These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents and are electronically speed-limited, meanwhile for the device that causes 99% you put the responsibility of keeping speeds safe in the hands of individuals ranging from considerate over careless to outright methheads.
is often ridden on footpaths and walking areas
Why could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those are the only places where said 99% mode of transport responsible for 7,500 pedestrian deaths a year is banned and streets, where e-scooters should normally a go in cities, are designed for 2.5 tonne cars going 40?
The limit makes sense.
I mean yea, it does, but it is in essence just another concession to car dependency. Can’t curb pedestrian deaths because infrastructure is dogshit, drivers are careless and cars become more and more unsafe? Just regulate the hell out of every means of transport other than the one causing all the deaths and make getting from a to b as hard as possible for everyone not driving. Helps to a) blur the blame and cause some infighting (for instance, this post) and b) getting more people in cars must mean fewer pedestrian deaths right?? also more cars sold and no expensive infrastructure changes. Phew.
So how is it not a valid argument? It’s blatantly obvious that if cars were invented right now, with models as they are right now, safety concerns would be through the roof and they’d be regulated to hell and back with electronical speed-limits just like e-scooters are right now. The only reason cars are not limited in such a way is because they are a legacy device, part of America’s cultural identity and with a uncontrollably powerful lobby behind it so any attempt in that regard would immediately lose you public support. You’re asking for more well considered arguments, but I’m wondering what your argument is that cars should not be speed limited, other than that’s just the way it is, let everything concede to the status quo?
Note that cars are heavily regulated, have speed limits, collision regulations, are required to only operate on designated paths and require training to operate.
Meanwhile the scooters can be used by anyone without licensing, have no speedometer, and can go anywhere without a pedestrian even having a clue a scooter might be coming.
Things could be better, but in these areas frankly an even lower speed limit would not make cars that much safer, and you’d be better off without roads in some areas and poof, cars would be gone. However electric scooters would still be zipping around.
These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents
Percentage is meaningless without context. The stat you’re actually looking for is pedestrian deaths per mile. And it’s probably quite bad for these vehicles because they explicitly commingle with pedestrians.
Cars don’t spend very much time on parts of roads that have pedestrians on them, and when they do, there’s signage or traffic lights to help. Cars also have lights to help drivers see pedestrians and help pedestrians see cars, and generally make a lot of noise. You get none of these benefits with personal motorized vehicles. (Well ok, a scooter probably comes with some lights, but they’re probably also small and shitty and unregulated, so they don’t really count…)
Is actually agree with that, but given how careless scooter riders are in my area in laying the blame almost 100% on them.
From what I’ve witnessed they’re often arrogant and pay little attention to their surroundings, often having close calls simply by shooting off a path to cross a road without paying attention.
I’m neutral on cars vs other modes of transport, so I’m not trying to favour one side or another, but each user or group has to take responsibility for their shortcomings, and the number of bad acting scooters is cyclists as a percentage of their respective groups is far too high.
I’d trust a car driver to be attentive more than I’d ever trust a scooter rider or cyclist.
Inattentive car drivers kill people. Inattentive scooter and cyclists get themselves hurt (in general). A world without cars is simply a safer world.
And with proper infrastructure the cyclist/scooter problem virtually disappears. People moving fast obviously have to be separate from pedestrians. If all the space wasn’t taken up by cars that would be easy to do as well.
Only one of these is often ridden on footpaths and walking areas.
The limit makes sense.
Another bullshit cars are evil post that just ignore facts and reality.
Cars can somewhat be evil but if you want to capture the attention of people you’ve go to post well considered arguments.
Not crap like this.
These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents and are electronically speed-limited, meanwhile for the device that causes 99% you put the responsibility of keeping speeds safe in the hands of individuals ranging from considerate over careless to outright methheads.
Why could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those are the only places where said 99% mode of transport responsible for 7,500 pedestrian deaths a year is banned and streets, where e-scooters should normally a go in cities, are designed for 2.5 tonne cars going 40?
I mean yea, it does, but it is in essence just another concession to car dependency. Can’t curb pedestrian deaths because infrastructure is dogshit, drivers are careless and cars become more and more unsafe? Just regulate the hell out of every means of transport other than the one causing all the deaths and make getting from a to b as hard as possible for everyone not driving. Helps to a) blur the blame and cause some infighting (for instance, this post) and b) getting more people in cars must mean fewer pedestrian deaths right?? also more cars sold and no expensive infrastructure changes. Phew.
So how is it not a valid argument? It’s blatantly obvious that if cars were invented right now, with models as they are right now, safety concerns would be through the roof and they’d be regulated to hell and back with electronical speed-limits just like e-scooters are right now. The only reason cars are not limited in such a way is because they are a legacy device, part of America’s cultural identity and with a uncontrollably powerful lobby behind it so any attempt in that regard would immediately lose you public support. You’re asking for more well considered arguments, but I’m wondering what your argument is that cars should not be speed limited, other than that’s just the way it is, let everything concede to the status quo?
Note that cars are heavily regulated, have speed limits, collision regulations, are required to only operate on designated paths and require training to operate.
Meanwhile the scooters can be used by anyone without licensing, have no speedometer, and can go anywhere without a pedestrian even having a clue a scooter might be coming.
Things could be better, but in these areas frankly an even lower speed limit would not make cars that much safer, and you’d be better off without roads in some areas and poof, cars would be gone. However electric scooters would still be zipping around.
Percentage is meaningless without context. The stat you’re actually looking for is pedestrian deaths per mile. And it’s probably quite bad for these vehicles because they explicitly commingle with pedestrians.
Cars don’t spend very much time on parts of roads that have pedestrians on them, and when they do, there’s signage or traffic lights to help. Cars also have lights to help drivers see pedestrians and help pedestrians see cars, and generally make a lot of noise. You get none of these benefits with personal motorized vehicles. (Well ok, a scooter probably comes with some lights, but they’re probably also small and shitty and unregulated, so they don’t really count…)
While we’re wildly speculating I’m going to guess that most e-scooter crashes are caused by a car running them over.
I don’t get the comingling thing. Where I live they’re on the bike lanes. Is that uncommon?
Is actually agree with that, but given how careless scooter riders are in my area in laying the blame almost 100% on them.
From what I’ve witnessed they’re often arrogant and pay little attention to their surroundings, often having close calls simply by shooting off a path to cross a road without paying attention.
I’m neutral on cars vs other modes of transport, so I’m not trying to favour one side or another, but each user or group has to take responsibility for their shortcomings, and the number of bad acting scooters is cyclists as a percentage of their respective groups is far too high.
I’d trust a car driver to be attentive more than I’d ever trust a scooter rider or cyclist.
Simply from my own observations.
Inattentive car drivers kill people. Inattentive scooter and cyclists get themselves hurt (in general). A world without cars is simply a safer world.
And with proper infrastructure the cyclist/scooter problem virtually disappears. People moving fast obviously have to be separate from pedestrians. If all the space wasn’t taken up by cars that would be easy to do as well.
Not everywhere has bike lanes and then they are on the sidewalk, not to mention most laws allow them to be on the sidewalk or bike lane if they exist.
Hm, well, that’s an infrastructure problem. I definitely think they should be in the bike lane.
It’s all of them.
Key word here is “often”
Every time you drive from home or to home is not often? Well, agreed, this is not often, this is always.