Segways are not Disability Devices

Report For:

Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Honourable Harinder Takhar M.P.P., Minister of Transportation77 Wellesley St. W., 3rd Floor, Ferguson BlockToronto ON M7A 1Z8
Copy To:
· Louis Ranger, Deputy Minister of Transport
Transport Canada330 Sparks StreetOttawa, ONK1A 0N5
· Centre for Electric Vehicle Evaluation in Quebec (CEVEQ)
128, rue de la GareSaint-Jérôme (Québec) CanadaJ7Z 2C2
· City of Toronto via e-mail
o City Clerk
o City Solicitor
o City Manager
o Deputy City Manager
o Works Committee
o Pedestrian Committee
o Select Toronto Councillors

Subject:
“Electric Personal Assistance Mobility Devices” (EPAMD) i.e. Segways –Considerations before recognition as a disability device in Ontario.

Purpose:
The following document was prepared specifically for the benefit of the Honourable Harinder Takhar M.P.P., Minister of Transportation and his staff at the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for consideration in their evaluation of the new class of motorized vehicle called EPAMD’s, i.e. the Segway, being recognized as a “medical device” in Ontario.

Internet Research, Data Assemblage and Preparation by:
Innovative Mobility “ A student research group dedicated to studying new yet responsible solutions to today’s transit problems”

Source Credits
Can be found in this document’s End Notes

Note:
This document is posted in its entirety on: http://segwaydisabled.blogspot.com/ “EPAMD’s i.e. the Segway --- Considerations before recognition as a “disability device” in Ontario”.

January 28, 2006


Please Note:
Ø The following document segwaydisabled.pdf was prepared specifically for the benefit of the Honourable Harinder Takhar M.P.P., Minister of Transportation and his staff at the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for consideration in their evaluation of the new class of motorized vehicle called EPAMD’s i.e. Segways, as medical devices for people of disability. This document has been posted in its entirety at http://www.segwaydisabled.blogspot.com
Ø A companion document segwaycaveats.pdf that was prepared specifically for the Toronto Works Committee meeting of January 12, 2006 will prove useful to the Minister of Transportation staff in their consideration for updating EPAMD / Segway motorized vehicle classification with regard to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. This document has been posted essentially in its entirety at http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com
Ø For reasons of continuity there is a fair amount of overlap between segwaydisabled.pdf and segwaycaveats.pdf because the disabled aspect is a subset of the able bodied Segway caveats.
Ø Both documents will be sent as a hard copy and a CD to all the forementioned recipients.
Ø The terms EPAMD’s (Electric Personal Assistance Mobility Devices) and Segways are used interchangeably as the Segway was the first motorized vehicle to be classified as an EPAMD. EPAMD is a legal description in laws that regulate or ban Segways.
Ø The following document segwaydisabled.pdf is an extensive. We consider it an important document because in the final analysis if EPAMD’s are approved for use in the pedestrian environment then the whole concept of sidewalks being a safe zone from vehicular traffic will be forever changed as place where friends can stop and say hello or where we can "nodding hello to the two boys drinking pop on the stoop, eying the girls while waiting to be called for dinner, admonishing the children, hearing about a job from the hardware man and borrowing a dollar from the druggist, admiring the new babies and sympathizing over the way a coat faded.” (Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961)


Index:Executive Summary
Introduction
The Segway is recognized as a motorized vehicle
Big “loop hole” in MTO wording
Segway distribution and promotion in Ontario
Background
A.) Some basics
B.) It should be of interest
C.) Why has the Segway become a legislative / public policy issue
D.) Why has Segway become a public safety issue in Ontario
What are the concerns and objections to the Segway being treated as a pedestrian for people of all physical abilities
Just to name a few! Some other concerns that have been expressed about the Segway
E.) Has any municipality in Ontario approved the use of Segways on the sidewalk
Detailed Text
1) EPAMD’s not a disability device
2) Segways never approved as a FDA medical device
3) Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001)
4) Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005
5) John Allen’s excellent article “The Seway – Corporate Lobbyists Write the Law”
6) Transport Canada discussion of Segways as MPTD’s
7) Multiple groups have asked for Segway ban including disabled groups
8) Certain medical conditions should refrain some people from using Segways
9) The City of London, Ontario’s perverse bylaw
10) Speed of Segway compared to motorized wheel chair and medical scooter
11) Discussion “If a Seway hit you it is like being hit by another pedestrian”
12) Discussion of text of Testamony by G. A. Smith MD before Highway and Transportation Committee Ohio Senate
13) Disney bans Segways
14) S. G. Goodridge’s excellent article “The Segway is a Vehicle”.
Summary
Conclusions
Appendix --- some pics
Endnotes

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


Dear Honourable Harinder Takhar M.P.P., Minister of Transportation, Ontario Ministry of Transportation

My name is Bill Brunton and I am a member of an eclectic student research group, Innovative Mobility, studying new yet responsible solutions to today’s transit problems. Very generally the focus of Innovative Mobility is “working for safe sidewalks, better cycling, walking, public transit and fewer cars”. As Communications Integrator for Innovative Mobility, I respectfully requests that the following submission to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation be considered during the evaluation period for possible recognition of Electric Personal Assistance Mobility Device (EPAMD) [that would include the Segways as a sub group] for use by persons with disability in Ontario. While this information paper was assembled and prepared specifically for your Ministry with the Ontario perspectives, it does have generic relevence to all levels of government in the global spectrum that is why it has been published in its entirety at http://www.segwaydisabled.blogspot.com/ .

A copy of this report is being sent to:
q Transport Canada and the Centre for Electric Vehicle Evaluation in Quebec (CEVEQ) where they have a pilot project already started for evaluating motorized personal transportation devices (Ref TPP 14285E for MPTD’s) and
q Toronto City Hall where Segways for the disabled (mobility assistance devices) will be on the City Council January 31/06 agenda as a result of decision by the Works Committee at their January 12/06 meeting “to request Ministry of Transportation Ontario to expedite study of the proposed pilot project with respect to Segways”

