User delighted as judge rules Segway isn't vehicle

Kaikohe Hotel owner Neal Summers is stopped by police for riding his Segway on a Kerikeri footpath.

A Segway ridden through a Northland town was a mobility device rather than a vehicle, a District Court judge has ruled - but he stopped short of including all Segways in that category.

The ruling by Judge Simon Maude was another win for former Kaikohe businessman Neal Summers, who earlier had his seven convictions relating to the use of his Segway thrown out by the High Court and $1150 fine refunded and the loss of 15 demerit points overturned.

In July 2012, the High Court directed the District Court to re-hear three charges of driving a motor vehicle along a footpath, two of operating an un-registered motor vehicle on a road, one of operating a motor vehicle which didn't display evidence of vehicle inspection and using a vehicle without it being duly registered.

Judge Maude's decision came nearly three years after Mr Summers, former owner of the Kaikohe Hotel, was pulled over by police and later prosecuted in the District Court for riding his Segway - an upright, motorised scooter - on a footpath in Kerikeri's main street in June 2011.

Police said his Segway was a motorised vehicle and, therefore, was barred from the footpath but Mr Summers argued it was a mobility device and that he relied on it because he had difficulty walking.

Despite the court ruling, police said they would still charge users who did not have their Segways registered and licensed because, under the Land Transport Act 1998, they were classified as vehicles, not mobility devices.

But Mr Summers welcomed the court's decision, saying it was good for all Segway users.

"I am glad that I proved people can use Segways as a mobility device," he said.

Police will not appeal the judgment.

Police road policing manager in Northland, Inspector Murray Hodgson, said riders of any transportation devices, irrespective of whether they needed to be licensed or registered, could be charged or warned if they became a "criminal nuisance" to other motorists on the road or a footpath.

"Where there's confusion in terms of vehicle specifications and requirements, we seek legal advice. We don't readily go ahead and charge someone," he said.

Judge Maude rejected the Crown's submission that although a Segway could be adapted for use by persons requiring mobility assistance, it was not designed and constructed for that purpose.

On the balance of probabilities, he said, Mr Summers' Segway was designed and constructed for use by those who required mobility assistance due to a physical or neurological impairment.

"It is not possible, or necessary, for me to determine whether all Segways comply with the (Section 2 of the Land Transport Act 1998) mobility device exemption," Judge Maude ruled.

Segway New Zealand managing director Philip Bendall described the court ruling as a "sensible" outcome as Segways could not be regulated under any motor vehicle category.

Mr Bendall said Segways were used in all but two or three States in the US, most of Europe and in Queensland.