UK police wanting to contact me

[novazeus]

2 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

Are EUCs illegal in Florida?

idk. @RayRay just had a run in with some park ranger or official on one of our trails.

i have zero desire to be around humans but Bob loves them. so i was thinking once Bob’s wheel walking manners improve, it might be fun for him to go next door to the outlet mall. 

but then i thought about sue happy americans, and the mall owners would be foolish to allow euc’s on their property.

if i was inclined to get clarification on the legality of euc’s in my county, i bet the answer would be no.

[TremF]

This worries me slightly. Hopefully more don't start cracking down like this.

In my two years of riding I only ever got stopped once and that was by a PCSO. There had been complaints but of cyclists not me. He didn't get back to me on the legality and didn't say anything to me the next 2 times I saw him. I haven't seen him in a while but that doesn't mean he isn't lurking. I had passed and been passed by numerous other PC's both on foot and in vehicles without any problems so it may just be the PCSO flexing his authoritative muscles.

I'm coming back to EUC's after a failed e-bike trial (it aggravated my medical condition) so I don't need to be having these issues.  

I plan to ride carefully, courteously and be as friendly as possible - as I was previously - so as to hopefully negate any complaints.

[Cannings]

To be honest that is always how i've rode, nods at everyone looking at me in wonderment, give wide birth and go slowly when around anyone or overtaking cyclists, give cyclists right of way if they are keeping speed coming to a hill etc etc

[WARPed1701D]

7 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

Are EUCs illegal in Florida?

Not if you could register and insure it. Which we can't. So technically yes. EPAMD rules specifically mention two wheels (tandem or side by side Segway style) but not one. I don't know if there is any state that allows EUCs with the motor powers we have now even if the one wheel design is legal. Normally it is 750W or less as designated by eBike hub motor power limits. 

All that said I routinely meet cops on my commute and even converse with them. Never had a negative experience but this is a tourist town with lots of legal Segway tours and the city even has a guy doing meter duty on a segway. The cops probably don't know there is a legal difference. They have bigger fish to fry anyway. Of course if I were in an accident the legality of the device would soon be discovered and I'd be screwed. It is one of my worries. 

[Scatcat]

3 hours ago, WARPed1701D said:

Not if you could register and insure it. Which we can't. So technically yes. EPAMD rules specifically mention two wheels (tandem or side by side Segway style) but not one. I don't know if there is any state that allows EUCs with the motor powers we have now even if the one wheel design is legal. Normally it is 750W or less as designated by eBike hub motor power limits. 

All that said I routinely meet cops on my commute and even converse with them. Never had a negative experience but this is a tourist town with lots of legal Segway tours and the city even has a guy doing meter duty on a segway. The cops probably don't know there is a legal difference. They have bigger fish to fry anyway. Of course if I were in an accident the legality of the device would soon be discovered and I'd be screwed. It is one of my worries. 

Actually my biggest worry is the inability to get a traffic insurance, since it means that if there's an accident and I'm even partly at fault, I'd have to eat oatmeal for the next few years... And I would be implicitly "partly at fault", since whomever caused the accident my vehicle is not certified. Better make sure I don't cause any damage to anyone or their property...

There should be a catch all vehicle definition. If it ain't a car or bike, let it be defined by a few rules: size, speed and braking power. If you can go with the flow of the traffic, and brake fast enough to not be a menace, then you should be able to use the vehicle in the appropriate context - and to insure yourself from liability in accidents. That would actually be better for everybody.

[Gary357]

I thought I would add my thoughts on this topic as I have spent some time researching the issue for my own peace of mind. 

Section 72 of the highways act 1835. It says:

 

72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

 

You will see here is that EUCs do indeed fall within the "carriage of any description" as do Skateboards, long-boards, bicycles, hoverboards, heeleys, child's ride ons, even prams and buggies!!

What our learned PCSO might not have observed is within the the title of section 72  : "Committing nuisances" by riding on footpaths etc .  this implies that the creation of a nuisance is mandatory for this section of the Act to be relevant.

