ChatterBank6 mins ago
E-Scooter Fatality.
https:/
Am I missing something here? The boy was riding a private (ebay purchase) e-scooter illegally on the road. Would he not have similarly ignored any legislation that required him to wear a helmet?
Am I missing something here? The boy was riding a private (ebay purchase) e-scooter illegally on the road. Would he not have similarly ignored any legislation that required him to wear a helmet?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by davebro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//but our favourite tech tax dodger is awash with them for sale.//
My guess is that Lefty Gromit is having a dig at Bezos. He seems to have forgotten he is not longer CEO and neither does he own all the shares of Amazon. In fact, if Gromit has a pension, there is a good chance Gromit himself has 'shares' in it!
My guess is that Lefty Gromit is having a dig at Bezos. He seems to have forgotten he is not longer CEO and neither does he own all the shares of Amazon. In fact, if Gromit has a pension, there is a good chance Gromit himself has 'shares' in it!
Actually, the Police do confiscate them, quite a few of them. But in all honesty I do think they have better things to do.
Heres the Mets figures for instance: https:/
Heres the Mets figures for instance: https:/
The most effective action the police can take is to seize the scooters. They have the power to do this as they are being ridden uninsured. The only way they can get them back from the pound is to produce a Certificate of Insurance. They will have difficulty doing this because they are not an approved vehicle type and no insurers will cover them.
In my area they have been having a purge on these anti-social berks who think it is quite OK to bomb around on the pavements. The police also make Fixed Penalty offers to the miscreants (£300 and six points). For those who drive a car or motorbike, this has quite an impact on them because it will see an increase to their insurance premiums. Another advantage is that a repeat offence will result in a "totting up" ban of six months. "New Drivers" (i.e. those who have passed their test within the last two years) will have their licence revoked and will have to take their test again. It even has an effect on those who do not drive because a "totting up" ban for them after two offences will mean, if they continue to ride an e-scooter, that they will be driving whilst disqualified (maximum penalty, six months' custody). An effective law is already available, it just needs a little application.
In my area they have been having a purge on these anti-social berks who think it is quite OK to bomb around on the pavements. The police also make Fixed Penalty offers to the miscreants (£300 and six points). For those who drive a car or motorbike, this has quite an impact on them because it will see an increase to their insurance premiums. Another advantage is that a repeat offence will result in a "totting up" ban of six months. "New Drivers" (i.e. those who have passed their test within the last two years) will have their licence revoked and will have to take their test again. It even has an effect on those who do not drive because a "totting up" ban for them after two offences will mean, if they continue to ride an e-scooter, that they will be driving whilst disqualified (maximum penalty, six months' custody). An effective law is already available, it just needs a little application.
> [His mother] is trying to rationalise her son's death. "In my head Shaky fulfilled his life as one of the best people ever. He touched everyone in so many ways. People are now seeing that you need to wear a helmet. "I don't want his passing to be in vain."
> [His sister] is speaking to people on the street: "I've seen teenagers doubled up on a scooter and I've actually stopped them and said guys get helmets and two separate scooters.
This is nothing to do with the legality of the scooter per se. It's all about the safety. I've sometimes seen two people on one "street-legal" scooter. I've very often (several times daily) seen one person on one "street-legal" scooter. I can't ever recall seeing a rider wearing a helmet. That's what the dead lad's family are campaigning for. It's similar to the idea of wearing motorcycle helmets, cycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, etcetera etcetera. It's just saying "Look, these things aren't safe, protect yourself."
> [His sister] is speaking to people on the street: "I've seen teenagers doubled up on a scooter and I've actually stopped them and said guys get helmets and two separate scooters.
This is nothing to do with the legality of the scooter per se. It's all about the safety. I've sometimes seen two people on one "street-legal" scooter. I've very often (several times daily) seen one person on one "street-legal" scooter. I can't ever recall seeing a rider wearing a helmet. That's what the dead lad's family are campaigning for. It's similar to the idea of wearing motorcycle helmets, cycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, etcetera etcetera. It's just saying "Look, these things aren't safe, protect yourself."
> I think the family's message should be "don't ride scooters illegally" not "wear a helmet"!
Their point is, if you ride an e-scooter without wearing a helmet, you're putting yourself at an unnecessary higher risk of serious injury or death. Legally or illegally, it doesn't matter. Gromit's Amazon link shows how easy it is to buy one of these scooters, and Amazon doesn't exactly shout about the fact that they're not for use in public.
Their point is, if you ride an e-scooter without wearing a helmet, you're putting yourself at an unnecessary higher risk of serious injury or death. Legally or illegally, it doesn't matter. Gromit's Amazon link shows how easy it is to buy one of these scooters, and Amazon doesn't exactly shout about the fact that they're not for use in public.
//This is nothing to do with the legality of the scooter per se.//
You're quite right. That is not the family's point at all. But it should be. The scooter their son was riding was not "street legal". The only ones that are are those in government approved hire schemes. What the family are saying effectively is "if you are going to ride an e-scooter illegally, without insurance and all the rest that goes with making it street legal, then make sure you wear a crash helmet."
