Segway in Hyde Park - sighting



M

MartinM

Guest
"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> MartinM wrote:
> > Pedals were not
> > specified. How does the Segway break this law?

>
> I've just cut-and-pasted the below from the dft. Note the mention of
> pedals. It is also specifically listed as a motor vehicle.


I stand corrected, so that means those battery powered skateboards/scooters
as well. Notice the liberal use of the "not proven in law" get-out which
probably means you could not sue someone for knocking you down with a
Segway, public ropad/path or not.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, MartinM
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> MartinM wrote:
>> > Pedals were not
>> > specified. How does the Segway break this law?

>>
>> I've just cut-and-pasted the below from the dft. Note the mention of
>> pedals. It is also specifically listed as a motor vehicle.

>
> I stand corrected, so that means those battery powered
> skateboards/scooters as well. Notice the liberal use of the "not
> proven in law" get-out which probably means you could not sue someone
> for knocking you down with a Segway, public ropad/path or not.


On the contrary, it means you could. All it means that is the court
would have to make a decision.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker
 
M

MartinM

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>, MartinM
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >
> > "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >> MartinM wrote:
> >> > Pedals were not
> >> > specified. How does the Segway break this law?
> >>
> >> I've just cut-and-pasted the below from the dft. Note the mention of
> >> pedals. It is also specifically listed as a motor vehicle.

> >
> > I stand corrected, so that means those battery powered
> > skateboards/scooters as well. Notice the liberal use of the "not
> > proven in law" get-out which probably means you could not sue someone
> > for knocking you down with a Segway, public ropad/path or not.

>
> On the contrary, it means you could. All it means that is the court
> would have to make a decision.


Well ban them anyway, they are from the US; like McDonalds, and Ninja
turtles ;-)
(and maybe even Games Workshop which has just opened in town)
 
D

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

Guest
>(and maybe even Games Workshop which has just opened in town)

Games Workshop has been around for *years* and it's British. Nathan used to be
*obsessed* with the stuff, as did his mates - some of them still are. Mind you,
the games are battle games using strategy so from that point of view, they
teach thinking about what you need to do to achieve your aim. Horribly
expensive for what it is though.

Cheers, helen s



--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
T

Tim Izod

Guest
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Tim Izod
> ('[email protected]') wrote:


> > [Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 9 Sep 2004 12:19:02 -0700, [email protected] (Tim
> >> Henderson) wrote:

> >
> >> >Trundling along the bike path in Hyde Park south of the Serpentine
> >> >last night, I saw my first Segway (coming in the opposite direction,
> >> >also on the bike path).
> >> >
> >> >Anyone know how these are classified and the legality of them using
> >> >the bike lanes ?

> >
> >> They are classed as "motor vehicles" and as such need indicators,
> >> insurance, registration, road tax (free or cheap for electric
> >> vehicles iirc) etc.

> >
> >> So, no, they are not allowed in bike lanes.

> >
> > I'm curious- on what grounds are they considered motor vehicles?


> They have motors, and they are vehicles, therefore they are motor
> vehicles. D'oh!


> --



I might point to electric bikes. Several of the ones I've
seen are capable of being powerd entirely by an electric motor and
as a class of vehicles they do not require road tax, insurance or
a driving license to use.

Yes they have motors so are motorised vehicles but I'm not
sure this is the intended literal interpretation of the phrase!

At home I have a relevant link and it's driving me mad that I
can't find it via google.

From memory the relevant bit of legislation is the Road Traffic
Act 1988. Part 185 at
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8.htm#mdiv189
(apologies for the long link) defines a Motor Vehicle at "a mechanically
propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

Insofar as electically propelled/ assisted bikes are intended to
be used on roads they would be treated as motor vehicles if not exempted
by 189c at the link above.

So for "are Segways motor vehicles?" I suppose I should have
asked "are they intended or adapted for use on roads"[1]? Though of
course if they aren't, then they aren't "motor vehicles". :)

This is probably quite at tangent to whether they should be
on cycle paths[2].

Tim.

[1] Having seen one I'm of the opinion that only an idiot would wish to
use one on the road

[2] Probably not and I'd probably be annoyed to find one in my way on a
cycle route.
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]omcom says...
> >(and maybe even Games Workshop which has just opened in town)

>
> Games Workshop has been around for *years* and it's British. Nathan used to be
> *obsessed* with the stuff, as did his mates - some of them still are. Mind you,
> the games are battle games using strategy so from that point of view, they
> teach thinking about what you need to do to achieve your aim. Horribly
> expensive for what it is though.


Bloodbowl used to be good (Although still expensive[1]) as a game could
realistically be played during lunch time at school. This made it easy
to organise a tournament.

