Mobility scooters and mobile phones

[Mark Goodge]

Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
is when driving a car?

(References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

[Peter Parry]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
>phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
>is when driving a car?

No.

>(References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 S20
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20

Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.

[Peter Crosland]

On 28/09/2015 17:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
> phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
> is when driving a car?
>
> (References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)

If it is on the road then AFAIK the Construction and use rules apply.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:32:20 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Excellent, thank you.

(By "excellent", I refer to the quality of the response. I actually think
that this particular exemption is potentially dangerous. But that's a
different matter).

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 28 September 2015 19:10:42 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:32:20 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0100, Mark Goodge
> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
> >>phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
> >>is when driving a car?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >>(References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)
> >
> >Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 S20
> >http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
> >
> >Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
> >to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.
>
> Excellent, thank you.
>
> (By "excellent", I refer to the quality of the response. I actually think
> that this particular exemption is potentially dangerous. But that's a
> different matter).
>
> Mark

There's quite a difference though between doing 30 and doing 8mph, while speaking.


NT

[Tim+]

Hard for me to read this on my phone but, isn't that link solely relating
to use on a footpath or bridleway?

I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.
Would normal laws regarding use of phones whilst driving on roads not
apply to these?

Tim

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com put finger to

keyboard and typed:

>On Monday, 28 September 2015 19:10:42 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:32:20 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>> >On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> ><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
>> >>phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
>> >>is when driving a car?
>> >
>> >No.
>> >
>> >>(References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)
>> >
>> >Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 S20
>> >http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
>> >
>> >Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
>> >to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.
>>
>> Excellent, thank you.
>>
>> (By "excellent", I refer to the quality of the response. I actually think
>> that this particular exemption is potentially dangerous. But that's a
>> different matter).
>>
>> Mark
>
>There's quite a difference though between doing 30 and doing 8mph, while speaking.

It still only takes a second or two at 8mph to be somewhere you shouldn't
without realising it.

I once watched a mobility scooter user on the pavement talking on her
phone. She was so intent on the conversation that she didn't look where she
was going, and ended up veering off the pavement and into a bush. It was
one of those "I know I shouldn't laugh, but..." moments that, had I had the
foresight to film it on my own phone, would undoubtedly have gone viral on
social media. But it wouldn't have been in the slightest bit funny if she'd
veered the other way and into the path of a truck.

Mark
--
Would you like to be a member of the UK Usenet Committee?
Message-ID: <notice-cfn-committee-elections-2015-20150915075152$47...@weathertop.principate.org.uk>

[Roland Perry]

In message
<174675809465197493.611020...@news.eternal-septembe
r.org>, at 05:34:17 on Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Tim+
<timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>> Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
>> to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.
>
>Hard for me to read this on my phone but, isn't that link solely relating
>to use on a footpath or bridleway?
>
>I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.

There's a stall selling mobility scooters in our weekly market, and a
few of them are marked "Road legal", which must imply that there's
something different about their spec, and presumably the rules applying
to their use on the roads.

> Would normal laws regarding use of phones whilst driving on roads not
>apply to these?

If, as seems likely, they are motor vehicles, then yes.

I've also seen mobility scooters without lights and plates travelling
*very* fast (for a scooter). At least 20mph. And one of such in a
contraflow cycle lane, which is a whole new can of "should he be doing
that".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <12bk0bp9c5e52sh71...@news.markshouse.net>, at
07:33:49 on Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>There's quite a difference though between doing 30 and doing 8mph, while speaking.
>
>It still only takes a second or two at 8mph to be somewhere you shouldn't
>without realising it.
>
>I once watched a mobility scooter user on the pavement talking on her
>phone. She was so intent on the conversation that she didn't look where she
>was going, and ended up veering off the pavement and into a bush. It was
>one of those "I know I shouldn't laugh, but..." moments that, had I had the
>foresight to film it on my own phone, would undoubtedly have gone viral on
>social media. But it wouldn't have been in the slightest bit funny if she'd
>veered the other way and into the path of a truck.

The most dangerous things mobility scooters do, in my experience, is
suddenly appear around blind bends on the pavement and expect
pedestrians to scatter to give them priority.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 05:34:17 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
<timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
>>> phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
>>> is when driving a car?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> (References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)
>>
>> Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 S20
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
>>
>> Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
>> to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.
>
>Hard for me to read this on my phone but, isn't that link solely relating
>to use on a footpath or bridleway?

No. There are three classes of invalid carriage Class 1 is manual
wheelchairs, Class 2 is electric Wheelchairs limited to 4MPH and for
pavement use only and Class 3 limited to 8MPH on roads and 4MPH on
pavements which can be used on roads. Class 3 are supposed to have
number plates but many do not. They will have lights, brakes, a
mirror and a horn.

The Use of Invalid Carriages on Highways Regulations 1988
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2268/made

>I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.
> Would normal laws regarding use of phones whilst driving on roads not
>apply to these?

No. Although there are 3 classes with different requirements all
operate under the same S20 exemption.

[Nightjar <cpb]

On 28/09/2015 19:10, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:32:20 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0100, Mark Goodge
>> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
>>> phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
>>> is when driving a car?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> (References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)
>>
>> Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 S20
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
>>
>> Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
>> to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.
>
> Excellent, thank you.
>
> (By "excellent", I refer to the quality of the response. I actually think
> that this particular exemption is potentially dangerous. But that's a
> different matter).

There are also no eyesight or insurance requirements for a mobility scooter.


--
Colin Bignell

[Nightjar <cpb]

On 28/09/2015 23:01, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> There's quite a difference though between doing 30 and doing 8mph, while speaking.

People have been badly injured by even a Class 2 scooter, doing 4mph.
Not so long ago, locally, one ran over somebody's foot and drove off,
leaving the pedestrian with broken bones.

--
Colin Bignell

[Derek Turner]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:41:24 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

> Class 3 are supposed to have number plates but many do not. They will
> have lights, brakes, a mirror and a horn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkupbvRHzsY

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 29/09/2015 08:41, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 05:34:17 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
> <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:56:25 +0100, Mark Goodge
>>> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quick (hopefully!) question... is it illegal to use a hand held mobile
>>>> phone while riding a mobility scooter on the road, in the same way that it
>>>> is when driving a car?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> (References to relevant legislation would be appreciated!)
>>>
>>> Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 S20
>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/44/section/20
>>>
>>> Effectively an invalid carriage (wheelchair/scooter) is not considered
>>> to be a motor vehicle and most of the RTA does not apply.
>>
>> Hard for me to read this on my phone but, isn't that link solely relating
>> to use on a footpath or bridleway?
>
> No. There are three classes of invalid carriage Class 1 is manual
> wheelchairs, Class 2 is electric Wheelchairs limited to 4MPH and for
> pavement use only and Class 3 limited to 8MPH on roads and 4MPH on
> pavements which can be used on roads. Class 3 are supposed to have
> number plates but many do not. They will have lights, brakes, a
> mirror and a horn.

Class 3 scooters are supposed to be registered with DVLA and are issued
with a registration number (however, I have no idea what proportion of
them are registered). There's no requirement for them to display a
number plate though - and there's nowhere you could fit one, certainly
not a full size one!

I have a Class 3 scooter and have the registration number on a tag on my
keyring, on the basis that I assume a policeman would be entitled to ask
for it. The paperwork from DVLA makes it clear that I have no need to
display a number plate though.


--
Best wishes, Serena
Respect the wide diversity among us in our lives and relationships.
Refrain from making prejudiced judgments about the life journeys of
others. (Quaker Advices and Queries #22)

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:31:01 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:

>On 29/09/2015 08:41, Peter Parry wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 05:34:17 +0000 (UTC), Tim+
>> <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> No. There are three classes of invalid carriage Class 1 is manual
>> wheelchairs, Class 2 is electric Wheelchairs limited to 4MPH and for
>> pavement use only and Class 3 limited to 8MPH on roads and 4MPH on
>> pavements which can be used on roads. Class 3 are supposed to have
>> number plates but many do not. They will have lights, brakes, a
>> mirror and a horn.
>
>Class 3 scooters are supposed to be registered with DVLA and are issued
>with a registration number (however, I have no idea what proportion of
>them are registered). There's no requirement for them to display a
>number plate though - and there's nowhere you could fit one, certainly
>not a full size one!

You see all possible combinations - including full size plates mounted
vertically. As you say they are not required to be displayed and it
seems very few owners register them with DVLA.

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 29/09/2015 07:32, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> I've also seen mobility scooters without lights and plates travelling
> *very* fast (for a scooter). At least 20mph. And one of such in a
> contraflow cycle lane, which is a whole new can of "should he be doing
> that".

If it was going at 20mph (other than when being towed, on a trailer!),
then it didn't meet the legal requirements for a mobility scooter which,
under the regulations cited by Peter Parry, elsewhere in this thread,
cannot go at more than 8mph.

If you saw one travelling at 20mph, then either it had been illegally
pimped or it was an altogether different beast.


[I tried to post this yesterday but it seems to have vanished into the
ether. My apologies if it appears twice...]

--
Best wishes, Serena
Why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, ... you've seen
what food processors do to food, right?

