Why We are Pursuing Banning
Segways from Sidewalks of San Francisco

BACKGROUND

SB 1918 was recently passed by the California Senate to redefine "pedestrians" to include users of a "electric personal assistive mobility device" (Segway scooters, www.segway.com ) that can go up to 20 mph. Devices travelling at such speed on sidewalks are a clear danger to pedestrians. The law is written to only cover devices patented by the Segway Company. Due to intense lobbying efforts by Segway, we expect the law to pass the California Assembly and be passed into law in the next few months. Details of SB 1918 can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html .

The proposed California legislation specifically states that local jurisdictions can regulate the use of Segways:

21282. Notwithstanding Section 21966, for the purpose of assuring the safety of pedestrians, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and others using sidewalks, bike paths, pathways, trails, bike lanes, streets, roads, and highways, a city, county, or city and county may, by ordinance, regulate the time, place, and manner of the operation of electric personal assistive mobility devices as defined in Section 313, and their use as a pedestrian pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 467, including limiting, prohibiting entirely in the local jurisdiction, or prohibiting use in specified areas as determined to be appropriate by local entities.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF BANNING SEGWAYS FROM SIDEWALKS

Segways and Motorized Scooters are dangerous to pedestrians.

• The California legislation is for allowing Segway scooters to go up to 12.5 mph on the sidewalk, yet sidewalks are designed for typical walking speeds of approximately 3mph. 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.
• Vehicles such as bicycles, scooters, skateboards, and roller skates have all been banned from San Francisco sidewalks due them having been found to be dangerous in a pedestrian environment. We should not wait until a pedestrian is injured by a Segway device before enacting a similar ban.
• 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.
• 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.

Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous for Segway operators.

• A city worker in Atlanta injured himself riding on a Segway scooter.
• Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is twice as dangerous as riding on the adjacent roadway, and riding on the sidewalk opposite the flow of traffic is more than 4 times as dangerous as riding on the road with the flow of traffic (http://www.massbikeboston.org/resources/stats.htm#sidewalk ). Segway users would experience the same dangers. Other useful websites explaining the danger of vehicles being used on the sidewalk include bicyclingInfo.org, Bicycle sidepaths: crash risks and liability exposure, http://www.bikeohio.org, Bicycle Federation of Wisconson, etc.
• Even the Segway website shows users wearing helmets. Safe pedestrian environments should not require helmets!

Allowing Segways and motorized scooters on sidewalks has not been proven to be safe.

• The Segway scooter California legislation was created without any studies determining whether the devices are safe enough for sidewalk use.
• Contrary to the claims of Segway, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has NOT shown that the devices are safe for sidewalks. Ron Medford from the CPSC is on sabatical and currently working with Segway (while his salary is still being paid by the government!!!). He does not represent the CPSC and the CPSC has not submitted the Segway to any kind of scientific study to show whether or not it is safe.
• The often used Segway demonstration that the device can safely run over someones hand is absurd. Pedestrians aren't afraid of their hands getting run over. They are afraid of getting knocked down!
• Pedestrian advocates were not contacted before legislation was created or voted on.

The use of Segways and motorized scooters is detrimental to public health.

• Jeffrey P. Koplan, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and William H. Dietz, with the CDC Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, have noted that epidemic rates of obesity and associated disorders are related to the fact that automobile travel has replaced walking and bicycling for even short trips (October 27, 1999, Journal of the American Medical Association). Koplan and Dietz state that prevention is the only cost-effective approach to dealing with the health challenges related to inactivity. They recommend that elected officials as well as employers, teachers, health care professionals, and parents promote physical activity
• A 1991 study, The Costs of Poor Health Habits, estimated the lifetime medical costs of each hour of inactivity to be $2.00 per hour, translating into $200 billion per year to treat the effects of the 100 billion hours that Americans spend in cars. The economic and physical health of the nation will be improved when this inactivity is replaced with bicycling or short, daily walks from transit to shopping, work, and schools;

The Segway legislation is undemocratic.

• We should not be burdened by laws promoted by expensive lobbyists for devices that only the wealthy can afford. The laws should be equitable for those at all income levels.
• Redefining the accepted definition of "pedestrian" for the benefit of a single company is outrageously inappropriate. This could lead to other redefinitions, such as redefining "bicycle" to include Harley motorcycles so that they could use bicycle lanes.

Segways shift pollution.

• The Segway electric scooters do not emit pollution where ridden. However, pollution is emitted where the electricity is generated. This means that the poorer residents around the Hunters Point power plants will be negatively affected by Segways, even if they can't afford them for themselves.

Segways will not reduce car trips as purported.

• Segway users can't use roads or bike lanes if they are defined as "pedestrians." If Segway users can only use sidewalks, Segway trips will only replace walking trips, not car trips.
• Most walking trips in an urban setting are made in conjunction with transit. Segway devices cannot be used on most forms of transit, especially during crowded rush hour periods. Segways weigh 80 pounds, so can't be lifted up stairs or onto buses.
• Segways and motorized scooters are not significantly faster than walking unless they are operated at speeds unsafe for pedestrians.
• The range of a Segway device is too short to replace an automobile, and they are not practical for bad weather.
• Segways would not be allowed in places such as office parks, due to liability.

SUPPORTERS

The supporters of our legislation include Walk San Francisco, Senior Action Network, Disability Council, Lighthouse for the Blind, San Francisco Tomorrow, and many others. We have also received support from the Department of Public Health and employees of the Department of Parking and Traffic. Six Supervisors (Daly, Ammiano, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, and Gonzalez) co-sponsored our legislation. Due to the clear danger to pedestrians, and because there is no current constituency for the devices (they are new), we did not encounter significant opposition, except from the lobbyists of the Segway company.