdbos]

Greetings California Segway PT Owners:

Today the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee unanimously passed AB470. The CHP amendment, as discussed in a prior posting, was also accepted. AB470 will now make a quick stop in Senate Appropriations Committee and then to Governor Schwarzeneggar for his signature.

Thanks to all for all of your help during these last months. We'll certainly keep you posted of new developments.

Cheers,

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

[bentbiker]

Matt,

Congratulations! This is great news. On behalf of all CA Segway owners, I'd like to say "Thank You" for your efforts and those of the company as a whole.

Greetings California Segway PT Owners:

Today the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee unanimously passed AB470. The CHP amendment, as discussed in a prior posting, was also accepted. AB470 will now make a quick stop in Senate Appropriations Committee and then to Governor Schwarzeneggar for his signature.

Thanks to all for all of your help during these last months. We'll certainly keep you posted of new developments.

Cheers,

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

[polo_pro]

Greetings California Segway PT Owners:

Today the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee unanimously passed AB470. The CHP amendment, as discussed in a prior posting, was also accepted. AB470 will now make a quick stop in Senate Appropriations Committee and then to Governor Schwarzeneggar for his signature.

Thanks to all for all of your help during these last months. We'll certainly keep you posted of new developments.

Cheers,

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

Excellent! Your activities make me feel like my money was well spent on segways. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I bought a segway for TWO reasons. First, the engineers did a FANTASTIC job in making a safe machine with many redundant systems and fault tolerance. Second, Segway INC understood the importance of getting these wonderful machines legally recognized (and continues even today to work towards that).

Soon, I may have to even add a THIRD reason for buying a segway. It'd be "Segway INC does a great job of keeping its user base informed and involved"...something that was somewhat lacking in the past.

[SEGsby]

What was the linguistic clarification added in the bill for 'legal' platform measurements?

SEGsby

[Timezkware Tim]

Greetings California Segway PT Owners:

Today the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee unanimously passed AB470. The CHP amendment, as discussed in a prior posting, was also accepted. AB470 will now make a quick stop in Senate Appropriations Committee and then to Governor Schwarzeneggar for his signature.

Thanks to all for all of your help during these last months. We'll certainly keep you posted of new developments.

Cheers,

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.

Thanks for all the updates, Matt, and all the hard work on your part.

Tim

[dale@thecoys.net]

OK, just out of curiosity - if an XT or x2 isn't an EPAMD in California, what is it?

[ryan_walters]

OK, just out of curiosity - if an XT or x2 isn't an EPAMD in California, what is it?

If I had to guess, I'd say exactly what all segway's (currently) are in Canada. Grey area. Not legal. But not illegal either.

That being said, I don't think XT's and X2's should be used on sidewalks, they shouldn't.

[bentbiker]

OK, just out of curiosity - if an XT or x2 isn't an EPAMD in California, what is it?I'm not sure whether you followed the course of the legislation or not, but the original wording of AB470 was that all Segways were EPAMD's, but "A person shall not operate on a public sidewalk, an EPAMD that is greater than 20 inches deep and 25 inches wide." I thought that the CA Highway Patrol had merely insisted on this exclusion.

However, it appears they requested that the wording be changed to eliminate the larger models from the EPAMD classification entirely. The bold, italicized portion of the EPAMD definition below is the addition:
"The term “electric personal assistive mobility device” or “EPAMD” means a self-balancing, nontandem two-wheeled device, that is not greater than 20 inches deep and 25 inches wide and can turn in place, designed to transport only one person, with an electric propulsion system averaging less than 750 watts (1 horsepower), the maximum speed of which, when powered solely by a propulsion system on a paved level surface, is no more than 12.5 miles per hour."


Matt Dailida, as pointed out by Steve in a separate thread, says:
"So what does this mean for the XT/X2? It is still considered an EPAMD in the truest sense but regulation-wise, it will be treated more like a motorized scooter. This means current and future XT/X2 owners can still enjoy their device on paths and trails and other off-road areas while maintaining all of the other rights of an EPAMD - no license or registration required."

However, without falling under the definition of an EPAMD, I don't see how they can operate on bike paths and bike lanes, where motorized scooters are often illegal. As Matt says, they can be used "on paths and trails and other off-road areas." It wasn't until your question that I realized what a siginificant change had taken place. I wonder how many others will be surprised to find out about this changed wording.

