Electric scooters are causing injuries and accidents
cnet.com
cnet.com
On motorcycles, the rule to live by is All The Gear, All The Time. On mopeds, it's apparently Helmet With Maybe A Jacket. On electric scooters, it's Lol. The truth is that it should always be ATGATT on all 3. Going down on any of them is going to be exactly the same as going down at the same speed on a motorcycle.
One of the things you learn during rider training is that "stuck throttle" is usually panic freezing your wrist in place. Same goes for brakes that aren't working. I'll grant you that the scoots probably aren't maintained super well either, so it might be more likely there than on your personal machine.
All these rentals are adding up to just one thing: A lot more untrained, inexperienced motorcycle riders on the roads (and sometimes the sidewalks). The results are pretty obvious if you think about it.
Edit: Typo that I noticed.
I'm all for better safety, but I think this is an overreaction. I'd compare falling off a scooter to be similar to falling off a bike–you're dealing with similar speeds and similar weight vehicles in both.
I stopped motorcycling after that.
I agree, and I've fallen off a bike a number of times. I have a few scars to show for it, and I would probably not be here if I hadn't worn a helmet during one of those accidents.
You very quickly reach speeds on a bike, and a scooter, where going down is going to mean significant injury even with the proper gear. Without safety gear, you're looking at life-changing or life-ending injuries.
I think it's important not to under-react just because the speeds are lower than a motorcycle - all those bones in our limbs break just as well at 10mph. When on a bike or a scooter, scaphoid wrist protection and at least a jacket on at all times, for me.
The most dangerous thing we can do is let ourselves mentally relax when we're on one, as if we're not on a big sharp chunk of (relatively) fast metal and inertia.
A helmet wearing person slamming headfirst into the nape of somebody's neck at 15 or 50 miles per hour is probably going to kill them.
The risk is lower on a scooter than on a motorcycle.
Falling off a bike/scooter at similar speeds obviously ends with similar results, but I'd be confident to wager that the probability of an accident is a lot higher on a scooter due to the point above.
Well, talking about the weight of the vehicle is a red herring here. With the exception of getting hit/crushed by the vehicle, the human component of going down is all about speed, fleshy weight, and ride-height.
I'm also not expecting people to ATGATT while on the scooters, but without doing that, injuries are definitely going to rise with increased use.
What are these companies going to do to discourage bad riders and encourage responsible use?
Wouldn't it be great if there was suitable lanes without potholes that weren't 'shared' with cars (cars don't share).
Injuries are to be expected, some users will ride stupidly, and unfortunate things happen. Add thousands of scooter each having 10 rides a day, of course injuries will rise.
I'm not sure the comparison makes sense as the use cases I think are different.
Time spent is a better approximation, taking into account additional safety provided by seatbelts and an enclosure.
Are you saying cars get demerits for having safety equipment?
https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/14-ways-to-make-bike-lanes-b...
It's a lot simpler for bicycles and scooters to live side by side than either of them with cars.
Some basics like safety standards for rented transportation are even easier.
Laws generally exist for a reason, and some reason forbids scooters from the bike lanes. Bike lanes are for bikes only.
Laws need to be updated as the world changes and that's a really bad reason to justify one.
moved a lane over
(which technically includes e-scooters)
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
> Bird said its goal in sponsoring the legislation was to create "consistent ridership rules" between e-scooters and e-bikes since helmets aren't required with e-bikes.
So they are actively working to enable more severe injuries and cloaking the move in an appeal to "consistency". That seems pretty grotesque to me.
(Why aren't helmets required with e-bikes!?)
I feel like this should be addressed by safety codes. Providing scooters with brakes that don't work is completely nuts.
That said, unlikely, but could have been a malicious citizen who intentionally damaged the brakes (people are super disrespectful to the green transit)
I've found the general sentiment is that people are disrespectful to Bird and Lime, rather than green transit in general. Something about them being an eyesore.
People complain of them parked on the sidewalk with rows of car parking all around, or riding on the sidewalk where on the street would be a death sentence.
I think it's very unreasonable to expect the company to be aware of vandalism and random damage without a rider report, or a much more expensive scooter. Ideally they would detect the damage during the next charge cycle, but I personally wouldn't put my faith in someone who's paid to spend as little time as possible with each scooter.
I mean, it should not even need a disclaimer that of course cutting brakes on those things is wrong, but if you drop them all over a major metro, usually without even bothering to get proper permits and work out proper storage and usage policies, and let every brain-dead idiot zoom around full-speed on sidewalks, bike lanes and roadways, you should not be very surprised that bad things will happen.