Jon

[1] - There are certain moves / special cards / whatever that make use
of the "Team Coach". The game rules stipulate that an appropriate
figurine must be present for these moves to take place. Good clean fun
though, and marginally more sociable than many computer games.
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> Games Workshop has been around for *years* and it's British. Nathan used to be
> *obsessed* with the stuff, as did his mates - some of them still are.


<historical factoids>
It started up in the latter half of the 70s, originally to import
role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons into the UK. They later
expanded their line to import and distribute historical board wargames
and sci-fi and fantasy boardgames from other US publishers, and started
a sister company, Citadel Miniatures, to make figures for role playing
games.
By the mid 80s the company was changing focus to a fantasy and sci-fi
miniatures wargaming publisher, dropping import and distribution of
other companies' lines. The company magazine, White Dwarf, also ceased
to cater to role playing games from across the market, turning into a
house organ for GW miniature wargaming.

So although they started off just importing US stuff that was a /long/
time ago, and now they're (a) no longer doing that and (b) exporting a
fair bit back!

Those of us who got to know the company through role players in the 70s
and who remember White Dwarf as being worth reading (and illustrated by
people who could draw!) tend to feel the company lost its way, but I
imagine the accountants don't think that, or the people that like
playing Warhammer and its variants...
</historical factoids>

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
N

[Not Responding]

Guest
On 13 Sep 2004 10:07:44 GMT, Tim Izod <[email protected]> wrote:

>Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Tim Izod
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
>> > [Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> On 9 Sep 2004 12:19:02 -0700, [email protected] (Tim
>> >> Henderson) wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Trundling along the bike path in Hyde Park south of the Serpentine
>> >> >last night, I saw my first Segway (coming in the opposite direction,
>> >> >also on the bike path).
>> >> >
>> >> >Anyone know how these are classified and the legality of them using
>> >> >the bike lanes ?
>> >
>> >> They are classed as "motor vehicles" and as such need indicators,
>> >> insurance, registration, road tax (free or cheap for electric
>> >> vehicles iirc) etc.
>> >
>> >> So, no, they are not allowed in bike lanes.
>> >
>> > I'm curious- on what grounds are they considered motor vehicles?

>
>> They have motors, and they are vehicles, therefore they are motor
>> vehicles. D'oh!

>
>> --

>
>
> I might point to electric bikes. Several of the ones I've
>seen are capable of being powerd entirely by an electric motor and
>as a class of vehicles they do not require road tax, insurance or
>a driving license to use.
>
> Yes they have motors so are motorised vehicles but I'm not
>sure this is the intended literal interpretation of the phrase!
>
> At home I have a relevant link and it's driving me mad that I
>can't find it via google.
>
> From memory the relevant bit of legislation is the Road Traffic
>Act 1988. Part 185 at
>http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8.htm#mdiv189
>(apologies for the long link) defines a Motor Vehicle at "a mechanically
>propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".
>
> Insofar as electically propelled/ assisted bikes are intended to
>be used on roads they would be treated as motor vehicles if not exempted
>by 189c at the link above.
>
> So for "are Segways motor vehicles?" I suppose I should have
>asked "are they intended or adapted for use on roads"[1]? Though of
>course if they aren't, then they aren't "motor vehicles". :)
>
> This is probably quite at tangent to whether they should be
>on cycle paths[2].
>


No. There is other legislation, posted elsewhere in this thread that
defines a class of vehicle known as electric bikes that are treated in
law as cycles.


> Tim.
>
>[1] Having seen one I'm of the opinion that only an idiot would wish to
>use one on the road
>
>[2] Probably not and I'd probably be annoyed to find one in my way on a
>cycle route.
 
D

Danny Colyer

Guest
Jon Senior wrote:
> Bloodbowl used to be good (Although still expensive[1]) as a game could
> realistically be played during lunch time at school. This made it easy
> to organise a tournament.


I got into war games as a way to get out of PE.

On Wednesday afternoons in the 6th form we had double leisure. The idea
was to do either some sort of physical activity or some sort of
community service. A few of my friends formed a war gaming society and
got permission to do that on Wednesday afternoons, instead.

I spent the first half term getting my ASA preliminary teaching
certificate, then joined the war gaming society. It certainly beat PE
or community service.

We played Risk (which I still enjoy), Diplomacy (I keep meaning to get a
board) and Warhammer 40K (I now use my space wombles as pieces in
Cheapass games).

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Danny Colyer [email protected]le opined the following...
> We played Risk (which I still enjoy), Diplomacy (I keep meaning to get a
> board) and Warhammer 40K (I now use my space wombles as pieces in
> Cheapass games).


My mother has fond tales of diplomacy while at university. A group would
play (lubricated by beer) for 48 hours solid and friendships could be
destroyed on the basis of events on the board.

