With e-scooters set to become legal in the near future, what does that mean for car drivers (the lowest class citizen) on the roads?

[AM9]

A) that wasn't the argument, just a statement of how thing are.

B) whilst most people will push the boundaries a little they don't behave anywhere near as bad at if there were no rules. For example whilst people may go up to 40 in a 30 few would go faster than that, if there were no rules they'd probably go a lot faster.

C) would you care to explain how having no rules might possibly reduce the number of people hurt on the roads?

I wasn't advocating that there should be no or even less rules on the roads. There are many people that maintain that 'their' driving is safer/less hazardous because they regard specific rules as advisory rather than mandatory, (which usually happens to be more convenient for them). No doubt, persistent riders on pedestrian-only space frequently have such self-entitlement, proffering their personal safety - possibly at the expense of the safety of others, as some sort of justification.
That sort of self centered argument is also prevalent with speeding offenders and pavement parking, - both discussed on multiple threads here from time to time.

 

[Bikeman78]

"Quiet pavements" are not a legitimate space for electric scooters. So if the vast majority of scooter users see pavements as part of the space available to them, then they clearly are likely to be lawbreakers.

I'm increasingly baffled by this thread. Around 700 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles every year, many of them on the pavement. Why is there no anger or outrage about this? By comparison, electric scooters are a minor inconvenience.

 

[jon0844]

Why does any thread about cyclists (or now scooter riders) always have to have motorists brought in as a comparison?

Does America have a gun problem, or does the fact more of them die of heart attacks make it stupid that people don't focus on that instead?

Pedestrians for the most part aren't at risk from cars if they're on the pavement. When they cross a road they're at risk, and I expect most pedestrians hit on a pavement were hit by a vehicle that had a driver under the influence, fleeing from the police, having a medical incident and so on. Not just mounting the pavement and driving down it.

So, I don't really see the need for the whataboutery. Nobody is for road deaths from motor vehicles, but that can be discussed elsewhere.

Meanwhile we can consider that scooters are a risk, especially the number of modified or illegal from the factory ones that can do 30mph and above. The same for e-bikes that can do more than 15mph.

Suddenly they're just like a car that mounted a pavement.

 

[bramling]

I'm increasingly baffled by this thread. Around 700 pedestrians are killed by motor vehicles every year, many of them on the pavement. Why is there no anger or outrage about this? By comparison, electric scooters are a minor inconvenience.

I’m not sure they’re merely a minor inconvenience. Certainly in London they’re all round pavements, and the type of people who choose to ride one seem to tend to be of the type who don’t give a stuff about others.

Meanwhile, in broad daylight the other day I saw one come along, the rider wearing a mask, ride straight up to a group of youths, pass something over, then ride off again. They’re not just a nuisance, but seem to appeal to those with more nefarious intentions.

 

[jon0844]

As I said, they're the preferred means of delivering drugs these days. The riders are now able to get around quickly, which means they can carry only enough to make it near impossible for the police to act ('personal use') if they're unlucky enough to be stopped, and simply go back and forth to 'restock' from people who might be in a car or at a flat etc.

That's also why so many are now using scooters that can go way faster, sometimes overtaking cars with ease. Time is money!

Of course, if scooters are legalised then the drug runners wouldn't stand out as much*.

* Of course they would; they want everyone to know what they're up to. They'll wave cash around and brag about it almost as much as a Vegan or Tesla owner.

 

[Wolfie]

Why does any thread about cyclists (or now scooter riders) always have to have motorists brought in as a comparison?

Does America have a gun problem, or does the fact more of them die of heart attacks make it stupid that people don't focus on that instead?

Pedestrians for the most part aren't at risk from cars if they're on the pavement. When they cross a road they're at risk, and I expect most pedestrians hit on a pavement were hit by a vehicle that had a driver under the influence, fleeing from the police, having a medical incident and so on. Not just mounting the pavement and driving down it.

So, I don't really see the need for the whataboutery. Nobody is for road deaths from motor vehicles, but that can be discussed elsewhere.

Meanwhile we can consider that scooters are a risk, especially the number of modified or illegal from the factory ones that can do 30mph and above. The same for e-bikes that can do more than 15mph.

Suddenly they're just like a car that mounted a pavement.

While l take your point comparisons with another form of transport are much more relevant than the relationship between two random forms of death....

I do agree your observations about the downsides of scooters though. Every bloody little scrote seems to have one.

 

[The Ham]

Why does any thread about cyclists (or now scooter riders) always have to have motorists brought in as a comparison?

Does America have a gun problem, or does the fact more of them die of heart attacks make it stupid that people don't focus on that instead?

Pedestrians for the most part aren't at risk from cars if they're on the pavement. When they cross a road they're at risk, and I expect most pedestrians hit on a pavement were hit by a vehicle that had a driver under the influence, fleeing from the police, having a medical incident and so on. Not just mounting the pavement and driving down it.

So, I don't really see the need for the whataboutery. Nobody is for road deaths from motor vehicles, but that can be discussed elsewhere.

Meanwhile we can consider that scooters are a risk, especially the number of modified or illegal from the factory ones that can do 30mph and above. The same for e-bikes that can do more than 15mph.

Suddenly they're just like a car that mounted a pavement.

Other than your injuries are based by the force with which you are hit. A large amount of that comes down to the weight of the object that hits you.

A bullet does a lot of damage because although it's light it's going fast and impacts on a small point of your body.

Conversely walk into a wall and you're likely to stand back up again and by mostly OK.

A 100kg person doing 30 is going to cause you harm, but is also going to cause themselves a fair amount of harm. Most of the injuries are likely to be fall based injuries and there's a good chance that both would deflect off each other rather than cause each other to stop, reducing the severity of the harm.

