Slashdot Mirror


Scooter Use is Rising in Major Cities. So Are Trips To the Emergency Room. (washingtonpost.com)

They have been pouring into emergency rooms around the nation all summer, their bodies bearing a blend of injuries that doctors normally associate with victims of car wrecks -- broken noses, wrists and shoulders, facial lacerations and fractures, as well as the kind of blunt head trauma that can leave brains permanently damaged. The Washington Post reports: When doctors began asking patients to explain their injuries, many were surprised to learn that the surge of broken body parts stemmed from the latest urban transportation trend: shared electric scooters. In Santa Monica, Calif. -- where one of the biggest electric-scooter companies is based -- the city's fire department has responded to 34 serious accidents involving the devices this summer. The director of an emergency department there said his team treated 18 patients who were seriously injured in electric-scooter accidents during the final two weeks of July. And in San Francisco, the doctor who runs the emergency room at a major hospital said he is seeing as many as 10 severe injuries a week.

[...] As the injuries pile up in cities across the country, the three largest scooter companies -- operating under the names Bird, Lime and Skip -- have seen their values soar as they attempt to transform urban transit, following the successes of ride-hailing and bike-sharing companies. The scooter start-ups have attracted massive investments from Uber, the prominent technology venture capital firm Sequoia Capital and Alphabet, Google's parent company, with some analysts estimating that some of the privately held companies might be worth more than $1 billion.
Responding to The Post, all these companies said safety is a priority to them, but at least Bird is also lobbying against legislation in California that would require users to wear helmets, the paper reported.

136 comments

  1. No helmets? by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They must WANT their customers to be brain damaged if they're actively lobbying against requiring the most basic of safety gear for a scooter.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:No helmets? by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, the Great Nanny State of California will soon mandate that helmets and other protective gear be provided for each scooter — after they make it legal for scooters to ride on the sidewalk first. I predict this will be a short lived fad.

    2. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helmets don't protect against concussions. Also, most states don't require helmet use for riding even a motorcycle. I know of no states that require them for a bicycle. Why should they be required for an electric scooter?

    3. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Helmets are worthless at the speed that most riders get up to. Unless you're a racing cyclist, you probably never manage to get to speeds where the helmet does anything other than make you look like a dweeb.

    4. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      > I know of no states that require them for a bicycle.

      http://www.calbike.org/bicycling_in_california_sharing_the_road?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7LCp9bip3QIVSI9-Ch0yOQ8vEAAYASAAEgKWFfD_BwE

      "Helmets: Bicyclists and bicycle passengers under age 18 must wear an approved helmet when riding on a bicycle. CVC 21212"

      There, now you know of one.

    5. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then, bicycle users in the US use those stupid excuses for helmets that barely protect yoyu massively. Here, using a helmet approved for motorcycle use is mandatory when driving a scooter that can go faster than 25 km/h.

    6. Re:No helmets? by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have it backwards. According to the peer reviewed research, at speeds below 35 mpg, helmets are the rider's best friend. Above that, and the weight of the helmet becomes a serious risk of breaking the rider's neck, so the only real benefit is an increased chance of an open casket funeral.

      People riding these things should play by the same rules as a motorcyclist.

    7. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      under age 18 must wear an approved helmet when riding on a bicycle.

      Fine. Under 18, and in the Nanny state of California. Pretty soon CA will require helmets to just walk across a street.

      Find me a state where adults have to wear a helmet on a bicycle.

    8. Re:No helmets? by shabble · · Score: 1

      at speeds below 35 mpg

      Below 35 miles per gallon?

      Must be some thirsty scooters! :-o

    9. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may seem counter intuitive, but legally mandating helmets for bicycles and scooters like these devices is going to result in more traumatic brain injuries, not fewer. If any mode of transport should have mandatory helmets, it is motor-vehicles.

      Requiring helmets makes alternative transportation options less appealing. As a result, people will just revert to motor-vehicles, where they are more likely to get a TBI in a crash. Believe it or not, bicycling is quite safe. And even though you will have a handful of people bash their heads or even die cycling, even without cars in the picture, on the whole we are far better off having everyone riding around even helmetless. The health benefits of cycling and an active lifecycles are orders of magnitude more beneficial than sedentary lifestyles enabled by motor vehicles.

      Also arguing about helmets distracts from the real issue: building safe environments for people. Anyone with any sense has realized the real danger to everyone is from motorvehicles, and rather than trying to armor riders, it is far more effective to reign in the destructive chaos motor vehicles cause.

      Lastly, helmet laws are used pretty much entirely as a tool for police to harass poor and minority people.

