Skate boards on PSP/RSP

as7431
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby as7431 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:29 pm

Hi all

I was travelling north on the path along West Coast Drive yesterday and where it leaves the road and drops down towards Brighton Rd, I came across a skate boarder, weaving/slaloming all over the path, allowing no room for passing. What's worse is that he was wearing full head phones, not just ear buds. I slowed right down and from about 1m away yelled as loudliy as I could. Took several attempts for him to hear me. Forthunately I did not come upon him on the blind corner. My question is, what are they classified as? Do they have the protected status of a pederstrian? If someone is unlucky enough to hit one, is the cyclist automatically assumed to be in the wrong? I am guessing they are not deemed to be a cyclist/vehicle. Perhaps they are in a separate class all togehter.

Regardless, this could have been dangerous as this guy not only was weaving all over the path, but had absolutely no awareness of what was behind him.

TIm

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6949
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby find_bruce » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:59 pm

(1) A skateboard is a wheeled recreational device - Road Traffic Code 2000 rule 3.

(2) the definition of pedestrian includes a person in or on a wheeled recreational device - Road Traffic Code 2000 rule 3.

(3) there are specific rules for them, most relevantly a person on a wheeled recreational device on a footpath or shared path must keep to the left unless it is impracticable to do so - Road Traffic Code 2000 rule 208.

nachoman
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:29 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby nachoman » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:29 pm

Seeing a few of the electric skateboards on the PSP lately. Passed two going into the city around Leederville this morning, and passed three in a short section near the city last week. Some of them like the 'Boosted Board' seem to be capable of 35kmh at 2000w. What part of the Road Traffic Code do these fall under ? Motorised scooter, wheeled toy, Electric personal transporters ?

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 3217
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby Thoglette » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:52 pm

as7431 wrote:My question is, what are they classified as? Do they have the protected status of a pederstrian?


Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: depends if the path is in a gazetted roadway or not. If so, the road rules apply and they're a ped on a wheeled recreational device or toy on a path (Go RTFM) . If not, they're on council property and subject to the individual bylaws of the council.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
RonK
Posts: 9670
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby RonK » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:00 pm

as7431 wrote:My question is, what are they classified as? Do they have the protected status of a pederstrian? If someone is unlucky enough to hit one, is the cyclist automatically assumed to be in the wrong?

I've encountered this same situation in the past with rollerbladers. Regardless of their status, you are aware of them, but they are not aware of you. The onus is on you to avoid colliding with them.

If you can't pass safely, then the only option is to wait until you can.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...

Scott_C
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby Scott_C » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:52 pm

nachoman wrote:Seeing a few of the electric skateboards on the PSP lately. Passed two going into the city around Leederville this morning, and passed three in a short section near the city last week. Some of them like the 'Boosted Board' seem to be capable of 35kmh at 2000w. What part of the Road Traffic Code do these fall under ? Motorised scooter, wheeled toy, Electric personal transporters ?

It is my understanding that electric skateboards (and 'hoverboards' for that matter), are classified as motor vehicles and, in theory, the same penalties apply as would apply to someone driving an unregistered car or motorbike down the PSP. You occasionally see the rules being enforced against motorised eskies, and people drunk-driving ride-on lawnmowers but for the most part the cops can't be bothered despite it being a slam dunk of un-roadworthy vehicle, un-registered vehicle and driving a motor vehicle on a path.

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 21973
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby Aushiker » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:15 pm

Scott_C wrote:It is my understanding that electric skateboards (and 'hoverboards' for that matter), are classified as motor vehicles and, in theory, the same penalties apply as would apply to someone driving an unregistered car or motorbike down the PSP.


I am curious as to where you getting the idea that they are motor vehicle from? The Road Traffic Code 2000 specifically states "motor vehicle does not include a motorised scooter" (regulation 3).

It also goes on to state that a "vehicle, in Parts 4 to 11 inclusive and in Part 18, does not include a wheeled toy or wheeled recreational device"

and also refers to and defines a wheeled recreational device which includes stakeboards.

Hence I am interested to know your source ... I may and probably are missing something here. BTW the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 is not that helpful either.
Andrew
~ Aushiker.com

Scott_C
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby Scott_C » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:56 pm

Aushiker wrote:I am curious as to where you getting the idea that they are motor vehicle from? The Road Traffic Code 2000 specifically states "motor vehicle does not include a motorised scooter" (regulation 3).

