Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 57:
"HIGHWAYS ACT 1980: INTERPRETATION
(1) In section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) (further provisions as to interpretation), for
(a) the entry relating to "bridleways" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
(b) the entry relating to "cycle track" after the words "pedal cycles" insert "or human transporter";
(c) the entry relating to "footpath" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
(d) the entry relating to "footway" after the word "foot" insert "or human transporter";
(e) at end insert
"human transporter" means a self-balancing electric device with two driven wheels in a transverse line and a maximum unladen weight not exceeding 50 kilograms and speed limited to 13 miles per hour irrespective of gradients less than 10%."
(2) Nothing in the Highways Act 1835 (c. 50) shall prevent a person from using a human transporter or a local authority or police force from undertaking a trial or evaluation of the human transporter as defined in section 329 of the Highways Act 1980."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58, which both concern Segway human transporters. Before doing so, I state that I have no interest to declare. I have decided to pursue this issue on my own volition, but I have been helped by Segway during the passage of the Bill. We gave the concept a good run in Committee, and I will not repeat on Report the arguments in favour of the Segway. Most noble Lords are now familiar with what we are talking about, and many noble Lords have tried it. The software and the electronics inside the device are very much more sophisticated than might be supposed at first sight, but only those who have ridden on the device can appreciate how clever that software is.
I am pleased that we in this House have so positively debated the Segway human transporter, but I remind noble Lords of the problem that under current UK legislation the Segway human transporter cannot be used on the highway because it is not a vehicle; and it cannot be used on the pavement because it is neither a pedestrian nor an invalid carriage. The Segway human transporter is not designed and marketed as an invalid
29 Nov 2005 : Column 153
carriage; it is much more useful than that. These devices are coming, rather like King Canute's tide. I urge the Minister to take some order-making power to allow them to be used on the pavement. Primary legislation is required; he cannot do it by means of regulation.
Segway will not sell a Segway human transporter if it believes that if it will not be used legally. If you have a big factory, or a warehouse, or a distribution centre in which to use one, it will sell you a Segway; but it will not sell you one if it believes that you are going to use it on the pavement, because it does not want to encourage illegal use. However, it is inevitable that these devices will come into the UK market via the grey market, just as happens with vehicles. We do not want to repeat the experience of citizens' band radiosCB radios. Under the previous administration everyone was using them, all the kids were using them, but they were illegal and the government had to introduce legislation to allow them to become legal. We need to legislate first in anticipation of their arrival.
In 1835 when the Highways Act was drafted, the Segway would have been regarded as impossible. Even 15 years ago it would have been impractical and prohibitively expensivebut now it is a reality. So what is the Minister going to do about it? I beg to move.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, for one, support my noble friend on this issue. One cannot escape from legislation wherever one goes. I have been to Washington twice this year; once in April and again last week. Now Washington has little Segway depots, and all the tourists were on Segways visiting the White House and the Washington Monument and so on. There has been a change in six months in Washington; so there is obviously different legislation in the United States. They are very popular and they are selling like hotcakes. My noble friend Lord Attlee probably has an issue here that we have to address. They are certainly a good tourist initiative.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment in principle. I will not repeat what I said in Committee, but my concern is that here we are yet again discussing something that is illegal but which people are using. We talked about limousines an hour ago. It is putting the law into disrepute. I know that there is no easy solution to where these things should go, but they are here and they are being used. I wonder whether my noble friend would bring forward an amendment at Third Reading or accept an amendment from someone else at Third Reading that within a period of a year the Government would come forward with construction use regulations or something similar. That would let people know where they could use them legally, what they had to do to licence themif that was the proposaland it would allow people to ride them with the maximum safety for other road users and
29 Nov 2005 : Column 154
pedestrians and still have a bit of fun. That way they would get the benefit of what for some people is probably quite a useful method of transport.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I also support the amendment. We are delighted that London has been granted the Olympics, but we are told that there might be transportation problems moving personnel around. What better than we legislate that these transporters be made legal to celebrate having the Olympics in London, so that Olympic athletes and officials can be transported from central London to the Olympic stadiums?
