 1.5...possibly the coolest way to travel modest distances... |
||
|
Page: |
Q! Aren't wild gangs of teenagers hopped up on illegal drugs going to wreak havoc with infirm pedestrians as they slam their drunken combined mass into the blind, old and wheelchair-bound with these devastating sidewalk hogs?
Bicycles are on the street this second and produce skinned knees and elbows every time the sun comes up. Thankfully, not to the same person. Wheelchairs are out there now and don't seem to cause much anguish as they careen into the blind and unaware with their stealthy, sneaky ways... not because it wouldn't be painful, but because it just doesn't happen often at all. Meaning that the arguments of a device's silent operation and comparison with previous modes of transportation are simply inappropriate. If one wishes to create an understanding of what the HT is capable of, and where its limits may lie, then get on one and cruise around for a while. After two hours' experience, ask the above question again and try not to laugh at how silly they seem compared to what you now understand. People who have hidden agendas are dreaming up all sorts of excuses, rationales and hypotheses as to why these are the worst idea since unsliced bread. Why would they do that? It's the usual suspects; to sell their opinions, gain the respect of those who value early-sneerers (the strut factor) and to position themselves for the big, "I told you so," when one runs down a kitten... Some have merely drawn conclusions from low-grade thinking, or from a decision that Segway LLC represents The Big Guy Treading On The Little Guy, a.k.a. Corporate Greed. Much of this is ego driven rather than data driven. About 99% or more, IMEO (in my egotistical opinion). The other 1% is truly fearful of something they don't understand from the inside out, haven't tried and can't predict. As a group, they've decided it is Bad and Wrong long before studying the actual experiences of people with HTs. Remember that old adage, "Look before you leap," well these folks seem to be stuck on, "He who hesitates is lost, so get it banned before politicians have a chance to think." Ban promoters started pummeling the "idea" of HTs in front of city fathers as soon as they heard about them. (See next question.) All this "ban 'em'" activity was started by people who were confident that their imaginations were accurate. (Okay, you guys are so smart--predict next month's stock market for me.) If any among them are actually, genuinely afraid of the HTs, then they owe it to their own fears to climb aboard and learn what every experienced sidewalk glider knows deep down: these things are not dangerous unless driven by idiots. With two hour's experience, the fear factor becomes the fun factor and their actual control and usefulness becomes apparent. A hefty guy fell off one in Atlanta in May, 2002. Was he experienced and in control? Did he have his hands on the handlebars at all times? Did he bend his legs anticipating uneven pavement? Was he listening in the HT training class? What was his score on the training test? He isn't saying. Kids died on bicycles that same week, too. Whole lives were lost that didn't reach public note. More bicyclists and skateboarders suffered broken bones. But that's old news. (Bicycles take hundreds of times as much training as an HT.) The Segway accident got much more proportional press. The guy banged his leg and it hurt, darn it! We read about it from Maine to California. But that was last May! Show me the accident reports since. (I skinned my finger on one, lifting it, and I have heard reports from owners who have fallen off while in the newbie phases of their learning curve, but the general experience with these is that they have failed to be a danger to others. Nearly all HT mishaps have occurred during training, and they are rare.) I suppose that it is some sort of achievement to become an Urban Legend even before a product reaches the popular market, but just like the aliens of Roswell, the alligators in the New York sewers and the microwave-dried Chihuahuas, the sidewalk mayhem of the Segways simply has not happened. The real questions to be asked are something like this:
...per minute and/or per mile covered?