It also goes on to state that a "vehicle, in Parts 4 to 11 inclusive and in Part 18, does not include a wheeled toy or wheeled recreational device"

and also refers to and defines a wheeled recreational device which includes stakeboards.


I reach the conclusion that they are motor vehicles by elimination of the alternate options as follows:
By the definition in the Code, a wheeled recreational device must be propelled by human power or gravity, an electric skateboard is propelled by a motor so it cannot be a wheeled recreational device.

By the definition in the Code, a scooter and a motorised scooter are steered by handlebars, an electric skateboard does not have handlebars so it cannot be a scooter/motorised scooter.

If ridden by someone under the age of 12 an argument could be made that an electric skateboard is a wheeled toy but the exclusion of motorised scooters from the definition of wheeled toy would argue against the inclusion of another motor powered device as being similar to the included unpowered devices.

An electric skateboard can't be a bicycle as it is not propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears (as required by the definition of a bicycle).

An electric skateboard can't be a motorised wheelchair unless it has 10kph speed limiter (as required by the definition of a motorised wheelchair, I would also think the lack of a chair would get you laughed out of court if you claimed a skateboard was a wheelchair).

It could possibly be an Electric Personal Transporter but only if the Minister declared that specific model of electric skateboard as an EPT.

Having eliminated any of the other possibilities that are excluded from being defined as a motor vehicle and seeing that it complies with a plain English definition of a motor vehicle (i.e. it has a motor, wheels and is used to transport a human) I conclude that it would be a motor vehicle under the act.

The same logic argues that a bicycle frame fitted with an auxiliary motor of over 200W (other than a power assisted pedal cycle) is an unregistered motorcycle, not a bicycle.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby cj7hawk » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:42 pm

Scott_C wrote:
Aushiker wrote:I am curious as to where you getting the idea that they are motor vehicle from? The Road Traffic Code 2000 specifically states "motor vehicle does not include a motorised scooter" (regulation 3).
An electric skateboard can't be a bicycle as it is not propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears (as required by the definition of a bicycle).


Under the revised rules, a skateboard can qualify as a power-assisted pedal cycle, which requires no belt, chain or gears - just that it is primarily designed to be human powered.

It's even possible to squeeze a modified wheelchair in under the new rules.

If so, then the 200W power limit applies.

The new definition of a PAPC under the Road Traffic Administration Act ( current ) -

power assisted pedal cycle means a vehicle —
(a) designed to be propelled through a mechanism operated
solely by human power; and
(b) to which is attached one or more auxiliary propulsion
motors having a combined maximum output not
exceeding the amount of power prescribed for the
purposes of this definition;

cj7hawk
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby cj7hawk » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:50 pm

cj7hawk wrote:
Scott_C wrote:
Aushiker wrote:I am curious as to where you getting the idea that they are motor vehicle from? The Road Traffic Code 2000 specifically states "motor vehicle does not include a motorised scooter" (regulation 3).
An electric skateboard can't be a bicycle as it is not propelled by human power through a belt, chain or gears (as required by the definition of a bicycle).


Under the revised rules, a skateboard can qualify as a power-assisted pedal cycle, which requires no belt, chain or gears - just that it is primarily designed to be human powered.

It's even possible to squeeze a modified wheelchair in under the new rules.

If so, then the 200W power limit applies.

The new definition of a PAPC under the Road Traffic Administration Act ( current ) -

power assisted pedal cycle means a vehicle —
(a) designed to be propelled through a mechanism operated
solely by human power; and
(b) to which is attached one or more auxiliary propulsion
motors having a combined maximum output not
exceeding the amount of power prescribed for the
purposes of this definition;


Note: I should add that the requirements applicable to bicycles ( helmet, reflectors, noise making device, etc ) would probably apply... I suppose police could go after them for failing to have a bell. Wouldn't be difficult to include one on the hand controller I imagine.

This interpretation, which is the correct one, also allows such devices to be used on the roads. It's not a loophole - The definition of PAPC was expanded to cover quite a few concepts - the basic one being they are low-powered devices which pose little risk to others ( in comparison to the idiots behind the wheels of moving murder machines )

Scott_C
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby Scott_C » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:51 pm

Having reviewed the definitions I concur with cj7hawk, if the motor is under 200W an electric skateboard could be classified as a PAPC and therefore a bicycle but it would seemingly be forever in contravention of Rule 211(b) requiring at least one hand to be kept on the handlebars and would also be in contravention of the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Regulations requiring bicycles to have handlebars of at least 36cm wide (minimum 18cm to either side of the centreline) and probably the requirement to have a braked back wheel either by a back-pedal brake or a fixed operating handle.