Imagine my disappoint when I reached Uni and found that my 16 "corridor-
mates" were only interested in get hammered on free beer and attempting
to pull.

Old before my time? Looks it!

Jon
 
M

MartinM

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Danny Colyer [email protected]le opined the following...
> > We played Risk (which I still enjoy), Diplomacy (I keep meaning to get a
> > board) and Warhammer 40K (I now use my space wombles as pieces in
> > Cheapass games).

>
> My mother has fond tales of diplomacy while at university. A group would
> play (lubricated by beer) for 48 hours solid and friendships could be
> destroyed on the basis of events on the board.
>
> Imagine my disappoint when I reached Uni and found that my 16 "corridor-
> mates" were only interested in get hammered on free beer and attempting
> to pull.


all that will change under the Tories when they have to borrow at the market
rate for their fees (or is it loans?)!
 
T

Tim Izod

Guest
[Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2004 10:07:44 GMT, Tim Izod <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]
> > I might point to electric bikes. Several of the ones I've
> >seen are capable of being powerd entirely by an electric motor and
> >as a class of vehicles they do not require road tax, insurance or
> >a driving license to use.
> >
> > Yes they have motors so are motorised vehicles but I'm not
> >sure this is the intended literal interpretation of the phrase!
> >
> > At home I have a relevant link and it's driving me mad that I
> >can't find it via google.
> >
> > From memory the relevant bit of legislation is the Road Traffic
> >Act 1988. Part 185 at
> >http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_8.htm#mdiv189
> >(apologies for the long link) defines a Motor Vehicle at "a mechanically
> >propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".
> >
> > Insofar as electically propelled/ assisted bikes are intended to
> >be used on roads they would be treated as motor vehicles if not exempted
> >by 189c at the link above.
> >
> > So for "are Segways motor vehicles?" I suppose I should have
> >asked "are they intended or adapted for use on roads"[1]? Though of
> >course if they aren't, then they aren't "motor vehicles". :)
> >
> > This is probably quite at tangent to whether they should be
> >on cycle paths[2].
> >


> No. There is other legislation, posted elsewhere in this thread that
> defines a class of vehicle known as electric bikes that are treated in
> law as cycles.

[snip]

Um, why "no"?

Having pointed to 189(c) in my post above the Road Traffic Act
does clearly state that electrically assisted bicycles "of such a
class as may be prescribed by regulations so made" are not to be treated
as motor vehicles.

So yes, the Road trafic act says they're not motor vehicles and
that what constitutes an "electrically assisted bicycle" may and is
defined in either other legislation or statutory instruments. The 1983
act (and other info) mentioned elsewhere in the thread for example.

I've not had my *DO NOT MISS POINT OR RANT PILLS* yet this
morning so sorry if I've mistaken the tone of your reply.

Tim.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Tim Izod
('[email protected]') wrote:

> [Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2004 10:07:44 GMT, Tim Izod <[email protected]> wrote:

> [snip]
>> >
>> > Insofar as electically propelled/ assisted bikes are intended
>> > to
>> >be used on roads they would be treated as motor vehicles if not
>> >exempted by 189c at the link above.
>> >
>> > So for "are Segways motor vehicles?" I suppose I should have
>> >asked "are they intended or adapted for use on roads"[1]? Though of
>> >course if they aren't, then they aren't "motor vehicles". :)

>
>> No. There is other legislation, posted elsewhere in this thread that
>> defines a class of vehicle known as electric bikes that are treated
>> in law as cycles.

>
> Um, why "no"?
>
> Having pointed to 189(c) in my post above the Road Traffic Act
> does clearly state that electrically assisted bicycles "of such a
> class as may be prescribed by regulations so made" are not to be
> treated as motor vehicles.
>
> So yes, the Road trafic act says they're not motor vehicles and
> that what constitutes an "electrically assisted bicycle" may and is
> defined in either other legislation or statutory instruments. The 1983
> act (and other info) mentioned elsewhere in the thread for example.


But the legislation does require that an 'electrically assisted bicycle'
must have pedals[1]. The Segway clearly doesn't, so it isn't. It also
isn't in any other exempted class (for example, it isn't an invalid
carriage). So it's a motor vehicle. So it isn't allowed on a footway or
psyclepath.

[1] electrically _assisted_ presumably because the motor assists the
pedaler, not propels the vehicle.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.
 
