davis_square | Beacon Hill Hates Scooters

I didn't see a link to this yet but I figured people might care a bit about it. The days of free riding scootering my be over.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/07/21/scooter_law_revving_up_worry/?page=1

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

I failed to read the article, and was mistaken in my recollection. MA indeed classifies mopeds according to engine displacement (50cc max) and top speed (still 30MPH) but does not simply say "Anything faster/bigger is a motorcycle", rather it appears that in order to be a motorcycle it has to have a top speed of no slower than 40MPH.

What seems to be new is classifying something that is *already legally not a moped and shouldn't be parked on the sidewalk anyway* as something that is *also not a motorcycle but ought to be registered and licensed*

From:

pseudoboy.livejournal.com

Yeah, the Vespa site says most of it's 49.4 cc scooters have a 39 mph max speed, thus they would not be considered mopeds and thus need to be registered/licensed in Mass. I seriously doubt Herb Chambers Vespa is telling their customers without motorcycle licenses who just want an easy commute and easy parking this key information.

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

That seems like a possible explanation. I'm also willing to chalk this one up to ignorance more than anything else. Laws generally do not keep up with technology adoption. In this case we're seeing a lot of scooters on the roads which aren't legally mopeds but intuitively to a lot of people "feel" as though perhaps they ought to be, but certainly aren't motorcycles either, and so dealers can legally and legitimately say "Well, it's not a motorcycle" but then erroneously reach the conclusion that "it must be a moped."

From:

jessie9873.livejournal.com

"something that is *already legally not a moped and shouldn't be parked on the sidewalk anyway* as something that is *also not a motorcycle but ought to be registered and licensed*"

That "something" is what MOST people own, at least the top sellers in the state. It's called reading! Try it!

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

Easy there, ExciteBike - quit jammin' the "B" button.

That "something" could be owned by all nine billion people on planet Earth - that utterly changes to fail the fact that it is not legally a moped and ought not get parked on the goddamn sidewalk.

Or did you seriously just today create an account on LJ to share with us you personal proof of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory?

It's called reading comprehension! I'd advocate you give that a shot but your performance so far has been sub-par.

From:

rax.livejournal.com

"Easy there, Excitebike" was great. :) That said, there's a difference between legally "ought not" and practically "ought not." (Personally I think that it's the lesser of two evils for everyone involved, between metered parking and sidewalk parking, for scooters to be on the sidewalk; I suspect you disagree. :)

Is no one selling a 49cc scooter capped to only go up to 29.5mph? Better yet, accepting tradeins of used Vespas that they then sell in other states and make a killing? If not, why not?

From:

srakkt.livejournal.com

It ocurrs to me that I ought to point out any sources of potential bias that I might harbor, here: I'm usually a pedestrian, I frequently bicycle (practicing conspicuous VC) and for the workday commute, I have to drive.

I dunno about it being the lesser of two evils. By definition, someone with a scooter is not primarily sidewalk-bound. The whole reason that there are laws protecting the sidewalk from obstruction is so that those individuals who are - the mobility impaired folks who need to be able to maneuver canes, crutches and wheelchairs - can make use of the resource.

This is only anecdotal, and so I don't expect it to really carry much weight, but I've seen the same scooter at the same place twice prevent the same person in a chair from being able to get by on the sidewalk. Great, their scooter was easier to lock up. Good for them. The trouble of course is that a sidewalk isn't a parking place for people's personal equipment - it's primarily a travelled way for pedestrians. I have no problem with bicycles locked to signposts, for instance, because they don't interfere with the primary function of the space.

As to your other question, I imagine that there are indeed scooters being sold with restrictor plates and smaller engines. I certainly don't know the details. There's no technical reason such scooters shouldn't be available, and it certainly seems to me that the reason the statue is written the way it is has more to do with what was common when it was drafted than some wishful thinking on the part of some lawmaker.

In the end, I don't think the solution is to tell people "Hey, your scooter is too fast, you have to go buy another scooter" I think it's probably closer to what's proposed: "Hey, your scooter isn't really a moped. Yes, a large number of folks have been sold these things and told - erroneously - by dealers that they are mopeds, but we're pointing out that they're wrong, and helping them to understand the responsibilities of being in the travelled way better, so that everybody is on the same page, and hopefully safer."

From:

rax.livejournal.com

My potential biases are that I'm usually a cyclist, sometimes a pedestrian or driver, and for two months while I was too injureed to cycle or walk I borrowed a Vespa from a friend. I enjoyed it but as soon as my doctor let me it was gone and I was back on my bike. :)

In terms of accessibility, I think it's important to keep things accessible; in theory there are already codes mandating that bicycles be out of the way as well, and plated mopeds/scooterd are arguably much easier to ticket for this. There is the problem that some sidewalks are not wide enough to accommodate their primary use and moped parking, even though they might be wide enough to accommodate primary uses and bicycle parking. I'd rather see marked sidewalk spots for mopeds/scooters in places where there is room, but I'll grant that there's a concern there and the right answer isn't just "park anywhere you feel like it."

(I do think that there are plenty of places where bicycles get in the way and we're allowed to park ours there anyway. But that doesn't mean parking a Vespa there isn't worse.)

I guess what I was getting at (aside from the potential opportunity for someone unemployed with good credit to make money) is that the place the line is drawn is arbitrary and forcing people to get slightly smaller engines to park on the sidewalk doesn't actually solve any of the problems with parking on the sidewalk, it just causes issues for all of the people whose engine is slightly bigger than the rule. Arguably there needs to be a line somewhere, and I don't have a Better Plan For Scooters sitting in my back pocket. But it seems kind of silly to think that you could modify the engines slightly and then it would all be OK. That doesn't seem in anyone's best interests except the hypothetical "I'll trade you a moped for your Vespa" entepreneur.

Some of the concerns that a scooter/moped owner might have about parking on the street are legitimate, I think. The street is primarily a place for cars to park, not scooters, whatever we might like or say. Objects light enough to lift really need some locking mechanism beyond "won't roll away" or they will be stolen; googling "vespa theft boston" backs up my instincts here. I'm not sure if the concern about "cars will just hit my scooter" is valid or not, but it's certainly something I would be concerned about, and a reason I parked mine on the sidewalk when I had one.

I tend to agree with what it says they're doing in this update (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/scooter_riders.html) --- scooters parked unobtrusively on the sidewalk are fine, scooters parked obtrusively are a problem. Of course that adds in a judgement call, but I do still think it's the best solution without building new infrastructure, the actions of your anecdotal jerk notwithstanding. (I would fully support their getting a ticket.) I acknowledge I might be wrong, though, and thanks for sharing your logic as to why.