Executive Summary:
1. The Segway is encompassed within the definition of motor vehicle as found in Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act and, according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and pursuant to the Act, may not legally operate on a highway in Ontario; and that a highway would include the sidewalk or footpath where the sidewalk or footpath falls within the road allowance.
2. Big “loop hole” in MTO wording: The terminology “considered a device for the pedestrian environment” is MTO wording Ref http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/index.html under the heading Segway Human Transporter may very well legitimize the use of Segways on the sidewalk or at least create “reasonable doubt” that they are permitted.
3. Both the Toronto Pedestrian Committee and the Works Committee at numerous meetings over the past year (2005) have made very clear with strong recommendations “to preserve the sanctity of the sidewalks as being a safe zone from motorized vehicular traffic”.
4. The EPAMD definition as “a self-balancing device with two wheels not in tandem, designed to transport only one person by an electric propulsion system with an average power of 750 watts (one horsepower) having a maximum speed of up to 23 mph max. on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such propulsion” was name and definition created by the Segway Corp to call “self balancing” vehicles like the Segway
5. Pedestrians are obstacles! according to the Segway Corp reference page 35 of the training manual for Segway drivers refers to “children, pedestrians, pets, vehicles and bicycles” as “obstacles or potential hazards.” The manual also warns: “If you let go of the Segway when it is moving at any speed, it could travel much farther, risking injury to others.” The manual even warns that the motorized Segway can travel on its own if something is placed on the platform or if there is too much weight on the handlebars.
6. The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) in the US does not include a definition of the EPAMD class of motorized vehicle. The Segway Corp lobbyists and their franchisees jumped in and launched an aggressive campaign to amend state and Federal law in the United States to ensure that Segways are not regulated as a motorized vehicle. They have been very successful pushing their corporation agenda to suit their own purposes but the result is a horror case of inconsistent rules and regulations from state to state and from municipality to municipality within the same state. In Ontario we do not want this Segway lobby even for the disabled to push their corporate and franchise profit agenda!
7. Sidewalk are designed for walking speeds of approx 3.5 mph for both the able and the disabled; Segways traveling at 12.5 mph (20 kph) would be a horror case when you consider:
a. The National Safety Council has determined that the average reaction time for an emergency braking situation is three-quarters of a second. At even 12mph, a Segway would therefore travel an average of 13 feet before the user would even initiate braking. Segway claims that the device could then be stopped in an additional 5 feet (which would be a remarkable 1g of deceleration if true) for a total stopping distance of 18 feet. Again, this would be completely unsafe for sidewalk use.
b. Energy increases with the square of velocity. This means the energy expended in a crash of a rider on a 80 lb Segway scooter going 12 mph would be approximately 25 times greater than for a person walking.
The earlier definition of EPAMD is words that the Segway Corp offered up for this new class of “electrically-powered light-mode transportation device”. Because there was and still is a void in the “Uniform Vehicle Code” (UVC) in the United States for this EPAMD class of motorized vehicle, Segway lobbyists This is why it is so important that here in Ontario we do not let the Segway lobbyist write the law.
There are unanswered questions about the licensing, training, and regulation of Segway users, DUI, and regulation of the equipment that should be required for the operation of the device (e.g. helmets, lights and reflectors).
If Segways are to be used by the disabled there has to be qualification of disability in order to legitimize the use of a Segway as a disability device.
Most theme parks including Disney in 2004 banned Segways due to what they saw as Segways legal problems arising from potential safety issues. Not even the disabled are allowed the use of Segways due to the problem of identification of the truly disabled and those who are looking to game the system and take advantage of accommodations for the disabled.
Johnson and Johnson has exclusive rights to the medical uses of the balancing technology found within the iBOT and Segway HT. Dean Kamen’s company Segway Inc. hold the patent and marketing rights to the Segway technology for all other uses except those medical uses. This is the reason why Segways may never be approved as medical devices by the FDA. And This also will explain why the Segway Corp will probably not get involved or even respond to any request for safety and crash test data for use of the Segway a device for people of disability.
In the event that EPAMD’s, like the Segway, were ever to be approved as medical devices there would be major implications that would have to be considered. As a disability device under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001).
The new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (aka Bill 118, passed by the Ontario Legislature May 10, 2005) will have further linkage to any recognition of EPAMD’s like the Segway being classified as disability defined personal assistive mobility devices.
“The Segway laws of New Hampshire, the Segway's home state, provides a fine example of what can occur when corporate lobbyists set about to rewrite the traffic law to suit their own purposes. The Segway laws not only anomalously define the Segway operator as a pedestrian -- these laws also set no meaningful standards for equipment (lights, reflectors, brakes), allow Segway users to park on the sidewalk so as to impede pedestrian traffic, and have other significant failings.”
Many groups have asked for a ban on Segways including disabled groups.
Numerous medical conditions for persons with disability that should refrain from using Segways according to Transport Canada’s Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ).
The City of London, Ontario’s boondoggle bylaw allows the use of Segways as a “personal assistance mobility device” on sidewalks and public pathways by people of disability. In our group’s opinion this City of London’s by-law is a text-book example of what every municipality should avoid; in that, it was a knee jerk, subjective rush to judgment after a particularly poignant presentation by a person of disability --- the result a bylaw that while untested is probably illegal.
Segway speeds are totally at the operator’s discretion. For the basic Segway HT model the world speed record is 20.54 mph set at the first annual Segway Time Trials in August, 2003.
“Although the Segway has internal gyroscopes for stability, the driver of the device does not. And unlike other motor vehicles, the driver of the Segway is standing unrestrained, not sitting. The operator’s high center of gravity is likely to pull him/her off of the scooter in a quick turn.”
“It is troubling that the manufacturer has offered no data to support its safety claims. For example: they claim that a Segway is safer than a bicycle or skateboard, however, no injury data exist and no crash test data have been revealed.”
Reassurances from manufacturer representatives and a brief demonstration of the product, without independent objective evaluation and data, are inadequate criteria for departure from current law that exists to protect both device operators and pedestrians.
If there ever was to be a detailed evaluation of the Segway for use as a EPAMD for either / or / both the able and the disabled --- the question begs who should fund such a study because the only clear beneficiary of such a study would be the segway.com franchisees in Ontario. And if we as taxpayers are expected to pay for any “proposed pilot project” to study Segways who is going to pay for the studies to evaluate all the vehicles included in the Appendix of this document that are now eligible for study by the MTO by the proposed “Segway Study” precedent. Innovative Mobility’s opinion is a legal opinion “He who profits pays”.
Like other light powered vehicles such as electric bicycles, mopeds, and electric scooters that are vehicles designated for the road, EPAMD’s like the Segway will be operated at their top cruising speed whenever conditions allow their users to do so, on the sidewalk.
Using “sidewalk” bicycle accident statistics and crash analysis provides useful insight into the most likely crash scenarios and best practices to recommend for EPAMD use.
o “Sidewalks have been found to be particularly hazardous and inconvenient places for bicycle (read EPAMD) operation.
o Falls and collisions with obstacles, pedestrians, and other cyclists are much more frequent per bicycling (EPAMD) mile on sidewalks than on roadways
Introduction:


With the introduction of all the new motorized vehicles for use on the sidewalk and public pedestrian trails today there are a lot of new terms being used to describe these “fun” vehicles.
From Innovative Mobility’s research, this is what we understand to be the acknowledged and often the legal meaning of certain terms as incorporated into US legislation:

The new classification for “personal human transporter” / “personal mobility device” is the Electric Personal Assistance Mobility Device (EPAMD). A EPAMD is generally defined as a “self-balancing, two non-tandem wheel device, designed to transport only one person, with an electric propulsion system with an average power of 750 watts (one horse poser) that limits the maximum speed of the device to 20 mph or less”. (Some definitions quote speeds as high as 23mph reflecting the influence that the Segway lobbyists have had on the respective State lawmakers in enacting legislation.)
The SegwayTM was the first motorized vehicle to be recognized as an EPAMD; Segways are an EPAMD sub group that is gyroscopically controlled. Other EPAMD sub groups would include many of the new sidewalk “fun” toys coming into the market and all are just waiting for Segway approval by your Ministery as a disability device:
· The levetating sub group such as the Levitating Hover Scooter that rides on a cushion of air.
· The dual axle Segway Centaur designed for all terrain use as well as sidewalks; it will travel up to 30 mph.
· Electric Scooter
· Pocket Crotch Rockets
· Electric Tricycles
· Electric Go-carts