Another idea is when you're 63, find a more suitable form of transportation.
If that's too offensive, then check the brakes work before going down a steep hill. Also learn how to use the rear foot brake (if it has one, which I know the Segways and others do).
If the vehicle is so poorly designed that the brakes can go from 100% to completely non-functional between regular inspections, it shouldn't be on the road under any circumstances.
> Another idea is when you're 63, find a more suitable form of transportation.
...Huh? You think a 20-year-old can eat asphalt at 25mph and stroll away without a scratch? This is the weirdest victim-blaming I've seen.
Eating asphalt was a consequence of user not knowing the scooter has a rear foot brake. We also don't know exactly what happened except for a 63yo rider decided to scoot down a hill on a rental, and claims brakes didn't work.
Without knowing the full story including the exact condition or problem with scooter, you can't just believe everything you read. This is particularly true when said "victims" are no doubt hungry for compensation claims.
A 63yo is less able to take evasive action such as using foot to brake at speed and maintain balance before it's too late.
So yes, until evidence proves otherwise, I'm blaming the 63yo for the accident they had. We can't "Nanny" the world at every micro-step. Take some responsibility.
> A 63yo is less able to take evasive action such as using foot to brake at speed and maintain balance before it's too late.
This wasn't a matter of reflexes. She blew through three intersections with no brakes before deciding to bail out. If she panicked and didn't think of foot-braking, or believed that it would just cause an immediate crash at that speed, that's a shame, but it has nothing to do with age. A 20-year-old could make the same mistake. You really don't need to double down on this.
With a $100,000 surgery bill and talk of law suits, you're quick to take the side of the person wanting the payout.
You don't go to court with "the brakes didn't work. The end." as the submitted evidence. You have a report about the scooter, and a lot more facts at hand.
> "After cruising along for about a mile, the couple started to descend a steep hill."
There's your problem. 63 years old on a scooter, probably new to scooters, and descending a "steep hill". What could go wrong? And she scooted a whole mile apparently without using the brakes at all? Doesn't add up.
You may be interested to know that scooter manufacturers often specify an age range the scooter is suitable for. One popular scooter I looked at recently said "Age: 16 - 55".
> You really don't need to double down on this.
Nor do I need to triple-down, but I'm quite comfortable with the reasoned position I'm taking thanks.
Footnotes:
0: https://helmets.org/folding.htm
2: The alternative to not wearing this protection is none at all. I don't downhill ski much these days but didn't wear a helmet when no one did and am not about to start now.
Transportation of any kind is a fairly dangerous activity. I assume it’s more likely to be injured on a scooter than in a car, but I don’t think the hard numbers are in.
For example if you multiply the number of miles not driven by the vehicular accident rate, you would want to subtract that number of injuries off the scooter injury total, but surely it would still be positive.
The speed limit everywhere will be 15 MPH. Will Bird and Lime have appropriate limiters? I doubt it.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Sure, riding these scooters may be the most dangerous thing that some people have ever done besides using a motor vehicle, but they are also really fun and useful. I'd say, let them exist for awhile and see how it works out in the long term. Could be great for public transit and the last mile problem.
http://fortune.com/2018/09/22/lime-scooters-fatality-death/
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/person-died-renting...
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/30/electric-scooter-rental-c...
The current urban infrastructure in America are build for automobiles, specifically cars, with bikes being an afterthought. The mass adoption of electric scooters will eventually cause a wake-up call for city planners, and will hopefully put the brakes on car culture.
Even in the example the article uses, automobiles are the problem. What does the author suppose the busy intersection is busy with? The intersection is only dangerous because of the automobiles using it.
"Scooter accidents happen for a lot of reasons ... sometimes, the scooter is the problem. As she sped down that hill in San Diego, her husband yelled to Brogan to crash into him in order to break her fall. But she didn't want to send him flying. So moments before careening into the busy intersection, she held her arms up against her chest and slid the scooter out sideways."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/28/90-year-old-woma...
The foot brake can't malfunction because you are physically pressing the rear guard against the wheel with downward force. If the user isn't aware of the rear brake, that's user error.
That said, maybe lime scooters don't have rear brakes?
The other thing is, these scooters are great. I wouldn't rent one, because you don't know if the last person was doing jumps and stunts on it, which they are not designed for. But they are amazing little transport devices which help people get to their destination quicker.
