Wheels on the road!

The hoverboard has been declared illegal: too unsafe to use on the road, as well as not meeting any of the criteria for licensing for road use, and too fast and dangerous for use on the pavement. When, I find myself wondering, is someone going to say that bicycles are too fast and dangerous for use on the pavement? Anyway, from now on you can only use your hoverboard on your own turf! 

Predictably, our ten-year-old grandson would like a hoverboard but he thinks they cost around £200 and this is beyond his budget. I have no idea if his idea of the price is correct or not, although his assessment that a hoverboard is beyond his means is undoubtedly correct. Instead he has spent some £12 of his savings on his first skateboard and is trying to master that. He would like to go straight to performing fancy tricks in a skateboard park but his practice session in the factory yard yesterday revealed that he needs to be a little patient and has some way to go before he can perform tricks. He learnt to ride a bike with no problems whatsoever, getting his balance at age two on one of those pedal-less bikes they produce nowadays and moving quickly onto a proper bike without stabilisers. Consequently he is a little cross to find that a skateboard is not quite so easy as he had thought. 

Well, now I can tell him there is no point in his saving for a hoverboard. I fail to understand how anyone can seriously consider it a means of transport. It doesn't even hover! It's more of a toy than anything else: a toy for people, usually men, with money to waste. It has developed, according to what I have read, from the segway, an equally silly means of transport, a kind of motorised scooter which can reach a speed of 12.5 miles an hour. The hoverboard seems to be essentially the same thing but without a handle to hold onto and steer by. In other words, a toy! And one that can only be used in your own garden from now on. 

Mind you, I also have concerns about mobility scooters. I see these being driven on the road close to the centre of Oldham and wonder at the sanity of some of the people driving them. These most definitely should be on the pavement. After all, they are only one step up from motorised wheelchairs. I find the idea of driving one of those in major road traffic, with buses and lorries going past and possibly not seeing you, more than a little frightening! Rather like that film by David Lynch, "The Straight Story", where an old man drives a lawn-mower-tractor affair from one state to another in the USA. 

I mentioned bikes on the pavement earlier. Well, the cycle debate continues in a couple of areas: helmets and cycle paths/cycle safety. I read this morning that in Seattle, USA, you can be fined $102, that's £67, if you cycle without a helmet. Meanwhile in Amsterdam the only people who wear helmets are foreign tourists and the cyclists of Amsterdam find it really amusing and scorn them. However, their city is one of the safest in the world for cycling and you are very unlikely to be crushed by a lorry there. I would still wear a helmet though. If you fall of your bike, for whatever reason, and land on your head you are a lot less likely to be brain-damaged if your brain is protected by a helmet. 

The people who collect statistics about such things tell us that in places where many people cycle there are fewer car-bike accidents. For one thing, the cyclists are more visible just because there are plenty of them and drivers are more accustomed to taking them into account. Also, in such places, car drivers are more likely to be cyclists as well. There is, of course, a kind of catch 22 thing going on here: if more people cycled there would be fewer accidents but while there are still lots of accidents fewer people cycle. And many of those who do cycle do so on the ****** pavement. 

Interestingly, statistics show that car drivers give a wider berth to cyclists without helmets, although I am not sure how they work that out. And Boris Johnson is concerned that cycling in London is seen as a predominantly middle class activity. One commentator said that London cyclists tend to be "Somebody who is quite environmentally friendly, quite independent, maybe a bit of a leftie, vegetarian". There's a sweeping generalisation for you! Boris has stated, "I want more women cycling, more older people cycling, more black and ethnic minority people cycling, more cyclists of all social backgrounds - without which truly mass participation cannot come about." 

All very admirable and I must say I agree with him. Fancy agreeing with Boris Johnson!!