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, as I did in Committee. I drew some comfort from the Minister's remarks in Committee when he said:
He said other things that I found slightly less encouraging, but I am hoping that when he comes to reply he will be able to give us some more encouragement, because these things are coming. I spoke to a leading retailer in Oxford Street this afternoonalthough I will not mention any namesand it is getting Christmas stock in of these items tomorrow. They are here, they are coming, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some encouraging words.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, both amendments include the phrase,
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations require that in order to have two wheels the distance between the centres of contact must be at least 460 millimetres.. Does that apply to human transporters? I do not know. Or will a lesser distance apply? In which case, the minimum distance needs to be clearly stated. I only mention this argument so that the vehicle does not fall into the definition of a motorcycle or moped, which require driving licences and insurance.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the human transporter is just one example of the very rapid movement forwards in technology today. I urge the Government to bring forward a general power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to take account of any new advances in transport.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The Segway is a motor vehicle for the purpose of road traffic legislation and that creates obvious and real difficulties. All noble Lords who have seen the Segway or have even had a chance to use it must be entranced by the technology. It is a most interesting vehicle. When I said that it had infinite potential, I did not say where it had that potential. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, will recognise that. I can think of some very safe places where it could be deployed with great
29 Nov 2005 : Column 155
efficiency and approval. But our difficulty is that people want the Segway to be used on the public highway and, in particular, on the pavement, when that would clearly present problems. To a degree, those problems would also apply to cycle lanes.
The new technology is of great interest to us all. It was pointed out to us that it is used in some American states, including Washington DC, and also in some European countries. But there are many others where it is not and where there is also a real problem of how it would fit into road traffic. We have many interests to consult. Without prior full consultation and until we have collated and considered all the available evidence on the use of Segways, it would be irresponsible and inappropriate to make changes in primary legislation. This would be a significant step for us.
The first time that many of us came across this vehicle was probably as recently as a couple of weeks ago. My department officials have met representatives of the company and I know that one or two of them have experienced thedare I say it?exhilaration of a ride on the vehicle. I say "exhilaration" because I was privileged to go on a short journey on it. I am never allowed to go more than 15 yards from your Lordships' House when I am on duty so I went 14 yards, and I can testify to the fact that it is a most interesting transport initiative.
We have advised the company to make contact with various groups in the UK which are likely to have an interest in the vehicle, whether they are for or against the concept of human transporters, because a lot of interests have to be taken into account. The department is seeking information from the company and elsewhere about the tests, trials and studies that are carried out in other countries, and obviously, where it has been used according to the law in some states, we will take that evidence into account. We will also carefully examine material relating to other similar devices, and we will consider the next steps to be taken.
However, it will be recognised that it would be inordinately premature for us to use a Bill which is about road safety to introduce such a vehicle on to our highways when it is not certain where it is intended that it should be used. Clearly it does not fit on to the highway so far as concerns road vehicles. It is not a cycle and does not go as fast as a cycle. If it were more like a cycle, I have no doubt that the Segway would have made more progress in places such as the Netherlands, where there is a vast plethora of dedicated cycle lanes. But, at the moment, the Dutch have reservations about the mix between Segways and cycles.
There is a real problem in relation to this vehicle. I know that it has control speeds but its maximum speed is more than 12 miles per hour. We have to consider whether we could conceivably allow on to our pavements or pedestrianised areas a vehicle which goes three times faster than vehicles used by the disabled, which we do permit and which are limited to a speed of four miles per hour.
29 Nov 2005 : Column 156
The House will recognise that I do not want to be a killjoyfar from it. I meant what I said, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, referred to my interest in the technology. It is a most exciting concept. But it raises substantial problems for us in terms of the law and it would be exceedingly premature for us to accept an amendment to this Bill. Having given the subject a good airing, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |