---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 57:"After Clause 41, insert the following new clause—" ““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 the arguments in favour of the Segway on Report. 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 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 radios—CB 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 expensive—but now it is a reality. So what is the Minister going to do about it? I beg to move.