[Serena Blanchflower]

I did think of trying to get a miniature one, more as a joke than for
any useful purpose but, for the time being at least, I'll stick to just
having the number on my keyring. I don't remember ever seeing a scooter
with a number plate displayed but I only tend to get out in a fairly
small area.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to
live as one wishes to live. (Oscar Wilde)

[Judith]

Grandmother traumatised after mobility scooter crash

http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/local/grandmother-traumatised-after-mobility-scooter-crash-1-6942343

A police spokesperson said that accidents involving mobility scooters can be a
“grey area”. Despite mobility scooters not being road vehicles, such incidents
are still considered as road traffic accidents.

I wonder if it is really a grey area: or just to that particular police
spokesperson?

[Roland Perry]

In message <oLWdndGWYt1J05HL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
22:06:32 on Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>> I've also seen mobility scooters without lights and plates travelling
>> *very* fast (for a scooter). At least 20mph. And one of such in a
>> contraflow cycle lane, which is a whole new can of "should he be doing
>> that".
>
>If it was going at 20mph (other than when being towed, on a trailer!),
>then it didn't meet the legal requirements for a mobility scooter
>which, under the regulations cited by Peter Parry, elsewhere in this
>thread, cannot go at more than 8mph.

"Are not supposed to be able to go at more than 8mph".

>If you saw one travelling at 20mph, then either it had been illegally
>pimped or it was an altogether different beast.

Pimped, I'm sure.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 01/10/2015 09:06, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <oLWdndGWYt1J05HL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 22:06:32 on Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Serena Blanchflower
> <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>>> I've also seen mobility scooters without lights and plates travelling
>>> *very* fast (for a scooter). At least 20mph. And one of such in a
>>> contraflow cycle lane, which is a whole new can of "should he be doing
>>> that".
>>
>> If it was going at 20mph (other than when being towed, on a trailer!),
>> then it didn't meet the legal requirements for a mobility scooter
>> which, under the regulations cited by Peter Parry, elsewhere in this
>> thread, cannot go at more than 8mph.
>
> "Are not supposed to be able to go at more than 8mph".

The reason I said "cannot" rather than "should not" or "is not supposed
to" is that, if it's capable of travelling at 20mph, it no longer meets
the legal definition for a mobility scooter:

a “Class 3 invalid carriage” means a mechanically propelled invalid
carriage which is so constructed or adapted as to be capable of
exceeding a speed of 4 miles per hour but incapable of exceeding a speed
of 8 miles per hour on the level under its own power;


Therefore, once it's been pimped, to that level, it no longer counts as
a mobility scooter.

>
>> If you saw one travelling at 20mph, then either it had been illegally
>> pimped or it was an altogether different beast.
>
> Pimped, I'm sure.


--

Best wishes, Serena
She generally gave herself very good advice, (though she very seldom
followed it). (Lewis Carroll)

[Roland Perry]

In message <4dCdnW6Z2v9CcJHL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:25:09 on Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Serena Blanchflower

<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>>>> I've also seen mobility scooters without lights and plates travelling
>>>> *very* fast (for a scooter). At least 20mph. And one of such in a
>>>> contraflow cycle lane, which is a whole new can of "should he be doing
>>>> that".
>>>
>>> If it was going at 20mph (other than when being towed, on a trailer!),
>>> then it didn't meet the legal requirements for a mobility scooter
>>> which, under the regulations cited by Peter Parry, elsewhere in this
>>> thread, cannot go at more than 8mph.
>>
>> "Are not supposed to be able to go at more than 8mph".
>
>The reason I said "cannot" rather than "should not" or "is not supposed
>to" is that, if it's capable of travelling at 20mph, it no longer meets
>the legal definition for a mobility scooter:
>
>a “Class 3 invalid carriage” means a mechanically propelled invalid
>carriage which is so constructed or adapted as to be capable of
>exceeding a speed of 4 miles per hour but incapable of exceeding a speed
>of 8 miles per hour on the level under its own power;
>
>Therefore, once it's been pimped, to that level, it no longer counts as
>a mobility scooter.

It may not meet the definition of a mobility scooter that's exempt from
various regualtions, but it's nevertheless a pimped mobility scooter.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

And, as such, illegal to use on the road (or pavement), which answers
your original question.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Damn right I'm good in bed - I can sleep for days

[Judith]

ffs - I did not realise that.

So one could be almost blind, and then tear arse along a footpath, possibly
whilst pissed, with the strong possibility of serious danger to life and limb
of pedestrians.

Wonderful.

[the Omrud]

If "tear arse" includes travel at 4 mph.

--
David

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 01/10/2015 13:05, Judith wrote:

Drunk driving is one law for which there isn't an exemption, AIUI, for
mobility scooters. I'm sure I've read of a few people being prosecuted
for driving them while under the influence.

As the Omrud has pointed out, the fastest you can, legally, tear arse
along a footpath on one is 4mph.



--
Best wishes, Serena
Behind every successful man is a surprised woman (Maryon Pearson)

[Serena Blanchflower]

My assumption would be that, if not a grey area, it is fairly murky. As
has been discussed elsewhere, most traffic offences don't apply to
mobility scooters but I assume that the driver would have to be pretty
spectacularly reckless before charges such as assault applied. I'm not
sure what options would be available to the police, if they considered
that the driver was sufficiently culpable that they would want to charge
them but the accident happened at slow speed, with a sober driver.


In the penultimate paragraph of the article you linked to, the victim
was quoted as saying:

“I think public liability insurance should be compulsory, and they
should be regulated to walking pace when on the pavements."

I certainly wouldn't quarrel with her first point but it's worth
mentioning that they are legally regulated to 4mph on pavements, which
is walking pace, albeit a pretty brisk walk.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Smile, breathe and go slowly (Thich Nhat Hanh)

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 29 September 2015 10:53:59 UTC+1, Nightjar <cpb wrote:
nt:

> ...
> > There's quite a difference though between doing 30 and doing 8mph, while speaking.
>
> People have been badly injured by even a Class 2 scooter, doing 4mph.
> Not so long ago, locally, one ran over somebody's foot and drove off,
> leaving the pedestrian with broken bones.

so massively different to cars. Mass slaughter versus one extreme broken bone injury.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

lol. Drivers aren't exempt from the usual array of laws, and AIUI like cyclists can be prosecuted for being drunk in charge etc.

Insurance for a tiny lightweight 4mph vehicle seems a bit unnecessary. I reckon I've hit around 10x that speed on a bicycle. And eyesight... if they can see where they're going, at all of 4mph, that's enough. The whole point of mobility scooters is to provide people that could not otherwise travel out a way to have some mobility. If they should be banned from the pavement for having grotty eyesight, perhaps the same should be applied to pedestrians, who after all sometimes go rather faster than 4mph.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 1 October 2015 13:10:56 UTC+1, Judith wrote:

> >There are also no eyesight or insurance requirements for a mobility scooter.
>
> ffs - I did not realise that.
>
> So one could be almost blind, and then tear arse along a footpath, possibly
> whilst pissed, with the strong possibility of serious danger to life and limb
> of pedestrians.
>
> Wonderful.

I don't believe for one single moment that the stats support your claim of "serious danger to life and limb".


NT

[Roland Perry]

In message <e8750c02-bf6e-4ce9...@googlegroups.com>, at
16:02:27 on Thu, 1 Oct 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>> If "tear arse" includes travel at 4 mph.
>
>lol. Drivers aren't exempt from the usual array of laws, and AIUI like
>cyclists can be prosecuted for being drunk in charge etc.
>
>Insurance for a tiny lightweight 4mph vehicle seems a bit unnecessary.

They are neither tiny nor lightweight - especially when they have
fifteen stone of driver sat on them.

The problem with them is mainly appearing at speed around blind bends,
although they also suffer from the cyclists' disease of feeling entitled
to continue at full speed scattering pedestrians[1], rather than waiting
their turn when there's congestion of the pavement. And they don't have
the excuse that they lose valuable momentum, because the vehicle is
powered.

[1] I've been watching some of the locals recently, and the worst are
mothers on trikes with one or two toddlers sat in a rear-facing jump
seat. They really do appear to think they have right-of-way on the
pavement and that pedestrians should jump out of their way.
--
Roland Perry

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <12bk0bp9c5e52sh71...@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> escribió:

> But it wouldn't have been in the slightest bit funny if she'd
>veered the other way and into the path of a truck.

Yes, it would. Darwin in action. My feelings would be with the truck
driver though.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

[Serena Blanchflower]

A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
and that's before you've got a person on board. If you hit someone at
4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky. Class
3 scooters are generally considerably heavier and can go at up to 8 mph
(although they should always be limited to 4 mph, when on a pavement).


--
Best wishes, Serena
Life wouldn't be worth living if I worried over the future as well as
the present. (W. Somerset Maugham)

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 08:03:17 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <e8750c02-bf6e-4ce9...@googlegroups.com>, at

nt:

> >> If "tear arse" includes travel at 4 mph.
> >
> >lol. Drivers aren't exempt from the usual array of laws, and AIUI like
> >cyclists can be prosecuted for being drunk in charge etc.
> >
> >Insurance for a tiny lightweight 4mph vehicle seems a bit unnecessary.
>
> They are neither tiny nor lightweight - especially when they have
> fifteen stone of driver sat on them.
>
> The problem with them is mainly appearing at speed around blind bends,
> although they also suffer from the cyclists' disease of feeling entitled
> to continue at full speed scattering pedestrians[1], rather than waiting
> their turn when there's congestion of the pavement. And they don't have
> the excuse that they lose valuable momentum, because the vehicle is
> powered.
>
> [1] I've been watching some of the locals recently, and the worst are
> mothers on trikes with one or two toddlers sat in a rear-facing jump
> seat. They really do appear to think they have right-of-way on the
> pavement and that pedestrians should jump out of their way.