In my own experience, not a bruise in over 150 miles of California, sidewalk gliding to me or anyone near me. I've had a pedestrian step in front of me in a crowd and be bumped by my HT, but no damage was done. I asked. She said she wanted a demonstration ride... I don't know of a place where running (with your feet) on the sidewalk is out-and-out illegal. I do, however, see many instances where running on the sidewalk is chaotic and injurious (every Cop Film Chase Scene through a crowd of stunt men). The HT rider is standing up. As such, they're more visible to others and they see better than an attentive bicyclist sitting bolt upright. (But what is the head angle of the average cyclist? Notice the habitual face-down tilt of about 5-10 degrees? You will now.) Plus, HTs have far more control than people in wheelchairs, electric scooters, bicycles, skates and skateboards. Body language moves them. As for the wild gangs of loopy teens, they all bought used cars for less money and took their drunken rampages onto the highway where they belong. (According to recent "World's Scariest Police Chases" on TV.) Kidding. But at least for now, the $4.5 grand entry fee assures a certain responsible learning curve as Society gets used to this new idea. That's my theory, and it's proving to be true with every urban sidewalk glide I take. |
|
 |
A. Two factors seem to be at work here. First; "Fear of the unknown" seems to inhabit the public statement outlining SF's sidewalk ban. Paraphrased, it's a case of "these motor driven fast, heavy contraptions are going to mop the sidewalks up with the old, infirm, blind, unaware, hard of hearing and just plain unlucky proper pedestrians." as vocalized by a "concerned group" of self-appointed safe sidewalk advocates who --every last one of them-- have zero hours of HT experience. (See the previous question.)
Secondly; Ignorance. Ban promoters, as noted, are completely ignorant of its actual 1. Track record of unusual safety, 2. Abilities, 3. Habits, 4. Strengths, 5. Limitations, 6. Operation and controllability, 7. Positive contribution to society and environment, 8. Fundamental design, 9. Compatibility with pedestrians, 10. Fun. They call it a "sidewalk" for a reason, some say. (Could that reason be because there were no HTs back in 1739 when the term first cropped up in English?)
With its hills, runaway cars, runaway bicycles, runaway skaters, people who fall and roll, and the extra effort to simply walk around, one would think that this would be the best testing ground for the HT idea, but every San Francisco glider will have to do without the added safety of the sidewalk until truth sets in, whatever it may be. Here's a clue, lifted from the January Wired, 2003:
Oh, I get it. The device is Bad and Wrong because the lobbyists hired to introduce it to government officials were disliked by certain SF Supervisors. That makes perfect political sense. No contributions to the various incumbent's political campaigns? I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you. This IS California, after all. Don't they know the drill around here? Where the heck are these guys from? NH? Is that in this hemisphere? Perhaps my itch over this issue is undeserved. Funny, though, how the ban recommendation concludes with,
Fade violins on a positive major chord. I guess somebody's dignity got caught in a wheel. I wonder if it made that sound playing cards made in my bike spokes when I was a kid? "Ftphtphtphtphtphtphtph." Anyhow, you can apparently run HTs in the San Francisco streets and bike paths, what there is of them. I would recommend an alternate path to Enlightened Governance: SF, purchase a clue:
There's a lot that SF Supervisors didn't consider, much less, require. And not because the Supervisors were concerned with public safety from a knowledgeable position, or even that they had ANY experience of significance with the thing they voted to ban. They all were, most likely, actively concerned with the next election and by voting to eliminate this Scourge from the face of society, it had "good optics," meaning that it "looked good" on their political record to people who didn't know what the facts were. Any politician that depends on the ignorance of the public to get re-elected is a... a politician. Perhaps they feel that by banning the HT, they have swept its public awareness under the rug, so it will never come back to bite them in the foot? It smells like government By the Fear, For the Fear to me. Not one single anti-advocate is HT-experienced with hours of gliding on sidewalks under his belt. But they all KNOW exactly what HTs will portend, don't they? When some future city councilman who wanted to use his HT on the sidewalk gets run over by a car, because he was in the "legal" bike lane on the street instead, the law will change. If it turns out to be the Mayor, who gets clipped, the law will change by 9AM the next morning. The essence of false dignity can reverse in a heart beat. |
|
|
