Pilot Project For Segway In Ontario Is A Mistake!

On October 20, 2006, the Ontario Ministry of Transport approved a 5 year pilot program that will allow Canada Post mail carriers, police officers and people aged 14 and older with disabilities to travel on roadways and sidewalks. During the pilot project, users will be allowed on municipal sidewalks and roadways only if by-laws in the municipality allow it.

NOR FULL DETAILS SEE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY'S BLOG AT http://www.segwayillegalinontario.blogspot.com/ "Segway Riders Face Stiff Fines In Ontario". Is a reply copy of letter received from the Honourable Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation, Province of Ontario that clarifies the 5 Year Pilot Project for Segways, Ontario regulation 488/06 made under The Highway Traffic Act August 24, 2006.

The MTO project approval for Segway is a mistake even to the the owner of Segway of Ontario, Mr. Robin Reisler, who is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying, segways are "not built for the road"; "it is designed to be pedestrian friendly and go on the sidewalk, it is not built to go up against 3,000 pound cars that can go 10 times faster".

In Ontario, users, aged 14 and older, will not require a licence, registration, a helmet (if over 18) or insurance.Just imagine 14 year old peple of disability legally being approved to drive their Segway on public roadways!

Without the benefit of:

o No driver's licence required

o No driver’s test required

o No written test required

o No vehicle registration

o No plate required

o No requirement for insurance.

o No helmet required over the age of 18

o No qualification of disability o No specification for the “bell” requirements

o No specification for the front and rear “light” requirements other than the rear light may be attached to the person

And NO WE ARE NOT KIDDING

It is the opinion of Innovative Mobility that the Ontario government has made a flawed decision to approve this pilot project for everyone except by police officers. We believe that police officers should be given every advantage in fighting crime including the use of Segways in any way that their respective Police Services Board sees fit!

Innovative Mobility will be communicating this failure on the part of Ontario's Liberal government to the Honourable Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation and the Transportation critics in the opposition parties.

-------------------------------------------------------------
The following is the letter of October 29, 2006 sent to the the Honourable Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation requesting a review of the 5-year pilot test program for Segways in Ontario.
-------------------------------------------------------------

October 29, 2006

Memo to: The Honourable Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation

Copy to: Select Member of Provincial Parliament

From: Bill Brunton
Communications Integrator for Innovative Mobility

Subject: MTO’s Recently Initiated 5-year Test Program To Allow Segways On Roads and Sidewalks and Roadways

Reference:
o http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/index.html#segway and
o http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/vehicle/emerging/segway-faq.htm
”Effective October 19, 2006, the Province of Ontario began a five-year pilot project to evaluate the use of the Segway Human Transporter and the Segway Personal Transporter device on highways for Canada Post employees, police officers and persons with a mobility disability.”



Dear Honourable Minister Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation

My name is Bill Brunton and I am Communications Integrator for Innovative Mobility, a student research group studying new yet responsible solutions to today’s transit problems. On October 19, 2006 your Ministry of Transportation announced a new program that will permit mail carriers, police officers and people age 14 or older with disabilities to legally travel on Ontario roadways and sidewalks using a Segway.

Innovative Mobility believes that this program is a mistake for all forementioned groups except police officers. Even Mr. Robyn Reisler, owner of Segway of Ontario, who is quoted in Globe and Mail article October 21, 2006 as saying “the Segway is not designed for the road --- it is designed to be pedestrian friendly and go on the sidewalk --- it is not built to go up against 3,000-pound cars that can go 10 times faster”.

With all due respect Madam Minister what was the Minister of Transportation thinking when it rolled out what appears to be a major faux pas by the Ontario government.
o No driver's licence required
o No driver’s test required
o No written test required
o No vehicle registration
o No plate required
o No requirement for insurance.
o No helmet required over the age of 18
o No qualification of disability
o No specification for the “bell” requirements
o No specification for the front and rear “light” requirements other than the rear light may be attached to the person
Under MTO’s pilot test of Segways, the program is open to” any person 14 years of age or older and who has a condition that impairs mobility”. We believe that MTO’s Segway initiative, because it is written without conditions, specifications or quantifications of what in fact is a disability suitable for Segway approval is flawed because:
· It presents the citizens on Ontario with a huge potential liability from the very great probability of accidents and collisions with pedestrians and other vehicles.
· It would also appear that there was no consultation with the Ontario Ministry of Health considering that the precedent of recognizing the Segway as a “personal assistance mobility device” will have major implications under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 and the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001) . Under these Acts Segways would then be allowed wherever wheel chairs and medical scooter are allowed.
Under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005
Ø “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)]
Ø “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.
Ø 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.
Ø “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”,
Ø 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.

In addition to the foregoing Ontario Disability Act(s) implications of recognizing Segways as “personal assistance mobility device” there are simply too many unanswered and open ended question to permit the use of Segways on Ontario’s public pedestrian infrastructure and roadways
· 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 expect police to enforce a speed limit on our sidewalks. It is difficult enough for them to enforce the speed limits on our roads.
· The speed governing mechanism on the Segway can be easily over-ridden; speed key selection is at the operator’s discretion
· The social justice impacts of allowing an expensive device available to a limited population of persons with disability.
· What happens where sidewalks don't exist or come to a stop and the road has speeds in excess of 30mph? “
· 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.
· 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.
· 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.
· Segways are not an American Disability Association (ADA) or Canadian Medical Association (CMA) 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.
· Segway Inc. holds the patent and marketing rights to the Segway technology for all other uses except those medical uses; these are held by Johnson and Johnson. 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 or the CMA. But now with MTO’s Segway initiative your Ministy has put them in the same classification as Motorized Wheelchairs and Medical Scooters.
· Puts people with disabilities both visible and invisible at risk due to Segway collisions on the sidewalk and other public pedestrian infrastructure.
· People of disability like other pedestrians are not regulated traffic and do not travel in a straight line.
· 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. Who would be responsible for disability and medical claims in the event of a Segway collision?
· Segways are virtually silent, and therefore a serious menace to the visually impaired.
· Many theme parks including Disney have 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.
· Many groups have asked for a ban on Segways including disabled groups.
· There is no research on the operating characteristics of the Segway or the rider.

The most important consideration IMO from the safety position whether for the able bodied or the disabled is the risk to other sidewalk stakeholder due to braking distance and energy exerted on collision impact. For the able bodied:
· 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.
· It should be noted that braking distances may be substantially longer for “persons of disability” depending on exactly what their disability is. I don’t believe any municipality should get into qualifying and quantifying Segway suitable disabilities due to the potential for claims of insensitivity and claims of discrimination.

And the list goes on!!!

Please Madam Minister ask your group for a review of this 5-year test program for all but police officers. This is a program that should never have happened. For those other members receiving this correspondence, it may very well have served as a wake-up call due to the Segway related risks and precedents that this pilot Segway program has created.

For the benefit of all interested parties in this apparent boondoggle, Innovative Mobility will be publishing this document in its entirety at http://www.segwaypilotproject.blogspot.com/ .

Please also visit our other web sites at:
1. http://www.segwaycaveats.blogspot.com/
2. http://www.segwaydisabled.blogspot.com/

Thank-you for your consideration of the foregoing and your Ministry’s review of the Segway pilot test program.

Bill Brunton
Communications Integrator
Innovative Mobility