This would bring riding a 200W or less electric skateboard into $50 fine territory rather than fines and demerits for an unregistered motor vehicle.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby cj7hawk » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:02 pm

Scott_C wrote:Having reviewed the definitions I concur with cj7hawk, if the motor is under 200W an electric skateboard could be classified as a PAPC and therefore a bicycle but it would seemingly be forever in contravention of Rule 211(b) requiring at least one hand to be kept on the handlebars and would also be in contravention of the Road Traffic (Vehicles) Regulations requiring bicycles to have handlebars of at least 36cm wide (minimum 18cm to either side of the centreline) and probably the requirement to have a braked back wheel either by a back-pedal brake or a fixed operating handle.

This would bring riding a 200W or less electric skateboard into $50 fine territory rather than fines and demerits for an unregistered motor vehicle.


That's an interesting situation - If challenged, it could be argued against on a number of points - firstly recumbent bicycles, which sometimes lack traditional handlebars and the hand-held component of a skateboard ( speed controller / electronic brake ) was the handlebar and complied on the grounds of common sense since several other bike designs inhibit this rule.

Things like the Joystick bicycle come to mind also - and some of the new cycle-by-wire systems. Given this, the architect could argue that the controller is 36cm away from the board, or that the sway of the control ( weight shift ) exceeds 36cm side to side, or vertically, which it could. Statutory reading guidelines inhibit ways of reading the law that would be absurd, and even allow some rules to be avoided altogether ( eg, if there are no handlebars, then rules about handlebars do not apply, as long as the mechanism replacing the handlebars is reasonably functional ).

Demonstrating the significant change in the wording of the rules from the old ( bicycle ) to the new ( any vehicle ) would also allow a reasonably argument to be formed that the rules were re-written that way to capture a wider range of vehicles, which I believe was actually the case.

Of course, that leaves other matters ( reflectors, bell, etc ) to be evaluated subjectively - but interestingly, it also allows skateboards to be ridden over and on roads, but not on crossings.

I wonder if anyone would try it after skating down St George's terrace in the middle of the lane?

Meanwhile, I've been wondering if a 200W Quadracycle would be a useful vehicle to have. On a flat, it could probably achieve speeds of around 45~50kph. Now that would be an interesting commute vehicle. ( Note: In my electric designs, I did solve the issue of back-EMF related issues to achieve full 200W over the entire power range, extended the speed range by well over 100% - so the existing circuitry my bicycle has would easily cope with a velomobile at 50 kph ).

Actually, at 250W, if Pedelec compliance was achieved or forged, it could hit 60.

David

nachoman
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:29 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby nachoman » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:21 pm

Electric unicycle does 30km/h

News video mentions this one doesn't fall into any category in the Road Traffic Act and is therefore illegal to use in public.

Trevtassie
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:57 am

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby Trevtassie » Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:26 am

Air Zound will fix the problem....

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12808
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 14, 2017 9:54 am

My understanding of the various states' motor vehicle registration acts is that anything that is self-propelled with a motor falls within the classification of being a registrable vehicle. "Registrable vehicle" means that it must be registered to be used on public roads and road-related areas.

There are then specific exemptions allowed, of which a power assisted pedal bicycle (as defined) is one.

Now here's the interesting thing. The police don't have to prove a thing. They can just issue the ticket and the onus is entirely on you.

Under the Acts Interpretation Acts in all states, where the law is constructed in the form of a general rule with exceptions in certain circumstances, it is up to the person relying on the exceptions to prove they meet the conditions of the the exceptions.

A case in point: There was a woman pinged in Queensland for riding an electric bike where the motor failed to meet the definition of "auxilliary". The magistrate dismissed the case as unproven, but the Police successfully appealed on the basis the magistrate failed to apply the law correctly on the basis that relying on the exception was up to the woman to prove, not them.

Because the motor ran regardless of whether she pedalled, it was deemed a pedal assisted power cycle, not a power assisted pedal cycle. The fact it looked like a moped (motor scooter) didn't help and was no doubt what drew police attention but ultimately was not legally relevant.

