E-Scooter discussion after fatal collision

Energize said:
On the very same website quoted by the op.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48106617

Unless a vehicle is specifically prohibited, it is road legal by default.
Click to expand...

I understand it is quite contrary to that after some looking.

There is a permitted list, going back to 1835 which was later amended in 1888 to include bicycles which were by the original law, illegal.

The permitted category of carriage originally meant a literal carriage and the term was stretched to cover bicycles then once more to cover motor vehicles which of course came later.

Legality of un motorised scooters relies on how effectively you can claim them to be covered by the words of the law:

“bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines”
Click to expand...

Otherwise not on the list, not legal.

I was looking mostly at this page: https://swiftyscooters.com/blogs/journal/is-riding-a-kick-scooter-on-the-pavement-legal-in-the-uk which points to the legislation.
 
Can''t we change this to the 'eScooter Dissucion thread ' as it has nothing to do with the person mentioned in the title after the first page
 
Hotwired said:
I understand it is quite contrary to that after some looking.

There is a permitted list, going back to 1835 which was later amended in 1888 to include bicycles which were by the original law, illegal.

The permitted category of carriage originally meant a literal carriage and the term was stretched to cover bicycles then once more to cover motor vehicles which of course came later.

Legality of un motorised scooters relies on how effectively you can claim them to be covered by the words of the law:



Otherwise not on the list, not legal.

I was looking mostly at this page: https://swiftyscooters.com/blogs/journal/is-riding-a-kick-scooter-on-the-pavement-legal-in-the-uk which points to the legislation.
Click to expand...

That act deals with the offence of riding a carriage on a footpath, that's not a permitted list of what is allowed to be driven on the highway, I would suggest a random blog is not the best source of information...
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
That act deals with the offence of riding a carriage on a footpath, that's not a permitted list of what is allowed to be driven on the highway, I would suggest a random blog is not the best source of information...
Click to expand...

You are correct that it deals with the offence of riding a carriage on a footpath.

However on the subject of solid sources, you have not shown one to back up your belief of kick scooters setting the same precedent for electric scooters as bikes did for ebikes.

Bicycles are explicitly written into law and recognised as a "carriage".

Meanwhile kick scooters are not recognised as anything and their common use is as a toy by children who are not responsible and kick scooters are not promoted as road going devices. Bicycles have always been road going devices.
 
Brizzles said:
Can''t we change this to the 'eScooter Dissucion thread ' as it has nothing to do with the person mentioned in the title after the first page
Click to expand...

As the OP I agree, it's become an e-scooter discussion so the title should be changed to reflect this.
 
I can imagine the police have booked in another week of street education, visible deterrence and confiscation of illegal vehicles in response.

Which it is of course their job to do.

Deaths despite the obvious negative, are a good thing in that they make issues more visible.
 
Are you saying deaths are a good thing to make the issue more visible?

If the guy in my link likely fell and cracked his head open because he wasn't wearing a helmet, that's a tragic accident that could have been prevented, and also could have happened on any other type of transportation where you're succeptible to head injuries when falling such as cycling.

It involved no other people or vehicles that we know of and could have happened anywhere, whether it's private land or not. The problem is that he wasn't wearing a helment, not that he was riding at all in the first place.

There's better ways to give an issue visibility than having a new mode of transport rack up a few deaths and injuries in quick succession, especially if many of them were very easily prevented by use of the most basic of safety equipment. The deaths will make policy makers more inclined to react in a knee jerk and rushed manner to placate those shouting the loudest about how dangerous they are instead of considering more deeply the potential long term postiive benefits if managed correctly.
 
I am not on board with you about increased predisposition to a terrible outcome or false conclusions, including the ones you just drew.

There's a faux pas in saying anything positive about death but it is the reality that unless people are actually dying it's clearly not killing anyone to wait in the queue for attention.

Oh I know, you reckon there's a connection between a police crackdown and my morbid statement. As in deaths = police crackdown = good.