The Segway is recognized as a motorized vehicle:
q The Ontario Ministry of Transportation (OMT) is very clear in its classification of SegwayTM as a motor vehicle under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA). Because Segways do not meet,
· “Provincial equipment safety standards for motor vehicles, such as standards regulating lighting, braking, seat belts, etc.
· Federal standards for motor vehicles used on public roads”
they are not allowed on roads in Ontario covered by the HTA and therefore “considered a device for the pedestrian environment”.
However having said that “the Segway is encompassed within the definition of motor vehicle as found in the HTA and, according to the OMT and pursuant to the Act, may not be legally operated on highways in Ontario; and that a highway would include the sidewalk or footpath where the sidewalk or footpath falls within the road allowance”
Big Loop Hole in MTO Wording:The terminology “considered a device for the pedestrian environment” is MTO wording Ref http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/index.html under the heading Segway Human Transporter. “Considered a device for the pedestrian environment” leads to confusion and infers that Segways are permitted in the publicly funded pedestrian environment. Even if the Segway owner understand full-well that Segways are not permitted on sidewalks your Ministry’s wording “Considered a device for the pedestrian environment” provides Segway owners a loop-hole to argue that Segways are permitted on publicly funded pedestrian infrastructure. It would be our opinion that this loop hole wording by the MTO provides prima face “reasonable doubt” argument as to why no Segway operator should ever be charged in Ontario for riding on the sidewalk; notwithstanding, the fact that there is no City in Ontario that gives EPAMD / Segway owners the right to use this consumer product on the sidewalk.
q Additionally the Segway would fall within the definition of “vehicle” as found in the Municipal Code Ch. 608.
Segway Distribution and Promotion in Ontario:The Segway marketing and distribution in Ontario is being conducted by the licenced franchisee segwayofontario.com. Because Ontario law does not permit EPAMD’s like the Segway on roadways under the Ontario HTA the Segway principles have sought to have this motorized vehicle recognized as a pedestrian; so that, it can be used on sidewalks and other public pedestrian infrastructure. The summer of 2006, the franchisees plan to run Segway Tours thorough the Brewery District of Toronto apparently with impunity because the tour route will be on public pedestrian infrastructure and Toronto roads. This will be something both the MTO and the City of Toronto will want to step into because such tours would be a blatant violation of HTA and the City “no Segway” bylaws.
To-date the Segway principles along with a friendly Toronto Councillor have launched a lobbying campaign to both the Toronto Pedestrian Committee and the Works Committee to request that Segways be classified as pedestrians and allowed on Toronto sidewalks. Both Committees have been very clear with strong recommendations “to preserve the sanctity of the sidewalks as being a safe zone from motorized vehicular traffic”:
q “that sidewalks are for pedestrians”
q “We “strongly recommend that the City of Toronto continue to prohibit the circulation of Segway scooters on sidewalks, footpaths and recreatational paths."
q “The presence of Segway scooters would be detrimental to the safety and free circulation of pedestrians and to the enjoyment of the walking experience.”
q Majority agreement with the Toronto Legal Department’s report “which clearly finds that Segways are not allowed on the sidewalks nor are they allowed on the roads”.
At the last Toronto Works Committee meeting on January 12, 2006, in what appeared to be a desperation move by the segway.com principles, they asked that Segways (EPAMD’s) be allowed on the sidewalks as “personal mobility devices” by persons of disability. If EPAMD’s were recognized as a disability device the Segway, motorized vehicle, would be treated in the same way persons operating wheelchairs or medical scooter are treated as pedestrians. It is our opinion, that if their request were approved they would have used this ruling as a wedge to get blanket Segways approval for sidewalk use in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario. Once that happens the floodgates will open to many faster, larger and potentially more dangerous ‘vehicular devices’ that will infringe on public right of way spaces i.e. sidewalks. At that January 12th meeting, the Works Committee on the recommendation of legal counsel ‘dodged the bullet’ by saying “that any bylaw allowing the use of Segways (EPAMD’s) as ‘assistance mobility devices’ for people of disability would have no legal effect because provincial laws (Ontario HTA) would supersede it.” That’s when it was suggested, “to see what the province could do about approving Segways (EPAMD’s) as a pilot project--- under Bill 169, An Act to Amend the Highway Traffic Act. This deferral to the MTO “to classify Segways i.e. EPAMD as disability devices and give them the rights of a pedestrian” by the Toronto Works Committee is the reason(s) why our group, Innovative Mobility, is writing you today Mr. Hon. Minister Takhar.
Our group’s concerns regarding EPAMD’s relate to the ethical and legal obligations at all government levels in Canada to protect all sidewalk stakeholders both able bodied and disabled. As a general philosophy, we believe that any federal, provincial or municipal legislation to accommodate Segways, as the first in this new EPAMD classification, in the urban environment must never put the full spectrum of sidewalk users under any undue hardship or endangerment in a rush to accommodate a minority of Segway owners.

Innovative Mobility is well aware of the hypersensitive nature of any discussion forum that that is perceived to have an agenda of further limiting the freedom for people of disability. As a group with a disabled member, we believes that EPAMD’s i.e. Segways may very well be a legitimate liberating device for a small segment of the disabled community where the definition of disability according to Statistic’s Canada is “a condition that limits one’s participation in activities of daily living”. However, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act 2005 extends the definition of disability well beyond Statistic’s Canada to include accessibility provisions for all Ontarians by not just marginalizing the disabled; so, if you happen to be a parent pushing a child in a stroller while carrying an armload of groceries you are in as much of a disability as a person in a walker or manual wheel chair. (There is more on the Disability Act 2005 later in this document as it is critical in considering Segways as a “disability device”.)
We reserve the right to be critical of the Segway Corporation by not seeking approval for the use and operation of Segways on public infrastructure both as a consumer and medical device years earlier. But we also understand fully that there is no way to anticipate or to outlaw a new mode of transportation before it actually hits the sidewalk. As far as and the segway.com franchisees, they bought-in knowing full well that in Ontario, Segways exist in a legal gray-area:
· While, it is legal to sell them,
· it is illegal to operate them on our roads, because they are non-conforming devices encompassed within the definition of a motor vehicle under Ontario's Highway Traffic Act (HTA) and, according to the Municipal Code Chapter 608
· motorized consumer vehicles are not allowed on the sidewalk any where in Ontario
· Segways will never receive approval as a “medical device” for reasons that we will discuss later in this document.
We like many other pedestrian and bicycling activists as well as experts on traffic law and crash prevention see as a hodgepodge of rules, regulations, statutes, legislation, bylaws etc. particularly in the U.S.; whereby, Segway operators are anomalously defined as a pedestrians. Under the circumstances with the volumes of evidence to the contrary, Innovative Mobility is not prepared to stand idly by while the segway.com profiteers and their lobbyists bafflegab and spin new laws that will leave a trail of legal precedents that may very well open the doors to the whole myriad of emerging “fun vehicles” that are designed for sidewalk use.






Background:

A.) Some basics:
· What is an Electric Personal Assistance Mobility Device (EPAMD)?This is the name that the Segway Corp. offered up to call “self balancing” vehicles like the Segway. The EPAMD classification of motorized vehicle does not include any other devices offered by the Segway Corp. or any other manufacturer that might be used to assist the handicapped. By the Segway Corp definition EPAMD means “a self-balancing device with two wheels not in tandem, designed to transport only one person by an electric propulsion system with an average power of 750 watts (one horsepower) having a maximum speed on a paved level surface is less than 20 mph, when powered solely by such propulsion”.
· What is a Segway?The Segway is the world's first self-balancing transportation device that is classified as a EPAMD. It is a self-balancing, computer-controlled, electrically-powered gyroscopic light-mode transportation device invented by Dean Kamen and unveiled in December, 2001. The rider stands on a small platform supported 6 to 8 inches off the ground by two parallel wheels; holds onto handlebars that are used to steer the device; when the rider leans forward the Segway moves forward and when the rider leans back the Segway moves back or stops.
· How fast is a Segway?The Segway is reportedly capable of speeds up to 20 miles per hour, but a speed-governing key is used to limit the speed that a given rider can go to a current max. of 12.5 mph or 20 kph. According to information at segway.com, "Every Segway HT has three different keys that riders may choose from depending on riding environment and level of experience. The Beginner Key (maximum speed of 6 mph and slowest turning rate), allows riders to gain confidence using the machine. The Sidewalk Key (maximum speed of 8 mph and a medium turning rate), allows riders to adapt well in pedestrian environments. The Open Environment Key (maximum speed of 12.5 mph and the most responsive turning rate), allows riders to comfortably cover open spaces." It should be noted that:
o key selection is at the discretion of the Segway operator!
o There is “no existing law would prevent the sale of EPAMD’s capable of even greater speeds” than 20 mph (Goodridge)
o “EPAMD’s will be operated at their top cruising speed whenever conditions allow their users to do so, like other light powered vehicles such as electric bicycles, mopeds, and electric scooters” (Goodridge)
o “Furthermore, EPAMD owners may eventually find a way to bypass the electronic speed governor by modifying the hardware or replacing the software, in much the same way that owners of cars, computers and DVD players make unsupported performance enhancements using aftermarket technology and technical know-how.” (Goodridge)
· How much weight can a Segway carry?The Segway is designed to carry a person up to 250 pounds. The cargo version has an additional capacity to carry 75 pounds and a trailer is under development that will have a further capacity of 300 pounds or more. The Segway itself weighs in around 70 lbs.Definitely a force to be reckoned with in the sidewalk environment!


