E Scooters soon to be allowed on UK roads?

[ddom]

lost in espace said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/21/e-scoo...

I keep seeing reports like this in the papers.

It’s ok, they’re less dangerous than ‘things’

[silverthorn2151]

lost in espace said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/21/e-scoo...

I keep seeing reports like this in the papers.

And not wearing a helmet. What a fool.

[okgo]

Why would that make him a fool? Lots of people don't wear helmets while cycling and will go a damn sight quicker than one of these scooters.

[silverthorn2151]

okgo said:

Why would that make him a fool? Lots of people don't wear helmets while cycling and will go a damn sight quicker than one of these scooters.

Because its basic risk management and those cyclists without helmets are also fools.

Now I totally accept that it may have made no difference in this case, I don't know, but I bet his family wishes he was wearing one.

[anonymous-user]

Some people seem fixated on injuries due to e-scooters, for reasons I do not understand.

Each year, around 100 cyclists are killed, over 4000 suffer ‘serious injuries’, and 16,500 receive less serious injuries as a result of bicycle.

Shocking figures. Should we ban bicycles? Of course not.

Clearly there are far more bicycles on the roads than e-scooters, but I would be willing to bet that if there were similar numbers of e-scooters to bicycles, there would be similar numbers of deaths and injuries. I don’t see any reason in particular why e-scooters would cause more carnage.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 June 09:33

[Over over under steer]

Lord Marylebone said:

Some people seem fixated on injuries due to e-scooters, for reasons I do not understand.

Each year, around 100 cyclists are killed, over 4000 suffer ‘serious injuries’, and 16,500 receive less serious injuries as a result of bicycle.

Shocking figures. Should we ban bicycles? Of course not.

I really agree with this point, and what would help make (or disprove it) would be to know the % injured as a proportion of total riders for both cycling and riding scooters. At the moment scooter riding represents a small fraction of the number of cyclists, so unless somethign is really wrong I'd expect injuries and deaths to be low as a result.

[okgo]

silverthorn2151 said:

Because its basic risk management and those cyclists without helmets are also fools.

Now I totally accept that it may have made no difference in this case, I don't know, but I bet his family wishes he was wearing one.

Helmets are not legal requirements, and for good reason, Chris Boardman has long argued against making them mandatory, and has data to back it up. They make no difference to serious injury/make some injuries worse from memory. I wear one but I don't think people that don't are idiots, just that they have the choice.

[monthou]

silverthorn2151 said:

okgo said:

Why would that make him a fool? Lots of people don't wear helmets while cycling and will go a damn sight quicker than one of these scooters.

Because its basic risk management and those cyclists without helmets are also fools.

Now I totally accept that it may have made no difference in this case, I don't know, but I bet his family wishes he was wearing one.

Pedestrians not wearing helmets. Fools.
Drivers not wearing helmets. Fools.
Passengers not wearing helmets...

Can't be too careful.

[eldar]

okgo said:

Helmets are not legal requirements, and for good reason, Chris Boardman has long argued against making them mandatory, and has data to back it up. They make no difference to serious injury/make some injuries worse from memory. I wear one but I don't think people that don't are idiots, just that they have the choice.

I thought the data was reasonably clear that decent helmets offered protection against head and face trauma, particularly in children. The downside was that poor helmets offered little protection and produced a false sense of security. It was also thought to be too difficult to enforce.

No idea if that is still the case, but i certainly wouldn't allow my kids to cycle without proper head protection.

[untakenname]

A study of medical interventions showed that helmets increase the risk of spinal damage due to rotation caused by the helmet, drivers also give those without helmets more room when passing.

Most the cyclists I see don't have the helmet done up properly either (even pro's in grand tours don't) you're meant to be able to just slip one finger between your throat and the strap but having it that tight is uncomfortable for long periods.

I only wear a helmet when on riding off road in woods and combine that with googles, in my personal experience wearing eye wear is far more important that wearing a helmet.

[anonymous-user]

When mandatory helmet use was introduced in Australia, it had a negative effect on health in general, as many people stopped cycling because of it. Especially the casual, weekend, and commuter cyclists. Nearly 20% of people looking to take up cycling said they were put off by having to wear a helmet all the time.

Essentially, the advantages of potentially avoiding some injuries via helmet use, were overshadowed by the population being less fit because they were put off cycling because of mandatory helmets.

There are also the other issues as mentioned above, such as car drivers giving cyclists less space if they are wearing a helmet, and a cyclist taking more risks if wearing a helmet, etc.

[NGee]

untakenname said:

A study of medical interventions showed that helmets increase the risk of spinal damage due to rotation caused by the helmet, drivers also give those without helmets more room when passing.

Most the cyclists I see don't have the helmet done up properly either (even pro's in grand tours don't) you're meant to be able to just slip one finger between your throat and the strap but having it that tight is uncomfortable for long periods.

I only wear a helmet when on riding off road in woods and combine that with googles, in my personal experience wearing eye wear is far more important that wearing a helmet.

Yep, always best to take google with you. You never know when you might need to look up some important info.


Sorry, couldn't resist!

[jakesmith]

Lord Marylebone said:

Essentially, the advantages of potentially avoiding some injuries via helmet use, were overshadowed by the population being less fit because they were put off cycling because of mandatory helmets.

I don't see how this argument makes sense. I am not the population of the country therefore I am not affected by the net disadvantage, at an individual level I can still benefit from wearing a helmet.

Also surveys showing that people would be put off cycling by wearing helmets and would then get fat through not cycling. More fool them.

ALso it's hardly empirical stuff is it, who knows what would actually happen in real life were it to be mandated. Surveys and polls are not reliable.

I do not believe in mandating helmets because it can not be enforced.

[NGee]

jakesmith said:

Lord Marylebone said:

Essentially, the advantages of potentially avoiding some injuries via helmet use, were overshadowed by the population being less fit because they were put off cycling because of mandatory helmets.

I don't see how this argument makes sense. I am not the population of the country therefore I am not affected by the net disadvantage, at an individual level I can still benefit from wearing a helmet.

Whether you like it or not you ARE part of the population of the country. Assuming you pay taxes and use the NHS you will be negatively affected by the increasingly unfit population.
Surely we should be doing more to increase the general fitness of the population and not putting more and more red tape in the way.
We need less of the nanny state and more personal choice to encourage people to stay healthy.

[Toltec]

untakenname said:

A study of medical interventions showed that helmets increase the risk of spinal damage due to rotation caused by the helmet, drivers also give those without helmets more room when passing.

That is what buying a helmet with MIPS is meant to alleviate - they are more expensive though.

[RizzoTheRat]

untakenname said:

A study of medical interventions showed that helmets increase the risk of spinal damage due to rotation caused by the helmet, drivers also give those without helmets more room when passing.

That's fairly meaningless without the numbers though, it could double the number of rotation injuries from 1 to 2 while only reducing the number of other head injuries by 10% from 10000 to 9000 for all I know. I've always seen the "less people will ride bikes" as being the best argument against compulsory helmets. The less cycling equals higher obesity/medical issues argument doesn't really work well for scooters though.

[silverthorn2151]

All of that stuff is interesting and makes you think.

I don't quote studies and so on but when I'm on my escooter at a max speed of 15mph it feels like if I fall off, I'll bump my head. I don't consider the risk of some other form of injury sufficient to outweigh that.

I use a Bell cycle helmet that fits well and is done up. Were I mountain biking through the woods I'd have a different helmet. I make my own risk assessment.

I just don't buy the argument that drivers don't give as much room to cyclists if they have a helmet on. Makes no difference to me so why should it to anyone else?

[Short Grain]

silverthorn2151 said:

All of that stuff is interesting and makes you think.

I don't quote studies and so on but when I'm on my escooter at a max speed of 15mph it feels like if I fall off, I'll bump my head. I don't consider the risk of some other form of injury sufficient to outweigh that.

I use a Bell cycle helmet that fits well and is done up. Were I mountain biking through the woods I'd have a different helmet. I make my own risk assessment.

I just don't buy the argument that drivers don't give as much room to cyclists if they have a helmet on. Makes no difference to me so why should it to anyone else?

I have pissed off drivers behind me when I'll drive behind a cyclist until I can give them a wide berth, at least 3/4 into the opposite lane. Doesn't matter whether they're wearing a helmet or not.

I don't like the cyclists I see taking a call on speaker whilst cycling 'hands free', nor the cyclists and drivers I've seen with earphones on. Just figure it's Darwinism of some sort!! Why wear headphones in a car ffs?

[Graveworm]

Lord Marylebone said:

Some people seem fixated on injuries due to e-scooters, for reasons I do not understand.

Each year, around 100 cyclists are killed, over 4000 suffer ‘serious injuries’, and 16,500 receive less serious injuries as a result of bicycle.

Shocking figures. Should we ban bicycles? Of course not.

Clearly there are far more bicycles on the roads than e-scooters, but I would be willing to bet that if there were similar numbers of e-scooters to bicycles, there would be similar numbers of deaths and injuries. I don’t see any reason in particular why e-scooters would cause more carnage.

Edited by Lord Marylebone on Tuesday 22 June 09:33

Pedal cyclists are at a high risk but it's more than offset by the fitness and health benefits. These do not apply to escooters.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 22 June 19:06

[Graveworm]

RizzoTheRat said:

untakenname said:

A study of medical interventions showed that helmets increase the risk of spinal damage due to rotation caused by the helmet, drivers also give those without helmets more room when passing.

That's fairly meaningless without the numbers though, it could double the number of rotation injuries from 1 to 2 while only reducing the number of other head injuries by 10% from 10000 to 9000 for all I know. I've always seen the "less people will ride bikes" as being the best argument against compulsory helmets. The less cycling equals higher obesity/medical issues argument doesn't really work well for scooters though.

The first claim has been debunked and the second is kind of irrelevant given that closer passes or not helmet wearers are 34 percent less likely to be involved in a collision leading to death or serious injury. Here is the meta study of pretty much every study :
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/#:~:text=...

The most valid reason against pushing for helmet wearing is that it will discourage cycling. Even that's a mixed bag when the data has settled down. .