I attach a photo of a sign near a well known skateboarding pedestrian area near me which shows a similarly worded message from the local council byelaw. Initially, when reading this, it appears that skateboard is not permitted but read a little further and it confirms that there is only a breech if someone gets annoyed or feels they are in danger. Hence, this skateboard area is regularly used for skateboards, bmxers, roller blades and the like with no hassle from either the police or local council.

Can the PCSO confirm that if no nuisance or danger is presented, then Section 72 of the highways Act 1835 is irrelevant in this case?

Maybe only a court can decide this ....

I can understand a court deciding a full blown 80 Kg Segway human transporter being a nuisance but a one wheeled EUC??

Maybe this is the reason why prosecutions using this act is not heard of in court and the CPS always go for the not insured on a public road scenario.  

I am not a lawyer and only offer the above as a possible solution of how I would try to tackle the current  impasse. Section 72 doesn't seem to cover the crime unless you have somehow annoyed or put someone in danger.

 

[Marty Backe]

3 hours ago, WARPed1701D said:

Not if you could register and insure it. Which we can't. So technically yes. EPAMD rules specifically mention two wheels (tandem or side by side Segway style) but not one. I don't know if there is any state that allows EUCs with the motor powers we have now even if the one wheel design is legal. Normally it is 750W or less as designated by eBike hub motor power limits. 

All that said I routinely meet cops on my commute and even converse with them. Never had a negative experience but this is a tourist town with lots of legal Segway tours and the city even has a guy doing meter duty on a segway. The cops probably don't know there is a legal difference. They have bigger fish to fry anyway. Of course if I were in an accident the legality of the device would soon be discovered and I'd be screwed. It is one of my worries. 

In California, I believe the limit is 1000W. That still doesn't make our 'real-world' EUCs legal. Thankfully, with the density of people here, the police have more to worry about then ticketing EUC riders 

[WARPed1701D]

57 minutes ago, Scatcat said:

Actually my biggest worry is the inability to get a traffic insurance, since it means that if there's an accident and I'm even partly at fault, I'd have to eat oatmeal for the next few years... And I would be implicitly "partly at fault", since whomever caused the accident my vehicle is not certified. Better make sure I don't cause any damage to anyone or their property...

There should be a catch all vehicle definition. If it ain't a car or bike, let it be defined by a few rules: size, speed and braking power. If you can go with the flow of the traffic, and brake fast enough to not be a menace, then you should be able to use the vehicle in the appropriate context - and to insure yourself from liability in accidents. That would actually be better for everybody.

That is my concern. I've no worried about being stopped. The police here just don't care and I don't blame them. They have bigger problems to deal with. But injure someone or damage property and a whole world of pain will be headed my way. I've not many possessions to loose but can ill afford a a hefty law suit which I would most certainly loose

27 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

In California, I believe the limit is 1000W. That still doesn't make our 'real-world' EUCs legal. Thankfully, with the density of people here, the police have more to worry about then ticketing EUC riders 

As above. The cops don't care. It's fallout from an accident of some kind I worry about.

[Esper]

1 hour ago, Gary357 said:

72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

By 'nuisance' does this mean anyone whom feels bothered by it, ie; complains? Why would someone feel so annoyed that they would report it rather than approaching you directly?

Also, by 'footpath' and 'pavement' how can you get past this? This applies on a path used by foot traffic on a paved road but are dirt roads acceptable? Maybe an alley perhaps? 

If an EUC falls into the 'carriage of any description' then so can an electric wheelchair. Maybe you should wear a fake cast on one of your legs to/from work and call it a medical mobility device.

[dmethvin]

12 hours ago, TremF said:

This worries me slightly. Hopefully more don't start cracking down like this.

I can't believe how bad the laws are there in England! If you had a medical reason to use an EUC or Segway and a doctor's note it seems like you could register it as a class 3 invalid carriage but then technically you have to ride in the street (not even in a bike lane) but are limited to 8mph! That seems horribly unsafe. There is also a class 2 carriage that does not need to be registered and can ride on the sidewalks but that is limited to 4mph. The requirements for mirrors, signals and a horn might also be tricky on an EUC but you can always put one of these aftermarket things on it and then use a bike mirror on your glasses or helmet. Even at the 8mph limit it might make sense to register the EUC and then skirt the laws about speed and/or riding on the sidewalk. At least you could whip out a registration on them when they complained, and unless they're VERY knowledgeable about the law they are likely to leave you alone even if you're in the wrong place and/or going a bit too fast.