B.) It should be of interest:
· What is the Official World EPAMD Speed Title? It was set at the first annual Segway Time Trials in August, 2003. The fastest run was 20.54 mph, and the fastest average of the up-wind and down-wind runs was 19.1 mph.
· Pedestrians are obstacles!The 35 page-training manual for Segway drivers refers to “children, pedestrians, pets, vehicles and bicycles” as “obstacles or potential hazards.” The manual also warns: “If you let go of the Segway when it is moving at any speed, it could travel much farther, risking injury to others.” The manual even warns that the motorized Segway can travel on its own if something is placed on the platform or if there is too much weight on the handlebars.
C.) Why has the Segway become a legislative/public policy issue?
· The Segway is the first EPAMD. The earlier definition of EPAMD is words that the Segway Corp offered up for this new class of “electrically-powered light-mode transportation device”. Because there was and still is a void in the Uniform Vehicle Code” (UVC) in the United States for this EPAMD class of motorized vehicle, the Segway Corp., their high priced lobbyists and their franchisees jumped in and launched an aggressive campaign to amend state and Federal law in the United States to ensure that this motorized device is not regulated as a motorized vehicle. Segway lobbyists have been very successful pushing their corporation agenda to suit their own purposes but the result is a horror case of inconsistent rules and regulations from state to state and from municipality to municipality within the same state. This is why it is so important that here in Ontario we do not let the Segway lobbyist write the law.
D.) Why has the Segway become a public safety issue in Ontario?The segway.com franchisees in Ontario along with their paid lobbyists and camp followers have been pushing their ‘Segways on the sidewalk’ agenda in Toronto for the past year: At the last Toronto Works Committee meeting they played the disabled / handicap card to try to get EPAMD / Segway sidewalk approval as a disability device for people of disability.
(a) What are the concerns and objections to the Segway being treated as a pedestrian for people of all physical abilities?
“The impact of collisions with pedestrians
The impact of collisions between Segway users (especially operating in limited space)
The threat and discomfort felt by pedestrians which may discourage walking and use of sidewalks
Competition for already limited space on the sidewalk
Likelihood of crashes between Segway users and motorists (the two most common causes of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes are wrong-way riding and riding on the sidewalk, both of which the Segway would presumably be doing)
This sets a precedent for other motorized vehicles i.e. electric and motorized scooters, pocket crotch rockets, levitating hover scooters which would no doubt be less appropriate to use on sidewalks
There is no way to enforce speed limits on the sidewalk
The speed governing mechanism on the Segway can be easily over-ridden; speed key selection is at the operator’s discretion
We have no research on the operating characteristics of a Segway or the rider
The social justice impacts of allowing an expensive device available to a limited population to dominate public space
What happens where sidewalks don't exist or come to a stop and the road has speeds in excess of 25mph? “
Segway scooters to go up to 12.5 mph on the sidewalk, yet sidewalks are designed for typical walking speeds of approximately 3 mph. Having vehicles moving 4 times faster than pedestrian traffic in the same space is simply not safe.
The National Safety Council has determined that the average reaction time for an emergency braking situation is three-quarters of a second. At even 12mph, a Segway would therefore travel an average of 13 feet before the user would even initiate braking. Segway claims that the device could then be stopped in an additional 5 feet (which would be a remarkable 1g of deceleration if true) for a total stopping distance of 18 feet. Again, this would be completely unsafe for sidewalk use.
Energy increases with the square of velocity. This means the energy expended in a crash of a rider on a 80 lb Segway scooter going 12 mph would be approximately 25 times greater than for a person walking.
Pedestrians are not regulated traffic and do not travel in a straight line. Vehicles going up to 12.5 mph should not be mixed with pedestrians. Fast moving vehicles on the sidewalk would be especially dangerous to those with visual impairments.
There is no viable way to enforce safe operation of Segways on the sidewalks.
Segway users are not required to have insurance, though the devices are demonstrably dangerous to operate on a sidewalk.
Segways are virtually silent, and therefore a serious menace to the visually impaired.
Segways will eventually have mechanical and electrical failures preventing them from being operated in a safe manner.
Safe pedestrian environments should not require helmets!
*For a more in-depth discussion of Segways on the sidewalks, please also make reference to Innovative Mobility’s companion site at http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com where we have published in its entirety a paper “Segway – A Pedestrian Friend or Foe in the Urban Environment?” that was prepared for the forementioned Toronto Works Committee meeting of January 12, 2006. *
(b) More concerns: Just to name a few! Some other concerns that have expressed about the Segway?
· Promotes a more sedentary lifestyle when we should be promoting walking as healthy physical activity
· Promotion of the Segway has been disingenuous:
it is a motorized device even if the phrase "electric personal assistive mobility device" seems designed to disguise this
we don't know if it can be safely integrated into the pedestrian environment as the makers claim
use of the phrase "assistive mobility device" may incorrectly suggest that it serves people with disabilities in the same way a wheelchair does
Promotion as a consumer product not a motorized vehicle, even though the Segway has a motor
Promotion of the Segway legislative campaign has not considered or included those most affected: pedestrians and bicyclists
Promotion of the Segway distracts from serious issues of pedestrian safety
There are unanswered questions about the licensing, training, and regulation of Segway users, DUI, and regulation of the equipment that should be required for the operation of the device (e.g. helmets, lights and reflectors) (Sorenson)
Many more macro caveats at http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com
E.) Has any Municipality in Ontario approved the use of Segways on the sidewalk?
· One city only and to-date I believe, only one person has received London, Ontario’s Segway disability permission permit! The city of London, Ontario in November, 2005 ammended the City’s Streets Bylaw “to permit the Segway HT as a personal assistive mobility device. Only people with disabilities will be able to use the Segway on City sidewalks and paths.” Innovative Mobility is of the opinion that this bylaw permitting Segways on London’s sidewalks by persons of disability was done as a knee jerk subjective rush to judgment after a particularly poignant Council presentation by a person of disability. It was this same person, a teenager who is a double amputee, who made representation along with her parents on behalf of the segway.com franchisees at the Toronto Works Committee January 12, 2006 meeting.
Innovative Mobility don’t believe that the London bylaw is either workable or legal; nor does the Toronto Legal Department. At the Januaty 12, 2006 Work Committee meeting, after hearing from legal staff, “that the city (London) did not have the power to override the Highway Traffic Act and approve Segways for sidewalks even fo the disabled” (sic). Reason: “the Segway is encompassed within the definition of motor vehicle as found in Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act and, according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and pursuant to the Act, may not legally operate on a highway in Ontario; and that a highway would include the sidewalk or footpath where the sidewalk or footpath falls within the road allowance”.
For good reason the Toronto Work Committee at their January 12/06 meeting shied away from matching London’s bylaw move because of overriding questions of legality.

Detailed Text:

1.) The proposed designation of EPAMD’s i.e. Segways by the segway.com lobby to as a pedestrian would be wrong even for the disabled. Segways are definitely not pedestrians and Segways as a motorized personal mobility device for the disabled would put the Segway in the same classification as Motorized Wheelchairs and Medical Scooters, that are typically defined “as a motorized device with at least three wheels and a maximum speed of 8 mph”. EPAMD’s travelling at 12.5 mph and controlled by body movement is a stretch to be connoted as wheelchair or a three or four wheeled vehicle for the disabled.The Segway cannot serve the same purpose as a motorized wheelchair or other devices for movement - in that, non-ambulatory persons with disabilities who often have no alternative means of access cannot operate it.

2.) Dean Kamen unveiled his Segway invention to the public in December, 200; he also invented the iBOT wheelchair using much of the Segway’s self-balancing, computer-controlled, electrically-powered gyroscopic technology. Although developed before the iBOT wheelchair, the Segway HT was intended to be used primarily by healthy users and in those early days there was never any consideration to seek FDA as a medical device because the Segway HT was intended to be used primarily by healthy users. Subsequently the the marketing rights for the iBot Wheelcair were sold to Johnson & Johnson. With this agreement Johnson and Johnson has exclusive rights to the medical uses of the balancing technology found within the iBOT and Segway HT. Dean Kamen’s company Segway Inc. holds the patent and marketing rights to the Segway technology for all other uses except those medical uses. While this explanation is not in legalese, very simply, this is the reason why Segways may never be approved as medical devices by the FDA.

If ever there was a consideration to obtain FDA approval, as a medical device Segway Corp understands that in order to meet those standards, “a company has to do much more exhaustive (read EXPENSIVE) safety testing, and get FDA approval before releasing the device to the general public. All of the marketing material that I've seen from Segway says that it is not a medical device. I suspect that this is to avoid invoking FDA oversight. I'm sure the folks at DEKA have lots of experience with what the FDA approval process looks like (and it is probably part of why the iBOT wheelchair is so expensive). (from Segway Chat at http://segwaychat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1366 )
Everything considered based on the foregoing, the Segway Corp will probably not get involved or even respond to any request for safety and crash test data for use of the Segway a device for people of disability.
Segways are not an American Disability Association (ADA) approved vehicle for persons with disabilities and any vehicle that can go at 12.5 mph raises safety issues whether driven by an able person or a disabled person

