People with EUCs are almost always fucking assholes who go 40 mph on sidewalks or fly past stop signs on the road because they want to have the best of both worlds. They then turn around and say they arent a motorized vehicle so they could be able to go 60 mph on that dirt path unrestricted.
The Motor Vehicle Act does not permit people to use devices such as solo wheels, hoverboards, or electric skateboards and unicycles on public roads, including sidewalks
So you’re just not allowed to use EUCs at all then? If you’re not allowed to use it on a sidewalk, or the road. And let’s be honest, American/Canadian cities have extremely unfriendly and unsafe roads for bikers and EUCs to start with.
By making it hostile just means people won’t be safe.
Generally speaking, law is prohibitive, not permissive. Anything not expressly prohibited is lawful. Unless EUCs fit within a prohibited category, the law has not prohibited them.
Alternatively, if they fit within an expressly permitted category, they are lawful. The state is burdened with proving they do not fit within that category. “Mobility devices” are not defined in law; the rule of leniety says that if the law is vague enough that it can be reasonably interpreted in two ways, it must be interpreted in the way most beneficial to the defendant accused of violating it. Unless the prosecutor can prove that EUCs do not meet the (non-existent) definition of “mobility devices”, they must be treated as such.
The problem is, we’re not speaking generally. We’re talking about the BC MVA, which sets out specific definitions for terms (e.g. “vehicle”) and then specifies both allowances and prohibitions for how objects like “vehicles” can operate on public roads and such.
The article suggests there’s a consensus that EUCs don’t fit within a permitted category under the MVA, so the rule of leniety doesn’t come into play.