[Scatcat]

1 hour ago, WARPed1701D said:

That is my concern. I've no worried about being stopped. The police here just don't care and I don't blame them. They have bigger problems to deal with. But injure someone or damage property and a whole world of pain will be headed my way. I've not many possessions to loose but can ill afford a a hefty law suit which I would most certainly loose

As above. The cops don't care. It's fallout from an accident of some kind I worry about.

Exactly. It is pretty obvious that the police here in Sweden don't care, as long as you're not driving like a maniac. They probably think "Segway" or "bike", and then lose interest - especially if you like me have a helmet, reflective tape on the wheel, a ringer and lights. To them that shows I take safety seriously, which is their primary concern.

Of course it is just a matter of time before some power-high law-man stops a EUC and starts f-ing around. But so far so good.

I called an insurance company to see if it would be possible to get insurance, but it wasn't. In their eyes even Segways are toys, and not insurable as a vehicle. I do hope that they wake up and realise all these new types of transportation can cause damage and that there's a market for insurance covering responsible use.

[Duf]

14 hours ago, Marty Backe said:

Are EUCs illegal in Florida?

If they are, it's news to me, and I must be on the most wanted list.

[Esper]

1 hour ago, dmethvin said:

I can't believe how bad the laws are there in England! If you had a medical reason to use an EUC or Segway and a doctor's note it seems like you could register it as a class 3 invalid carriage but then technically you have to ride in the street (not even in a bike lane) but are limited to 8mph! That seems horribly unsafe. There is also a class 2 carriage that does not need to be registered and can ride on the sidewalks but that is limited to 4mph. The requirements for mirrors, signals and a horn might also be tricky on an EUC but you can always put one of these aftermarket things on it and then use a bike mirror on your glasses or helmet. Even at the 8mph limit it might make sense to register the EUC and then skirt the laws about speed and/or riding on the sidewalk. At least you could whip out a registration on them when they complained, and unless they're VERY knowledgeable about the law they are likely to leave you alone even if you're in the wrong place and/or going a bit too fast.

At this point, I can imagine someone calling the police on a speeding wheelchair going 10 mph.

[RockyTop]

4 hours ago, Gary357 said:

 

Section 72 of the highways act 1835. It says:

 

72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

 

You will see here is that EUCs do indeed fall within the "carriage of any description" as do Skateboards, long-boards, bicycles, hoverboards, heeleys, child's ride ons, even prams and buggies!!

What our learned PCSO might not have observed is within the the title of section 72  : "Committing nuisances" by riding on footpaths etc .  this implies that the creation of a nuisance is mandatory for this section of the Act to be relevant.

I attach a photo of a sign near a well known skateboarding pedestrian area near me which shows a similarly worded message from the local council byelaw. Initially, when reading this, it appears that skateboard is not permitted but read a little further and it confirms that there is only a breech if someone gets annoyed or feels they are in danger. Hence, this skateboard area is regularly used for skateboards, bmxers, roller blades and the like with no hassle from either the police or local council.

 

Got it! ?Don’t let your ass cause a nuisance! ?

[RockyTop]

In the US I think it depends a lot on the city. In Chattanooga Tennessee you can do some pretty crazy things until you prove damage. Even then they look at the numbers. Example: Corvettes are fast and dangerous but the numbers show otherwise unless the driver is a young male. How many young males can afford a Corvette?  So It is not the Corvette that is dangerous.  As a result they punish the behavior rather than the tool.  In other places they punish the tool rather than the behavior.  You can’t have or do anything that might cause damage 

[Cannings]

15 hours ago, Gary357 said:

I thought I would add my thoughts on this topic as I have spent some time researching the issue for my own peace of mind. 

Section 72 of the highways act 1835. It says:

 

72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

 

You will see here is that EUCs do indeed fall within the "carriage of any description" as do Skateboards, long-boards, bicycles, hoverboards, heeleys, child's ride ons, even prams and buggies!!