3.) In the event that EPAMD’s, like the Segway, were ever to be approved as medical devices there would be major implications that would have to be considered. As a disability device under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001), EPAMD’s would then be allowed by default or precedent wherever wheel chairs and medical scooter are allowed. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001) applies to the Government of Ontario and a range of public sector and publicly funded organizations, including:
o Municipalities.
o "Public transportation organizations", a defined term, which includes a wide range of entities, specified in the Act.
o Hospitals.
o School boards.
o Colleges and universities.
It is important to note that "barrier" [Sc.1], a key concept in the Act, is broadly defined to mean “anything preventing a disabled person from fully participating” in all aspects of society and includes attitudes, policies and practices, as well as physical barriers. Now the “anything preventing a disabled person from participating” would include a policy, for example, of not allowing EPAMD’s like the Segways into any public sector building or facility whether a hospital, the library or the public transit system thereby preventing a disabled person from fully participating in all aspects of society. Further, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001) mandates consultation with persons of disabilities using personal mobility devices i.e. motorized wheelchairs, medical scooter; consultation would then be extended to Segways as a personal assistance mobility device. Under this Act municipalities are required to prepare and distribute accessibility plans; these disability plans must include Segways if approved as medical devices.
4. The new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (aka Bill 118, passed by the Ontario Legislature May 10, 2005) will have further linkage to any recognition of EPAMD’s like the Segway being classified as disability defined personal assistive mobility devices. On review of the Disabilities Act, 2005 you will find:
“The purpose of the Act is to benefit all Ontarians” [Part 1 Sc.1] further it says “developing, implementing and enforcing accessibility standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, occupancy of accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025” [Part 1 Sc.1(a)]
“This Act applies to every person or organization in the public and private sectors of the Province of Ontario.” [Part 2 Sc.4]
Now its not just the “public sector and publicly funded organizations” as in the Disabilities Act , 2001 but now the “private sector” under the Disabilities Act, 2005. If Segway were included in MTO’s expanded definition of “personal assistance mobility device” they would have unfettered access to restaurants, professional offices, private transportation etc. in the same fashion that wheelchairs have the right of access to these “private sector” enterprises.
Enforceable Legislation under Part 3 Sc.6 “once a standard has been adapted as a regulation, all affected persons and organizations will be required to comply”. Under this section it would be my opinion that if Segway were included in MTO’s expanded definition of “personal assistance mobility device then both the public and private sectors would be penalized for non-compliance under the Act.
“Under the Act “the full range of people with disabilities” are protected whether ”visible or invisible” – “including physical, sensory, hearing, mental health, developmental and learning disabilities that are protected”.
Reference the “disability” definition as specified by Sc. 2 of the Act means,
(a) “any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device.
(b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability,
(c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language,
(d) a mental disorder,

The government has described the goal of the Disabilities Act 2005 is to ensure that ever person in Ontario has “the opportunity to work, learn play and otherwise participate in society to their full potential. This Act 2005 is a critical piece of legislation that must be considered if Segways are to be classified as a “disability device”. Essentially “under the Act” “any degree of physical disability” “visible or invisible” would be covered to qualify as disabled and as a person of disability would obviously have no restrictions on the “disability device” of choice or restrictions on where that disability device would be allowed under the Disabilities Acts 2001 and 2005. One of the most salient aspects of the law are the penalties associated with non-compliance. If a person or business contravenes the law , they will be subject to an administrative penalty. Businesses who fail to comply with an order made against them, or intimidate, penalizeor discriminate against a person who has sought to enforce the law or has cooperated with inspectors are deemed to have committed an offence and are subjrct to enormous fines. Understanding this law [under the Disabilities Act, (2005)] consider the implications of EPAMD’s i.e. Segways being recognized as a “disability device” to the exteme end of the hypothetical continuum and the “games” people will play. This is why Disney in 2004 banned Segways!

5. John S. Allen’s December, 2003 Article “The Segway – Corporate Lobbyists Write the Law” is an excellent source of information as to:
· Why the Segway lobbyists have been so successful in the United States? and
· Why Ontarians should be very cautious when the segway.com profiteers comes knocking given the serious potential for bad precedent from the hodgepodge of statutes and ordinances shoved through state, county and municipal committees by Segway lobbyists.
According to this John Allen article, “The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) is the model for traffic law in the United States. Most states have adopted traffic laws similar to that of the UVC, which supports the creation of uniformity of traffic laws across the United States.” While the Segway was introduced in December 2001, two full years later in December, 2003, the UVC only superficially discussed and detailed the EPAMD’s. The reasons: a combination of the UVC being “amended by a cumbersome committee process” and the rapid market introduction of the Segway as the first and only EPAMD. With basically nothing in the UVC regarding EPAMD’s or Segways, the “Segway lobbyists have charged into the gap with their own proposals for laws.” You will recall from earlier in this document even the term EPAMD is “the name that the Segway Corp. offered up to call “self balancing” vehicles like the Segway.” “The Segway laws of New Hampshire, the Segway's home state, provides a fine example of what can occur when corporate lobbyists set about to rewrite the traffic law to suit their own purposes. The Segway laws not only anomalously define the Segway operator as a pedestrian -- these laws also set no meaningful standards for equipment (lights, reflectors, brakes), allow Segway users to park on the sidewalk so as to impede pedestrian traffic, and have other significant failings.” For a full commentary on NH’s EPAMD law go to John Allen’s article at “The Segway – Corporate Lobbyists Write the Law” , I would suggest this as must reading for the MTO legal staff when drafting any Segway / EPAMD regulations.
6. From Transport Canada’s site you will find “In Canada, motorized personal transportation devices (MPTD’s), including electric scooters and Segways, are prohibited on public thoroughfares and sidewalks. Transport Canada, which is responsible for establishing safety standards for motor vehicles that might be used on roads, believes that Segways are not a motor vehicle for road use, but rather a transportation device. It is therefore up to the provinces to decide on the place to be given Segways on public thoroughfares. In 2001, Quebec’s National Assembly prohibited all motorized scooters on public thoroughfares.” There are no exceptions for people with disability.
7. Many groups including the disabled have asked for a ban on Segways and other MPTD’s and there are no exceptions for Segways when used as personal assistance mobility devices
· The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has asked Congress to consider the potential risks of injury caused by motorized scooters before passing any federal legislation that would permit them to be used on sidewalks."Children, senior citizens and people with disabilities shouldn't have to dodge a scooter that goes 12 miles an hour and weighs more than 90 pounds," said AAP President Louis Z. Cooper, M.D. "Before any bill is passed, we need to gather more evidence that these scooters won't cause potentially serious injuries to the rider and other pedestrians."
· In his letter to the Environment and Public Works Committee (US), Dr. Louis Z. Cooper, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, stated: Children, elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations cannot - and should not - be expected to negotiate motorized traffic on sidewalks, trails and other walkways. Reference http://www.icdri.org/News/segwayacb.htm
· Presentation by the San Diego disabled group’s presentation to the San Diego City Council:

· “guide dogs have already had to be prepared for quieter cars, and others said the Segways would cause stress for guide dogs.
· "We are unequivocally opposed to the use of this device on the sidewalk,"
· “If a Segway hits me who will pay my medical bills?”
· Segway is a "wonderful, innovative transportation option," but said it shouldn't be mixed with pedestrians on sidewalks.
Full text available from http://www.10news.com/news/2009095/detail.html
Jennifer Barrow of the American Council of the Blind has emphasized the clear and immediate dangers to pedestrians arising from the national campaign to allow the use of the Segway in the pedestrian path of travel. Since the device is battery powered, only a vigilant and alert ear would perceive a Segways approach amid the hubbub of a city landscape.
In letter to Senator and State Representative the ACB states that “there is no question that a strong campaign has been mounted by the makers of this product without sufficient regard to the safety of blind and other pedestrians.” and “The Segway Corporation has not yet provided the public with specific data from crash tests that demonstrate the resulting damage of a Segway-pedestrian collision.” Reference http://www.acb.org/
8. Medical Conditions for persons with disability that should refrain them from using Segways:
a) From the on-going study by Transport Canada’s Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ) {Ref Study TP 14285E}. “The evaluation also identified users who should refrain from using Segways, people with proprioceptive disorders and people with inadequate vision for driving any other vehicle.”
· Proprioceptive disorders are the “impairment of a person’s perceptions of own limbs, their connection to the body and their relationship to the environment (from Coma Guide for Caregivers, Delaware Health and Social Services, Division of Services for Aging and Adults with Physical Disabilities, p 18)”.
· Vision defects would include: hemianopsia, visual perceptual defects, unilaterals neglect, decreased depth perception, diminished object recognition.
This same CEVEQ study included other categories of people who should refrain from operating Segways:
· pregnant women
· people with shifted centers of gravity
· people carrying loads
b) “poor coordination (ataxia) --- caused by injury to the cerebellum or portions of the inner ear and their connections to the brain --- can interfere with the performance of even the most basic movements and tasks”. (from Coma Guide for Caregivers, p 18)”
9. The City of London, Ontario is the only city in Canada to approve the use of Segways as a “personal assistance mobility device” on sidewalks and public pathways by people of disability. In our group’s opinion this City of London’s by-law is a text book example of what every municipality should avoid; in that, it was a knee jerk, subjective rush to judgment after a particularly poignant presentation by a 14 year old young lady, “who had lost the bottom of both legs and uses prosthetic legs and feet”. What makes the London Ontario by-law so perverse is that: a) the legality of the by-law is in question as “the City does not have the power to override the Highway Traffic Act (in Ontario) and approve Segways for the sidewalk.” b) EPAMD’s i.e. Segways have no “official” designation as disability devices.
It is worth repeating from earlier in this document due to its importance:Innovative Mobility don’t believe that the London bylaw is either workable or legal; nor does the Toronto Legal Department. At the Januaty 12, 2006 Work Committee meeting, after hearing from legal staff, “that the city (London) did not have the power to override the Highway Traffic Act and approve Segways for sidewalks even fo the disabled” (sic). Reason: “the Segway is encompassed within the definition of motor vehicle as found in Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act and, according to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and pursuant to the Act, may not legally operate on a highway in Ontario; and that a highway would include the sidewalk or footpath where the sidewalk or footpath falls within the road allowance”.