That certainly isn't my experience of them. Its a bit pointless to exaggerate & demonise mobility scooters. They're an important element in society and far less risk than all the other transport machines we routinely use.

Any tool can be abused by someone somewhere. That's clearly not a reason to ban all.


NT

[Mike Bristow]

In article <QoadnXfj8uee1ZPL...@brightview.co.uk>,

Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
> and that's before you've got a person on board.

So an all-up weight of ~200kg is a realistic maximum.

> If you hit someone at
> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.

If I run and collide with someone, I could do serious damage if I (nd
they) are unlucky.

Given I weigh ~80kg, and can run at ~8mph for hours the energy in
a colliion between me and you is broadly the same if I run or if I
sit in a scooter[1]. I would therefore expect the consequences to
be about the same. I don't think the chances would be that much
different, either.

I therefore think the regulatory framework for scooters should be
more like the regulatory framework for pedestrians than that for
cars, as the risks associated with scooters is much more like the
risks associated with pedestrians than cars.

> Class
> 3 scooters are generally considerably heavier and can go at up to 8 mph
> (although they should always be limited to 4 mph, when on a pavement).

Yes; but even then their energy is in the "runner" class rather
than the "car" class, and the risks they pose to the general public
are in that same order of magnitude.


[1] The KE would be 1/2 * m * v^2; 4mph is 1.8 m/s; 8mph is 3.6
m/s; therefore the KE in scooter case is 324J and for the runner
it's 518J. On the other hand, a 865kg fiat 500 driving at 20mph has
34,258 - 60 times as much.


--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 10:02:45 UTC+1, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
nt:

I just looked a couple up. 42.3kg, 46.8kg.

> If you hit someone at
> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.

I'm sure the level of injuries from this mode of travel is exceptionally low.

> Class
> 3 scooters are generally considerably heavier and can go at up to 8 mph
> (although they should always be limited to 4 mph, when on a pavement).

Larger & heavier yes. But still no toll of killings. Unlike other types of transport.


NT

[Dr. Sandringham]

That's a bit of an over-reaction - he did post it as a hypothetical.

[Roland Perry]

In message <bc2b85ba-9407-4828...@googlegroups.com>, at
04:05:15 on Fri, 2 Oct 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>> >> If "tear arse" includes travel at 4 mph.
>> >
>> >lol. Drivers aren't exempt from the usual array of laws, and AIUI like
>> >cyclists can be prosecuted for being drunk in charge etc.
>> >
>> >Insurance for a tiny lightweight 4mph vehicle seems a bit unnecessary.
>>
>> They are neither tiny nor lightweight - especially when they have
>> fifteen stone of driver sat on them.
>>
>> The problem with them is mainly appearing at speed around blind bends,
>> although they also suffer from the cyclists' disease of feeling entitled
>> to continue at full speed scattering pedestrians[1], rather than waiting
>> their turn when there's congestion of the pavement. And they don't have
>> the excuse that they lose valuable momentum, because the vehicle is
>> powered.
>>
>> [1] I've been watching some of the locals recently, and the worst are
>> mothers on trikes with one or two toddlers sat in a rear-facing jump
>> seat. They really do appear to think they have right-of-way on the
>> pavement and that pedestrians should jump out of their way.
>
>That certainly isn't my experience of them.

"Them" in my note [1] above are mothers on three-wheeled bicycles, with
toddlers in rear-facing jump seats. And I've had to jump out of the way
of one on the pavement quite recently.

>Its a bit pointless to exaggerate & demonise mobility scooters.

It's the riders who are the problem.

>They're an important element in society and far less risk than all the
>other transport machines we routinely use.

Someone pushing a wheelchair is less risky to pedestrians (not that I'm
suggesting this as an alternative for all scooter users).

>Any tool can be abused by someone somewhere. That's clearly not a reason
>to ban all.

Who suggested banning them?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <7b340495-9be2-47c3...@googlegroups.com>, at
04:09:09 on Fri, 2 Oct 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>> If you hit someone at
>> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.
>
>I'm sure the level of injuries from this mode of travel is
>exceptionally low.

Only because pedestrians usually do manage to jump out of the way.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnn0sps...@cheddar.urgle.com>, at 12:16:23 on Fri,
2 Oct 2015, Mike Bristow <mi...@urgle.com> remarked:

>> If you hit someone at
>> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.
>
>If I run and collide with someone, I could do serious damage if I (nd
>they) are unlucky.
>
>Given I weigh ~80kg, and can run at ~8mph for hours the energy in
>a colliion between me and you is broadly the same if I run or if I
>sit in a scooter[1]. I would therefore expect the consequences to
>be about the same. I don't think the chances would be that much
>different, either.

The number of people running down the pavement in my High Street is
negligible - I can't remember the last time I saw someone doing it. And
a runner is far more able to dodge out of the way of other pedestrians
than a scooter driver, and are certainly less self-entitled when it
comes to their manners.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

That would be the very lightweight ones, designed to be put in the boot,
or taken on buses. Their ground clearance is so small that they are
only really suitable for use in modern shopping centres.

I was looking at the kind of scooter that's slightly larger and can
manage uneven pavements and you see a lot in any town centre, such as this:

<http://www.fairprice-mobility-scooters.co.uk/pridecoltnine.html>

which is 59.42 kg without batteries, so you then have to add two
batteries at 14.5 kgs each.

>> If you hit someone at
>> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.
>
> I'm sure the level of injuries from this mode of travel is exceptionally low.

Low, yes but I'm not sure just how low.

>> Class
>> 3 scooters are generally considerably heavier and can go at up to 8 mph
>> (although they should always be limited to 4 mph, when on a pavement).
>
> Larger & heavier yes. But still no toll of killings. Unlike other types of transport.

Not many deaths, I agree, although I'm pretty sure there have been some.


--
Best wishes, Serena
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind (Gandhi)

[Roland Perry]

In message <EM2dnbebmokGH5PL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:12:04 on Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>>> A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
>>> and that's before you've got a person on board.
>>
>> I just looked a couple up. 42.3kg, 46.8kg.
>
>
>That would be the very lightweight ones, designed to be put in the
>boot, or taken on buses. Their ground clearance is so small that they
>are only really suitable for use in modern shopping centres.
>
>I was looking at the kind of scooter that's slightly larger and can
>manage uneven pavements and you see a lot in any town centre, such as
>this:
>
><http://www.fairprice-mobility-scooters.co.uk/pridecoltnine.html>
>
>which is 59.42 kg without batteries, so you then have to add two
>batteries at 14.5 kgs each.

There was a chap on something very like that failing miserably to
negotiate it around my local branch of Iceland yesterday - not least
because it was very busy and he was determined to negotiate it through
the substantial queues blocking the till-end of the shop. My own on-foot
strategy in that store is to move from aisle to aisle exclusively at the
back-of-the-store end, and only join then melee at the front when I'm
ready to pay.
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In article <FzEOmRpt5nDWFAZ$@perry.co.uk>,

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>And a runner is far more able to dodge out of the way of other
>pedestrians than a scooter driver, and are certainly less
>self-entitled when it comes to their manners.

A very relevant point is probaby the prospect of getting hurt. If you
collide badly with someone while running, you're likely to feel some
of the pain of your victim. Whereas if you drive into someone with a
scooter, you won't.

Driving at pedestrians with such a thing and expecting them to scatter
is surely assault with a weapon.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:40:03 +0100, Mike Tomlinson put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>En el artículo <12bk0bp9c5e52sh71...@news.markshouse.net>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> escribió:
>
>> But it wouldn't have been in the slightest bit funny if she'd
>>veered the other way and into the path of a truck.
>
>Yes, it would. Darwin in action. My feelings would be with the truck
>driver though.

And her friends and family, and the people who have to deal with the mess,
and the drivers whose journeys are disrupted by the accident.

In any case, most mobility scooter users have already engaged in the
reproduction of the species in an earlier stage of their lives. So there's
no hereditary population benefit in this case.

That's the problem with Darwin. He's rarely precise enough when making a
natural selection.

Mark
--
Would you like to be a member of the UK Usenet Committee?
Message-ID: <notice-cfn-committee-elections-2015-20150915075152$47...@weathertop.principate.org.uk>

[Roger Hayter]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:40:03 +0100, Mike Tomlinson put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >En el artículo <12bk0bp9c5e52sh71...@news.markshouse.net>,
> >Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> escribió:
> >
> >> But it wouldn't have been in the slightest bit funny if she'd
> >>veered the other way and into the path of a truck.
> >
> >Yes, it would. Darwin in action. My feelings would be with the truck
> >driver though.
>
> And her friends and family, and the people who have to deal with the mess,
> and the drivers whose journeys are disrupted by the accident.
>
> In any case, most mobility scooter users have already engaged in the
> reproduction of the species in an earlier stage of their lives. So there's
> no hereditary population benefit in this case.
>
> That's the problem with Darwin. He's rarely precise enough when making a
> natural selection.
>
> Mark

There is a theory that the evolutionary origin of old age is from
increasing the breeding ability of the offspring by getting out of the
way (and ceasing to consume food, shelter etc.) fairly promptly after
they are mature. On this basis, the unexpectedly early demise may be
to the advantage of her genes, if the children buy a bigger house with
their inheritance and have more babies.