A pdf of the full bill is available by inserting bill number 470 at:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

[JohnM]

However, without falling under the definition of an EPAMD, I don't see how they can operate on bike paths and bike lanes, where motorized scooters are often illegal. As Matt says, they can be used "on paths and trails and other off-road areas." It wasn't until your question that I realized what a siginificant change had taken place. I wonder how many others will be surprised to find out about this changed wording.

As of January 1, 2008 'X' series Segways with fall under the motorized scooter portion of the California vehicle code.

407.5. (a) A "motorized scooter" is any two-wheeled device that has
handlebars, has a floorboard that is designed to be stood upon when
riding, and is powered by an electric motor. This device may also
have a driver seat that does not interfere with the ability of the
rider to stand and ride and may also be designed to be powered by
human propulsion. For purposes of this section, a motorcycle, as
defined in Section 400, a motor-driven cycle, as defined in Section
405, or a motorized bicycle or moped, as defined in Section 406, is
not a motorized scooter.

All the regulations for motorized scooters are HERE (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21220-21235).

A few key points:
21221. Every person operating a motorized scooter upon a highway
has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to
the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited
to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic
beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section
20000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division
18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which, by
their very nature, can have no application.

21229. (a) Whenever a class II bicycle lane has been established on
a roadway, any person operating a motorized scooter upon the roadway
shall ride within the bicycle lane, except that the person may move
out of the lane under any of the following situations:
21230. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a motorized
scooter may be operated on a bicycle path or trail or bikeway, unless
the local authority or the governing body of a local agency having
jurisdiction over that path, trail, or bikeway prohibits that
operation by ordinance.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Cool. So, in California (if I read all of that right), the Xs will be "street legal" (when equipped properly at night), and can use the bicycle lanes.

Did I get that right?

[bentbiker]

Cool. So, in California (if I read all of that right), the Xs will be "street legal" (when equipped properly at night), and can use the bicycle lanes.

Did I get that right?
The Motorized Scooter requirements of 1)(a) and 21227 (b), below, each, in my opinion, exclude the Segway entirely. Other areas are problems as well.

1.) The operator of a motorized scooter shall not do any of the
following:
(a) Operate a motorized scooter unless it is equipped with a brake
that will enable the operator to make a braked wheel skid on dry,
level, clean pavement.
(b) Operate a motorized scooter on a highway with a speed limit in
excess of 25 miles per hour unless the motorized scooter is operated
within a class II bicycle lane.
(c) Operate a motorized scooter without wearing a properly fitted
and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards described in
Section 21212.
(d) Operate a motorized scooter without a valid driver's license
or instruction permit.

2.) [When operating in a bicycle lane on a roadway it is required that]
When preparing for a left turn, the operator shall stop and
dismount as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or right edge
of the roadway and complete the turn by crossing the roadway on
foot, subject to the restrictions placed on pedestrians in Chapter 5
(commencing with Section 21950).

3.) 21227. (a) A motorized scooter shall comply with one of the
following:
(1) Operate in a manner so that the electric motor is disengaged
or ceases to function when the brakes are applied.
(2) Operate in a manner so that the motor is engaged through a
switch or mechanism that, when released, will cause the electric
motor to disengage or cease to function.
(b) It is unlawful for a person to operate a motorized scooter
that does not meet one of the requirements of subdivision (a).

4.) Every bike path that I've seen in CA has signs saying that motorized vehicles are banned and although the signs went up before the motorized scooter classification, we were looking to the new EPAMD law to clearly say Segways are legal. I don't see the motorized scooter law accomplishing the same thing.

5.) 21226 (b) requires a muffler for these electric motorized scooters.:confused:

[bentbiker]

6/12/07: AB470 will now make a quick stop in Senate Appropriations Committee and then to Governor Schwarzeneggar for his signature.

Matt Dailida
Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs
Segway Inc.
Well, i-series owners, it took a month, but, as of 7/11/07, the bill is finally in the hands of the governor for signature. Glad Matt started the process early.

[SEGsby]

The language seems very loose and sloppy. Will probably generate more confusion and problems than previous legislation...

SEGsby

[owen]

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/6992/

[bentbiker]

The language seems very loose and sloppy. Will probably generate more confusion and problems than previous legislation...