What our learned PCSO might not have observed is within the the title of section 72  : "Committing nuisances" by riding on footpaths etc .  this implies that the creation of a nuisance is mandatory for this section of the Act to be relevant.

I attach a photo of a sign near a well known skateboarding pedestrian area near me which shows a similarly worded message from the local council byelaw. Initially, when reading this, it appears that skateboard is not permitted but read a little further and it confirms that there is only a breech if someone gets annoyed or feels they are in danger. Hence, this skateboard area is regularly used for skateboards, bmxers, roller blades and the like with no hassle from either the police or local council.

Can the PCSO confirm that if no nuisance or danger is presented, then Section 72 of the highways Act 1835 is irrelevant in this case?

Maybe only a court can decide this ....

I can understand a court deciding a full blown 80 Kg Segway human transporter being a nuisance but a one wheeled EUC??

Maybe this is the reason why prosecutions using this act is not heard of in court and the CPS always go for the not insured on a public road scenario.  

I am not a lawyer and only offer the above as a possible solution of how I would try to tackle the current  impasse. Section 72 doesn't seem to cover the crime unless you have somehow annoyed or put someone in danger.

 

 

It's a nice idea but they cover themselves with the highway code, 

The Road Traffic Act 1988 states:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.^[4]

^{Then Highway Code rule 157:}

Vehicles prohibited from using roads and pavements

157. Certain motorised vehicles do not meet the construction and technical requirements for road vehicles and are generally not intended, not suitable and not legal for road, pavement, footpath, cycle path or bridleway use. These include most types of miniature motorcycles, also called mini motos, and motorised scooters, also called go peds, which are powered by electric or internal combustion engines. These types of vehicle MUST NOT be used on roads, pavements, footpaths or bridleways. Laws RTA 1988 sects 34, 41a, 42, 47, 63 & 66, HA 1835, sect 72,  82 AAATHE R(S)A sect 129

[mrelwood]

On 6/1/2018 at 9:13 AM, Cannings said:

These types of vehicle MUST NOT be used on roads, pavements, footpaths or bridleways.

Unpaved bicycle paths are not mentioned in this last part...

[RockyTop]

I grew up building car engines ,Mostly for race cars and street rods.  It always annoyed me when people called them motors.  The motors in your car power the fans, side windows and windshield wipers.  The engine moves the car! (Well, unless you drive an electric car or hybrid) Then you watch a race on TV and the drives says, “Well?,...R’ day ended early when the motor blew”.   However, because of this improper usage I can just assume they mean engine when they say motor.  “ No sir, this here is an electric unicycle,  No nasty motor here!”  ( I am from the south, I can make fun of us! )  

[Gary357]

It's a nice idea but they cover themselves with the highway code, 

The Road Traffic Act 1988 states:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.^[4]

^{Then Highway Code rule 157:}

Vehicles prohibited from using roads and pavements

157. Certain motorised vehicles do not meet the construction and technical requirements for road vehicles and are generally not intended, not suitable and not legal for road, pavement, footpath, cycle path or bridleway use. These include most types of miniature motorcycles, also called mini motos, and motorised scooters, also called go peds, which are powered by electric or internal combustion engines. These types of vehicle MUST NOT be used on roads, pavements, footpaths or bridleways. Laws RTA 1988 sects 34, 41a, 42, 47, 63 & 66, HA 1835, sect 72,  82 AAATHE R(S)A sect 129

 

It is interesting how the local bye-law summarizes the Section 72 Highways act so well yet the Highway code only adds smoke and mirrors to the argument, completely missing the original intention of the original Act. Whether this is by design or not, I leave up to you to decide.

Law is Law and the highway code is a summary of the Law but, as you found out,  can be used in court as a basis for interpretation of the original Statute Law.
The highway code rule 157 is based upon a specific Laws and these are quoted below the text of the rule and here we see (in Red above) " HA 1835, sect 72," = Highways Act 1835 sect 72, and around around we go ....  

If we are questioning the true intention and meaning of the Act then any reference portrayed in the highway code will also be in jeopardy. You will be charged with the Highways Act not with the rule.