A. Meaning, what happens when you wake up in San Francisco --home of The Hill-- realizing that a special interest group has just prevented you from easily traversing over your city's many steep, steep hills on your pedestrian-safe HT? Will there ever be a sad tale told between friends that sounds like this: "My idiot son --you know, the Hot Shot, know-it-all Supervisor-- voted to ban my new Segway from our streets. That's why Martha had hers in the bicycle lane when that truck came along..." Or will you picket outside Bruce Lee Livingston's (self-appointed Segway HT ban advocate) house or office? Will you adopt a, "Well thank you very much, Mr. ¡$#@%&§! Livingston," attitude? Time will tell. One thing is for sure. All the people who could have benefited from it will be precluded from that benefit--or be forced to compete with bike lane traffic, meaning cars vs. pedestrian-speed people on wheels. "Pedestrian encounters with vehicles" is expected to rise to the #3 premature cause of death in the next few years. If somebody is killed on an HT and they have been forced into traffic lanes by this ban, blame Mr. Livingston and the unenlightened SF government. I personally consider his actions to ban something that is a huge non-problem to be inappropriate, uncivil and fundamentally stupid. (I cleaned that up. But tell me, how do I really feel?)  Always politically active, San Francisco dwellers are not afraid to "fire" their city council members when the winds of change blow warmly. San Francisco HT gliders, join the mean streets. Word in from the hills of SF: Police are ignoring the "law." Nobody is being stopped, ticketed or fined. But the police are people who also smile and appreciate the HTs as they pass. |
 |
|
|
Q! Are other cities banning it? A. The Forces of Fear include an active clutch of folks. They have been bolstered by three factors: 1. Their argument sounds plausible on the surface; an HT does have weight and lifts people 8 inches higher, making them look more substantial, and they are capable of running speeds. It's Common Sense, right? Well, if Common Sense were something that always applied, then the Segway HT could simply NOT exist! Nothing about this gizmo fits Common Sense. What's needed is a fresh sense, based on reality, experience and the ability to learn what is being talked about. 2. Death due to a Segway is a large unknown. There hasn't been one, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. People die on their feet, on skates, on bicycles and in bed. The chances are that death can come to us no matter what we are doing or riding. We don't ban walking because pedestrians get killed, though, do we? 3. Naming a threat makes it sound like it exists. One can give the cry for a ban a Name that sounds like you are calling for the ouster of something unfamiliar, something with no history of acceptance, therefore it must be bad. If it were good, we would have heard about it by now, right? Shout, "Ban the practice of pre-teen Neurestic Euphemia in our schools!" on a San Francisco street corner and you may collect a following. Or a group of people who hate you for trying to ban it!
I wonder if it would have been easier if the name of the device and company were less harsh. If it had been called something else, prettier sounding like an "Aloha," would there be people screaming, "Ban the Aloha?" Some city fathers (city mothers are often smarter) feel compelled to "protect" the voting public against this awful --but nameable-- scourge, and they're buying into the ban idea. Skokie Illinois did, and did so without any experience with the device, but headway elsewhere is sparse. It's on the city council's agenda in a lot of places, but most other governments are taking a "wait and see" attitude. That's good, but taking a "Try it before you legislate against it" attitude would be better. In a recent council meeting in Ukiah, California, the Ban 'Em folks had their say, but one member asked the questions, "Ever been on one? Ever seen one in action?" Nobody had. The sum total of evidence that their fears were real was zero. They tabled it until they could learn a thing or two. Ukiah isn't very big, but it isn't very dumb, either. I challenge any city council, board of supervisors, chief of police, safety committee, etc. to spend AT LEAST 2 hours (per person) of on-sidewalk glide time before visiting the questions of regulating or banning the HTs from their local community. I think that they will find, as I have personally, that the Fear is inappropriate. If it isn't breaking things, don't "fix" it. If they do actually ban the HT from their dominion, then at least they will have done so from a position of knowing what they are addressing. San Francisco's council of fearful elders is accumulating a layer of egg on their puss and cities that have taken the time to LOOK at the idea are drawing different conclusions.
|
||
|
|
||
At this hour, nobody really knows, but the HT is
designed to be as intuitive as walking and safer than
electric wheelchairs.
Q! What happens when you turn the "ban"
question around?