SEGsby
I see no problem with AB470 as it relates to the i-Series and EPAMD classification. I think it is quite explicit in saying exactly where they are allowed. If you are talking about the scooter code, I've already said it is an embarrassment.

Is there a specific section in AB470 that you feel is ambiguous?

BTW, what happened on your LSF problem.

[polo_pro]

The language seems very loose and sloppy. Will probably generate more confusion and problems than previous legislation...
Would you prefer it sit in committee for another 4 or 5 months while the wording is hammered out? Let's see...that'd take us up to about Thanksgiving. And we all know nothing would get done around the holidays. So that means the bill would finally be signed into law in January...just in time for the sunset clause in SB 1918 to kick in so that the media could go bonkers about Segways "being banned across California".

No...I think I prefer whatever wording they have now. I'd prefer a PASSED bill rather than a perfect one.

ps - Once again, my hat is off to the wonderful people at Segway INC who made this all possible. Sure there'll be a few nitpickers who want to spoil this moment, but remember there's literally hundreds of us here in California who appreciate your effort (or at least have the tact to wait a few days to start whining about this or that)!

[bentbiker]

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/6992/
Owen,

Thanks for the press release. If I had waited a few more hours, perhaps they would have updated the status at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_470_bill_20070711_history.html

[SEGsby]

The scooter code, sorry.

And I'm still waiting on the replacement LSF pin to show up...

SEGsby

I see no problem with AB470 as it relates to the i-Series and EPAMD classification. I think it is quite explicit in saying exactly where they are allowed. If you are talking about the scooter code, I've already said it is an embarrassment.

Is there a specific section in AB470 that you feel is ambiguous?

BTW, what happened on your LSF problem.

[SEGsby]

Yes, it's awesome Segway helped extend the legality of Segs in California, despite some of the sloppy wording in the Scooter-Code.

SEGsby

Would you prefer it sit in committee for another 4 or 5 months while the wording is hammered out? Let's see...that'd take us up to about Thanksgiving. And we all know nothing would get done around the holidays. So that means the bill would finally be signed into law in January...just in time for the sunset clause in SB 1918 to kick in so that the media could go bonkers about Segways "being banned across California".

No...I think I prefer whatever wording they have now. I'd prefer a PASSED bill rather than a perfect one.

ps - Once again, my hat is off to the wonderful people at Segway INC who made this all possible. Sure there'll be a few nitpickers who want to spoil this moment, but remember there's literally hundreds of us here in California who appreciate your effort (or at least have the tact to wait a few days to start whining about this or that)!

[SegWayne]

Time for all CA gliders to get tee shirts with something to the effect of
" Gliding with permission of AB470... "

[polo_pro]

Time for all CA gliders to get tee shirts with something to the effect of
" Gliding with permission of AB470... "

Maybe it should be like other T-shirts with way too much info on them. We could have the whole text of AB470 (and maybe SB1918) on the T-shirt! Of course, who knows how well it'd hold up in the wash, eh?

[Timezkware Tim]

Yea! :)

Tim

[DarthSegVator]

Yes, it's awesome Segway helped extend the legality of Segs in California, despite some of the sloppy wording in the Scooter-Code.

SEGsby

I agree that while all i series units have increased protections, the XT and x2 have gone into limbo (at best). The scooter code pretty much eliminates the use of cross terrain models on roadways of any kind (other than private property) from what I've seen.

I hope INC will take the next step to restore roadway use for the XT and x2 as it appears they have lost their EPAMD classification and have been reclassified as a scooter. This is a step backwards for cross terrain owners and needs to be addressed in updated legislation as quickly as possible.

Please don't get me wrong on this....I think the EPAMD clarification for i series was a great move....but the cross terrain owners have been left in the garage.

[headtow]

Matt Dailida I would like to thank you very much for what I know to be a very hard job to get to this point in California. I urge everyone in any state to wirite to California, as showen on this with the links and support this.

[mjdbos]

Greetings California Segway PT Dealers & Owners,

As you know, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed AB470 into law. It is now Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 2007, which can be viewed at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_470_bill_20070720_chaptered.html

The new law will go into effect at midnight on January 1, 2008.

