Segways becoming a menace to North End pedestrians?
City Councilor Sal LaMattina says it's time to consider regulating Segway use on city sidewalks. Matt Conti posts a copy of a request from LaMattina for a City Council hearing on regulating the dorkmobiles, which are an increasingly common site downtown and in the North End. At least one company even leads Segway tours, which Conti writes have become so prevalent that they are beginning to cause pedestrian issues.
It's as if the roads around
It's as if the roads around here need some kind of special lane for non-motorized vehicles. The idea sounds so alien and implausible that I hesitate to even fathom what would no doubt be such a radical change to the otherwise perfect urban infrastructure we already have, but bear with me: some kind of, i don't know, paved area, maybe slightly less wide than a standard vehicle lane, that's not the sidewalk or the vehicular roadway where cars can't park and pedestrians can't walk. Bi-wheeled, self powered vehicles and low-speed people movers such as segways could use these 'special' lanes and safely avoid collisions with large multi-ton high speed steel boxes.
God, it's on the tip of my tongue what we should call these things...
No bicycles, no Segways
If we don't allow un-motorized, two-wheel bicycles on the sidewalks in Boston, then we shouldn't allow motorized, two-wheel Segways on the sidewalks, either.
Footprint
A segway has a footprint only a bit bigger than one person and is nearly as maneuverable as a pedestrian. A bicycle is larger and less maneuverable than a segway. They're not equivalent.
If all of those people were not on segways and were instead on a walking tour of the North End, they'd take up nearly as much room on the sidewalks. The North End isn't built for the capacity of *anyone*; it's not an issue of bikes and segways. If the sidewalks are clogged, then banish people from the North End. It has nothing to do with the segways.
Segways move faster....
...than most pedestrians do.
So do joggers. Should we ban
So do joggers. Should we ban them as well?
What is more maneuverable?
A jogger or a person on a Segway? I would _think_ a jogger -- but I don't know for sure. (As I rarely if ever jog and never use a Segway) ;~}
I also do neither... but Ive
I also do neither... but Ive found that joggers hate to stop their forward momentum, even when theres clearly not enough room. Ive never had this problem with segway tours. Ive never ridden a segway, but from what Ive seen they are just as maneuverable as a person walking.
Except, you know, we do. And
Except, you know, we do allow bikes on sidewalks.
And Segways, as far as I know, cannot move at 3mph, like a bike can.
And bikes, as far as I know, cannot be used by the physically disabled, like Segways can.
Segways also take up less space than a bike.
Also, whats with this logic? If we dont allow x on the sidewalk, why do we allow y? A bike is not a car. A segway is neither a bike nor a car.
Why do we allow enormous 2 person strollers everywhere, when they take up more space than bikes and segways and cause more disruption?
Because the Stroller Mafia
Because the Stroller Mafia is willing to whack anyone, anywhere, anytime and get away with it because they are 'moms'.
Don't discriminate against
Don't discriminate against the stroller Dads!
Except, you know, we don't
MGL, Chapter 85: Section 11B.
[First paragraph as amended by 2008, 525, Sec. 3 effective April 15, 2009.]
Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn; provided, however, that signals need not be made continuously and shall not be made when the use of both hands is necessary for the safe operation of the bicycle, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian.
North end is not our
North end is not our business district, that would be....the financial district! As far as I know, there are no signs in the north end stating otherwise.
Im not saying I ever (or anyone) would or should use the sidewalks there for a bike, but it isn't illegal, and it shouldnt be for segways either
You seriously believe that
You seriously believe that "business district" refers only to the downtown financial district? That does not lead one to believe you know what you're talking about, or being honest, on any issue.
Yes. At least, in the way
Yes. At least, in the way this law has been written. Some of you try to argue that "business district" means anywhere that business is conducted. If that was the intention of the law, then the law would say "no riding on sidewalks, period", as most streets have some form of business on them, and those that don't probably dont have sidewalks. The law was written to address the issue of sidewalks so crowded with pedestrians that it is unsafe to ride a bicycle on it. This phenomenon is usually found in THE business district, meaning, the financial district.
Now, I KNOW that hanover street is both narrower and more crowded than the streets in the financial district. Would it make sense to ban bikes (and anything else) on hanover street sidewalks? Sure. Thats why the law allows "local ordinance" to ban it. Cambridge does it all the time. Boston however, has NOT done so.
Point being: Just because it doesnt make sense to ride bikes in the north end sidewalks doesnt mean its illegal to do so.
Think of it the other way. Comme Ave has probably the widest sidewalks in the city. There are businesses. If the definition of "business district" were stretched out to include any district with a business, than biking on the comm ave sidewalks would be illegal, when the comme ave sidewalk is probably the safest sidewalk to bike on in this city.
If you have issues with the way the law is written, or what it means, ask your local lawmaker to a)enact local ordinance banning bikes on sidewalk, as the law allows, or b)change the law to ban bikes on all sidewalk.
And I just wanted to add that the plural, in business districts, refers to the fact that every town is allowed to have its own business district.
"Business district" is a zoning category
and it generally applies to any area where most of the abutting properties are businesses rather than residences. Downtown Crossing is a business district, but so are Broadway in South Boston, Centre Street in Jamaica Plain, Uphams Corner, Newbury Street, and so forth. The reason bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks in such areas is that lots of pedestrians are on those sidewalks, going to and from the businesses.
Somerville bans bicycles on sidewalks in Davis Square, Union Square, Ball Square, and several other business districts.
