Back in Feb the Gazette wrote about how well a Segway was working on a downtown beat by a deputy sheriff and now it is the opposite. What is really going on? Why does the writer not identified and how can any move to a non-polluting device be bad? As the previous article noted, an officer on a Segway can cover more area [and therefore avoid the need for 2-3 officers]. Saving money for the city is good. Bikes are great, but not on sidewalks or among pedestrians. Get it right--Segways are tools, not toys. Bashing anything to look cool is not. . . (cool).
January 8, 2009
Posted on July 2 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Back in Feb the Gazette wrote about how well a Segway was working on a downtown beat by a deputy sheriff and now it is the opposite. What is really going on? Why does the writer not identified and how can any move to a non-polluting device be bad? As the previous article noted, an officer on a Segway can cover more area [and therefore avoid the need for 2-3 officers]. Saving money for the city is good. Bikes are great, but not on sidewalks or among pedestrians. Get it right--Segways are tools, not toys. Bashing anything to look cool is not. . . (cool).
On Editorial: Paterson should deep-six the Segway bill