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

• Question 1: Are the requirements in the proposed regulatory framework appropriate? Are there any requirements that should be removed, included or modified? Please provide a rationale to support your position

  Agree as is. Covers all common PMDs and is dictated by portability of the PMD on public transport.

• Question 2: Is 60kg a suitable maximum weight for a PMD? If not, what is a more suitable weight and what other factors should be considered? Please provide a rationale to support your position.

  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.

• Question 3: Should children under the age of 16 years old continue to be permitted to use  a motorised scooter incapable of travelling more than 10km/h on level ground on roads and paths? Or should they be able to use any device that complies with the proposed PMD framework? (see Appendix A). Please provide a rationale to support your position

  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.

• Question 4: Do you agree with the criteria selected to assess the options? Are there any key impacts not covered by these criteria?

  Yes, I agree with the criteria.

• Question 5: When considering the safety risk assessment, access and amenity impacts, broader economic impacts, as well as compliance and enforcement impacts; has the impact analysis sufficiently considered all relevant variables and available evidence? What other factors could be included in the analysis? Please provide any additional evidence. (See Appendix E - Impact Analysis

  The impact analysis appears reasonably thorough.

• Question 6: What do you believe is the most appropriate road infrastructure for PMDs to access: footpaths, separated paths, bicycle paths and/or roads? Please  provide a rationale to support your position

  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.

• Question 7: What is an appropriate and safe maximum speed that PMDs should be permitted to travel across the various infrastructure: (a) pedestrian areas,       (b) bicycle areas, and (c) roads? Please provide a rationale to support your position

  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.

• Question 8: Do you agree with the overall assessment that Option 3, Speed Approach 1    is the option that best balances mobility and safety? If not, which option and speed approach do you prefer? Please provide a rationale to support your positio

  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