I know some have expressed concern with the amendment advocated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and added into the bill by the State Senate. The language now excludes the XT/X2 from the EPAMD definition and places the devices under the jurisdiction of the state's motor scooter law(s). The CHP repeatedly stated that such jurisdiction would allow the devices to be used on roadways, paths and trails - as what is recommended by Segway Inc.

Because questions persist, I will ask that the CHP clarify the current motor scooter laws and how they exactly apply to the Segway XT and X2 models. Once in, we will certainly inform owners and dealers.

Support by CHP was absolutely critical. Without it, I believe AB470 would not have passed and the current law would be left to expire at 11:59:59 on December 31, 2006 thereby leaving ALL Segway PT owners in "regulatory hell".

If we notice that confusion and issues arise with the new law (again, not to take effect until January 1, 2008) we can look to resolve such issues future legislative sessions.

I appreciate all of you who have participated in this process and look forward to future interactions.

Best,

Matt Dailida
Director, Government Affairs

[quade]

Awesome. Keep up the very good work.

[Timezkware Tim]

Greetings California Segway PT Dealers & Owners,

As you know, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed AB470 into law. It is now Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 2007, which can be viewed at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_470_bill_20070720_chaptered.html

The new law will go into effect at midnight on January 1, 2008.

I know some have expressed concern with the amendment advocated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and added into the bill by the State Senate. The language now excludes the XT/X2 from the EPAMD definition and places the devices under the jurisdiction of the state's motor scooter law(s). The CHP repeatedly stated that such jurisdiction would allow the devices to be used on roadways, paths and trails - as what is recommended by Segway Inc.

Because questions persist, I will ask that the CHP clarify the current motor scooter laws and how they exactly apply to the Segway XT and X2 models. Once in, we will certainly inform owners and dealers.

Support by CHP was absolutely critical. Without it, I believe AB470 would not have passed and the current law would be left to expire at 11:59:59 on December 31, 2006 thereby leaving ALL Segway PT owners in "regulatory hell".

If we notice that confusion and issues arise with the new law (again, not to take effect until January 1, 2008) we can look to resolve such issues future legislative sessions.

I appreciate all of you who have participated in this process and look forward to future interactions.

Best,

Matt Dailida
Director, Government Affairs

Hey! Thanks to you and your colleagues for all the work to keep us legal.

As far as the XT and X2 go, is it possible that they could be street legal without stock fenders and with aftermarket tires/wheels? I believe the footprint could be modified that way if someone really wanted to use it for travel on roads. Anybody know?

Tim

[SEGsby]

Awesome, thanks Matt!

SEGsby

[jrvcd]

i still feel segway left us xt and x2 owners in the cold but i will still continue to ride mine as i doubt the cops will know the exact statue only place i ride mine to is the 7-11 and target up the street and have never had any issues and i will continue to do so just very displeased on how just like all of you i spent alot on money on something that is no longer street legal. And before i hear the xt was never made for the street i am aware of that but you could ride it before. With the golf tires i just put on mine my seg is much more agile on the street than any i2 or i-180. Anyhow happy gliding...

[hellphish]

Hey! Thanks to you and your colleagues for all the work to keep us legal.

As far as the XT and X2 go, is it possible that they could be street legal without stock fenders and with aftermarket tires/wheels? I believe the footprint could be modified that way if someone really wanted to use it for travel on roads. Anybody know?

Tim

I like this line of thinking...

[Jus Sumguy]

Should there be any wording on using Segways on public transportation? Can they be taken on the subway in LA (yes, we have one), or on busses with wheelchair lifts? Just wondering. Tim
Orange County = NO, unless you have a handicapped placard. And even then it's a hassle. You have to make the driver call his boss and whatnot.

La county = maybe, depending on the driver, but prolly no. Even with a placard.

The train is Segway legal (both sizes) at certain hours. Unless you have a placard. Then it's legal all hours. This is 'cept for the green line which is, in reality, a bus.


-
-

[Metal Whiskers]

I couldn't find an answer to this question. My own state of Oregon does not appear to have dimensions in its EPAMD statute, so I wonder why some other states like California decided to restrict sidewalk use to a certain size. Is there a good rationale or is it just a poor compromise based on the i2's dimensions?

On the surface the 25" width seems absurd. My walking stance is more than that! Some baby strollers are more than 30" wide and can be over 50" long.

