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

  The criteria used for PMD classification included an Electric motor, an effective braking system, a 1250mm length limit, and a 60kg weight limit. These requirements for the regulatory framework provide safe restrictions for public use, yet also fully encompass the majority of current electric transportation devices on the market. Furthermore, imposing a speed limit of 25km/h for PMDs encourages responsible usage, and lowers potential risks. Hence, I believe that the requirements proposed for the regulatory framework are appropriate.

• 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.

  A weight limit of 60kg encompasses the majority of electric transport devices including the heaviest PMDs: Segways and Electric Scooters. The largest Electric Unicycles (~20kg) and Onewheels (12kg) will not exceed this weight limit, even with accessories such as fenders, headlights, rail guards and protection plating. I believe that this proposal considers all weight factors for PMDs, and 60kg is a suitable weight limit.

• 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

  As the legal age to learn to drive in Australia is 16, it is only sensible to restrict children under 16 years old to adult supervision when using a PMD. However, it is also important for children to learn how to safely use PMDs so that when they turn 16 and can ride unsupervised, there is a low risk of accidents. Hence, I believe that children under 16 should be able to use any device that complies with the proposed PMD framework, as long as they are under adult supervision.

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

  The impact assessment criteria include both PMD users and other road/path users. These criteria cover key impacts of PMDs, such as possible disruption. Although PMD economic benefits outweigh economic costs, it is still important to consider broader costs under PMD impact criteria. I believe that the impact assessment criteria cover all possible impacts of PMDs.

• 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

  Appendix E thoroughly analyses all possible areas of impact. Each infrastructure option and speed approach has an in-depth explanation and is clear to the reader. There is a detailed analysis of safety risks which include all PMD stakeholders. Each suggested option is sensible and clearly defined.

• 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

  I believe that PMDs should be permitted on most pedestrian infrastructure, bicycle paths, and local roads as highlighted by option 3. By allowing PMD use on pedestrian infrastructure and local roads, it would encourage PMD use as a "first/last mile" travel method, where public transport is inaccessible. This would lead to more people using PMDs instead of cars, reducing overall fossil fuel emissions and traffic congestion. As the "first/last mile" of travel time likely includes travel on local roads, it is important to include this infrastructure in the proposal.

• 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

  On a footpath, PMDs should be restricted to 10km/hour. Any higher speed would significantly increase the risk of accidents, injuring riders or pedestrians. On bicycle paths, a maximum speed of 25km/hour is sensible, as this would match the average speed of a bike. Any slower may cause blockage, any faster would increase the time needed to slow down, and increase risk. On roads, the maximum speed for PMDs should be 25km/hour. Similar to cyclists, it is important for PMD users to be aware of their surroundings, and be able to react to them. 25km/hour is a suitable speed to maintain both of these requirements.

• 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

  Option 3, Speed Approach 1 encourages the safe use of PMDs, without causing increased compliance and enforcement impacts. Speed approach 1 is the most sensible option, as the huge benefits outweigh its low risks when compared to Speed Approach 2 and 3. Option 3 would allow PMD functionality and benefits to be maximized, without creating safety risks of high-speed motor vehicles. The overall assessment for Option 3, Speed Approach 1 provides fair, balanced and stable suggestions for PMD legislation.