--
Roger Hayter

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <hngt0bdla59jqsm1m...@news.markshouse.net>,
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> escribió:

>That's the problem with Darwin. He's rarely precise enough when making a
>natural selection.

I think that has to be the quote of the week :)
Thank you.

And yes, totally agreed about your point about not only feeling for the
truck driver, but those having to clean up the mess. Same goes for
major accidents involving multiple persons.

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 13:53:50 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <bc2b85ba-9407-4828...@googlegroups.com>, at

nt:

> >> >> If "tear arse" includes travel at 4 mph.
> >> >
> >> >lol. Drivers aren't exempt from the usual array of laws, and AIUI like
> >> >cyclists can be prosecuted for being drunk in charge etc.
> >> >
> >> >Insurance for a tiny lightweight 4mph vehicle seems a bit unnecessary.
> >>
> >> They are neither tiny nor lightweight - especially when they have
> >> fifteen stone of driver sat on them.
> >>
> >> The problem with them is mainly appearing at speed around blind bends,
> >> although they also suffer from the cyclists' disease of feeling entitled
> >> to continue at full speed scattering pedestrians[1], rather than waiting
> >> their turn when there's congestion of the pavement. And they don't have
> >> the excuse that they lose valuable momentum, because the vehicle is
> >> powered.
> >>
> >> [1] I've been watching some of the locals recently, and the worst are
> >> mothers on trikes with one or two toddlers sat in a rear-facing jump
> >> seat. They really do appear to think they have right-of-way on the
> >> pavement and that pedestrians should jump out of their way.
> >
> >That certainly isn't my experience of them.
>
> "Them" in my note [1] above are mothers on three-wheeled bicycles, with

Ah, so not mobility buggies

> toddlers in rear-facing jump seats. And I've had to jump out of the way
> of one on the pavement quite recently.

hence your overreaction

> >Its a bit pointless to exaggerate & demonise mobility scooters.
>
> It's the riders who are the problem.

I don't believe any statistcs support that position


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:14:11 UTC+1, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
nt:
> > On Friday, 2 October 2015 10:02:45 UTC+1, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> > nt:

> >> A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
> >> and that's before you've got a person on board.
> >
> > I just looked a couple up. 42.3kg, 46.8kg.
>
>
> That would be the very lightweight ones, designed to be put in the boot,
> or taken on buses.

no they're not. They're 10 mile range ones, not able to go in boots or on buses.

> Their ground clearance is so small that they are
> only really suitable for use in modern shopping centres.
>
> I was looking at the kind of scooter that's slightly larger and can
> manage uneven pavements and you see a lot in any town centre, such as this:
>
> <http://www.fairprice-mobility-scooters.co.uk/pridecoltnine.html>
>
> which is 59.42 kg without batteries, so you then have to add two
> batteries at 14.5 kgs each.

that's the type I was looking at too

> Not many deaths, I agree, although I'm pretty sure there have been some.

There are deaths with all types of transport. Mobility scooter deaths are rare.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:03:46 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <7b340495-9be2-47c3...@googlegroups.com>, at

nt:

> >> If you hit someone at
> >> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.
> >
> >I'm sure the level of injuries from this mode of travel is
> >exceptionally low.
>
> Only because pedestrians usually do manage to jump out of the way.

Obviously that's not the reason, and the plain fact is that injuries are rare.


NT

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 2 October 2015 13:42:19 UTC+1, Mike Bristow wrote:
> In article <QoadnXfj8uee1ZPL...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> > A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
> > and that's before you've got a person on board.
>
> So an all-up weight of ~200kg is a realistic maximum.

42kg scooter + 60kg person is 100kg, thus half the KE of a runner.

[Roland Perry]

In message <9fecd5e4-4e2e-4207...@googlegroups.com>, at
07:15:07 on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>> >> If you hit someone at
>> >> 4mph you could do serious damage, if you (and they) were unlucky.
>> >
>> >I'm sure the level of injuries from this mode of travel is
>> >exceptionally low.
>>
>> Only because pedestrians usually do manage to jump out of the way.
>
>Obviously that's not the reason, and the plain fact is that injuries are rare.

It's pretty obvious that if they didn't jump out of the way there'd be
far more injuries.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ac43e740-155f-4d4a...@googlegroups.com>, at
07:11:36 on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>> >> [1] I've been watching some of the locals recently, and the worst are
>> >> mothers on trikes with one or two toddlers sat in a rear-facing jump
>> >> seat. They really do appear to think they have right-of-way on the
>> >> pavement and that pedestrians should jump out of their way.
>> >
>> >That certainly isn't my experience of them.
>>
>> "Them" in my note [1] above are mothers on three-wheeled bicycles, with
>
>Ah, so not mobility buggies

Never was.

>> toddlers in rear-facing jump seats. And I've had to jump out of the way
>> of one on the pavement quite recently.
>
>hence your overreaction

Why is it an over-reaction to jump out of the way? Given that the
nearest A&E is over half an hour away.

>> >Its a bit pointless to exaggerate & demonise mobility scooters.
>>
>> It's the riders who are the problem.
>
>I don't believe any statistcs support that position

Perhaps you have some statistics which show that it's rogue sentient
buggies who are the problem, and the riders are simply clinging on for
dear life, unable to operate the brakes.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <61184540-79ce-4c0f...@googlegroups.com>, at
07:13:07 on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>> > A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
>> > and that's before you've got a person on board.
>>
>> So an all-up weight of ~200kg is a realistic maximum.
>
>42kg scooter + 60kg person is 100kg, thus half the KE of a runner.

Runners, very rare on the High Street, can dodge round pedestrians in
their way. Scooters, in their droves on the High Street, usually don't
even attempt to dodge pedestrians they are conflicting with.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 03/10/2015 15:19, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 2 October 2015 14:14:11 UTC+1, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> nt:
>>> On Friday, 2 October 2015 10:02:45 UTC+1, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>> nt:
>
>>>> A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
>>>> and that's before you've got a person on board.
>>>
>>> I just looked a couple up. 42.3kg, 46.8kg.
>>
>>
>> That would be the very lightweight ones, designed to be put in the boot,
>> or taken on buses.
>
> no they're not. They're 10 mile range ones, not able to go in boots or on buses.
>
>> Their ground clearance is so small that they are
>> only really suitable for use in modern shopping centres.
>>
>> I was looking at the kind of scooter that's slightly larger and can
>> manage uneven pavements and you see a lot in any town centre, such as this:
>>
>> <http://www.fairprice-mobility-scooters.co.uk/pridecoltnine.html>
>>
>> which is 59.42 kg without batteries, so you then have to add two
>> batteries at 14.5 kgs each.
>
> that's the type I was looking at too

Which, as you can see from the website I cited weighs in at a fraction
under 100 kgs, including batteries but excluding their driver.

>
>
>
>> Not many deaths, I agree, although I'm pretty sure there have been some.
>
> There are deaths with all types of transport. Mobility scooter deaths are rare.

I agree that they're rare and, like you, I haven't heard anything to
suggest that there's a huge problem with them. I do think that scooter
drivers should carry insurance and that it probably should be mandatory,
at least for the larger, class 3, scooters as they do have the potential
to cause significant damage.


--
Best wishes, Serena
It's not what happens to you; it's what you do about it that makes the
difference. (W. Mitchell)

[Martin Bonner]

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 16:36:39 UTC+2, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 2 October 2015 13:42:19 UTC+1, Mike Bristow wrote:
> > In article <QoadnXfj8uee1ZPL...@brightview.co.uk>,
> > Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> > > A fairly typical Class 2 scooter can weigh in the region of 100 kgs -
> > > and that's before you've got a person on board.
> >
> > So an all-up weight of ~200kg is a realistic maximum.
>
> 42kg scooter + 60kg person is 100kg, thus half the KE of a runner.

A 60kg is about 9½ stone. That's a pretty light person. As a general
rule, people in mobility scooters are overweight (there are those who
put on weight because they can't move, and those who can't move because
they are overweight).

25 stone is pretty heavy (but not ridiculously so) and is 158kg, which
gives an all-up weight of 200kg.

[Janet]

In article <7b340495-9be2-47c3...@googlegroups.com>,
tabb...@gmail.com says...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2952643/MPs-demand-compulsory-
mobility-scooter-training-three-people-week-injured-crashes-five-
drivers-KILLED.htm

15 feb 2015

"MPs have demanded 'compulsory training' for mobility scooter
drivers after a shock figures revealed three people a WEEK are being
injured in accidents involving the 10mph disability buggies.

In total, 164 accidents involving mobility scooters were recorded last
year – including five drivers who were killed, 17 who suffered serious
injuries and a further 102 who sustained 'slight injuries'.

Nine more people, who were not the driver, were seriously injured after
being hit by a scooter - and another 31 people slightly injured, the
Department for Transport has revealed.But experts said the true figure
is likely to be far higher, because the crashes were only recorded by
less than half of police forces.

The vehicles, intended for disabled people and have a top speed of just
10mph, are cheap to run, do not need tax or insurance, and can be driven
without a licence.

They are classified as medical devices and are not covered by the Road
Traffic Act, giving the police limited powers to prosecute dangerous
driving."

Janet.

