I read Carolyn Ong's recent story about the Segway transport device being banned from Hong Kong last year. As an irate pollution-breathing member of Hong Kong society, I find it ridiculous that the government has dismissed without so much as an explanation the possibility of using such a device.
Some of the issues for consideration can be appreciated. I would not want to be a pedestrian on a pavement in Mongkok on which off-duty minibus drivers were travelling around on Segways. Equally, I would not want to be on a Segway on the Island Eastern Corridor or the Tolo Highway. But then, I would not want to be on a bicycle under such circumstances either. Not that I would be allowed to under Hong Kong law.
The government has clear regulations about where bicycles can be used, although I have been assaulted by enough cyclists at crowded intersections in my time to know it does not enforce these regulations too much. In my opinion, the Segway is considerably safer than a bicycle even though it, too, has only two wheels. In addition, a well-motivated cyclist could easily out-sprint a speeding Segway, and bad brakes on any fast-moving device can be dangerous, irrespective of whether it is powered by an internal combustion engine, a battery or pumping legs.
I would like to know by what standards the government judges the suitability of alternative transport devices for use on our streets. I would particularly like to know why it has apparently arbitrarily banned a revolutionary pollution-beating device accepted as safe in 30 states in America and counting.
From everything I have read and heard about the Segway, it is at least worth a trial run as an alternative transport device. Maybe the government could consider issuing a few to police officers on the beat.
Name and address supplied