e-scooters

[Tangled Metal]

However not all escooter users are idiots. You cannot tar all with the same brush or become like those "bl00dy cyclists " type of drivers.

My work colleague might have a speedy and totally illegal on uk roads /footways e scooter but he's a safe enough rider of it from what I've seen. It's just that it's easy to use. Just go out the door, hop on and you're away. That's the real reason for him being off the estate first he's going as fast as any car would want to considering the car damaging potholes to negotiate but he's already down the road when most car users are finally ready to move.

[Jdsk]

New Report from the House of Commons Transport Committee:
"E-scooters: pavement nuisance or transport innovation?"
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmtrans/255/25502.htm

includes:
"Subject to the conditions we outline in this Report being met, we believe that the Department should take swift action to legalise the use of privately owned e-scooters on roads and cycle lanes. We would expect this to take place within the next 18 months."

Jonathan

[mattsccm]

I can't find the report from a few years back but it did confirm that virtually all pedeststrian/car collisions were the pedestrians fault, usually through failing to look before stepping out. Agreed that we all feel that a car should be able to stop in all circumstances (so should a bike, e scooter etc ) but we have to be realistic here. A yards notice isn't enough.

[djnotts]

Observing the e scooter trial area in Nottingham is quite interesting. Repaint any vague look alike yellow and one will be unchallenged I am sure. Indeed in one cross-city journey today I saw a non-hire one being ridden on the pavement by the central police station passing 2 uniformed officers without challenge. And maybe 6 "illegal" ones elsewhere.
A case of tech leading the legislation.
Need at least a provisional licence and insurance (via the hire company in the trial areas).
If/when nationally legalised, shan't be surprised if cycles also require insurance. Got to protect the car supremacy somehow!

[Cyril Haearn]

Abandoned scooters are ubiquitous in some towns because they may be abandoned and logged out anywhere, again public space is being abused by businesses

The phone-thing could easily be modified so they might only be logged out and left at certain places, but where?

[kwackers]

Abandoned scooters are ubiquitous in some towns because they may be abandoned and logged out anywhere, again public space is being abused by businesses

The phone-thing could easily be modified so they might only be logged out and left at certain places, but where?

The problem with dockless systems is users like them, they can get to the door of where they want to go and dump the vehicle there.

I'm no fan of them whether e-scooters or bikes. I think they should all be docked (you'd think it'd be a no-brainer for electric vehicles because they could recharge at the docking station).

Number of private e-scooters near me continues to grow, see a few most mornings now with folk obviously commuting on them.
At least with private scooters the users aren't going to simply dump them anywhere, far too easy to steal and too valuable.

As for pavements, it simply needs policing as per bicycles on pavements, nothing unique about scooters there.

[mjr]

I can't find the report from a few years back but it did confirm that virtually all pedeststrian/car collisions were the pedestrians fault, usually through failing to look before stepping out.

I suspect that report is confusing so-called "contributory factor" with "fault". While a collision may have been avoided if a pedestrian had looked better and given way, in the opinion of the investigating officer, which means it gets recorded as a factor, pedestrians are rarely legally required to give way, so it's not a fault not to. IIRC, usually in such collisions, the motorist has also failed to give way, but if they were required to, it is a fault as well as a factor.

[Jdsk]

Yes, the data are tiger country, and that's before you get to "blame".

See also the recording of speed as a contributory factor.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

I can't find the report from a few years back but it did confirm that virtually all pedeststrian/car collisions were the pedestrians fault, usually through failing to look before stepping out.

I suspect that report is confusing so-called "contributory factor" with "fault". While a collision may have been avoided if a pedestrian had looked better and given way, in the opinion of the investigating officer, which means it gets recorded as a factor, pedestrians are rarely legally required to give way, so it's not a fault not to. IIRC, usually in such collisions, the motorist has also failed to give way, but if they were required to, it is a fault as well as a factor.

part of the trouble with them is the dreaded earbuds with people either looking on their phone while walking or listening to some thing so in another world. These zombies are an accident waiting to happen I think. They dont hear you ring your bell untill within striking distance

[Jdsk]

"TfL and London Councils look for e-scooter operators to take part in year-long rental trial"
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2020/november/tfl-and-london-councils-look-for-e-scooter-operators-to-take-part-in-year-long-rental-trial

Jonathan

[mattsccm]

Fault. No messing about with fancy language.

If you walk out in front of a vehicle on a main road giving no practical time for it to stop then its your damn fault and should be penalised as such.

[mjr]

Fault. No messing about with fancy language.

If you walk out in front of a vehicle on a main road giving no practical time for it to stop then its your damn fault and should be penalised as such.

Even on a crossing where the vehicle is required to stop?

[thirdcrank]

Fault. No messing about with fancy language.

If you walk out in front of a vehicle on a main road giving no practical time for it to stop then its your damn fault and should be penalised as such.

This supports mjr's point about contributory factors, but perhaps from a different aspect.

I'm not sure if you meant your words here to be taken literally but to me, "penalised" implies creating some sort of jaywalking offence. Now, one of the first bits of informal training I received as as a PC just back from formal training was "Never allege anything you cannot prove." The point here, was that if you ticked one of the contributory factor boxes in the stats form which constituted an offence, you would get the report back asking for the evidence and you would be creating problems for yourself. eg "Speed" was problematic. One of my own theories is that a lot of the casualties associated with zebra crossings were ticked as being near but not on the crossing, because the alternative was ticking that the driver failed to give precedence on the crossing, which is an offence. So, if jaywalking became an offence, it might be avoided as a contributory factor.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that the actual evidence was somehow perverted. In those days, stats forms had to be completed the same day to meet the needs of the tail wagging the dog. The investigation of even quite minor crashes was thorough and - around here at least - somebody was usually prosecuted - typically for "due care" after most crashes.

[Jdsk]

Speed capping in Paris:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... busy-areas

Jonathan

[djnotts]

Speed capping in Paris:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... busy-areas

Jonathan

Bicycles next?