10. Typical description for a “motorized mobility aid” i.e. motorized wheelchair and medical scooters “means device which is specifically manufactured or modified for operation by a physically handicapped person. “The top speed of most scooters and chairs is about 7 kph compared with 20 kph for the Segway.At 20 kph / 12.5 mph this is “a pace three to four times that of the average walker, or about half the average foot speed of an Olympic 100-meter sprinter, depending on how you look at it”. And while the manufacturer will talk about “the beginner key”, “the sidewalk key” and “the open environment key”, this is all bafflegab, in our opinion, because the keys are at the operator’s discretion.
11. Regardless as to whether the EPAMD is driven by an able bodied person or one of disability just consider the damage that it would inflict on another sidewalk user whether a child, the elderly, a mother pushing a stroller or a person of disability with a guide dog, a white cane or in a wheelchair. The Segway Corp’s media statements have largely comprised sound bites lacking in sufficient substance such as Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway explaining, “Our machine is compatible with the sidewalk. If a Segway hits you, it’s like being hit by another pedestrian.” WOW do you believe this!!
Basic high school Newtonian physics says, “Energy increases with the square of velocity” ---this means the energy expended in a crash of a rider on a 80 lb Segway scooter going 12 mph would be approximately 25 times greater than for a person walking. OUCH!
Again employing some common sense Newtonian physics, even if the Segway device were able to come to an abrupt halt from a speed of 12.5 mph, the operator will be thrown forward and into the pedestrian or other object that was struck. Individuals that speak to how quickly the Segway can stop are also forgetting that a young child can dart unexpectedly in front of one of these devices traveling at top speed with no time for the operator to react. A collision is inevitable and the laws of physics will prevail, and potentially, a significant energy transfer will occur to the pedestrian and also to the operator, resulting in injury.
Segways may be able to stop quickly however stopping distance is in part based on the reaction time of the rider. “The National Safety Council has determined that the average reaction time for an emergency braking situation is three-quarters of a second. At even 12mph (i.e. 20kph), a Segway would therefore travel an average of 13 feet before the user would even initiate braking.” Segway claims that the device can be stopped in an additional 5 feet (which would be a remarkable 1 g of deceleration force if true!) for a total stopping distance of 18 feet --- Is 18 feet stopping distance sufficient safety factor to be used on any Ontario metropolitan area’s crowded sidewalks. Just imagine the damage that a Segway would inflict on any of today’s sidewalk stakeholder if they were to be impacted by a machine and rider weighing several hundred pounds traveling at 20 kph.
Even if the Segway device were able to come to an abrupt halt from a speed of 12.5 mph, the operator will be thrown forward and into the pedestrian or other object that was struck based on the laws of Newtonian physics.
Segway lobbyists that speak to how quickly the Segway can stop are purposely omitting details like --- a young child can dart unexpectedly in front of one of these devices traveling at top speed with no time for the operator to react. A collision is inevitable and the laws of physics will prevail, and potentially, a significant energy transfer will occur to the pedestrian and also to the operator, resulting in injury. Segway representatives may even demonstrate a Segway riding over the top of a person’s hand without injury What nonsense! this is totally irrelevant to the real injury hazard of the device colliding head-on into a pedestrian.

Please consider also that none of these scenarios depict moving automobiles, inattentive pedestrians or even Segway operators gabbing on cell phones, mothers pushing strollers, children, seniors or persons with disability using a white cane or aid dog.

12. From text of Testimony by Gary A. Smith, MD, Director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH, April 23, 2002 before the Highway and Transportation Committee, Ohio Senate http://www.ccri.net/ccri/centers/injuryResearch/
· Dr. Gary Smith is skeptical that the Segway technology can overcome innate human limitations. “Although the Segway has internal gyroscopes for stability, the driver of the device does not. And unlike other motor vehicles, the driver of the Segway is standing unrestrained, not sitting. The operator’s high center of gravity is likely to pull him/her off of the scooter in a quick turn.”
· “It is troubling that the manufacturer has offered no data to support its safety claims. For example: they claim that a Segway is safer than a bicycle or skateboard, however, no injury data exist and no crash test data have been revealed.”
· I have seen a Segway demonstrated, and even at low speeds, I am not impressed by its maneuverability. There are no data on Segways performance in a slalom test. Matthew Dailida, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Segway Inc. (who made representation at the To Works Committee meeting of 1/12/06), has stated that the device will rise up on one wheel if it corners too quickly. Although the Segway has internal gyroscopes for stability, the driver of the device does not. And unlike other motor vehicles, the driver of the Segway is standing unrestrained, not sitting. The operator’s high center of gravity is likely to pull him/her off of the scooter in a quick turn.
· Exempting the Segway or any electric personal assistive mobility device from existing Ohio laws covering similar modes of motorized transportation, such as the motorized bicycle, should not be done without real world evidence supporting such a dramatic change. Reassurances from manufacturer representatives and a brief demonstration of the product, without independent objective evaluation and data, are inadequate criteria for departure from current law that exists to protect both device operators and pedestrians. Children are a particularly vulnerable group to injury and deserve the full protection provided by our laws. Without further modification, this is not a good bill for Ohioans, and Ohio children in particular. The only clear beneficiary of this legislation is Segway.”
13. Most theme parks including Disney in 2004 banned Segways due to what they saw as Segways legal problems arising from potential safety issues. Not even the disabled are allowed the use of Segways due to the problem of identification of the truly disabled and those who are looking to game the system and take advantage of accommodations for the disabled.
14. S. G. Goodridge’s excellent article “The Segway is a vehicle” suggests that “it seems inevitable that EPAMD’s will be operated at speeds of at least 15 miles per hour” on the sidewalk “whenever conditions allow their users to do so”. “The EPAMD will be operated at a range of speeds similar to that of an adult bicycle commuter, with maneuverability similar to that of a bicycle. It follows that the safety of EPAMD travel on various facilities and according to various methods of traffic negotiation will be similar to the safety of bicycle travel. Using “sidewalk” bicycle accident statistics and crash analysis provides useful insight into the most likely crash scenarios and best practices to recommend for EPAMD use.
o “Sidewalks have been found to be particularly hazardous and inconvenient places for bicycle (read EPAMD) operation.
o Falls and collisions with obstacles, pedestrians, and other cyclists are much more frequent per bicycling (read EPAMD) mile on sidewalks than on roadways
o car-bike accident rate for sidewalk cyclists is about twice that of road cyclists,
o wrong-way sidewalk cycling (read EPAMD) creates about four times the crash rate of cycling with traffic on the roadway.
o The 1999 AASHTO Guidelines for the Development of Bicycle Facilities specifically warns against sidewalk bicycle (read EPAMD) riding: "...Sidewalks are typically designed for pedestrian speeds and maneuverability and are not safe for higher speed bicycle (read EPAMD) use....
o At intersections, motorists are often not looking for bicyclists (read EPAMD) [who are traveling at higher speeds than pedestrians] entering the crosswalk area, particularly when motorists are making a turn. Sight distance is often impaired…."
Summary:
There has been a high profile lobby by the segway.com franchisees here in Ontario to obtain approval from the Toronto Pedestrian and Works Committee for use of Segways on sidewalks, public pathways and other public infrastructure. Our student group, Innovative Mobility, are on record with these committees not to change ” the accepted definition of ‘pedestrian’ for the benefit of a single company and to please keep the sidewalks safe and do not provide preferential sidewalk access to the wealthy for the sole economic benefit of some Segway.com corporation.”

Our last presentation to the Toronto Works Committee for their January 12, 2006 meeting was published in its entirety at another internet site http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com . At this January 12, 2006 meeting, the Works Committee re-affirmed prior meeting resolutions that “Segways are not allowed on the sidewalk nor are they allowed on the roads”(sic). They did, however, defer the decision to approve but restrict the use of Segways by disabled people as “personal assistance mobility device” to your provincial ministry to complete some kind of pilot project re. Segways being used as “mobility assistance devices” by the disabled. So, now, it seems, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is the last stand battle ground for the segway.com franchisees “to wedge and to push their agenda of getting Segways allowed on sidewalks for anyone, disabled or not. We have questions:
· ” Who is going to pay for this study that for the most part will benefit the segway.com profiteers?
· “We would also like to know if Transport Canada’s CEVEQ study is being paid for with public funding?
--------------------------------------
While the use of EPAMD’s i.e. Segways as personal assistance mobility devices for person’s with disability is the thrust of this paper, the “disability issue” is simply a sub-set of the larger issue for the use of Segways on public pedestrian infrastructure. Don’t be fooled by Segways political success and gee-whiz product marketing. It stems from a confluence of factors, and can be attributed equally to brilliant marketing, big money lobbying to get politicians on side, “the backing of powerbrokers in tech circles who sang the Segway's praises early on”, the void in the Uniform Vehicle Code in the United States to give early recognition to Segways and no doubt some jiggery-pokery to get the state legislatures and municipal councils to pass favorable Segway legislation, regulations and bylaws. Don’t be fooled by the spin! - "Money talks," said Catherine Skivers, president of the California Council for the Blind. "In this case, I think it's talked so loud that people in jeopardy haven't been listened to." It is our group’s opinion that “money no doubt has played a big part in the Toronto municipal lobby”. - "I think most traffic safety advocates, or anyone who would lobby on the other side, were caught totally off guard." - Organized opposition to the company's proposals evolved slowly, in many cases coming together too late to have much of an impact on the legislative push. - "I've never seen anything like it," said Melissa Savage, senior policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures, a group that tracks state legislative issues. "I think most traffic safety advocates, or anyone who would lobby on the other side, were caught totally off guard." - the Center for Injury Research and Policy in the US was unable to respond quickly enough to voice safety concerns about the untested devices because Segway legislation was introduced simultaneously in so many states. What is happening here in Toronto and the rest of Canada has happened right across the US, “It is incredible that an out-of-state company can have such influence over our laws for a product not yet tested, that has the potential to destroy the pedestrian environment and the value of our bike paths as a place for non-motorized recreation and travel. Just imagine the time and cost involved in the Segway discussion at Toronto City Hall so far with it being boomeranged back again and again by a friendly lobbyist, and it still remains an unresolved issue! You have to wonder!! - It has been said that “this is a story of corporate greed” where municipalities are being asked to change the accepted definition of pedestrian for the benefit of a single company. To our knowledge at least in Ontario the segway.com franchisees have not contributed one iota to the public coffers for Segway safety testing nor have they provided any crash test data. - Environmentalists were told the Segway is a zero-emission vehicle, but it won't replace cars. It will replace pedestrians who walk from work to transit, or transit to home. In other words, there will be new pollution from electric power generation. It is strictly an energy shifter --- from oil to electricity generated by coal-fired plants. - The sidewalk is historically the only safe haven from cars, bicycles, and motorcycles. Seniors and advocates for the blind and persons with disabilities ask for the sidewalks to remain a safe haven from motorized vehicles. While an over simplification if Segways are approved in your community, “you had better not stop on a sidewalk to say hello to a friend, because a person on a silent, 12.5-mile-an-hour scooter could be commuting right behind you.” *For more extensive macro discussion on the Segway issues in the urban environment please refer to our site at http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com where we have published a report “Segway – A Pedestrian Friend or Foe in the Urban Environment” specifically for the Toronto Works Committee January12, 2006 meeting. *
On the issue of EPAMD’s i.e. Segways, Innovative Mobility is a pedestrian advocate. Sidewalks should be permanently reserved for pedestrians. The Segway is a motorized vehicle; it belongs on the streets and roads. Any consideration by the MTO, to recognize this type of motorized vehicle, as a medical device would be wrong, in our opinion. Medical devices i.e. motorized wheelchairs and medical scooters are specifically designed to deal with a medical or health related condition, and of at most only tangentially applicable to people without that health related condition. Any consideration to designate Segways as medical devices would have major implications for both the public and private sectors under both the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001) and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005
This would be a familiar sight is Segways are defined as a medical device for the disabled:
EPAMD’s such, as a Segway would be given all the same rights as a person operating a motorized wheelchair or medical scooter. “ A sidewalk would be the first choice” ---- “if there is no sidewalk available people using EPAMD’s would travel on the roadway, like pedestrians”, and “return to the sidewalk at the first opportunity”.
EPAMD’s would be allowed in all public and private facilities under the Ontario Disabilities Acts 2001 and 2005: this would include:
· offices
· restaurant
· theatres
· public and private transportation modes i.e. subway, buses and the Red Rocket, Wheel-Trans Operations
· everywhere
Now the proponents for EPAMD’s being classified as disability devices would no doubt say that Segways inside building is not there intent and the legislator may even say that legislation, rules, regulations can be prepared to preclude this eventuality from happening; however, the first Human Rights Code challenge under Sc. 2 Accommodation “freedom from harassment due to disability” will give the Segway zealots the right to ride their “disability device” anywhere as if it were a wheelchair.
An Analogy:Segways are a motorized consumer product that has general appeal for its designed purpose to the general population, for whom a subset of the population finds that purpose especially helpful to their medical condition. An analogy would be a walking stick or hiking staff used by hikers for leverage, weight shifting in climbing and generally to make the walking experience more enjoyable especially with the onset of old-age with accompanying sore knees and bad backs. The walking stick / hiking staff whether purchased commercially or picked-up on the trail is not a medical device, its just something that makes hiking more sure footed; it facilitates coping with those aches and pains and it provides a psychological safety factor.
Conclusion:
STOP giving the segway.com franchisees a free ride by ”doing pilot studies” “safety evaluations” etc. on the Federal and Provincial governments tab. Reason the unwritten rule of Law, “he who profits pays” and they have not yet provided any independent crash test data related to Segway/pedestrian; Segway/Segway; or Segway/car collisions to any level of government anywhere. Any EPAMD manufacturer, whether Segway or others, who want their equipment classified as a medical device have them make application to the FDA and the Canadian equivalent on their tab since any approvals are to their financial benefit not to the farmer working his dairy farm in Lucan, ON.
Innovative Mobility agrees with what the US Seniors Network has said about the Segway." I'm amazed how people can vaguely speculate and believe Segway marketing hype.” “This is a story of corporate greed and reckless legislation”; “It's a trendy transportation of choice”. The potential risks of injury to children, the elderly, those with disabilities and other pedestrians must be fully considered before any new technology controlled by body English and capable of speeds of 12.5 mph is given blanket exemption from current law or considered a legitimate disability device
Whether driven by an able bodied or a person of disability, a motorized EPAMD i.e. Segway is fast! Too fast in a pedestrian environment! Any cyclist will tell you that 12.5 mph is very fast, between 4 and 6 times faster than average walking speed if you include the walking speeds of children, the elderly, and the disabled. Speed affects the maneuverability and the stopping distance of a vehicle. A pedestrian whose average walking speed is between 2-4 mph. can stop in an instant. The average abrupt stopping distance for the Segway traveling at 12.5 mph. is 18 feet. This can go as high as 31 feet, depending on the driver’s reaction time, which would be a concern when used by people of disability with certain limitations, and the surface conditions.
The Segway's high speed and noiseless features substantially increase the risk of injury and even death to pedestrians including senior citizens, children, the disabled, blind and deaf individuals, who are not expecting such high-speed and extremely quiet vehicles on sidewalks.
EPAMD’s is a means of transportation that is thoroughly untested for the operator whether able bodied or a disabled and without the benefit of crash test data for the multitude of sidewalk stakeholders.