Hanover Street sure looks like a business district to me
Almost every building on either side of Hanover Street is a retail or restaurant business. Same goes for parts of Salem, North, and Prince streets, though not as intensively.
bus. dist.
A city or town can have more than one business district. Most do.
You've tried that CBD bullshit before
Didn't work then, doesn't work now. I'm sorry the facts aren't what you want them to be, but you can't change them simply by wishing them so.
I posted an argument with
I posted an argument with logic facts. You reply with "youre wrong because I say so". Lovely.
Logic Facts?
What the heck are "logic facts"? You claim a highly limited definition of the term "business district" that isn't accurate or correct. You're wrong because your definition of the term is inaccurate. If you insist on interpreting that as "because I say so" then so be it.
As to Commonwealth Avenue being "one of the safest places to bicycle on the sidewalk," it may be safe for the cyclists but is sure as hell isn't safe for pedestrians. I can't count the number of times I've been grazed by somebody weaving through a crowd, passing me from behind with no warning whatsoever (which is clearly and explicitly AGAINST THE LAW, by the way.)
Sidewalks should be for pedestrians
We should enforce the ordinances prohibiting bicycles from using sidewalk and extend this to segways, skateboards, scooters, etc. Until we have true transportation reform, and safe roads and walks for pedestrians we need to recognize that there is already too much competition for space on our narrow and poorly maintained sidewalks.
hate those stupid things
anything to avoid walking. and whatever works for you, that's cool. but the sidewalk for a vehicle that can do 12 mph? nah.
Competitive runners can also do 12 mph
Should we ban them?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
If the pro-Segway argument
If the pro-Segway argument is that they are exactly like non-motorized pedestrians, then what is the problem with banning Segways? That rich people would actually have to walk instead of rolling around on a metal box?
What about disability use of Segways?
People with disabilities use Segways to reduce the amount of walking that they need to do without being encumbered by a more expensive motorized wheel chair.
I realize that the traditional Boston attitude is that people need a license or permission to have a disability - but the ADA doesn't work like that.
I'd like to know a few of
I'd like to know a few of the types of disabilities that you are referring to.
Also, could you please make your point without the daily smack in the face to Boston locals? Regular readers to UH are well aware of your superiority and hostility to Bostonians.
Youve never seen someone
Youve never seen someone that can stand, and even walk, but with great difficulty, as they have to "shuffle" instead of actually walk?
Why confine them to a wheelchair when segways are available?
My question was addressed to
My question was addressed to SwirrlyGirl specifically. However, I do appreciate that you weren't rude when you responded.
If you know someone that uses a segway as an alternative to a wheelchair, than I think that's great and more power to them! The people that I know who have wheelchairs unfortunately are not able to walk at all, let alone stand without a lot of assistance and therefore would not benefit from a segway. The only people that I know who shuffle when walking are elderly and balance is an issue for them so they use a walker. I don't think they would feel safe using a segway. Next time I see my great aunt, I'll ask her what she thinks of using a segway. Who knows, maybe she'd love it!
One of the easiest to name
Multiple Sclerosis.
During a flare-up, a person living with MS has very limited mobility and often has coordination problems. A segway would easily extend the distance and ease at which they could maneuver around the city. If their symptoms are not too severe, they can stand and do everything else, but heavy lifting and long distances can be problematic. On a segway, these would not be issues.
Disabilities and the Segway
Muscular Dystrophy, Amputees, Diminished Lung Capacity, Spinal Cord Injury from trauma and cancer. These are some of the conditions that Segway riders have that I'm aware of off the top of my head.
Oh yes, hip replacement, knee damage, and other orthopedic injuries such as an achilles tendon tear, that affect mobility and gait...
Point is, when someone with a disability is on a Segway, you can't tell if they are disabled.
Segs4Vets.org has given over 250 Segways to wounded warriors who've returned from Iraq and Afghanistan... Perhaps letting them ride into the North End on their Segways isn't such an inconvenience?
reply proves point
You can't even think of any disabilities that would benefit from Segway use? That itself shows how unaware you are and how little contact you have with persons with disabilities.
That may be your personal ignorance, or it may be because you live in Boston. Boston's continuing resistance to doing things that other cities have done years ago - including OLD cities in Europe - is shameful and legendary. How many lawsuits during the DNC? How many lawsuits against the T? Only in Boston did somebody die the day the ADA went into effect because a cheap bumper strip wasn't installed at Davis.
Wait, wait, wait
Wait, I thought there was a fuss when the Segways first came about where they were banned from sidewalks. Jarret "Fluff" Barros was in charge of it.
Yeah, I could check but I'm on vacation. Also, I spelled at least one of his names wrong.
That's Jarrett
That's Jarrett "Fluffernutter" Barrios.
They'll take my Fluff away when they peel my cold dead hands off the jar. I'm lookin' at you, Jarrett. I have a butterknife, and I know how to use it.
Segways in the wild
Thanks to a friend's gift certificate, I've buzzed around the Green Lake neighborhood of Seattle on a Segway. Equating them with pedestrians is a definite stretch.
While a Segway occupies only a little more surface space, its rider towers over the surrounding foot traffic, can't step sideways or maneuver spontaneously, and has the potential to move at much greater speed -- all of which make the machine intrusive and intimidating to mere bipeds. They don't mix well with street traffic, either. It's another of those irresolvable urban conflicts.
Restricting them to the extensive Menino Memorial Bike Lane Network would seem to make the most sense.