Powered skateboard is a vehicle, judge rules

But its rider has narrowly escaped getting a driving ban.

Edmunds Indulens, 27, of 12a Mount Durand, St Peter Port, had denied using a Onewheel XR+ at St George’s Esplanade, St Peter Port, without insurance, and using it on a footpath reserved for pedestrians.

There is a statutory 12-month minimum disqualification for not having insurance, unless a special reasons for a lesser disqualification could be demonstrated. This usually involved someone being misled as to whether they were insured or not.

In this case the defendant had been seen by police on multiple occasions and had not been pulled up for using the machine which, Judge Graeme McKerrell ruled, amounted to him being misled because of the lack of action.

He fined the defendant £400 for having no insurance, but no licence suspension was imposed.

‘This is not a get out of jail free card,’ Judge McKerrell said.

‘This is specific for this case and not for other machines.’

PC Adam Potter told the court how he and a colleague had driven around Salerie Corner, towards the Longstore, at about 11pm when they saw the defendant, who was travelling in the same direction, using the machine on sea side of the road.

He estimated its speed at about 10mph.

He activated blue lights on the patrol car and stopped the defendant by the Longstore slipway. He asked him if he had insurance for the machine and Mr Indulens said he was not aware that he needed it.

He said had used it in that area before and had often been seen doing so by police officers, but the issue had never been raised previously. He said he would only use it during the late evening and not when the area was busy.

PC Potter told Mr Indulens that the device came under the road traffic legislation and that the machine required insurance.

As a police motorcyclist of some 10 years he said he knew this but thought that some of his less experienced colleagues might not be aware of it. The construction of the machine meant that you could not obtain insurance or a licence in Guernsey which would cover it, he said.

Mr Indulens told the court that the machine should not come under the road traffic legislation. He argued that it did not have a steering wheel and was directed by the user transferring their body weight.

He said he had not used it on the footpath as he had been in the cycle lane at all times.

Prosecuting Advocate Sarah Watson said footage from PC Potter’s body worn camera showed the machine on the pedestrian half of the pavement after the defendant had been stopped.

Mr Indulens said he had just crossed the line by some three or four feet when he was instructed to pull over.

Judge Graeme McKerrell said while the facts of the case were straightforward - this was more of a technical argument.

Guernsey was far from unique when it came to grappling with definitions of new vehicles as and when they came on the market.

The absence of a steering wheel did not mean it was not a motor vehicle even though it could not be driven on a road.

Roads were defined as a way with public access so pavements fell into the road category.

Judge McKerrell accepted the defendant’s evidence that he did not stray on to the pedestrian side of the pavement and found him not guilty of the offence.

But he had misinterpreted the position in law as to whether the machine was classified as a road vehicle and found him guilty of the using it without insurance.