She was duly convicted on appeal, but it was not recorded as she was able to demonstrate that she had taken all reasonable steps to determine legality, including seeking written advice from a government department (which turned out to be incorrect - how surprising :roll: ).

I would think a 2kW skateboard capable of 35km/hr would most definitely be an easy target for the first policeman with a body camera who wished to issue a ticket.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby cj7hawk » Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:03 pm

trailgumby wrote:
A case in point: There was a woman pinged in Queensland for riding an electric bike where the motor failed to meet the definition of "auxilliary". The magistrate dismissed the case as unproven, but the Police successfully appealed on the basis the magistrate failed to apply the law correctly on the basis that relying on the exception was up to the woman to prove, not them.



From your description, that sounds more like the woman in NSW, who was convicted, appealed, and was unsuccessful on appeal. She was the one who got advice from the relevant authorities in advance.

The appeal quite rightly pointed out that it didn't matter whether the rider pedaled or not - there was no basis in law for demanding a bicycle be pedaled.

However, the appeal judge said the "has to be pedaled" issue was a misunderstanding of what the original judge had said, and the actual meaning was that it was a motorbike to which pedals had been added, not a bicycle to which a motor had been added. This was entirely based on the shape of the vehicle, and no other factor.

Although it almost certainly had power output > 250W ( Around 500W was my estimate based on what was said in court ) no one ever challenged this. No one ever dyno'ed it either. It was all about the shape of the vehicle - not about the power.

The case was intended to stop motorbike manufacturers doing an end-run around the law by adding pedals. In my opinion, it was an incorrect way to look at the situation, but it is what it is. Had it been a genuine PAPC, she would not have had to pedal at all.

The outcome was that she asked that the conviction be quashed under some rule where there was no intent to commit the offence, and although it was denied at first, the appeal upheld that the original judge was wrong about that.

Regards
David

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12808
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby trailgumby » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:15 pm

cj7hawk wrote:
From your description, that sounds more like the woman in NSW, who was convicted, appealed, and was unsuccessful on appeal. She was the one who got advice from the relevant authorities in advance.

Queensland. I'm in NSW and it was not in this jurisdiction.

cj7hawk wrote:This was entirely based on the shape of the vehicle, and no other factor.
Appearance had nil to do with the obiter dicta in the *appeals* court's written judgement. The reversal of the magistrate's decision turned entirely on the grounds outlined above, most notably around the definition of "auxilliary" and the onus of proof reversal under the Acts Interpretation Act.

You need to remember that the Appeals Court deals only with errors in the application of law. They do not have the freedom to reconsider the evidence.

cj7hawk wrote:Although it almost certainly had power output > 250W ( Around 500W was my estimate based on what was said in court ) no one ever challenged this. No one ever dyno'ed it either. It was all about the shape of the vehicle - not about the power.
Could be right about the power output. I don't remember that part too clearly. Regardless, the onus is on the woman to have provided that evidence, not the police. This is due to the construction of the regulation in the context of the Acts interpretation act as noted above.

cj7hawk wrote:The case was intended to stop motorbike manufacturers doing an end-run around the law by adding pedals.

David, this was an Appeals Court case. There can be no such intention. The only intention can be to decide whether a lower court decided a matter using the correct application of the law and if not, to correct it.
cj7hawk wrote:Had it been a genuine PAPC, she would not have had to pedal at all.

She didn't have to pedal. That piece of evidence was never disputed in the lower court. That fact is that forms the difference between it being an auxilliary motor (and legal if under 200W) and being the primary method of propulsion (illegal for all wattages), and it was remarked upon in the written judgement.

cj7hawk wrote:The outcome was that she asked that the conviction be quashed under some rule where there was no intent to commit the offence, and although it was denied at first, the appeal upheld that the original judge was wrong about that.


David, you're conflating the case I am talking about with Matheson v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2008] NSWSC 550 which took place in the Supreme Court of NSW and which dealt with a conviction under these same rules but also Section 10 which allows a conviction to not be recorded.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 12808
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Skate boards on PSP/RSP

Postby trailgumby » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:26 pm

I've just found a news article in relation to the case you are confusing mine with. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/whe ... 40544.html

In yours, the woman appealed the magistrate's guilty verdict. In mine, the Police appealed against a dismissal.

I can see why the confusion arose - very similar!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users