In fact rule 157 of the highway code is not as detrimental (to us) as it first looks and is a partial summary of the history of previous convictions mostly concerning Motor Vehicles (not an EUC) and when I say Motor Vehicles, I mean "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads". Don't get me started on this one !!!!

Certain motorised vehicles ( Are EUCs included in this? It doesn't say. ) do not meet the construction and technical requirements for road vehicles and are generally not intended, not suitable and not legal for road, pavement, footpath, cycle path or bridleway use. These include most types of miniature motorcycles, (Not an EUC) also called mini motos, (Not an EUC)  and motorised scooters, (Not an EUC unless you scoot it :-)) also called go peds, (Not an EUC) which are powered by electric or internal combustion engines.

Nowhere does it mention an Electric Unicycle so I think we can include this rule into the world of grayness.

[Gary357]

On 5/31/2018 at 6:06 PM, Scatcat said:

Exactly. It is pretty obvious that the police here in Sweden don't care, as long as you're not driving like a maniac. They probably think "Segway" or "bike", and then lose interest - especially if you like me have a helmet, reflective tape on the wheel, a ringer and lights. To them that shows I take safety seriously, which is their primary concern.

Of course it is just a matter of time before some power-high law-man stops a EUC and starts f-ing around. But so far so good.

I called an insurance company to see if it would be possible to get insurance, but it wasn't. In their eyes even Segways are toys, and not insurable as a vehicle. I do hope that they wake up and realise all these new types of transportation can cause damage and that there's a market for insurance covering responsible use.

Try searching for a French insurance company which provides EUC liability insurance. (There are some as EUCs are legal there )  They might be able to help especially if they have an outlet/subsidiary in your Country. 

[Scatcat]

2 hours ago, Gary357 said:

It's a nice idea but they cover themselves with the highway code, 

The Road Traffic Act 1988 states:

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.^[4]

^{Then Highway Code rule 157:}

Vehicles prohibited from using roads and pavements

157. Certain motorised vehicles do not meet the construction and technical requirements for road vehicles and are generally not intended, not suitable and not legal for road, pavement, footpath, cycle path or bridleway use. These include most types of miniature motorcycles, also called mini motos, and motorised scooters, also called go peds, which are powered by electric or internal combustion engines. These types of vehicle MUST NOT be used on roads, pavements, footpaths or bridleways. Laws RTA 1988 sects 34, 41a, 42, 47, 63 & 66, HA 1835, sect 72,  82 AAATHE R(S)A sect 129

 

It is interesting how the local bye-law summarizes the Section 72 Highways act so well yet the Highway code only adds smoke and mirrors to the argument, completely missing the original intention of the original Act. Whether this is by design or not, I leave up to you to decide.

Law is Law and the highway code is a summary of the Law but, as you found out,  can be used in court as a basis for interpretation of the original Statute Law.
The highway code rule 157 is based upon a specific Laws and these are quoted below the text of the rule and here we see (in Red above) " HA 1835, sect 72," = Highways Act 1835 sect 72, and around around we go ....  

If we are questioning the true intention and meaning of the Act then any reference portrayed in the highway code will also be in jeopardy. You will be charged with the Highways Act not with the rule.

In fact rule 157 of the highway code is not as detrimental (to us) as it first looks and is a partial summary of the history of previous convictions mostly concerning Motor Vehicles (not an EUC) and when I say Motor Vehicles, I mean "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads". Don't get me started on this one !!!!

Certain motorised vehicles ( Are EUCs included in this? It doesn't say. ) do not meet the construction and technical requirements for road vehicles and are generally not intended, not suitable and not legal for road, pavement, footpath, cycle path or bridleway use. These include most types of miniature motorcycles, (Not an EUC) also called mini motos, (Not an EUC)  and motorised scooters, (Not an EUC unless you scoot it :-)) also called go peds, (Not an EUC) which are powered by electric or internal combustion engines.

Nowhere does it mention an Electric Unicycle so I think we can include this rule into the world of grayness.

Except of course that the law has already been used against Segways... I think the UK is lagging behind severely. Here in Sweden the authorities were pretty quick to create rules for Segways specifically. They realised it is a new type of vehicle that is neither fish nor fowl.

