Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 152:"After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—"    ““INTERPRETATION: HIGHWAYS ACT 1980 (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 as defined in section 329 of the Highways Act 1980.”” The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 152, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 153 and 154. The amendment concerns a device known as a human transporter. Its marketing name is Segway. It is a self-balancing, two-wheeled, electric human transporter device. I had to spend some time defining the amendment, and to my chagrin, I realise that there is a cross-referencing error, which I am sure the Minister will not hesitate to point out. Its overall dimensions are no larger than a slightly portly adult. It has the ability to emulate human balance—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will respond to the amendment. It does this with the aid of very clever gyros made by British Aerospace. It can carry a reasonable amount of shopping or a bag. I consider that I am fit but I find just walking back to Pimlico carrying a laptop fairly strenuous. This device would allow me to get back to Pimlico without any effort. It would also avoid the need to use a private car or a taxi. I know that several noble Lords have tried out the device recently. What I find extraordinary is the very fine quality of the controls. To move forward, it is necessary only to lean forward; to slow down or go backwards, you just lean backwards; to turn, you turn a twist grip, and the device can neutral turn. The controls are very clever. It can neutral steer in its own length. The performance level of the Segway—in other words, how fast it can go—can be altered by the manufacturer or by the user to prevent it going too fast for him. Empirical data gathered by Segway indicate that owners use the device to replace cars for journeys of between two and 11 kilometres. These very short car journeys are the most polluting because the cars’ catalytic converters and other systems will not be hot enough to function properly. Resistance tends to come from groups who refuse an opportunity even to test the machine. One of the most important and respected pedestrian advocacy groups, City Streets in New York, took a very positive position on the use of the Segway after its members tried it out for themselves. I take it that all those who have advised the Minister on the merits of this machine have tried riding it, although I am not convinced that they have. The Segway is in use in many European countries but there is a legislative difficulty: it is not appropriate to use it in the road because it goes too slowly. However, it cannot be used on the footpath, where it belongs, because our highways legislation allows only pedestrians or invalid carriages to use the footpath. The Segway is designed for fully able-bodied people; it is not an invalid carriage. Thus it is a matter for central government and primary legislation if we want to take advantage of it. When Segway discussed the device with the UK Government it was met with the response, ““I am terribly sorry but you cannot use it in the road because it is not a proper motor vehicle, and you cannot use it on the footpath because it is not a pedestrian or invalid carriage. To alter that would require primary legislation. I am so sorry””. I hope that the Minister will be a wincy bit more positive tonight. When drafting the amendment I noticed that only one very small provision of the Highway Act 1835 is still extant. It is hardly worth keeping. Amendment No. 154 suggests removing that tiny bit of legislation. I beg to move.