Any approval of EPAMD’s like Segways as a disability device would put the public and private sector under burdensome liability. We have received a legal opinion:
· that any Segway approvals for use on the sidewalk even as a mobility aid for the disabled would put all government levels in Ontario under tremendous liability exposure. Injuries and death from EPAMD’s i.e. the Segway scooter could result in huge “deep pockets” litigation especially if there was a rush to accommodate the disabled (as in the case of London, Ontario discussed earlier in this document) by classifying the Segway as a legitimate medical device. As a medical device, there would be a much higher burden of proof re. safety than for a consumer product, which is how the Segway is currently regulated in the US. From earlier discussion to-date “the Segway Corp has not yet provided the public with specific data from crash tests that demonstrate the resulting damage from a Segway / pedestrian collision".
· Then there is the people who would “game” the system because under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 “the full range of people with disabilities” are protected whether ”visible or invisible” – “including physical, sensory, hearing, mental health, developmental and learning disabilities that are protected”, under this Act’s definition of disabled a person with an ingrown toe nail would be considered a person with disability or a person with a speech impediment or colour blindness. Disney in 2004 banned Segways due to what they saw as Segways legal problems arising from potential safety issues, if Disney could not control the “gamers” on private property under their rules how would a municipality in Ontario or elsewhere control them.
· In the event that employees, in either the public or private sector, were provided EPAMD’s as “mobility assistance devices” to perform their duties and they were subsequently injured, this would be a blatant violation of both the Ontario and Canadian Labour Codes plus a code violation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act by providing equipment without adequate study of the dangers in using such equipment?

Innovative Mobility think that all levels of government should adapt the following motto and stamp all requests for “EPAMD approval on the sidewalk” as rejected for the reason ----America Walks motto "Nothing that moves faster than walking speed belongs in the space intended for walking."

Appendix:

This is not just a Segway issue:
EPAMD’s are a classification of “fun toy” that are being put on the market for use on public pedestrian infrastructure. Once you grant one motorized vehicle an exception as a Personal Assistance Mobility device for people of disability the precedent will be set and all the rest will expect an exemption also.


The Canadian Tire Electric Scooter

Pocket Crotch Rocket
Bombardier Embrio proto type.

Will be electric; however, the option of being powered by a hydrogen fuel cell is being developed. Prototype is capable of 30 mph

Electric tricycle

Electric unicycle
Nolet – 3 wheel electric

Segway dual axle “Centaur”
Segway rickshaw
Segway Clone – Rad2Go Electric Chariot

Significantly cheaper than the Segway selling at $1000 to $1200 US for the 24 –volt models and a more expensive, faster and higher powered model will begin selling in the spring of ’06 between $1500 and $2000.

Ref just do a google for “Rad2Go Electric Chariot”

Another Segway clone “The Beat”

Ref http://www.derand.com/PocketTheBeat.html

Levitating Hover Scooter
Ref. http://www.reallycooltoys.com/toys/i5info.html
Make you own gyroscopic scooter just like a Segway
Ref http://tlb.org/scooter.html

Electric scooter
Another electric scooter
Electric scooter

Electric Go-carts



Endnotes:

Please note that the foregoing document is not intended as “original work” by Innovative Mobility; it is rather an assemblage of information sourced from internet resources by Innovative Mobility team members. Within this document every attempt has been made to give credit for intellectual property that is someone else’s.

Excerpts from several outstanding documents were cited in numerous instances throughout this document. We recommend them, as must reads by the bureaucrats prior to the drafting of any Segway legislation bylaws etc. because they will expand the condensed caveat view points in the foregoing:
A. John Allen, “The Segway Corporate Lobbyists write the law”, 2003, from John Allen’s Home Page at http://www.bikexprt.com/witness/product/segway.htm
B. Steven G. Goodridge, “The Segway is a vehicle --- Implications for operation an regulation of the EPAMD in traffic”, Rev 7/08/03, http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/segway/Segway.htm
C. Presentation by Charlotte Sorenson representing Bolder Walks (a) Hearing on Colorado Senate Bill 05-239, May 2/05, at http://www.americawalks.org/downloads/SenateNotesforHearing1.doc
(b) EPAMD presentation Hearing on Colorado Senate Bill 05-239, May 2/05http://www.americawalks.org/epamd/
D. Todd Litman and Robert Blair, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Managing personal mobility devices (PMD’s) On Nonmotorized Facilities, June 2004, http://www.mrsc.org/govdocs/victrans.pdf



The following documents were also important in the collocating of this report:

1. “Segways Put in their Place – For Now”, Jan 12, 2006, http://www.spacing.ca/wire/index.php?s=segway
2. Jeff Gray, “Give teen freedom to Segway, Toronto told”, Globe and Mail Jan 13/06
3. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/05a11_e.htm
4. “Segways breakdown” by Gary Rivlin, March 2003 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/segway.html
5. MTO http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/
6. “NEW ERA OF ACCESSIBILITY BEGINS IN ONTARIO”, Press Release May 10, 2005 by former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Dr. Marie Bountrogianni at http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/about/n100505.htm
7. HIGHLIGHTS OF ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 2005, May 10, 2005 at http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/about/b100505.htm
8. Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/01o32_e.htm
9. Pilot project for evaluating motorized personal transportation devices: Segways and electric scooters (TP 14285E) at http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/14200/14285e.htm
10. Ontario Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER H.19, http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h19_e.htm#BK3
11. Report to Congress “MOTORIZED SCOOTERS ON SIDEWALKS COULD BE UNSAFE”, May 6, 2002, Louis Z. Cooper, M.D, Pres. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/scooters.htm
12. “Give teen freedom to Segway”, Jeff Gray, Globe and Mail, 1/13/06
13. Jeroen van Bergeijk, “Segway stumbles in Europe”, Wired News, December 2003, http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61632,00.html
14. Segway or the highway” by John Borland 11/19/02 at http://news.com.com/2102-1040_3-966433.html?tag=st.util.print
15. Zero-emission pedestrian killer, by Bruce Livingston, August 28/02 at http://sfbg.com/36/48/x_oped.html
16. “Segway outcry reveals blinders about disability” Helen Henderson, Toronto Star, 10/22/05
17. Barry Schiller, Rhode Island Sierra Club Transportation Chair, letter at http://massbike.org/mbpv/letter_archives/RIsierraclub2002-08-12.html
18. Jennifer Barrow of the American Council of the Blind ,“Important Pedestrian Safety Alert Regarding the Segway Human Transporter!”, International Centre for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI) at http://www.icdri.org/News/segwayacb.htm
19. American Council of the Blind at http://www.acb.org/
20. Gary A. Smith, MD, Director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Children’s Hospital, Columbus, OH., April 23, 2002 http://www.ccri.net/ccri/centers/injuryResearch/
21. April 19/05 Minutes of the Carson City Assembly Committee on Transportation http://www.leg.state.nv.us/73rd/Minutes/Assembly/TRN/Final/4185.pdf
22. Metro Bans Disabled Woman’s segway May 9/03 http://www.nbc4.com/news/2193078/detail.html
23. Wikipedia encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segway
24. Segways and special needs. http://www.bricklin.com/segwayemail.htm
25. Jane Jetson post to Segway Chat Feb 04, 2003 http://www.segwaychat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1366
26. Eli Goldberg 7/2/2002, Do Segways belong on the Sidewalk, http://www.prometheus-music.com/eli/segway.html
27. U. S. Department of TransportationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries, 1999 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS809012.html
28. Hearing on Senate Bill 05-239, Monday, May 2, 2005 http://www.americawalks.org/downloads/SenateNotesforHearing1.doc
29. EPAMD by America Walks at http://www.americawalks.org/epamd/
30. Segway FAQ, http://find.segway.com/faqs/faq.cgi,
31. Segway seeks Legislation to aid market transition, http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/hrofr/interim/int77-11.pdf and http://www.cleanair.org/Transportation/phillyWalks/Segway.PDF
32. Segway’s Breakdown, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/segway_pr.html
33. Electric unicycle, http://tlb.org/eunicycle.html
34. American Society of Pediatrics http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/scooters.htm
35. Segway Chat http://segwaychat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1366

Please feel free to use this document in any way that you consider necessary.

Revisions will be made incramentally as new information becomes available and they will be posted at http://www.segwaydisabled.blogspot.com Please also make reference to another document Segway Caveats at http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com

Innovative Mobility January 30, 2006