As the tech bubble was bursting, one of the cleverest inventors in the land, backed by A-list Silicon Valley investors, set out to produce a top secret device that would "change the world as we know it."
The result -- we now know -- was a machine that serves as a substitute for foot or bicycle as means of transportation.
Knowingly or not, Dean Kamen and his flock of investors had set out to solve America's "walking problem." In addition, they also appeared set on solving the "bicycling problem." (Everyone knows Americans spend far too much time walking and bicycling.)
The Segway only adds 80 lbs and $4,300 to the price of a quality bicycle. But on a Segway you have your hands free (almost), so arguably the Segway is more comparable to walking, except that you don't get any exercise.
The Segway can best be compared to the unicycle. It even looks a bit like one.
Of course, a unicycle weighs less, and costs even less than a good bike (one wheel being less expensive than two).* One difference is that it takes about eight hours of practice before you can ride anywhere on a unicycle; and it will take another eight hours of practice before you can navigate various obstacles. I speak from experience, have taught more than a dozen people to ride a unicycle. On the other hand, a Segway can be mastered in under an hour. My advice to anyone serious about investing in a Segway is to pay themselves $281.25 an hour for the 16 hours it will take them to learn to get around on a unicycle.Unlike buying a Segway, acquiring unicycle skills is an investment -- one that will pay compounded dividends over time. Not only in terms of your health. As your unicycling skills improve over time, you will be able to go places on your unicycle -- up hills, down stairs, over bumps -- where no Segway will ever go. (Again, I speak from experience. I was among the first practitioners of a sport that has come to be known as "mountain unicycling." Try that on a Segway.)
Unbelievably, American investors pumped an estimated $100 million into developing the Segway. In so far as the Segway is just another expensive solution to a non-existent problem, the Segway is the perfect symbol for everything that is wrong with American economy.
What important problem was the financial industry trying to solve when it invented mortgage-backed derivatives?
The lamest innovations have always led to new, unforeseen problems. The Iraq War, the Viox recall debacle, are but the most visible side-effects of America's most egregious bad investments. Even the Segway has had unwanted side-effects: As Segways proliferate at popular American sight-seeing venues, one can no longer walk down some sidewalks without fearing collision with a very large body traveling at a high velocity on a rental. Worse may be yet to come.CNN reports (h/t J-P) Segway inventor Kamen has a new vision. This time Kamen is proposing to solve an actual problem. Namely, the shortage of clean drinking water which afflicts many parts of the developing world. Kamen calls his new invention the Slingshot.
Had American inventors and their bankers not been so preoccupied with solving non-problems, many real-world problems would have been solved by now.
___
Photos by Jotman.
* Before you blow $4,500 on a new Segway, check out your other options at Unicycles.com.
He's a clever engineer but stupid as to institution and structural causes as you point out, until his new gadget works how about distributing a couple billion of these. Why should trained killers get all the lifesavers?
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to understate the amount that you don't know about Segways. You might try riding one before making ridiculous statements about what it involves.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people commute to work on Segways and arrive without burning any fossil fuels, emitting fumes, or requiring a shower and change of clothes. Many disabled people use them for mobility that they wouldn't otherwise have.
And before wetting your pants about the prospect of a pedestrian being injured by a Segway, perhaps you can cite one example of that ever happening?? Bicycles hit pedestrians all the time because they have less visibility, travel faster, have a wider turning radius, and don't stop as quickly -- and yet you aren't whining about them on the sidewalks.
There's also an off-road version of the Segway.
I know, some people just don't like the look of Segways because they don't know how they work or are just jealous. When people make condescending comments about me as I go by on my Segway, I frequently offer them a chance to try it. They almost always jump at the chance. Hypocrites.
And if there's anything that looks dorkier than a guy on a Segway, it is a guy on a unicycle.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteEven where Segways don't injure pedestrians, they stand to negatively impact the quality of the pedestrian experience -- or the bicycling experience.
Unfortunately, many countries lack adequate infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians. Segways compete for a scarce resource, at the expense of people who are being physically active. Too many people have become too sedentary. Anything that reduces opportunities to exercise -- or makes existing options less appealing -- is not in the public interest.