Unluckily the rules leave about 90% of EUCs out, since the max speed allowed is something like 13.5mph/22kph. So the EUCs could be said to emulate Segways when driven slow on bike- or footpaths. Given we fix reflexes on the wheel, a ringer and keep below 15.5mph/25kph, we could argue we fall under the regulations for electric bikes. Except of course we don't actively pedal our wheels.

The next step are unpedaled electric bikes, that goes under the same rules as EU class 1 or 2 moped/scooters. The problem is there is no license and we can't get traffic insurance.

Talk about grey area... Right now we live on the goodwill of the local police, who could probably stop and fine us if they really wanted to. They seem not so inclined however (touch wood).

The fate of the EUC in Sweden, as well as the electrical skateboards, I suspect depends a lot on getting them more widely adopted while keeping our noses clean. Morons should be told they are morons and should stop behaving like morons. We need to be better than bikers: Stay at red lights, leave right of way to pedestrians and cars where they should have the right of way, and sometimes even when they shouldn't to build up goodwill. Be careful not to scare the living bejeezus out of our fellow travellers by zooming past them too close. Show sense and sensibility, and in general be good ambassadors for the phenomenon. Talk to people. Explain that we're probably less dangerous than the average biker. Explain that we cultivate a mind-set of being very aware of our surroundings, since we can't rely on others knowing what we are and can do. And so on.

[Scatcat]

7 minutes ago, Gary357 said:

Try searching for a French insurance company which provides EUC liability insurance. (There are some as EUCs are legal there )  They might be able to help especially if they have an outlet/subsidiary in your Country. 

Good idea, will look into it. I find it scary to be uninsured, even more so than the risk of personal injury. I can protect myself to some degree, but if my wheel goes haywire and runs off in the distance I'm pretty powerless to stop it. I know what can happen, as it tried to do that "possessed by evil spirit"-shenanigans when I had a faulty gyro. Climbed the side of (luckily my own) bicycle quick enough to reach five feet into the air before tumbling to the ground and stopping. I had to bring a fucking ladder to get my eyebrows down above my eyes again.

[RockyTop]

Have you watched videos of people wiping out on Segways?  It can get pretty violent.  Those things are wide and heavy.  If you hold on it can whip you in circles and run people over.  I can see why people don’t want them near pedestrians. A person on a EUC takes up very little room and the crashes at 10mph are usually unremarkable. You just step off and it slides on it’s side.  I don’t want to be put in the same category as a Segway. “ I ride an E-bike. - I just don’t have all the parts yet!”  “Too many watts?”  “Most of those are used to keep the thing upright.  I can’t keep up with an E-bike.” “ My max speed is 18...22...25 ...ahhh?   25” 

[Scatcat]

26 minutes ago, RockyTop said:

Have you watched videos of people wiping out on Segways?  It can get pretty violent.  Those things are wide and heavy.  If you hold on it can whip you in circles and run people over.  I can see why people don’t want them near pedestrians. A person on a EUC takes up very little room and the crashes at 10mph are usually unremarkable. You just step off and it slides on it’s side.  I don’t want to be put in the same category as a Segway. “ I ride an E-bike. - I just don’t have all the parts yet!”  “Too many watts?”  “Most of those are used to keep the thing upright.  I can’t keep up with an E-bike.” “ My max speed is 18...22...25 ...ahhh?   25” 

Officer, I know I can go faster than 25mph, but trust me, I won't... Trust me please ?

[Cannings]

I blasted off a couple of emails to a couple of MP's and and to be honest one of my main points wasn't "this isn't fair" or "why are we still basing our laws on horse and carriage laws" but more of okay fine have your laws, but give us the ability to abide by them and licence/insure the EUC's this way the government makes money, covers themselves to indemnity, looks like its been pro-active to hit its green targets that its set itself. 

I said the userbase for these wheels are not 15 year olds whipping round terrorizing the place, its adults that use them for not only enjoyment and getting around but for commuting also who would be willing to pay to insure/licence them if it meant we had a place to ride them legally.

What is the cost to the tax payer? Nothing 

What is the cost of any extra policing? Nothing

What is the cost of any accidents? Nothing if insured and if not then they are just in the same bucket as now