Well that's not the case at all. Two separate things. Read as such.
 
UberTiger said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...fordshire?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

:(

Serious head injuries, so almost certainly not wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...

I think helmets are pretty much essential these days, even on dedicated cycleways. I always wear my helmet when cycling, it’s just too dangerous not to. It’s the main reason I do not use the cycle/scooter hire schemes. I can see why they are not law though and I expect if they were law it would reduce participation.

Sometimes the helmets doesn’t prevent serious injuries. While it was a different sport, Michael Schumacher’s case is an example of what can happen in a crash even when you wear one.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
Sometimes the helmets doesn’t prevent serious injuries. While it was a different sport, Michael Schumacher’s case is an example of what can happen in a crash even when you wear one.
Click to expand...
I think the OP is an even better example in this thread of wearing a helmet won't always save your life.

Accidents can happen wherever and whatever you're doing, you can't spend your whole life wrapped in a protective bubble.

UberTiger said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...fordshire?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

Serious head injuries, so almost certainly not wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...

It's an unfortunate accident that someone died while riding an electric skateboard. But also from the news article we don't really know much about what actually happened. For all we know he could have been trying to take a selfie (or simply waving at someone) while riding and crashed. You take risks in life, but if you don't evaluate your actions properly, you have to deal with the consequences. In a lot of these cases I think some personal responsibility should be highlighted rather than a broad sweep blamed at any particular product or service.
 
Wzd said:
I think the OP is an even better example in this thread of wearing a helmet won't always save your life.

Accidents can happen wherever and whatever you're doing, you can't spend your whole life wrapped in a protective bubble.



It's an unfortunate accident that someone died while riding an electric skateboard. But also from the news article we don't really know much about what actually happened. For all we know he could have been trying to take a selfie (or simply waving at someone) while riding and crashed. You take risks in life, but if you don't evaluate your actions properly, you have to deal with the consequences. In a lot of these cases I think some personal responsibility should be highlighted rather than a broad sweep blamed at any particular product or service.
Click to expand...

No no, this is 2019, we have compensation lawyers. We don't accept responsibility for our actions anymore, it's always someone else's fault.
 
[
UberTiger said:
Serious head injuries, so almost certainly not wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...
that's what witnesses said ... linked much earlier in thread.
]

Still negligible information about the details of her accident, roundabout complexity, if you hadn't followed thread, seems a candidate, with prior death.

looking further, you can see it's an accident waiting to happen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygwJQMC2T-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmlMNMP4VE


Seems in public interest to publicize cause if known, (or tell us if its not) or is that down to coroner or relations ?
 
Dunno about the roundabout being unsafe but its creepy to know that the motor lane alongside you immediately crosses the cycle path you're on.

A little more faith than usual is needed that the motor vehicles which can easily be behind you and going faster, will not cut the lights.

Generally with traffic crossing each other you get a good view of the traffic which will cross your route. This one you need to look behind you to check before crossing.
 
looking again a 2nd vid ... guy w/o helmet doesn't even look - he needs lessons, in defensive cycling.. [edit its's too bad he won't live long - but then again, who does?]
2nd bunch 'it's green lemmings" and helmet guy doesn't look just follows. ....
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
Sometimes the helmets doesn’t prevent serious injuries. While it was a different sport, Michael Schumacher’s case is an example of what can happen in a crash even when you wear one.
Click to expand...

However it was said at the time that if he hadn't been wearing one he would have been dead.
 
UberTiger said:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...fordshire?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

:(

Serious head injuries, so almost certainly not wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...
His death was the second recent fatal collision involving a “powered transporter” in the UK despite the fact the vehicles are illegal on thoroughfares, as calls grow for their use to be allowed.
Click to expand...
Would help if they also said how many recent fatal collisions there has been on motorcycles or bicycles compared to this in the same kind of time scale
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom