E Scooters soon to be allowed on UK roads?

[Russ T Bolt]

I thought e-scooters had the same 15.5mph limit as ebikes, where has the quoted 12mph come from ?

[Cupramax]

It is, Think some are limiting them slower and our local ones have an even slower gps limit on the sea front,

[Evanivitch]

Cupramax said:

It is, Think some are limiting them slower and our local ones have an even slower gps limit on the sea front,

Correct. As local schemes are governed at a local level, geo-fencing is being used around sensitive sites.

[anonymous-user]

untakenname said:

Some teen on an E-scooter died this weekend in my borough and his e-scooter was stolen before the Ambulance arrived, thought that was a bit scummy tbh.

The risk of using one if you're an adult isn't worth it imo, the Police now seem to be seizing them on sight.

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-ne...

The police certainly like ban easy target

I wonder if they 'stat remove' them or chuck them in the back of a car or a van, or god forbid ride them back to the stations which are very few and far between nowadays.

[Evanivitch]

speedyguy said:

The police certainly like ban easy target

I wonder if they 'stat remove' them or chuck them in the back of a car or a van, or god forbid ride them back to the stations which are very few and far between nowadays.

The police didn't ban them. They were never legal.

[Laurel Green]

A 53 year old London man has just died in hospital after falling off an e-scooter.

[Toltec]

Laurel Green said:

A 53 year old London man has just died in hospital after falling off an e-scooter.

Just because someone invents something that can be another way to die does not necessarily mean it increases the number of deaths. Banning stairs in new buildings and public paths would definitely reduce the number of deaths from falling down stairs, but may not have a great overall effect.

[Graveworm]

Toltec said:

Just because someone invents something that can be another way to die does not necessarily mean it increases the number of deaths. Banning stairs in new buildings and public paths would definitely reduce the number of deaths from falling down stairs, but may not have a great overall effect.

If there is a desire to make something legal that is illegal, it is incumbent on those proposing the change to make the case that it improves on the status quo. If the modal change of transport is from something inherently safer, to something more risky, then isn't that a factor?

[bmwmike]

Graveworm said:

Toltec said:

Just because someone invents something that can be another way to die does not necessarily mean it increases the number of deaths. Banning stairs in new buildings and public paths would definitely reduce the number of deaths from falling down stairs, but may not have a great overall effect.

If there is a desire to make something legal that is illegal, it is incumbent on those proposing the change to make the case that it improves on the status quo. If the modal change of transport is from something inherently safer, to something more risky, then isn't that a factor?

Safer for whom?

Cars, driven by drivers largely ill equipped to operate a cake mixer let alone a car, kill pedestrians on pavements with frightening frequency, and seem to think they have absolute right of way over cyclists at all times even if that means passing dangerously close? I doubt e-scooters will take that mantle.

[Graveworm]

bmwmike said:

Graveworm said:

Toltec said:

Just because someone invents something that can be another way to die does not necessarily mean it increases the number of deaths. Banning stairs in new buildings and public paths would definitely reduce the number of deaths from falling down stairs, but may not have a great overall effect.

If there is a desire to make something legal that is illegal, it is incumbent on those proposing the change to make the case that it improves on the status quo. If the modal change of transport is from something inherently safer, to something more risky, then isn't that a factor?

Safer for whom?

Cars, driven by drivers largely ill equipped to operate a cake mixer let alone a car, kill pedestrians on pavements with frightening frequency, and seem to think they have absolute right of way over cyclists at all times even if that means passing dangerously close? I doubt e-scooters will take that mantle.

Putting aside that, per mile travelled, cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles (Which would be the relevant metric) . and they are becoming safer. I said modal change. The data is that, where they have been introduced, the change isn't really away from cars onto scooters. It's mostly from walking and cycling.

[bmwmike]

Graveworm said:

Putting aside that, per mile travelled, cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles (Which would be the relevant metric) . and they are becoming safer. I said modal change. The data is that, where they have been introduced, the change isn't really away from cars onto scooters. It's mostly from walking and cycling.

"cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles" - meaning that car occupants dont get KSI'd because they are busy doing all the KSI'ing.. right?

[Graveworm]

bmwmike said:

Graveworm said:

Putting aside that, per mile travelled, cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles (Which would be the relevant metric) . and they are becoming safer. I said modal change. The data is that, where they have been introduced, the change isn't really away from cars onto scooters. It's mostly from walking and cycling.

"cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles" - meaning that car occupants dont get KSI'd because they are busy doing all the KSI'ing.. right?

Not completely. Car drivers are culpable for slightly more deaths but fewer injuries per mile. However it's irrelevant to this conversation for the reasons above and fewer KSIs is better no matter what the blame. I don't yet know what the figures are for scooters.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 22 July 20:49

[bmwmike]

Graveworm said:

bmwmike said:

Graveworm said:

Putting aside that, per mile travelled, cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles (Which would be the relevant metric) . and they are becoming safer. I said modal change. The data is that, where they have been introduced, the change isn't really away from cars onto scooters. It's mostly from walking and cycling.

"cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles" - meaning that car occupants dont get KSI'd because they are busy doing all the KSI'ing.. right?

Not completely. Car drivers are culpable for slightly more deaths but fewer injuries per mile. However it's irrelevant to this conversation for the reasons above and I don't yet know what the figures are for scooters.

Well, it was you that claimed scooters are more risky than cars wasnt it, or am i mistaken? apologies if am mistaken

Graveworm said:

If there is a desire to make something legal that is illegal, it is incumbent on those proposing the change to make the case that it improves on the status quo. If the modal change of transport is from something inherently safer, to something more risky, then isn't that a factor?

Not sure "slightly more deaths" is correct anyway:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/road-casualties-201...

