Conned over Swegway

unholyangel

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

What motoring offences do you believe the police should turn a blind eye to then?

Did I say or infer that at any point?

ETA: neil had said police there didn't seem interested in prosecuting. I stated I'd found the opposite to be true - and then said that around here, police are more interested in motoring offences than petty crime.

Thats not the same as saying they should ignore motoring offences! Its only saying you're more likely to be prosecuted for a motoring offence.

soolin

Such a shame the OP needed help but didn't stick around to answer questions, or came back to see what has been suggested.

bris

neilmcl wrote: »

I don't disagree that they "could be" illegal but as far as I'm aware the use of them has yet to be tested in court and I've not seen or heard of any occasion where the police, in my area at least, have done anything about them. In fact, all indicators suggest that sales have increased since the CPS issued their guidance, so again hardly a deterrent.

Not "could be" are on public property. You have to remember these are pretty new to the scene. The Segway original is too expensive and specialist for the public to be running about in them so your not likely to see them on the local street, although there has been a conviction of someone on a pavement and it was nothing to do with a theft.


The swegway however is the new must have toy and although there hasn't been much done about them yet the grace period will rapidly expire and the police told to crack down on them. I wouldn't be surprised if they get seizure powers over them for illegal use as they are classed as a form of unlicenced transport.

neilmcl

bris wrote: »

Not "could be" are on public property.

Yes "could be". The fact that the CPS offers guidance doesn't make it so. Until it's been tested in court, and as far as I'm aware we've not heard of any prosecutions regarding one these "hoverboards" yet, will we know whether these are indeed illegal to operate on public land.

In fact certain solicitors have raised the opinion that there is doubt whether these can be classed as "motor vehicles" due to the fact that if you apply the "reasonable person" test these would still likely be classed as a toy and therefore usage cannot be classed as a road traffic offence.

powerful_Rogue

unholyangel wrote: »

Did I say or infer that at any point?

ETA: neil had said police there didn't seem interested in prosecuting. I stated I'd found the opposite to be true - and then said that around here, police are more interested in motoring offences than petty crime.

Thats not the same as saying they should ignore motoring offences! Its only saying you're more likely to be prosecuted for a motoring offence.

The joy of the written word on a forum.

That's was the impression I got from your post, however since you've clarified what you mean I take it back and apologise.

JayCartwright

neilmcl wrote: »

Yes "could be". The fact that the CPS offers guidance doesn't make it so. Until it's been tested in court, and as far as I'm aware we've not heard of any prosecutions regarding one these "hoverboards" yet, will we know whether these are indeed illegal to operate on public land.

In fact certain solicitors have raised the opinion that there is doubt whether these can be classed as "motor vehicles" due to the fact that if you apply the "reasonable person" test these would still likely be classed as a toy and therefore usage cannot be classed as a road traffic offence.

They don't need to be classed as motor vehicles to be prosecuted under the road traffic act. Most of the legislation covers mechanically propelled vehicles to. Whether they fall under that may have yet to be tested.

Using your reasonable person test. I think a reasonable person would class them as similar to a Segway or personal transporter. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#segway

neilmcl

JayCartwright wrote: »

They don't need to be classed as motor vehicles to be prosecuted under the road traffic act. Most of the legislation covers mechanically propelled vehicles to. Whether they fall under that may have yet to be tested.

Using your reasonable person test. I think a reasonable person would class them as similar to a Segway or personal transporter. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences/#segway

The reason Segways aren't allowed is specifically because they are classed as motor vehicles as in the following piece from your link:

The Department for Transports view is that the Segway Personal Transporter is a motor vehicle. The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) states that every mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on a public road should be registered and licensed. As self-balancing scooters are mechanically propelled they require registration and a vehicle
registration licence (tax disc). Additionally, the user would need a driving licence and motor insurance. Other legal requirements relate to construction and use, and to lighting.

The DfT considers the Segway Personal Transporter to be a motor vehicle for the purposes of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986.

Like I said there is an argument that is already being discussed in legal circles whether these "hoverboards" can be classed in the same way, and until its tested in court then it's not really for us to say either way.

Obviously riding them on the pavement is no different to riding a bike on the pavement and would be covered by section 72 of the Highways Act.

JayCartwright

neilmcl wrote: »

The reason Segways aren't allowed is specifically because they are classed as motor vehicles as in the following piece from your link:

Like I said there is an argument that is already being discussed in legal circles whether these "hoverboards" can be classed in the same way, and until its tested in court then it's not really for us to say either way.

Obviously riding them on the pavement is no different to riding a bike on the pavement and would be covered by section 72 of the Highways Act.

Are you says a Segway is made or adapted for use on the road?

unholyangel

neilmcl wrote: »

The reason Segways aren't allowed is specifically because they are classed as motor vehicles as in the following piece from your link:

Like I said there is an argument that is already being discussed in legal circles whether these "hoverboards" can be classed in the same way, and until its tested in court then it's not really for us to say either way.

Obviously riding them on the pavement is no different to riding a bike on the pavement and would be covered by section 72 of the Highways Act.

The test grounds has already been discussed during the segway high court judgement. It makes for a interesting read but its quite lengthy so won't post all the relevant parts, but this bit sums it up pretty nicely:

I add two final points. Mr Barnett sought to rely upon the manufacturer's literature in support his contention that the SEGWAY is not intended for use on roads. For the reasons explained by Lord Parker CJ in Burns v Currell, by Glidewell LJ in F and by Pill LJ in Saddington, this material cannot be determinative. The test, as Mr Lloyd correctly emphasises, is objective; the expectations, advice and intentions of the manufacturer do not provide the answer.

Though what is stated and quoted in the judgement does make me certain that they would fall under the same category as a segway.

Judgement here if you want it:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2032.html

lism67

Same happened to me. My son saved and ordered from ic3board. Nothing received no response from contact sheets filled in on website. I paid by credit card. Hoping that they can help me.