[Jerry Stuckle]

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:22:11 +0100, Serena Blanchflower wrote:


>>> Not many deaths, I agree, although I'm pretty sure there have been
>>> some.
>>
>> There are deaths with all types of transport. Mobility scooter deaths
>> are rare.
>
> I agree that they're rare and, like you, I haven't heard anything to
> suggest that there's a huge problem with them. I do think that scooter
> drivers should carry insurance and that it probably should be mandatory,
> at least for the larger, class 3, scooters as they do have the potential
> to cause significant damage.

Where would you stop?

Class 3 scooters are limited to 4mph (on pavement), so even if they weigh
what you claim the kinetic energy is less than a mom with a running
stroller going 10mph - should those moms have insurance as well?

And there's the danger of umbrella tips; someone short using one puts
them just about at eye-height for me, and they can't see where they are
pointing the damm things. Umbrella-carriers insurance?

It would not be hard to come up with several, perhaps dozens of
activities of daily life which could possibly result in "significant
damage"; but we don't have mandatory insurance for those either.

It cannot be that the insurance companies would be unwilling to sell it,
nor that politicians might think there would be some way to get votes by
mandating it. I come instead to the conclusion that despite the
"potential" danger, the incidence is so small that everyone understands
that there is no real danger, or a need for liability protection.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mus6go$dn7$8...@dont-email.me>, at 21:42:48 on Sun, 4 Oct 2015,
Jerry Stuckle <m...@privacy.net> remarked:

>Where would you stop?
>
>Class 3 scooters are limited to 4mph (on pavement), so even if they weigh
>what you claim the kinetic energy is less than a mom with a running
>stroller going 10mph - should those moms have insurance as well?

First of all you look at the market penetration of the various devices.
I have to dodge scooters almost every time I go to the High Street (and
frankly, I don't believe they stick to 4mph).

I have never seen a "10mph running stroller" (whatever that is) ever, in
40 years.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim+]

Indeed. 10mph = six minute miling. Once upon a time I could run A mile at
that speed. It's not easy though!

Even if a fit mother could push a baby jogger at that speed, no sane person
would attempt it through high street crowds.

Tim

[Judith]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 07:11:36 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>> It's the riders who are the problem.
>
>I don't believe any statistcs support that position

Are the scooters under the control of the rider - or do they have a mind of
their own?

Do the scooters do what the driver intends - or are you suggesting that
accidents are the fault of the scooter - rather than the fault of the driver?


(As an aside: do you drive one?)

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 21:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Stuckle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:22:11 +0100, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
>
>>>> Not many deaths, I agree, although I'm pretty sure there have been
>>>> some.
>>>
>>> There are deaths with all types of transport. Mobility scooter deaths
>>> are rare.
>>
>> I agree that they're rare and, like you, I haven't heard anything to
>> suggest that there's a huge problem with them. I do think that scooter
>> drivers should carry insurance and that it probably should be mandatory,
>> at least for the larger, class 3, scooters as they do have the potential
>> to cause significant damage.
>
>
>Where would you stop?
>
>Class 3 scooters are limited to 4mph (on pavement), so even if they weigh
>what you claim the kinetic energy is less than a mom with a running
>stroller going 10mph - should those moms have insurance as well?

One of the big problems with mobility scooters is the fact that their user
demographic is skewed towards the elderly, and includes many for whom it
isn't just their limbs that they no longer have full use of. This is,
unfortunately, something of an elephant in the room as far as regulatory
policy is concerned.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Jethro_uk" wrote in message news:mv5b6q$v80$4...@dont-email.me...

>
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 19:31:26 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 21:42:48 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Stuckle put finger to
> > keyboard and typed:
> >
> >>On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:22:11 +0100, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> Not many deaths, I agree, although I'm pretty sure there have been
> >>>>> some.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are deaths with all types of transport. Mobility scooter deaths
> >>>> are rare.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that they're rare and, like you, I haven't heard anything to
> >>> suggest that there's a huge problem with them. I do think that
> >>> scooter drivers should carry insurance and that it probably should be
> >>> mandatory,
> >>> at least for the larger, class 3, scooters as they do have the
> >>> potential to cause significant damage.
> >>
> >>
> >>Where would you stop?
> >>
> >>Class 3 scooters are limited to 4mph (on pavement), so even if they
> >>weigh what you claim the kinetic energy is less than a mom with a
> >>running stroller going 10mph - should those moms have insurance as well?
> >
> > One of the big problems with mobility scooters is the fact that their
> > user demographic is skewed towards the elderly, and includes many for
> > whom it isn't just their limbs that they no longer have full use of.
> > This is, unfortunately, something of an elephant in the room as far as
> > regulatory policy is concerned.
> >
> > Mark
>

> So basically it's a public good vs. public risk. Tighten up requirements
> for driving a scooter, force thousands of people to live isolated lives
> (probably requiring more expenditure) and watch as the social care bill
> rises with an commensurate decrease in budgets elsewhere.

I suspect much the same policy considerations apply to driving cars. We have
a system that is remarkably tolerant of elderly drivers who should probably
not be on the road. But they tend to do low mileage and self-restrain (only
driving when it's quiet, on familiar roads, in daylight in good weather) so
the harm done is low, and the social cost of removing mobility is high.
--
Chris R

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:35:06 +0100, Chris R put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>>
>>

The costs of insurance are a good deterrent for drivers who are genuinely
becoming unsafe on the roads. Statistically, older drivers tend to be much
less accident-prone than young ones - experience is a very important
factor. Older drivers (aged 70+) do start to show a statistically
significant increase in risk over late middle-aged drivers (who are, by
far, statistically the safest), but it's dwarfed by the massively higher
risk posed by those under thirty. It isn't until drivers get well into
their 80s, or even later, that they start to become as risky as
recently-qualified twenty-somethings.

What is different is that older drivers, while less likely to have
acccidents than young drivers, are more likely to die in them if they do
have them. This distorts perception, because if you look solely at the KSI
figures then older drivers appear to be at much greater risk. But that's
more a reflection of greater frailty with age; older bodies simply don't
cope with major trauma anywhere near as well as younger bodies.

Going back to mobility scooters, the lack of any requirement for insurance
means that, unlike cars, there is no financial deterrent to their use by
the incompetant. In fact, many people switch to mobility scooters in order
to continue having at least limited powered transport around town when the
time comes to hand in their driving licence.

Jethro's point is a very valid one; any potential for harm has to be
weighed against the social benefits (which can be considerable) and a
purely victim-centred approach to mobility scooter v pedestrian accidents
isn't necessarily the one which offers the greatest protection to society
overall. But I do, nonetheless, think that there may be a case for some
form of compulsory insurance and minimum skill requirements, at least for
the faster and larger scooters allowed to use the roads.

[Roland Perry]

In message <16BS0wd9...@perry.co.uk>, at 07:32:29 on Tue, 29 Sep
2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>>Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>>I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.
>
>There's a stall selling mobility scooters in our weekly market, and a
>few of them are marked "Road legal", which must imply that there's
>something different about their spec, and presumably the rules applying
>to their use on the roads.

I went had had a look earlier this week, and yes, the difference is that
they have lights.
--
Roland Perry

[R. Mark Clayton]

It is how fast they can go. 4mph pavement only; 8mph road as well. Not sure about registration requirements. One chap near us used his to get to the pub and very erratically back. Not seen him recently - can you get booked for XXX on one of these things or is it like bicycles and horses in that you have to be drunk?

[Roland Perry]

In message <11fd30ab-cebf-467e...@googlegroups.com>, at
06:51:05 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
remarked:

>On Friday, 16 October 2015 14:01:46 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <16BS0wd9...@perry.co.uk>, at 07:32:29 on Tue, 29 Sep
>> 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>> >>Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>> >>I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.
>> >
>> >There's a stall selling mobility scooters in our weekly market, and a
>> >few of them are marked "Road legal", which must imply that there's
>> >something different about their spec, and presumably the rules applying
>> >to their use on the roads.
>>
>> I went had had a look earlier this week, and yes, the difference is that
>> they have lights.
>

>It is how fast they can go.

But isn't that a consequence of being street-legal, not the reason they
are street legal? Would an 8mph buggy with no lights be street legal?

>4mph pavement only; 8mph road as well. Not sure about registration
>requirements. One chap near us used his to get to the pub and very
>erratically back. Not seen him recently - can you get booked for XXX
>on one of these things or is it like bicycles and horses in that you
>have to be drunk?

--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 16/10/2015 17:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <11fd30ab-cebf-467e...@googlegroups.com>, at
> 06:51:05 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
> remarked:
>> On Friday, 16 October 2015 14:01:46 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <16BS0wd9...@perry.co.uk>, at 07:32:29 on Tue, 29 Sep
>>> 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> >>Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>> >>I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number
>>> plates etc.
>>> >
>>> >There's a stall selling mobility scooters in our weekly market, and a
>>> >few of them are marked "Road legal", which must imply that there's
>>> >something different about their spec, and presumably the rules applying
>>> >to their use on the roads.
>>>
>>> I went had had a look earlier this week, and yes, the difference is that
>>> they have lights.
>>
>> It is how fast they can go.
>
> But isn't that a consequence of being street-legal, not the reason they
> are street legal? Would an 8mph buggy with no lights be street legal?

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't be pavement legal either, as Class 2
scooters are limited to 4mph.

There's a whole list of requirements for a scooter to be road legal.
You can find them at
<https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/rules-for-class-3-invalid-carriages>


--
Best wishes, Serena
In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain. (Pliny
the Elder)

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Friday, 16 October 2015 18:02:06 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <11fd30ab-cebf-467e...@googlegroups.com>, at
> 06:51:05 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
> remarked:
> >On Friday, 16 October 2015 14:01:46 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> >> In message <16BS0wd9...@perry.co.uk>, at 07:32:29 on Tue, 29 Sep
> >> 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
> >>
> >> >>Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
> >>
> >> >>I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.
> >> >
> >> >There's a stall selling mobility scooters in our weekly market, and a
> >> >few of them are marked "Road legal", which must imply that there's
> >> >something different about their spec, and presumably the rules applying
> >> >to their use on the roads.
> >>
> >> I went had had a look earlier this week, and yes, the difference is that
> >> they have lights.
> >
> >It is how fast they can go.
>
> But isn't that a consequence of being street-legal, not the reason they
> are street legal? Would an 8mph buggy with no lights be street legal?

Not at night. Probably not at all if not no brake lights, but then how many cyclists use lights at night?

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 16/10/2015 19:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Friday, 16 October 2015 18:02:06 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <11fd30ab-cebf-467e...@googlegroups.com>, at
>> 06:51:05 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com>
>> remarked:
>>> On Friday, 16 October 2015 14:01:46 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <16BS0wd9...@perry.co.uk>, at 07:32:29 on Tue, 29 Sep
>>>> 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>> >>Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure I've seen faster mobility scooters with lights, number plates etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a stall selling mobility scooters in our weekly market, and a
>>>>> few of them are marked "Road legal", which must imply that there's
>>>>> something different about their spec, and presumably the rules applying
>>>>> to their use on the roads.
>>>>
>>>> I went had had a look earlier this week, and yes, the difference is that
>>>> they have lights.
>>>
>>> It is how fast they can go.
>>
>> But isn't that a consequence of being street-legal, not the reason they
>> are street legal? Would an 8mph buggy with no lights be street legal?
>
> Not at night. Probably not at all if not no brake lights, but then how many cyclists use lights at night?

They don't have brake lights - they also don't have separate brakes,
just a speed control lever.


--
Best wishes, Serena
Do you try to set aside times of quiet for openness to the Holy Spirit?
(Quaker Advices and Queries #3)

[tabb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 4 October 2015 23:56:30 UTC+1, Janet wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2952643/MPs-demand-compulsory-
> mobility-scooter-training-three-people-week-injured-crashes-five-
> drivers-KILLED.htm
>
> 15 feb 2015
>
> "MPs have demanded 'compulsory training' for mobility scooter
> drivers after a shock figures revealed three people a WEEK are being
> injured in accidents involving the 10mph disability buggies.

I withdrew from this discussion due to the level of unreasonableness, but I will comment on this bit. There are no 10mph disability buggies, such simply don't exist. So we know the quote can't even get the basic numbers right.

As for the small injury numbers, one must at some point realise that
a) most things in life carry risk and resultant injury
b) would the risks be any better if instead these journeys were done at 30mph in a tonne of car?


NT

[Roland Perry]

In message <35f7e858-4682-4ac2...@googlegroups.com>, at
10:02:42 on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, tabb...@gmail.com remarked:

>There are no 10mph disability buggies

Can you remind us what the various categories are?

--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

Class 2 scooters are limited to 4mph, aren't allowed on the road and
don't need to be registered with DVLA

Class 3 scooters are limited to 8mph on the road, or 4mph on pavements
(they have to have a switch to limit the speed, when you're on a
pavement). They have to have lights, brakes, a horn and mirrors. They
also need to be registered with DVLA.


<https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/overview>

--
Best wishes, Serena
I have never heard anything about the resolutions of the apostles, but a
good deal about their acts. (Horace Mann)

[Roland Perry]

In message <qqOdnX4BWt7HztPL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
22:55:32 on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>>> There are no 10mph disability buggies
>>
>> Can you remind us what the various categories are?
>
>Class 2 scooters are limited to 4mph, aren't allowed on the road and
>don't need to be registered with DVLA
>
>Class 3 scooters are limited to 8mph on the road, or 4mph on pavements
>(they have to have a switch to limit the speed, when you're on a
>pavement). They have to have lights, brakes, a horn and mirrors. They
>also need to be registered with DVLA.

Thanks. On re-reading the Daily Mail article it's clear they are using
"10mph" to mean "a lot less than 30mph", rather than trying to pin it
down to exactly 8mph.

The theme is "look at all the damage they can do, despite being so
slow". I almost never see one in the road, nor do I think it's helpful
to compare their use with the same journey by car, because even with
parking concessions cars are not nearly so "door to door" as a buggie.

Where the DM article might be a bit wonky is by saying there are 300k
buggies in use, while implying they are all class 3, when perhaps that's
the total of class 2 and class 3. But I can't easily verify that.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:59:11 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

They are all formally called "invalid carriages"

Class 1 - manual wheelchairs

Class 2 (by far the most common) can’t be used on the road (except
where there isn’t a pavement) and have a maximum speed of 4mph.

Class 3 can be used on the road, and have a maximum speed of 4mph off
the road, and 8mph on the road . 4/8MPH selection by a switch.
Several construction requirement - mainly front and rear lights and
reflectors, direction indicators able to operate as a hazard warning
signal, an audible horn, a rear view mirror, an amber flashing light
if it’s used on a dual carriageway. Should be registered with DVLA.

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:08:14 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>The theme is "look at all the damage they can do, despite being so
>slow". I almost never see one in the road, nor do I think it's helpful
>to compare their use with the same journey by car, because even with
>parking concessions cars are not nearly so "door to door" as a buggie.
>
>Where the DM article might be a bit wonky is by saying there are 300k
>buggies in use, while implying they are all class 3, when perhaps that's
>the total of class 2 and class 3. But I can't easily verify that.

A large local seller of scooters once told me he sells about 100 class
2 scooters for every Class 3 sold.. In rural areas this might differ
but for urban use a class 3 has few advantages and its larger size
makes it more difficult to use in shops for example.

[Roland Perry]

In message <0uqt4bdiqakc74m6o...@4ax.com>, at 09:48:44 on
Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:

There's quite a price difference too. The chap in our weekly market
displays mainly class 2.
--
Roland Perry

[Judith]

"Should" or "Must"?

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:30:11 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Must in that it is a requirement. The user then gets issued (at no
cost) with a registration number they are not required to display. Now
there is no tax disc, and there was never anything to pay, the number
which actually are registered is small, many users are not even aware
they are supposed to. There is no enforcement of the regulation.

[Simon Mason]

On Thursday, 1 October 2015 14:12:17 UTC+1, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

>
> Drunk driving is one law for which there isn't an exemption, AIUI, for
> mobility scooters. I'm sure I've read of a few people being prosecuted
> for driving them while under the influence.
>

It is not drink driving per se as this case of a electric bike proved. He should not have been breath tested either.

QUOTE:
"Anthony Dancer, 23, was pulled over on his 15mph Fun Nine Electric scooter twice in a month after drinking sessions with friends.

But motorised bicycles, which do not need a licence, tax or insurance, are not covered under current drink-drive laws.

So Dancer was prosecuted under a rarely-used Victorian law dating back to 1872, originally drawn up to deal with carriages."

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ancient-law-snares-man-caught-864648

[Roland Perry]

In message <7e0ad746-dff4-43c2...@googlegroups.com>, at
11:53:45 on Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> remarked:

>"Anthony Dancer, 23, was pulled over on his 15mph Fun Nine Electric scooter

If he was doing 15mph, then that's almost twice the allowable speed.

In such a situation is it possible to bring a prosecution under the
construction and use regs (or similar) that it was in fact a
non-invalid-carriage and thus subject (driver and vehicle) to all the
laws applying to motorised vehicles?
--
Roland Perry

[Sara Merriman]

In article <NhAsiEf9...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry

I don't think anyone claimed it was an invalid carriage, just an
electric bike.

[Roland Perry]

In message <211120150631446543%sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk>, at
06:31:44 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:

>> >"Anthony Dancer, 23, was pulled over on his 15mph Fun Nine Electric scooter
>>
>> If he was doing 15mph, then that's almost twice the allowable speed.
>>
>> In such a situation is it possible to bring a prosecution under the
>> construction and use regs (or similar) that it was in fact a
>> non-invalid-carriage and thus subject (driver and vehicle) to all the
>> laws applying to motorised vehicles?
>
>I don't think anyone claimed it was an invalid carriage, just an
>electric bike.

Sometimes people call the mobility buggies "scooters"[1], but in this
case despite the journalists flipping between scooter and bike every
other sentence it really was a traditional stand-on scooter,
electrically assisted.

When I lived in the USA several of the local kids had ones, with what I
took to be lawnmower motors powering them. I was never sure about their
legality.

[1] See thread title for example.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

Ageed. A bit of googling has come up with a similar case which did
refer to someone being prosecuted, under the same historic law, for
being drunk in charge of a mobility scooter:

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205967/Drunk-charge-carriage-Pensioner-convicted-Victorian-law-drink-driving-disability-scooter.html>

--
Best wishes, Serena
When you are preoccupied and distracted in meeting let wayward and
disturbing thoughts give way quietly to your awareness of God's presence
among us and in the world. (Quaker Advices and Queries #12)

[Roland Perry]

In message <FfadnVqFiIScpM3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:27:43 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>>>> "Anthony Dancer, 23, was pulled over on his 15mph Fun Nine Electric scooter
>>>
>>> If he was doing 15mph, then that's almost twice the allowable speed.
>>>
>>> In such a situation is it possible to bring a prosecution under the
>>> construction and use regs (or similar) that it was in fact a
>>> non-invalid-carriage and thus subject (driver and vehicle) to all the
>>> laws applying to motorised vehicles?
>>
>> I don't think anyone claimed it was an invalid carriage, just an
>> electric bike.
>
>Ageed. A bit of googling has come up with a similar case which did
>refer to someone being prosecuted, under the same historic law, for
>being drunk in charge of a mobility scooter

Given that it's not an invalid carriage, what does the law regard an
electrically powered traditional scooter, or an electric bike, as?

What laws such as obeying roadsigns, operating on the pavement etc
apply. Mini-Segways have recently been in the news, but they are
essentially the same as a kid's electric scooter.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 20/11/2015 09:08, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <qqOdnX4BWt7HztPL...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 22:55:32 on Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
> <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> There are no 10mph disability buggies
>>>
>>> Can you remind us what the various categories are?
>>
>> Class 2 scooters are limited to 4mph, aren't allowed on the road and
>> don't need to be registered with DVLA
>>
>> Class 3 scooters are limited to 8mph on the road, or 4mph on pavements
>> (they have to have a switch to limit the speed, when you're on a
>> pavement). They have to have lights, brakes, a horn and mirrors.
>> They also need to be registered with DVLA.
>
> Thanks. On re-reading the Daily Mail article it's clear they are using
> "10mph" to mean "a lot less than 30mph", rather than trying to pin it
> down to exactly 8mph.
>
> The theme is "look at all the damage they can do, despite being so
> slow". I almost never see one in the road, nor do I think it's helpful
> to compare their use with the same journey by car, because even with
> parking concessions cars are not nearly so "door to door" as a buggie.

I don't know how typical my use of my scooter is but when I'm going
along back roads, I'll use the road and take full advantage of being
able to travel at 8mph. If I'm going down a main road though, it'll be
at 4mph (or less), on the pavement. I also do my best to keep out of the
way of cars and to avoid blocking them, even when the highway code says
I have right of way.

> Where the DM article might be a bit wonky is by saying there are 300k
> buggies in use, while implying they are all class 3, when perhaps that's
> the total of class 2 and class 3. But I can't easily verify that.

I agree with you about the DM's use of statistics. The one which stood
out for me though was the one from the DoT that:


Nine more people, who were not the driver, were seriously injured after
being hit by a scooter - and another 31 people slightly injured, the
Department for Transport has revealed.

Given the number of scooter users there are and even allowing for the
probable levels of under-reporting (and under-recording), that seems a
pretty low level of injuries.

The vast majority of injuries, and all the deaths, appear to be to the
scooter users themselves. To my mind, that makes quite a difference to
the calls for assorted restrictions to be put on scooter users.


--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. How do you make an apple puff?
A. Chase it round the garden a few times.

[Serena Blanchflower]

I think there's special provision for electric bikes, although I'm not
certain about the detail.

Other powered beasts, such as Segways, are illegal on the roads or
pavements, which has recently been the subject of a fair bit of
(possibly synthetic) outrage in the press. However, given that Segways,
at least, go considerably faster than mobility scooters, I don't have
any problem with them being banned from pavements. I think they'd also
be pretty dangerous on any but the quietest roads.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get eight cats to pull a sled
through snow. (Jeff Valdez)

[Roland Perry]

In message <9-qdnVcEn-8Wo83L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
09:51:21 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>>On re-reading the Daily Mail article it's clear they are using
>> "10mph" to mean "a lot less than 30mph", rather than trying to pin it
>> down to exactly 8mph.
>>
>> The theme is "look at all the damage they can do, despite being so
>> slow". I almost never see one in the road, nor do I think it's helpful
>> to compare their use with the same journey by car, because even with
>> parking concessions cars are not nearly so "door to door" as a buggie.
>
>I don't know how typical my use of my scooter is but when I'm going
>along back roads, I'll use the road and take full advantage of being
>able to travel at 8mph. If I'm going down a main road though, it'll be
>at 4mph (or less), on the pavement. I also do my best to keep out of
>the way of cars and to avoid blocking them, even when the highway code
>says I have right of way.

I almost never see mobility scooters outside of a half-mile radius of
the centre of town, and even then they are just "pottering about" (but
still clearly expecting right of way over pedestrians) rather than going
somewhere in earnest.

>> Where the DM article might be a bit wonky is by saying there are 300k
>> buggies in use, while implying they are all class 3, when perhaps that's
>> the total of class 2 and class 3. But I can't easily verify that.
>
>I agree with you about the DM's use of statistics.

It's not just the DM. About a dozen sources I looked at all quoted the
same totals, but no breakdown between the classes.

>The one which stood out for me though was the one from the DoT that:
>
>Nine more people, who were not the driver, were seriously injured after
>being hit by a scooter - and another 31 people slightly injured, the
>Department for Transport has revealed.
>
>Given the number of scooter users there are and even allowing for the
>probable levels of under-reporting (and under-recording), that seems a
>pretty low level of injuries.
>
>The vast majority of injuries, and all the deaths, appear to be to the
>scooter users themselves. To my mind, that makes quite a difference to
>the calls for assorted restrictions to be put on scooter users.

That rather depends on whether the policy objective is to reduce the
number of injuries, or to make pavements a less threatening place for
pedestrians.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <QsmdnZr-G91m3M3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:06:01 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>> Given that it's not an invalid carriage, what does the law regard an
>> electrically powered traditional scooter, or an electric bike, as?
>>
>> What laws such as obeying roadsigns, operating on the pavement etc
>> apply. Mini-Segways have recently been in the news, but they are
>> essentially the same as a kid's electric scooter.
>
>I think there's special provision for electric bikes, although I'm not
>certain about the detail.

My question is whether an electric kids' scooter is classed as an
electric bike or a 'mini-segway'.

>Other powered beasts, such as Segways, are illegal on the roads or
>pavements, which has recently been the subject of a fair bit of
>(possibly synthetic) outrage in the press. However, given that
>Segways, at least, go considerably faster than mobility scooters, I
>don't have any problem with them being banned from pavements. I think
>they'd also be pretty dangerous on any but the quietest roads.

I'd be happy to see all of these alternative powered devices in use on
the cycle half of shared paths - as long as it's the sort with a
dividing line painted on it.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 21/11/2015 10:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <QsmdnZr-G91m3M3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 10:06:01 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
> <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>>> Given that it's not an invalid carriage, what does the law regard an
>>> electrically powered traditional scooter, or an electric bike, as?
>>>
>>> What laws such as obeying roadsigns, operating on the pavement etc
>>> apply. Mini-Segways have recently been in the news, but they are
>>> essentially the same as a kid's electric scooter.
>>
>> I think there's special provision for electric bikes, although I'm not
>> certain about the detail.
>
> My question is whether an electric kids' scooter is classed as an
> electric bike or a 'mini-segway'.

I'd assume that they'd be classed along with Segways, as it's not that
they are specifically banned but that, unlike invalid carriages and
electric bikes, no specific provision has been made to allow them.

>
>> Other powered beasts, such as Segways, are illegal on the roads or
>> pavements, which has recently been the subject of a fair bit of
>> (possibly synthetic) outrage in the press. However, given that
>> Segways, at least, go considerably faster than mobility scooters, I
>> don't have any problem with them being banned from pavements. I think
>> they'd also be pretty dangerous on any but the quietest roads.
>
> I'd be happy to see all of these alternative powered devices in use on
> the cycle half of shared paths - as long as it's the sort with a
> dividing line painted on it.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either but I don't know what
cyclists would think of it!


--
Best wishes, Serena
Seek to know one another in the things which are eternal, bear the
burden of each other's failings and pray for one another. (Quaker
Advices and Queries #18)

[Serena Blanchflower]

Of course. I feel though that, if I choose to do something stupid and
put myself at risk, that's my look out and, in general, it's not
something for the state to get too worried about. It's different though
if I'm putting other, innocent, bystanders at risk; that's something
that the state is fully entitled to try to prevent - or at least to
minimise.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Compassion should be unbiased and based on the recognition that others
have the right to happiness, just like yourself (Dalai Lama)

[Simon Mason]

On Saturday, 21 November 2015 09:28:35 UTC, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

> >
>
> Ageed. A bit of googling has come up with a similar case which did
> refer to someone being prosecuted, under the same historic law, for
> being drunk in charge of a mobility scooter:
>
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205967/Drunk-charge-carriage-Pensioner-convicted-Victorian-law-drink-driving-disability-scooter.html>

The guy should have refused a breath test and the police had no right to use the alcohol figure to decide that he was "drunk".

If I drink 3 cans of beer, I am over the DD limit but am certainly not drunk - if the guy was not showing any drunken behaviour, then no offence had been committed.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:23:06 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <QsmdnZr-G91m3M3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>10:06:01 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
><nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>>> Given that it's not an invalid carriage, what does the law regard an
>>> electrically powered traditional scooter, or an electric bike, as?
>>>
>>> What laws such as obeying roadsigns, operating on the pavement etc
>>> apply. Mini-Segways have recently been in the news, but they are
>>> essentially the same as a kid's electric scooter.
>>
>>I think there's special provision for electric bikes, although I'm not
>>certain about the detail.
>
>My question is whether an electric kids' scooter is classed as an
>electric bike or a 'mini-segway'.

It's a motor vehicle, like any other that doesn't have specific legislation
applying to it. The general principle is as always: in the absence of more
specific legislation, the more general applies. In this particular case,
given that there is no legislation which specifically addresses powered
childs' scooters, "hoverboards", etc they are treated as any other motor
vehicle (as are Segways, which is why they're not legal on public highways
in the UK).

>>Other powered beasts, such as Segways, are illegal on the roads or
>>pavements, which has recently been the subject of a fair bit of
>>(possibly synthetic) outrage in the press. However, given that
>>Segways, at least, go considerably faster than mobility scooters, I
>>don't have any problem with them being banned from pavements. I think
>>they'd also be pretty dangerous on any but the quietest roads.
>
>I'd be happy to see all of these alternative powered devices in use on
>the cycle half of shared paths - as long as it's the sort with a
>dividing line painted on it.

I'd be happy to see a third special category of motor vehicles (along with
electrically assisted bicycles and what the law still calls, rather
quaintly, "invalid carriages", but are more commonly referred to as
"mobility scooters") which covers low-powered devices such as Segways and
powered childs' scooters. I'd suggest that the following would be suitable
conditions for making them legal to use on footways:

1. Device to be used in a standing position only, either with or without
handlebars.

2. Maximum speed to be mechanically or electronically limited to 4mph while
on a public footway.

3. Power to be supplied solely by an integral electric motor with batteries
contained within the device.

4. Maximum weight of the device, including batteries, to be no more than
50kg.

5. Maximum dimensions no greater than 80cm wide and 100cm long (in relation
to the direction of travel).

6. Compulsory third party insurance for the device and all users.

7. Pedestrians to have priority over all powered devices at all times when
on a public footway.

Some of those rules would need the devices to be modified from their
current form. The maximum speed requirement could be met by a switch, so
that faster speeds were possible on private land, so long as there was
effective enforcement of the requirement for the device to be switched into
"pavement mode" before being used on a footway. And the switch should be
located on the underside of the device, requiring it to be picked up and
turned over in order to make the change, so that users couldn't switch in
and out of pavement mode as they rode along. The larger Segways wouldn't
meet the size and weight limits, but they aren't really intended for
pavement use anyway even in places where they are legal. The smaller models
would be fine. The insurance would probably be cheap enough to be
incorporated into household insurance policies.

Mark
--
Insert random witticism here
http://www.markgoodge.com

[Roland Perry]

In message <aek05blril7fi0oqk...@news.markshouse.net>, at
12:29:38 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>My question is whether an electric kids' scooter is classed as an
>>electric bike or a 'mini-segway'.
>
>It's a motor vehicle, like any other that doesn't have specific legislation
>applying to it. The general principle is as always: in the absence of more
>specific legislation, the more general applies. In this particular case,
>given that there is no legislation which specifically addresses powered
>childs' scooters, "hoverboards", etc they are treated as any other motor
>vehicle (as are Segways, which is why they're not legal on public highways
>in the UK).

Why wasn't the bloke on the 15mph kids scooter nicked for being a motor
vehicle without plates and insurance (or probably lights), let alone the
DUA aspect?
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

The article was somewhat confused about what he was riding, sometimes
referring to it as a scooter and sometimes an electric bike. I suspect
it was the latter and the type of scooter they were conflating it with
was the mini motorbike kind, rather than a motorised version of the
child's push along toy.

--
Best wishes, Serena
A day without laughter is a day wasted. (Charlie Chaplin)

[Judith]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 04:37:31 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, 21 November 2015 09:28:35 UTC, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Ageed. A bit of googling has come up with a similar case which did
>> refer to someone being prosecuted, under the same historic law, for
>> being drunk in charge of a mobility scooter:
>>
>> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205967/Drunk-charge-carriage-Pensioner-convicted-Victorian-law-drink-driving-disability-scooter.html>
>
>The guy should have refused a breath test and the police had no right to use the alcohol figure to decide that he was "drunk".
>
>If I drink 3 cans of beer, I am over the DD limit but am certainly not drunk

I don't think that "being drunk" if you have drunk three pints is the point -
it is the fact that after that amount your judgment is impaired - even if that
is not immediately visible - and hence you should not be allowed in-charge of
any vehicle on the public highway: car, push-bike, or disability vehicle.

("being drunk" may be defined how you like - and it may differ from another's
definition)

The sooner the law is changed so that cyclists and those in charge of
disability vehicles are included in breath tests, the better.

Do you not agree that the drunk in charge should be widened to include such
other groups?

[Roland Perry]

In message <A-adnVjy-5MDEc3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
15:24:28 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:

>> Why wasn't the bloke on the 15mph kids scooter nicked for being a motor
>> vehicle without plates and insurance (or probably lights), let alone the
>> DUA aspect?
>
>The article was somewhat confused about what he was riding, sometimes
>referring to it as a scooter and sometimes an electric bike. I suspect
>it was the latter and the type of scooter they were conflating it with
>was the mini motorbike kind, rather than a motorised version of the
>child's push along toy.

If you look up the name of the "15mph scooter" he was nicked upon, it's
very much a motorised children's push along toy, and not either an
electric bike or a mobility buggy.
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

I'm not sure what you found but, when I looked it up, I found this
electric bike:

<http://e-motionevc.co.uk/store/product-info.php?pid314.html>

--
Best wishes, Serena
The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter.
(Mark Twain)

[Roland Perry]

In message <FYidnca7_IgKKs3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:27:50 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower

<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>On 21/11/2015 15:36, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <A-adnVjy-5MDEc3L...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 15:24:28 on Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Serena Blanchflower
>> <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> remarked:
>>>> Why wasn't the bloke on the 15mph kids scooter nicked for being a motor
>>>> vehicle without plates and insurance (or probably lights), let alone the
>>>> DUA aspect?
>>>
>>> The article was somewhat confused about what he was riding, sometimes
>>> referring to it as a scooter and sometimes an electric bike. I
>>> suspect it was the latter and the type of scooter they were conflating
>>> it with was the mini motorbike kind, rather than a motorised version
>>> of the child's push along toy.
>>
>> If you look up the name of the "15mph scooter" he was nicked upon, it's
>> very much a motorised children's push along toy, and not either an
>> electric bike or a mobility buggy.
>
>I'm not sure what you found but, when I looked it up, I found this
>electric bike:
>
><http://e-motionevc.co.uk/store/product-info.php?pid314.html>

I got more hits on childrens' toy scooters, but if that's the one it
explains why it's road-legal.

--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:24:28 +0000, Serena Blanchflower put finger to
keyboard and typed:

Indeed. The article refers repeatedly to a "Fun Nine Electric scooter". But
there's no such thing, at least if my google-fu is reliable. There is,
however, a "Fun 9" electric bicycle:

http://www.bikeseven.co.uk/ktm-macina-fun-9-electric-bicycle-2015-4292-p.asp

If that's what the offender was riding, it's perfectly legal under the
electric bike legislation. So he wasn't breaking any generic road traffic
laws by using it, it was specifically being drunk that was the issue.

[Roger Hayter]

Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 04:37:31 -0800 (PST),
> Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 21 November 2015 09:28:35 UTC,
> > Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ageed. A bit of googling has come up with a similar case which did
> >> refer to someone being prosecuted, under the same historic law, for
> >> being drunk in charge of a mobility scooter:
> >>
> >> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205967
> >> /Drunk-charge-carriage-
> >> Pensioner-convicted-Victorian-law-drink-driving-disability-
> >> scooter.html
> >> >
> >
> >The guy should have refused a breath test and the police had no right to
> >use the alcohol figure to decide that he was "drunk".
> >
> >If I drink 3 cans of beer, I am over the DD limit but am certainly not
> >drunk
>
> I don't think that "being drunk" if you have drunk three pints is the point -
> it is the fact that after that amount your judgment is impaired - even if
> that
> is not immediately visible - and hence you should not
> be allowed in-charge of
> any vehicle on the public highway: car, push-bike, or disability vehicle.

But possibly not sufficiently impaired to be a great risk to anyone
else. After all, breathalysers for pedestrians would be a bit
unpopular.

>
> ("being drunk" may be defined how you like - and it may differ from
> another's
> definition)

Case law ties it down quite well.

>
> The sooner the law is changed so that cyclists and those in charge of
> disability vehicles are included in breath tests, the better.

I don't agree, it is too much loss of liberty for too little gain.

>
> Do you not agree that the drunk in charge should be widened to
> include such
> other groups?

It already does cover all groups, even, with different wording,
pedestrians. The breathalyser law relates to body alcohol levels, not
drunkenness. By the way, calling it a "Victorian law" is a bit odd, it
was the only relevant law before breathalysers came in.


--

Roger Hayter

[polygonum]

On 21/11/2015 09:51, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
> The vast majority of injuries, and all the deaths, appear to be to the
> scooter users themselves. To my mind, that makes quite a difference to
> the calls for assorted restrictions to be put on scooter users.

The other day I was approaching a T-junction to a main road from a very
dark side road - and it was about 18:00 so definitely after dark. A
scooter suddenly came from the pavement on my left, across the junction.
No lighting on it whatsoever, no hint of a reflector from my sideways-on
view. Hidden behind a parked car until the last moment.

Luckily, I know how people treat that junction as pedestrians, and am
very cautious there. I'd like to see a restriction that they at least
have decent reflectors all round, and preferably some sort of lighting.

--
Rod