Quite frankly, I've far more concern for the safety of people who stand the chance of being injured or killed by these ridiculous things than I have for anybody riding one. Pedestrians should not have to be wary of motor vehicles being ridden on the pavement and if this boy had not done so he would be around today.
This story is misleading because the tragedy happened in Bromley and the accompanying picture shows approved hire scooters. There is no hire scheme in Bromley nor anywhere near it and the scooter which caused the death must have been illegal:
https:/
I believe at least five people (including a three year old child) have died in scooter accidents this year. If Mr Pinnock's family want to raise the profile of the problem which saw their son's life taken they would be better off campaigning for rigorous policing of the illegal machines being ridden and to lobby the government to abandon its ridiculous experiment with them,.
You're quite right. That is not the family's point at all. But it should be. The scooter their son was riding was not "street legal". The only ones that are are those in government approved hire schemes. What the family are saying effectively is "if you are going to ride an e-scooter illegally, without insurance and all the rest that goes with making it street legal, then make sure you wear a crash helmet."
Quite frankly, I've far more concern for the safety of people who stand the chance of being injured or killed by these ridiculous things than I have for anybody riding one. Pedestrians should not have to be wary of motor vehicles being ridden on the pavement and if this boy had not done so he would be around today.
This story is misleading because the tragedy happened in Bromley and the accompanying picture shows approved hire scooters. There is no hire scheme in Bromley nor anywhere near it and the scooter which caused the death must have been illegal:
https:/
I believe at least five people (including a three year old child) have died in scooter accidents this year. If Mr Pinnock's family want to raise the profile of the problem which saw their son's life taken they would be better off campaigning for rigorous policing of the illegal machines being ridden and to lobby the government to abandon its ridiculous experiment with them,.
//Any idea how many of those were on legal scooters and how many illegal?//
The one I quoted above was almost certainly illegal. I don't know about this one. It happened in Twickenham and there is an official hire scheme in adjacent Richmond. As tragic as any death is, fortunately this incident did not claim the life of a Third Party:
https:/
Details are hard to come by but since the number of illegal machines far exceeds the number of legal ones, I imagine it is a fair assumption to make that most of the accidents involve illegal scooters.
The one I quoted above was almost certainly illegal. I don't know about this one. It happened in Twickenham and there is an official hire scheme in adjacent Richmond. As tragic as any death is, fortunately this incident did not claim the life of a Third Party:
https:/
Details are hard to come by but since the number of illegal machines far exceeds the number of legal ones, I imagine it is a fair assumption to make that most of the accidents involve illegal scooters.
The only place I see e-scooters is one of the trial areas, and there every one I see is a rental.
I can report that some really dangerous idiots rent these scooters too. I would not be surprised if more accidents and deaths involved rental scooters, which is why I asked for the numbers.
As a pedestrian and driver, I don't really see much of a distinction between idiots that rent e-scooters and idiots that buy them. I don't think either should be allowed in public (unless the parameters are significantly changed, at least) and I think riders, whether in public or in private, should be encouraged to protect themselves.
I can report that some really dangerous idiots rent these scooters too. I would not be surprised if more accidents and deaths involved rental scooters, which is why I asked for the numbers.
As a pedestrian and driver, I don't really see much of a distinction between idiots that rent e-scooters and idiots that buy them. I don't think either should be allowed in public (unless the parameters are significantly changed, at least) and I think riders, whether in public or in private, should be encouraged to protect themselves.
//As a pedestrian and driver, I don't really see much of a distinction between idiots that rent e-scooters and idiots that buy them.//
There are two big differences:
1. Rentals are legal, others are not.
2. (Most importantly) Rentals have Third Party insurance, others do not.
If you are injured by a rental scooter rider you will be able to claim compensation for injury and resulting losses. This could be substantial in the event of serious injury. Get hit by an "other" and you have little chance of any recompense. It is true that the Motor Insurers' Bureau will meet claims as they will for victims of uninsured drivers of other types of motor vehicles. But that is scarcely the point.
My area is awash with these idiots and the police are doing their bit to take their machines out of circulation. They are all illegal as I live nowhere near a rental area. The Pinnocks' campaign suggests they believe it is OK to ride illegal scooters and urge the riders to protect themselves. It's not.
There are two big differences:
1. Rentals are legal, others are not.
2. (Most importantly) Rentals have Third Party insurance, others do not.
If you are injured by a rental scooter rider you will be able to claim compensation for injury and resulting losses. This could be substantial in the event of serious injury. Get hit by an "other" and you have little chance of any recompense. It is true that the Motor Insurers' Bureau will meet claims as they will for victims of uninsured drivers of other types of motor vehicles. But that is scarcely the point.
My area is awash with these idiots and the police are doing their bit to take their machines out of circulation. They are all illegal as I live nowhere near a rental area. The Pinnocks' campaign suggests they believe it is OK to ride illegal scooters and urge the riders to protect themselves. It's not.
we had one in Bristol.
https:/
The things are a menace.
https:/
The things are a menace.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.