And 40 people per year killed by cars on pavements. Cars shouldnt even be on pavements.

Point is scooters are likely to be a lot safer than a car, when comparing moron-driver to moron-rider.

[Graveworm]

bmwmike said:

Not sure "slightly more deaths" is correct anyway:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/road-casualties-201...

And 40 people per year killed by cars on pavements. Cars shouldnt even be on pavements.

Point is scooters are likely to be a lot safer than a car, when comparing moron-driver to moron-rider.

No I was saying scooters were more dangerous than walking and probably more than cycling, which is the main mode that people move away from onto scooters.
That link is about how many riders drivers are killed/injured not how many are killed injured by.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 22 July 21:10

[Russ T Bolt]

Evanivitch said:

Cupramax said:

It is, Think some are limiting them slower and our local ones have an even slower gps limit on the sea front,

Correct. As local schemes are governed at a local level, geo-fencing is being used around sensitive sites.

But those are the official trials presumably.

The escooters being purchased and ridden illegally (at the moment) presumably run at the limit, or above assuming they are as easy to map as a bike.

[bmwmike]

Graveworm said:

No I was saying scooters were more dangerous than walking and probably more than cycling, which is the main mode that people move away from onto scooters.
That link is about how many riders drivers are killed/injured not how many are killed injured by.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 22 July 21:10

ah apologies

[Evanivitch]

Russ T Bolt said:

Evanivitch said:

Cupramax said:

It is, Think some are limiting them slower and our local ones have an even slower gps limit on the sea front,

Correct. As local schemes are governed at a local level, geo-fencing is being used around sensitive sites.

But those are the official trials presumably.

The escooters being purchased and ridden illegally (at the moment) presumably run at the limit, or above assuming they are as easy to map as a bike.

The official hire schemes, yes.

Privately owned e-scooters can run at any speed. There's no legislation governing their speed and many existed before there were any recognised design standards.

[Toltec]

Graveworm said:

bmwmike said:

Graveworm said:

Toltec said:

Just because someone invents something that can be another way to die does not necessarily mean it increases the number of deaths. Banning stairs in new buildings and public paths would definitely reduce the number of deaths from falling down stairs, but may not have a great overall effect.

If there is a desire to make something legal that is illegal, it is incumbent on those proposing the change to make the case that it improves on the status quo. If the modal change of transport is from something inherently safer, to something more risky, then isn't that a factor?

Safer for whom?

Cars, driven by drivers largely ill equipped to operate a cake mixer let alone a car, kill pedestrians on pavements with frightening frequency, and seem to think they have absolute right of way over cyclists at all times even if that means passing dangerously close? I doubt e-scooters will take that mantle.

Putting aside that, per mile travelled, cars are involved in fewer KSIs than pedal cycles (Which would be the relevant metric) . and they are becoming safer. I said modal change. The data is that, where they have been introduced, the change isn't really away from cars onto scooters. It's mostly from walking and cycling.

What about per hour in urban areas or per journey?

Pulled from a 2015 DOT statistics document, walking is as likely to kill you as cycling if less likely to injure you-

Casualty rate per billion vehicle miles

Vehicle	Killed	Killed or seriously injured
Car occupants	2	21
Pedestrian	34	463
Pedal Cyclist	34	1036

If we ratio those out using average speeds of 26mph for cars, 13mph for cyclists and 3mph for pedestrians relative to cars we get-

Vehicle	Killed	Killed or seriously injured
Car occupants	2	21
Pedestrian	295	4013
Pedal Cyclist	68	2072

It turns out walking is quite a bit more deadly than cycling if looked at in terms of time spent on the activity, which if escooters are about as dangerous as cycles makes them rather safer than walking.

Strange what you can do with statistics isn't it?

[Graveworm]

Toltec said:

What about per hour in urban areas or per journey?

Pulled from a 2015 DOT statistics document, walking is as likely to kill you as cycling if less likely to injure you-

Casualty rate per billion vehicle miles

Vehicle	Killed	Killed or seriously injured
Car occupants	2	21
Pedestrian	34	463
Pedal Cyclist	34	1036

If we ratio those out using average speeds of 26mph for cars, 13mph for cyclists and 3mph for pedestrians relative to cars we get-

Vehicle	Killed	Killed or seriously injured
Car occupants	2	21
Pedestrian	295	4013
Pedal Cyclist	68	2072

It turns out walking is quite a bit more deadly than cycling if looked at in terms of time spent on the activity, which if escooters are about as dangerous as cycles makes them rather safer than walking.

Strange what you can do with statistics isn't it?

It's about modal changes for the same journey. Are the pedestrians going to make the same journey several times to increase the risk? If not what has per hour got to do with it. Plus in accidents pedestrians kill or seriously injure fewer 3rd parties than cyclists. The risk to pedestrians of KSIs, in London from a car is 0.85 vs 2.05 from a bicycle.
https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/2362

[Gareth79]

Graveworm said:

It's about modal changes for the same journey. Are the pedestrians going to make the same journey several times to increase the risk? If not what has per hour got to do with it. Plus in accidents pedestrians kill or seriously injure fewer 3rd parties than cyclists. The risk to pedestrians of KSIs, in London from a car is 0.85 vs 2.05 from a bicycle.
https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/2362

Another thing to consider is not necessarily modal change, but additional/alternative journeys.

For example if somebody lives 5 miles from a train station walking there would take well over an hour, so you'd either need to drive there (and pay ££ parking), get a non-existent bus, a lift, taxi, or cycle. Scooters are more versatile than any of those, so the person may take that journey and use the train when they previously wouldn't have done it at all.

Likewise, if somebody lives a mile from the shops they may not want to walk there every day to get lunch, but with a scooter they can get there in 5 minutes, and might end up doing so.