If you're got by a car boot only do you tend to be got once but often twice or more (bumper then windscreen, or bumper, roof and then floor). Each is going to cause you more harm than the scooter. That's assuming you don't end up going under the car, which isn't going to be good for you.

Yes scooters will cause issues and are likely to increase the numbers of non motorised non cycle injuries listed in this data:

Number of accidents to UK pedestrians on pavements and footways - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

(FOI request for accident data for pedestrians submitted to ONS and their response).

However the rates are very low (4 over the 6 year period shown).

Compare that with the on average 40 a year ago are killed by car drivers in the footway:

Think roads are dangerous? Sometimes we aren’t even safe on pavements

Our pavements are supposed to be a safe haven from motor traffic, aren’t they? Well, yes – except when they aren’t. New analysis of 15 years of road

citymonitor.ai

(Link to a news story confirming the above)

And yes most are loss of control, however that would apply to any vehicle. The difference with a car is that a 5 inch (125mm kerb) isn't likely to slow it down very much compared to even a motorbike let alone a cycle.

However arguably if more people were cycling then their fitness would be better and they'd be less likely to have medical incidents resulting in loss of control.

 

[trebor79]

A 100kg person doing 30 is going to cause you harm, but is also going to cause themselves a fair amount of harm. Most of the injuries are likely to be fall based injuries and there's a good chance that both would deflect off each other rather than cause each other to stop, reducing the severity of the harm.

That's not what happened to the poor lady who was hit by an idiot riding a bike with no brakes on London Bridge a few years ago. She was killed, he was uninjured.

 

[jon0844]

We know cars kill people. In my opinion it simply doesn't need to be brought up in any and every thread about other modes of transport as some sort of justification for not taking any action against those who break the law - on the basis that 'not as many people are killed'.

Now we know it's 40 people per year on average killed by a car mounting the pavement, and it was exactly as I thought - not deliberate driving on the pavement.

In the case of this new generation of electric motorised bikes and scooters, there's more scope for accidents perhaps than ever before. E-bikes are legal up to 15.5mph (I use one myself), but people are actively seeking to overcome such limits - or just importing bikes with no limits at all (or building their own) and then scooters aren't, currently, legal at all except as some sort of trial and with proper insurance, age limit, used on roads only etc.

I would be hoping injuries and deaths wasn't going to go up, but I am pretty sure they will. Especially as it's going to be quite hard for the police to tell if something is road legal or not.

 

[DC1989]

I think people agree that that something should be done but the point is that police resources are stretched. If peoples safety is the name of the game then police resources should go on what causes the most harm (Motor vehicles). How many police resources would it take to reduce the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists from 4 per year to 2 per year?

I can walk out onto the street now and there will be multiple cars going at least 40 in a 30. And nothing will happen to them, not a jot. If police can't even do anything about that, what hope do they have in stopping someone going on a pavement on a modded ebike?

 

[Bikeman78]

Why does any thread about cyclists (or now scooter riders) always have to have motorists brought in as a comparison?

Does America have a gun problem, or does the fact more of them die of heart attacks make it stupid that people don't focus on that instead?

Pedestrians for the most part aren't at risk from cars if they're on the pavement. When they cross a road they're at risk, and I expect most pedestrians hit on a pavement were hit by a vehicle that had a driver under the influence, fleeing from the police, having a medical incident and so on. Not just mounting the pavement and driving down it.

So, I don't really see the need for the whataboutery. Nobody is for road deaths from motor vehicles, but that can be discussed elsewhere.

Meanwhile we can consider that scooters are a risk, especially the number of modified or illegal from the factory ones that can do 30mph and above. The same for e-bikes that can do more than 15mph.

Suddenly they're just like a car that mounted a pavement.

I speak as I find. In the area I live I see more motor vehicles on the pavement than electric scooters. Just up the road from me, people routinely mount the pavement to pass an oncoming bus rather than wait for the bus to pull out of the side road before they turn in. Most scooters I see are on the road. Anyway, the thread title has cars in it too.

 

[The Ham]

That's not what happened to the poor lady who was hit by an idiot riding a bike with no brakes on London Bridge a few years ago. She was killed, he was uninjured.

There's always exceptions, in the same way that there's cases of people deliberately mounting footways to cause harm.

 

[Bikeman78]

I’m not sure they’re merely a minor inconvenience. Certainly in London they’re all round pavements, and the type of people who choose to ride one seem to tend to be of the type who don’t give a stuff about others.

Meanwhile, in broad daylight the other day I saw one come along, the rider wearing a mask, ride straight up to a group of youths, pass something over, then ride off again. They’re not just a nuisance, but seem to appeal to those with more nefarious intentions.

I'll be honest, I don't walk around London much. Going to the chippy at Paddington or crossing the road outside Liverpool Street to get to Tesco is about the limit in recent months. In the latter example, cyclists are a much bigger problem. Many simply do not stop at the pedestrian crossing when the lights go red. They are shameless about it, far more so than in Wales.

That's not what happened to the poor lady who was hit by an idiot riding a bike with no brakes on London Bridge a few years ago. She was killed, he was uninjured.

Whilst Alliston is undoubtedly an idiot of the highest order, she didn't help herself by staring at her phone and stepping into the road without looking.

In another example a cyclist on a completely legal bike collided with a woman that crossed without looking. He fell off his bike and was knocked unconscious. She then had the audacity to sue him!

I've only ever ever collided with one pedestrian. She stepped out from behind two other pedestrians. I was going about 15 mph, slammed on the brakes and stopped as the front wheel hit her legs. She had a right go at me. Unfortunately I pulled the brake levers so hard that one of the cables snapped and the lever crushed my fingers. To say that it hurt quite a lot would be an understatement.