Drivers operating cars 100% legally are a bigger threat to pedestrians than reckless scooter users.
Here in London at least, scooter journeys are mostly impractical by private car due to lack of parking. Logically they are replacing bus journeys, walking, taxis and cycling.
aside : i'd like to see this world of yours where cars are operated 100% legally -- even very responsible drivers tend to violate some road laws on a fairly common basis.
If scooter users stayed on roads i wouldn't have a problem. But the technology lends itself to abuse by people with no knowledge of safe road use.
The great fire of London literally reduced the city by so much that practically the entire city was rebuilt; that was only 350y ago (not making the case that you’re wrong about it being old, but 2,000 years is unfortunately wrong)
Anyway, urban design is not set in stone.
It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide.
I'm not sure giving LA, one of the poster cities for how not to do urban design, as an example, is a great idea.
Paris did the same thing, only in a much more measured fashion, in the 1760s under Haussmann and Napoléon III.
However destroying parts of a city which is thousands of years old just to increase the size of sidewalks would be to destroy historical monuments for minimal gains. If anything, making most small streets pedestrian and bike only sounds smarter.
(and i was trying to correct the notion that the city of london has not had radical changes in its urban design for 2000 years)
No. It is not. I even had work colleagues modifying their scooters firmware to do up to or over 30mph
Your colleague, and others, breaking the law and driving dangerously does not mean we should get rid of a means of transportation that is legally and safely used by others.