[quade]

I couldn't find an answer to this question. My own state of Oregon does not appear to have dimensions in its EPAMD statute, so I wonder why some other states like California decided to restrict sidewalk use to a certain size. Is there a good rationale or is it just a poor compromise based on the i2's dimensions?

On the surface the 25" width seems absurd. My walking stance is more than that! Some baby strollers are more than 30" wide and can be over 50" long.

My understanding is that it was a figure arrived at by a CHP study based on things like sidewalk widths and other standard urban planning guidelines. My guess is that Segway Inc was working with them trying to keep it "reasonable". Yes, some other devices (side-by-side twin baby strollers for instance) are freekin' huge, but that should almost never be the criteria for deciding this sort of thing anyway.

Even at that, you'd be amazed how difficult it is to sometimes negotiate "legacy" sidewalks with something as "narrow" as a lowly i2. For some reason, a LOT of objects have a tendancy to intrude on the walking surface; fire hydrants, guide wires, trees, bus stops . . . try to negotiate those same sidewalks on an x2 and you'll find yourself dismounting quite a bit.

[bystander]

I couldn't find an answer to this question. My own state of Oregon does not appear to have dimensions in its EPAMD statute, so I wonder why some other states like California decided to restrict sidewalk use to a certain size. Is there a good rationale or is it just a poor compromise based on the i2's dimensions?

On the surface the 25" width seems absurd. My walking stance is more than that! Some baby strollers are more than 30" wide and can be over 50" long.It's based on the XT and x2 dimensions. See the posts about the CHP support (of the bill) for rationale.

Many XT and x2 users in California agree with you, in that it is a poor compromise.

But without the compromise, there would be no EPAMD status come Jan 1, 2008. So it was thought it was worth it, in order to allow the smaller PTs (p-series, i-series, i2) be legal on the sidewalk. The alternative in California without EPAMD status would be all models considered as scooters and restricted to low-speed roads only. (no sidewalk use)

P.S. Oops. quade already answered. Still typing too slow, I guess.

[bentbiker]

I couldn't find an answer to this question. My own state of Oregon does not appear to have dimensions in its EPAMD statute, so I wonder why some other states like California decided to restrict sidewalk use to a certain size. Is there a good rationale or is it just a poor compromise based on the i2's dimensions?

On the surface the 25" width seems absurd. My walking stance is more than that! Some baby strollers are more than 30" wide and can be over 50" long.If you listen to Nelix's podcast of an interview with Matt Dailida of INC http://cdn.libsyn.com/segcast/SegCast_Episode_011_Matt_Dailida.mp3, and and read Matt's post:

As you know, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed AB470 into law. It is now Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 2007, which can be viewed at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...chaptered.html

The new law will go into effect at midnight on January 1, 2008.

I know some have expressed concern with the amendment advocated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and added into the bill by the State Senate. The language now excludes the XT/X2 from the EPAMD definition and places the devices under the jurisdiction of the state's motor scooter law(s). The CHP repeatedly stated that such jurisdiction would allow the devices to be used on roadways, paths and trails - as what is recommended by Segway Inc.

Because questions persist, I will ask that the CHP clarify the current motor scooter laws and how they exactly apply to the Segway XT and X2 models. Once in, we will certainly inform owners and dealers.

Support by CHP was absolutely critical. Without it, I believe AB470 would not have passed and the current law would be left to expire at 11:59:59 on December 31, 2006 thereby leaving ALL Segway PT owners in "regulatory hell".

If we notice that confusion and issues arise with the new law (again, not to take effect until January 1, 2008) we can look to resolve such issues future legislative sessions., you'll find that Segway says on its website that the X-series is not recommend for use on sidewalks. The CHP said there should be nothing on the sidewalk that its own manufacturer doesn't recommend being there. Originally, the X-series was written into AB470 as still being an EPAMD (post# 96 above), but excluded by size from operating on the sidewalk. The senate amended it (probably at the urging of CHP) to totally remove the X-series from the EPAMD classification. I think INC's plan is to eventually attempt a fine-tuning of the law now that something is in place, but if you read my previous post# 99, the X-series in no way meets the criteria of being classified an electric scooter.

As stated by Quade (and INC), the X-series has no place on most sidewalks, and its very size intimidates pedestrians and works against our overall hope to have the Segway treated as a pedestrian friendly device.