T

Tim Izod

Guest
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Tim Izod
> ('[email protected]') wrote:


> > [Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 13 Sep 2004 10:07:44 GMT, Tim Izod <[email protected]> wrote:

> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > Insofar as electically propelled/ assisted bikes are intended
> >> > to
> >> >be used on roads they would be treated as motor vehicles if not
> >> >exempted by 189c at the link above.
> >> >
> >> > So for "are Segways motor vehicles?" I suppose I should have
> >> >asked "are they intended or adapted for use on roads"[1]? Though of
> >> >course if they aren't, then they aren't "motor vehicles". :)

> >
> >> No. There is other legislation, posted elsewhere in this thread that
> >> defines a class of vehicle known as electric bikes that are treated
> >> in law as cycles.

> >
> > Um, why "no"?
> >
> > Having pointed to 189(c) in my post above the Road Traffic Act
> > does clearly state that electrically assisted bicycles "of such a
> > class as may be prescribed by regulations so made" are not to be
> > treated as motor vehicles.
> >
> > So yes, the Road trafic act says they're not motor vehicles and
> > that what constitutes an "electrically assisted bicycle" may and is
> > defined in either other legislation or statutory instruments. The 1983
> > act (and other info) mentioned elsewhere in the thread for example.


> But the legislation does require that an 'electrically assisted bicycle'
> must have pedals[1]. The Segway clearly doesn't, so it isn't. It also
> isn't in any other exempted class (for example, it isn't an invalid
> carriage). So it's a motor vehicle. So it isn't allowed on a footway or
> psyclepath.


> [1] electrically _assisted_ presumably because the motor assists the
> pedaler, not propels the vehicle.


I don't think we disagree on this. We both seem to think that
electric bicycles aren't motor vehicles and neither of us would argue
that a Segway is a bicycle.

The only phrase in the act that was making me question whether
or not they were motor vehicles in the terms of the act was the phrase
"intended or adapted for use on roads".

I have noted the consultation paper posted by davek which does
make explicit mention of Segways.

Tim.
 
D

davek

Guest
Tim Izod wrote:
> So for "are Segways motor vehicles?" I suppose I should have
> asked "are they intended or adapted for use on roads"[1]? Though of
> course if they aren't, then they aren't "motor vehicles". :)


My previous answer was a facetious one based on a wilfully over-literal
interpretation of the question. HTH.

d.
 
D

davek

Guest
Tim Izod wrote:
> I have noted the consultation paper posted by davek which does
> make explicit mention of Segways.


Yes, and as a consultation paper it's not actual legislation (yet).
Sorry if I misled anyone - it wasn't intentional.

When "NotResponding" definitively posted that Segways /were/ classed as
motor vehicles, I was a bit dubious and tried to look it up, which is
when I came across that consultation document.

My own understanding was that the case is not clear cut. Clearly there
are grounds for classing a Segway as an EAPC under current legislation,
but there are also grounds for classing it as a motor vehicle. I guess
the aim of this consultation document is to introduce legislation that
will clear up a lot of these legal grey areas. If you read more deeply
into that document you'll find it actually has a lot of very interesting
and very sensible stuff in it.

However, as things stand, chances of actually being nicked for riding a
Segway on a cycle path are somewhat beyond remote, I reckon.

You wouldn't catch me on one in any event.

d.
 
D

Dave Kahn

Guest
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:32:44 +0100, davek <[email protected]>
wrote:

>However, as things stand, chances of actually being nicked for riding a
>Segway on a cycle path are somewhat beyond remote, I reckon.
>
>You wouldn't catch me on one in any event.


Yes I would. They're not very fast. :)

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
 
C

Chris Malcolm

Guest
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

>in message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
>('[email protected]') wrote:


>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:16:39 +0100 someone who may be davek
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>>
>>>> I'm curious- on what grounds are they considered motor vehicles?
>>>
>>>They are vehicles. And they have a motor.


>In fact, to be precise, two motors.


>> So do electric bikes, but they are not classed as motor vehicles in
>> legal terms.


>In that case the law is perverse, and an ass.


Not just in that case...
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, davek
('[email protected]') wrote:

> My own understanding was that the case is not clear cut. Clearly there
> are grounds for classing a Segway as an EAPC under current
> legislation,


Where are the pedals? It can't be 'electrically assisted' if there is no
primary propulsion to assist. It is electrically propelled, which is an
entirely different kettle of fish.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig subject to change without notice ]
 
N

[Not Responding]

Guest
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:05:07 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>in message <[email protected]>, davek
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> My own understanding was that the case is not clear cut. Clearly there
>> are grounds for classing a Segway as an EAPC under current
>> legislation,

>
>Where are the pedals? It can't be 'electrically assisted' if there is no
>primary propulsion to assist. It is electrically propelled, which is an
>entirely different kettle of fish.


There is case law on this, I believe. It was tested on electrically
assisted scooters that met EAPC definitions in all respects bar the
lack of pedals. The lack of pedals was found to be sufficient to
qualify the device as a motor vehicle.