I favor the use of the Segway for those handicapped people who are helped by it -- as an alternative to a scooter. (Scooters can be misused -- handicapped need exercise as much as anyone else).
If people are saying mean things to you as you commute to work on your Segway, that's not nice of them.
I'm surprised you think unicyclists look dorky, as I have never before heard that expression used in connection with the sport! Of course, if anyone were to have said such a thing, I would have beat them up.
Thanks for deciding that someone else's experience is more valuable than mine. I'm not out for an "experience" -- I'm commuting to work and I'm doing it in a way that is more environmentally-friendly (and therefore in the public interest) than the thousands of people around me who do it in a car, motorcycle, or bus. Even if riding a bicycle or unicycle were a realistic alternative, the Segway is safer for me and for the public around me.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear from your ridiculous comparisons that you've never ridden a Segway. Thankfully, on the other hand, legislators in almost every state have done their homework, and have affirmed that I have as much right to be on the sidewalk or street as you do.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSome experiences are more valuable than others.
I will address your point about the "legislators having done their homework" in a future post.
Wow, this surprises me. I thought for sure that most people had at least accepted the fact that Segway users has as much right to public areas as bicycles. To think otherwise is downright....well silly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous "1" in that I believe most people who bad-mouth Segways have never used one. I also seem to find it rather childish that they do so.
Before you take the time to write such drivel, might you do your readers a service and test the product?
Just a thought...
Anonymous 2,
ReplyDeleteI was not aware that of the 'fact' that Segway users have 'as much right to public areas as bicycles.'
On what basis do you make such a claim?
Yes, your experiences are more important to you than mine are to you. I get it.
ReplyDelete>> I was not aware that of the
>> 'fact' that Segway users have
>> 'as much right to public areas
>> as bicycles.'
Of course you weren't. Researching a topic would leave you too informed to spout an opinion.
For a summary of the laws affirming the rights of Segway owners, see http://www.segway.com/support/regulatory.php .
Please mind the comment rules, if you choose Anonymous the post must be initialed or signed (so as to distinguish one from another).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote:
Thanks for deciding that someone else's experience is more valuable than mine. I'm not out for an "experience" -- I'm commuting to work and I'm doing it in a way that is more environmentally-friendly...
Anonymous again wrote:
Yes, your experiences are more important to you than mine are to you. I get it...
This post is not about about your experience Vs. my experience. I'm writing about about one kind of experience Vs. another kind of experience. The objective was to anticipate the impact of Segways on public health and urban ecology. I believe that maintaining access to human-powered transport opportunities (walking, running, cycling) is a key policy objective -- one that has been compromised too often in the past.
I use the word "experience" for a reason. I believe it is not sufficient that a government make designated pathways "walking-accessible." We must preserve walkways as safe and *pleasant* places to walk. Governments should protect pathways with a view to preserving the pedestrian and cyclist experience.
Walking is a free source of exercise, the most accessible form of exercise. Rich or poor, anyone can benefit from taking a walk.
All humans need exercise to be healthy. A mountain of scientific research indicates that that humans need to exercise. If Segways did not threaten to diminish these "priceless experiences," then I would not object to them.
With health-care costs soaring, and the nations of the world suffering from an epidemic of obesity, we must defend and improve the totality of the walking experience. The way to encourage people to walk is to maintain urban ecology conductive to the experience. The same goes for the cycling experience.
But in cities, the the automobile has dominion over most paved surfaces. Most cities lack adequate infrastructure to properly accommodate pedestrians and cyclists. There are too many places where it is simply not possible to walk, run or cycle. Segways consume a limited urban resource: paved spaces where the use of automobiles is restricted.
For example, during the evening, the pathway along Chicago's spectacular Lakeshore Drive is crowded with pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists. I can't imagine why active people should be forced to compete with Segway riders, where space is limited.
Obviously, one could point to a handful of exceptional communities that have enough space to accommodate Segways. But unfortunately such towns are few and far between.
Segway proponents claim that there have been few Segway accidents or conflicts with pedestrians.
But it's easy to imagine that if more people choose to buy Segways, Segways will eventually have a noticeable impact on the traffic situation on bicycle paths and walkways, diminishing the quality of the walking and cycling experience.