Honestly 25 mph isn't that fast. Many healthy cyclists can achieve 25 mph quite easily, although perhaps not for a very long time. If you regularly cycle in places with steeper slopes, 25 mph can be achieved without much effort.
But I think the smallness of the scooters themselves could contribute to a feeling of being unsafe. Psychologically it feels that the object is too small to be able for the user to remain in control. This is in contrast to a bike, when the user simply feels more in control even at a similar speed.
Also the longer wheel base of a bicycle results in a slower response to user steering input, which results in greater stability as well.
Stats on accidental deaths from falling or stumbling put it nearly on par with accidental automobile deaths.
That's very fast. I know someone who crashed a bike at 22 mph (we know because the bike had a speedometer). Their injuries were so bad the ER doctor assumed they'd been in a car accident.
What the fuck do you mean 25mph isn't fast on a bike?
The lack of gear and training probably makes accidents worse than they would be. But how frequently and how severe?
> "Some of these injuries have been life-threatening; others have left people permanently disabled."
How many does "some" represent here? Definitely some fraction of the total injuries, which "could be as high as 1,000 per month."
Why "could be?" How uncertain is that figure and what other reasonable estimates of injury rates are there??
On the one hand, the "vast majority end up getting discharged with cuts and scrapes," but on the other hand, "some people may need lifelong care."
How many? And why are you hedging with "may?"
There are some specific numbers in the article-- but they are for individual emergency rooms, without the additional context necessary to extrapolate from that ER over any large regions. And then the information from different ERs ranges so widely as to appear to contradict each other.
I left the article with two takeaways:
1) I assume this is a very real problem.
2) I hate how we reward nonspecificity and anecdotal evidence in journalism. The problem's serious enough to at least take a shot at metrics that would help us to compare it to other social problems, like motorcycle or car or pedestrian injuries.
> How many? And why are you hedging with "may?"
That's a quote from a doctor about specific cases that went through a specific hospital he works at. That's why.
I've posted the full quote below, for context. Ironically, the journalist went through the effort of giving some very concrete numbers:
> Doctors in Dell Seton's emergency room say they're seeing about 10 injuries a day.
> "The vast majority end up getting discharged with cuts and scrapes, maybe a broken bone," said Ziebell. "But some injuries are significant."
> The hospital has seen 37 severe traumas since April: eight head injuries, 23 orthopedic injuries, four facial injuries and two "other" injuries. In October alone, doctors say 18 people were admitted to either the intensive care unit or surgeries with overnight hospital stays.
> "The folks that had severe head injuries, they're in for a long course of rehab," Ziebell said. "Some people may need lifelong care, like a nursing home."
C'mon. I addressed that in my very next sentence after the one you quoted.
A "concrete number" that is an arbitrary slice of the problem is more misleading than helpful.
The concrete numbers provided here, about individual ERs, with no indication as to what slice of the problem we're talking about, are essentially random noise when considering the problem as a whole.
Again, the article lays this out concretely:
> Because rentable electric scooters are so new, federal and local officials haven't started tracking accidents, and the companies have declined to release any stats. But some numbers are beginning to appear.
Then, they list the concrete numbers they do know.
I think it's getting lost in the noise, so to reiterate, my main point is that I'd just like journalism to include a little more analysis, to put numbers in context, and to avoid relying extensively on emotional appeals as a substitute for chalkboards or backs-of-napkins when dealing with complex social problems.
Based on your username, maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like you know what it's like to wrangle data and communicate findings. Sometimes you don't have all the data you want, but you have to make sense of what you have access to, get signal from noise, and make reasonable extrapolations even under a lot of initial uncertainty.
Now imagine you have access to everything the journalist had. You could ask additional questions at the hospitals or conduct additional searches in the public record.
If we asked, "what else could we learn about this important trend?" is your response really, "well, if the companies don't just tell us and there's no fully funded federal study... we just can't possibly know anything aside from the fact there were some number greater than fifty headlines in six months."
When we stop there I get terrified that Paulos was just right, we struggle to use numbers in public settings so nobody tries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book)
I feel like we could have, say, talked about the populations served by these ERs, or the fraction of overall ER cases that involve scooters and how that's changing over time. Anything to give us a sense of why these ERs vary in their numbers by a factor of ten, to determine how representative they are, or anything to give us a trendline. Even headline counting COULD be rigorous if you add more methodology than this article's "quick search." The gun violence project is one example of that approach.
The journos I really respect take these sorts of next steps. They do more with less. Sometimes they have to hedge and caveat, but they take a shot. It's not impossible, so I just wish we held more journalists to that higher standard, that's all.