[Mr_Laurenzano]

Its the only place you can talk on the phone, use a blower, leave you garbage can out, roller-skate, ride a bike, check your mail and operate a EPAMD, stop anytime you want, go as fast as your little pedestrian feet can carry you; minus a kick tail on a skateboard or the ear shattering squeak of a ten speed going to fast and the very next thing you hear is the sound of bell's in a key of 'C'.
The segway evolution has been joined by a way to get around; I have walked behind many a PED, goosed and startled beyond words, even on my little durable little gen1 I managed to ‘gock-induce’, some of the most classic stairs, comments, and actions. Some of those little buggers reached out and grabbed me or came close with a hurled object but each and everyone had something to say about it.
We as segway riders get around a whole underground, curb hoping, article reading, segfest attending, post workout riding just to feel the wind, and don’t forget smiles. We review that that resembles a flash in a pond, just to see the ripple.
It’s very rare that you find a segway rider in your plane of view, I have been traveling on these two way sidewalks and every time at that cross road we stop, reflect and glide on.
I fully agree with the ‘xgenxing’ of sb470 there is a time and place for the XTG/XT. I’m not whipping up and down the roads wielding 10mm Bruno Weasels and white flag that say’s get out of my way, seniors ask a lot of questions in a crosswalk, come up with more solutions, than wisdom should allow.
Don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes. ‘We’re low on ammo’.
The Diablo advocate says.
In the mist of new legislation while being inquired by local police force with current knowledge of modifications to senate bill 1918, with no further contest, for years to come; say’s “ HOLD IT RIGHT THERE”. …~”that PT you are ridding is over the max withed of EPAMD, in cali?..~”, can I see your?
We have 2000~3000~6and beyond observation of what happens, the only place you can talk. Live from the platform of a dynamic stabilized simple rope wearing genre…and the fine will be!!!
Violation of VC313 with evading arrest, with aggravated assault. 10,000 dollars ~ ridding an XT without a ‘see your’,
Whats next?
Crash

[quade]

Mind you, you probably speak English far better than I speak any other language, but I've always been curious so please, forgive me for doing a little side step on this topical thread, but Laurenzano, what is your native language?

[Mr_Laurenzano]

Mind you, you probably speak English far better than I speak any other language, but I've always been curious so please, forgive me for doing a little side step on this topical thread, but Laurenzano, what is your native language?

What?,i curly shuffle. who is keeping score?

[Mr_Laurenzano]

ola25 caught in a ~:eek:

[Metal Whiskers]

...you'll find that Segway says on its website that the X-series is not recommend for use on sidewalks. The CHP said there should be nothing on the sidewalk that its own manufacturer doesn't recommend being there.
I missed that on the website. I don't see it in the x2 description or spec sheet. In any case, a simple recommendation is just that, a suggestion that it is better suited for off-pavement use (just as hiking boots can be used on pavement but are better on dirt). I can't see anything in the x2's design that makes it unsuitable for sidewalks. Indeed, outside of the downtown core of most cities the sidewalks are in such poor shape and intermittent that the x2's "enhanced performance on varied terrain" is ideal. A blanket restriction of the x2 from all sidewalks seems unnecessary and inappropriate, as well as impractical to enforce fairly.

As stated by Quade (and INC), the X-series has no place on most sidewalks, and its very size intimidates pedestrians and works against our overall hope to have the Segway treated as a pedestrian friendly device.
Granted that the x2's tires look more menacing but the extra width is only 5.5" or 22% wider than the i2, and the total width is less than some other conveyances--and people!--found on sidewalks. I appreciate the need for Segway owners to be extra cautious in crowded pedestrian areas but that's a tiny fraction of sidewalks.

What do you think of Oregon's EPAMD statute? It basically allows the Segway on both the sidewalk and the roadway. If on the sidewalk the operator has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian. If on the roadway they have the same rights and duties as a bicyclist.

[bentbiker]

I missed that on the website. I don't see it in the x2 description or spec sheet. In any case, a simple recommendation is just that, a suggestion that it is better suited for off-pavement use (just as hiking boots can be used on pavement but are better on dirt). I can't see anything in the x2's design that makes it unsuitable for sidewalks. Indeed, outside of the downtown core of most cities the sidewalks are in such poor shape and intermittent that the x2's "enhanced performance on varied terrain" is ideal. A blanket restriction of the x2 from all sidewalks seems unnecessary and inappropriate, as well as impractical to enforce fairly.
The X2 brochure on the website says, "The X2 is not intended for use on sidewalks or pedestrian walkways." ...you'll find that Segway says on its website that the X-series is not recommend for use on sidewalks. The CHP said there should be nothing on the sidewalk that its own manufacturer doesn't recommend being there.

Granted that the x2's tires look more menacing but the extra width is only 5.5" or 22% wider than the i2, and the total width is less than some other conveyances--and people!--found on sidewalks. I appreciate the need for Segway owners to be extra cautious in crowded pedestrian areas but that's a tiny fraction of sidewalks.
The specs show a width of 33", which would be 8" wider than the i2.
As stated by Quade (and INC), the X-series has no place on most sidewalks, and its very size intimidates pedestrians and works against our overall hope to have the Segway treated as a pedestrian friendly device.

What do you think of Oregon's EPAMD statute? It basically allows the Segway on both the sidewalk and the roadway. If on the sidewalk the operator has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian. If on the roadway they have the same rights and duties as a bicyclist. I haven't read the OR statute, but I certainly have no problem with your summary of it . . . with the one exception that I believe an EPAMD wider than 25" should be excluded from sidewalk usage. As has been written here numerous times, pedestrians usually don't feel comfortable passing even an i2 on a sidewalk, even though there is room, and most of us on narrow sidewalks either slow to a crawl, stop entirely, or move off the sidewalk to be good ambassadors. I think another 8 inches in width is not defensible. I don't think that poor condition of the sidewalks is any justification for using vehicles not designed for sidewalk usage -- you could make your same argument about ATV's being appropriate for sidewalks in such condition. But then, I don't think Monster Trucks should be allowed on the streets either.
..........

[quade]

The specs show a width of 33", which would be 8" wider than the i2.

Which, BTW and to just to keep things in perspective, is 1 inch wider than a minimum ADA door.

[Metal Whiskers]

The file "x2-specs.pdf" I downloaded from the Segway site gives the footprint as 21 x 30.5 in./53 x 77 cm. The file "ReferenceManual.pdf" gives it as 26.5 x 33 in./67 x 84 cm. The i2 dimensions are also a little different. Which document is correct? Can someone with an i2 and someone with an x2 measure them and report back?

I found the statement, "The x2 is not intended for use on sidewalks," which appears in the file "ReferenceManual.pdf" towards the end of one table; I had to search for it. A statement like that is advisory at best because sidewalks (and other walkways) come in many types, widths, surfaces, and land uses. Given that the basic operation of the Segway mimics walking it follows that sidewalks as well as trails are a logical place for them to operate except in the most crowded areas. The Segway may be inappropriate for some (not all) downtown sidewalks but beyond that it does not present any major problems.

What intrinsic difference is there between the i2 and the x2 other than that one is tuned primarily for paved surfaces and the other for many types of surfaces? The main visible difference is wheels and tires. The added width seems a minor point that would matter only in a few situations. The x2 is hardly the "monster truck" of Segways; it is just somewhat more capable.

As for pedestrians being uncomfortable, I can only relate my experience walking and bicycling on all types of facilities. In general people get along pretty well and adjust to each other. Sure, there can be friction and we have to be polite but I don't see that the Segway, even the x2, as cause for alarm.

[polo_pro]

What intrinsic difference is there between the i2 and the x2 other than that one is tuned primarily for paved surfaces and the other for many types of surfaces?

Come play polo with us and you'll see first hand. When one of them comes barrelling at you (vs an i2 or Gen 1), you'll feel the difference. It's hard to explain, but I think I can sum it up in one word: daunting. Sure it's only slightly heavier. Sure it's only slightly taller. Sure it's moving at the same speed as any other segway on the field. But it sure doesn't feel the same, eh?

Now if an i2 is "challenging" for a pedestrian (who knows nothing about how it'll behave, be controlled or how fast it goes), I assure you that this "daunting" characteristic of the x2 makes it that much more difficult for the pedestrian. And those fears encouraged by an aggressive x2 glider lead to the bannings...so maybe it just comes down to that. Do you want the odds of a banning in your home town to increase?

ps - For the record, I have no problem with x2's or XT's in polo. I think what really contributes to the differences in my perceptions is that more aggressive players tend to favor the X