Submission data

View the feedback we have received on the NTC Consultation RIS - Barriers to the safe use of personal mobility devices paper.

Upload a file

Answer questions

Agree as is. Covers all common PMDs and is dictated by portability of the PMD on public transport.
Yes, it should cover Segway type PMDs. There should be consideration as to whether different weight categories of PMDs should have different speed restrictions. i.e <20kg up to 25km/h and 20-60kg up to 15km/h max speed.
Children under 16 should be able to use any device provided it is digitally (or otherwise) speed locked to 10km/h when used by the child, even if it is capable of travelling faster when unlocked. Limiting children to only PMDs that cannot travel faster than 10km/h will mean sharing of PMDs within a household and use by tourists using rental PMDs is less likely.
Yes, I agree with the criteria.

The impact analysis appears reasonably thorough.
Footpaths and bike paths are equally important to access. Footpaths allow safer travel for the PMD user where roads may be more dangerous. Bike paths allow faster travel speeds to be achieved by PMDs and minimises risk of collision with pedestrians. There is little in my opinion that separates bikes and PMDs as vehicles and they should be treated similarly.

PMDs should only be used on roads where the speed limit is less than 50km/h or where a footpath/bike path is not available. PMDs should not be allowed on roads with a speed limit greater than 80km/h.
a) 10km/h - This is a persons jogging speed. In a collision with a pedestrian, there should be little risk of causing greater injury to a person than what already exists when using a footpath.
b) 25km/h - These are speeds easily achievable by an average cyclist. There should be no reason PMD's cannot travel at the same speed.
c)25km/h - Similar speed to cyclists using roads.
I agree with Option 3, Speed Approach 1. I feel it strikes the right balance between maintaining safety in pedestrian areas and maximizing the benefits of PMDs