The rights of pedestrians are entrenched by common law ordinances going back several hundred years. The legal distinction between motorized and non-motorized road transport is a hundred years old. There is no comparable 'fact' of the right of Segway owners to use infrastructure designated for cyclists and pedestrians. Although it is true that many states and municipalities have passed laws permitting their use in these spaces, some towns expressly prohibit the use of Segways on cycleways and footpaths. In fact, some countries have banned Segways from public places (i.e. United Kingdom).
>> This post is not about about
ReplyDelete>> your experience Vs. my
>> experience. I'm writing about
>> about one kind of experience
>> Vs. another kind of experience.
One of which is yours and the other mine. Let's not hide behind semantics. In presuming to be the judge of "public interest," you would deny me my right (in almost every city in the U.S.) to use the mode of transportation that I prefer. And you would do so with no personal experience in the subject, no understanding of the technology, wildly false assumptions about safety, and a prediction of disruption that is not based on the considerable empirical evidence.
As much as you try to position yourself now as the protector of public access, your original post was largely a critique of the technology insofar as it affects _me_ (the rider). Thanks for presuming to judge what is healthy and a good investment for me but, as anyone who owns a Segway knows, you couldn't have less credibility on the subject.
It is easy to take the condescending position that the Segway is an alternative to walking and bicycling. It inconveniently disrupts your argument of public health and safety to admit that the Segway was designed as an alternative to a _car_ and that's exactly the choice with which many Segway riders are faced.
What little remains of your argument is that it simply isn't _pleasant_ for you to share public areas with Segways. Oh, well. I think clowns are scary (especially those on unicycles!) but, thankfully, irrational fear and ignorance is not a legitimate basis for public policy.
-Anonymous#1
Anonymous1,
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the UK, Segways have been banned in Japan, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands (probably the most cyclist-friendly country in the world).
It inconveniently disrupts your argument of public health and safety to admit that the Segway was designed as an alternative to a car and that's exactly the choice with which many Segway riders are faced.
The intention of an invention should not be confused with its actual application. The range, speed, and infrastructure needs of a Segway most nearly approximate that of unicycle, not a car.
I'm questioning the need for inventing *motorized* devices that would be used in place of walking or cycling, in a country where:
1) people don't exercise enough; 2) infrastructure to accommodate such devises is lacking;
3) the proliferation of motorized devices on pathways has the potential to adversely impact the experience of people trying to get some exercise.
I will address the accusation that I am "presuming to be the judge of 'public interest,'" at another occasion.
>> The intention of an invention
ReplyDelete>> should not be confused with its
>> actual application. The range,
>> speed, and infrastructure needs
>> of a Segway most nearly
>> approximate that of unicycle,
>> not a car.
Even if that were true, it is completely beside the point -- just as are the laws in the Netherlands when it comes to my rights in the U.S.
If Segways were outlawed in my town, I would -- out of necessity - get in a car. THAT is the actual application.
You are indifferent to my actual options (and their respective effects on the public interest) because, by pretending that my choice is between a Segway and a cycle, you can use the nanny-state argument that I don't exercise enough. Well, thank you very much but, even if it were true, it is irrelevant to the choice at hand.
So then you shift to arguing that my choice interferes with OTHER people's ability to exercise -- a position which you continue to defend with nothing but irrational fear and ignorance of the technology.
You will always prevail in a disagreement with your own straw men.
-Anonymous#1
Segways do release emissions. You are pretty ignorant if you dont think they do. They use a thing called electricity. And that has to come from somewhere. It could be coal, natural gas, or hyrdo. You might say hydro doesnt and you are right but it still affects and kills fish. Now lets talk about all the emissions that are released from the process of making it. The machines require to mine the ores, oil, and whatever else is needed. Sure a bike needs those too, but it doesnt need to be recharged.
ReplyDeleteHoverSmart
ReplyDeleteThree friends drifted across the pond to bring something new and innovative to the World. Looking at various emerging technologies to find the perfect solution to fit back home, we ran into some pretty remarkable minds and collaborated to bring the very best quality technology and innovation to a whole new level.segway scooter
Teresa J. Gosnell
1472 Catherine Drive
Fargo, ND 58102
630-351-7230
brownadrian182@gmail.com