Toronto city lawyers, after spending the past few months examining the legality of allowing Segway Human Transporters on sidewalks and city streets, have concluded that the battery-powered two wheeled vehicles aren’t allowed on either. (For background, click here and here). Segway of Ontario, the largest Segway dealer in Canada, vows to keep on fighting.

What I find odd is that there was a request to perform a 1-year pilot study so that city council could be more informed before banning a vehicle that has the potential to benefit many. It was completely shot down.

I’ve heard all the arguments about why Segways shouldn’t be allowed on roads and sidewalks, but none of them are strong enough in my view. Sure, there are safety concerns, and certainly there should be certain safety requirements before anybody gets on a Segway — helmets should be used, reflectors and lights should be used at night, and pedestrians must have the right-of-way. But when you compare Segways to other vehicles that are permitted on bike lanes and the sides of slow city streets — bikes, electric four-wheel scooters — they’re no more or less dangerous.

One argument that bothers me is that in this age of obesity and sloth we should be encouraging people to walk, run and ride their bikes to get the exercise, not take another mode of motorized transportation. That’s just paternalistic hogwash. It makes no sense to zero in on one particular mode of transportation, particularly one that is superior to others that are permitted. Again, a strictly legal analysis doesn’t do the Segway justice. People need to try these things, get used to them, understand how they work, before denying people the freedom to choose.

As I demonstrated in a previous post and column (the one about banning low-speed electric vehicles in Ontario Parks) sticking with the letter of the law often contradicts the spirit of the law. Times are changing. Technology is changing. Toronto and Ontario needs to wake up to this reality and be more progressive with its policymaking.

Frankly speaking, I’m somewhat embarrassed to live in a city and province making decisions such as this. I’m also miffed that my freedom to choose is being restricted by a handful of people acting like our parents.

Vancouver-based Railpower Technologies Corp. announced today it has sold 98 of its hybrid road switcher locomotives to Union Pacific Railroad in Texas. The U.S. railway operator is putting $81 million (U.S.) it received from government emission reduction incentives towards the contract.

Up until now Railpower has focused on its yard switchers, which are used to move around other rail cars within a rail yard. Road switchers are used for delivering or picking up rail cars outside of of rail yards, so they need to be able to travel greater distances at higher speeds. They also need to have the ability to operate in both directions.

The introduction of its hybrid road switcher opens up a whole new market for Railpower.

“This order marks a major step forward for Railpower and our technology,” said company president and chief executive Jim Maier in a press release. “It puts our order book at approximately 175, fills our production schedule through 2006 and part way into 2007, and gets our new road switcher product off to an excellent start in what we believe will be a key railroad market for Railpower.”

He said the new road switchers will provide 20 to 40 per cent fuel savings compared to conventional road switchers, with an 80 per cent reduction in nitrogen oxides and other particulates.

“As these locomotives have the ability to perform both yard and branchline operations, we believe that our road switchers will become our key product for the major railroads with our yard locomotives primarily being focused on industrial and specialty applications and railroad yard operations in sensitive areas or where there is high fuel usage,” said Maier.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, Railpower is evolving its original Green Goat product for other applications even beyong the rail market, including marine applications and eventually shipping cranes.

Investors appeared happy with the announcement. Railpower’s shares shot up 10 per cent today.

Dennis Campbell has resigned as the CEO and president of Vancouver-based Ballard Power Systems, the largest and highest profile developer of hydrogen fuel cells. It’s difficult to say at this point whether Campbell jumped ship or was pushed. Campbell oversaw a painful restructuring at Ballard over the past three years, helping the company trim expenses and focus operations but doing little to build investor confidence in the company’s business or strategy.

According to some media reports, Campbell was asked to step down by the company’s board, which decided it was time to bring a fresh approach as Ballard enters a new phase. It was only three months ago that Campbell told me with confidence in a telephone interview that yes, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles would be available in auto showrooms and available for purchase by 2010, a date that General Motors has repeatedly thrown around. Campbell is now reportedly saying that volume fuel-cell car production won’t occur until 2012 to 2015, and that having cut costs, streamlined and downsized as much as he could it was time to step aside.

Ballard chairman John Sheridan, who I know through his days as president and chief operating officer of Bell Canada, has taken over as the company’s interim CEO until a search for a replacement is concluded.

It’s tough to say what impact this will have on Ballard, but the change caught most observers by surprise and, as a result, the news led to a slight decrease in the company’s share price. It will be interesting to see who emerges as a permanent CEO and what direction he or she will take the company, which tends to be a benchmark for measuring progress toward a hydrogen economy and dream of mass market fuel-cell vehicles.

Speculation is that the board will look for a CEO with auto industry experience, but my hunch is that over a six-month search they’ll decide to make Sheridan’s interim appointment a permanent job.

(UPDATE: Ballard challenged me on the speculation above. They assured that Sheridan has no intention of becoming CEO and that it definitely is an interim position until a permanent CEO can be found. That said, I still believe Sheridan would be a good CEO. Ballard also challenged my assertion that Campbell used 2010 as a time when fuel-cell vehicles would become available in auto showrooms. Apparently, the 2010 timeframe was more about the technology being ready than the actual end-product being available.)