      Now, there are a lot of reports that the particular scooters used by these companies are pieces of shit. That should be solved by improving the scooters, not implementing brain-dead policies that make the situation worse.

    10. Re:No helmets? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At low speeds, your reflexes can reasonably protect you. 20mph is about that; some of these things can hit 40mph, which is kind of ridiculous.

      The helmet doesn't protect against concussion; it breaks where impact would deform the skull. I've seen people break their necks and wake up in the hospital, neck brace for 10-12 weeks, then back on the motorcycle; and I've seen their helmets. Usually, you have to tell people their helmet is no longer safe; in this case, that's not often a problem.

      We don't require adult bicyclists to wear helmets here (even though a head impact can kill you easily); we require children to wear helmets. A scooter under 20mph would fall under the same reasoning: if a cyclist wears a helmet, so should you.

    11. Re:No helmets? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Its already legal to ride e-bikes on sidewalks (where bikes are allowed). The thing that makes these run afoul of the law is that they dont have any pedals. Ebikes are required to have a functional pedal set. Without it, CA considers powered scooters to be a motorcycle.

      --
      Good-bye
    12. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America? Brains? There's no such animal.

    13. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the peer reviewed research, helmets are only good for keeping your brain in one place in case of accident. It's damn hard to scrap brains from the pavement.

    14. Re:No helmets? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You have it backwards. According to the peer reviewed research, at speeds below 35 mpg, helmets are the rider's best friend. Above that, and the weight of the helmet becomes a serious risk of breaking the rider's neck, so the only real benefit is an increased chance of an open casket funeral.

      I don't know about the "research" you mentioned, but helmets, especially full-face helmets, also protect against flying debris. Ever get hit in the face by a rock, perhaps kicked up by a semi-truck, at 65 mph? Even rain at that speed is really uncomfortable. People who don't wear helmets are called, "future organ donors". I'm not saying you can't get really messed up even while wearing a helmet, but not wearing one is just dumb.

      People riding these things should play by the same rules as a motorcyclist.

      Agreed.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    15. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's in their best interest. Anything that slows adoption or uptake, increases their customer costs they will lobby against.

      They're not on the hook for the costs of injuries and the public does hold them responsible enough to impact their bottom line.

      Correct these externalities with good policy and the problem fixes itself.

    16. Re:No helmets? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Helmets don't protect against concussions.

      I recently ran across an interesting story...

      Back when World War I started, British troops did not have helmets. After a few artillery barrages, the British government bought helmets (from the French) and started producing their own helmets for troops. Soon, all the British troops had helmets.

      And the number of head injuries increased!

      Well, needless to say, people were quite concerned. What the hell is going on? We got them helmets to keep them safe and it's worse now than it was before!

      But not really. See, the number of deaths went down. But the number of injuries increased. Because, let's face it, a 1 mm thick steel helmet when impacted by shrapnel traveling at hundreds of miles per hour is not going to leave the wearer none the worse. But they probably won't die from the encounter.

      You're right--bike helmets won't protect against concussions. If you're riding your bike at, say, 20 MPH and you run into a car, you may end up with a concussion. But you will probably survive, which is kind of what we're aiming for here.

    17. Re:No helmets? by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      At last, somebody is doing something about the shortage of donor-organs!

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    18. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "the Great Nanny State of California" ... seriously, are you a dumb ass?

      First states to have mandatory seat belt laws (est. 1985): New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Texas, Missouri, D.C., Hawaii.

      That's right, Texas beat California As for the biggest complaints of our so-called "nanny state", California's cigarette tax is significantly lower than New York's. ($2.87/pack vs $4.35/pack), and there is an additional $1.50 tax when in NYC.

      People who like to winge about California often have never spent much time in the various parts of California. While some people consider pro-labor legislation to be a form of "nanny state". This is a mischaracterization of the issues and does not help either side of the debate, and only muddies the waters.

      I can ride a dirt bike with big knobby tires on California roads as long as my engine and frame have a VIN to register for plates. You can only do that in a few other states. California isn't going to tell you what you can drive/ride, even to the point that you can use an unregistered electric scooter on our roads (excluding highways).

    19. Re:No helmets? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested in a citation, although I know that this is too much to ask from an anonymous coward.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    20. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is every US state has become a nanny state. New Hampshire is one of the least damaged, but hardly comes out unscathed. The nanny state here has been held back a bit because of New Hampshire's history, but also is being saved thanks to an influx of libertarians migrating to the state as part of an effort to overhaul a state. We, freedom loving people of the world need there to be at least one last bastion of hope, freedom, and a place to call home and the only way you can achieve that is by like-minded individuals coming together to build such a community somewhere and so the Free State Project did that.

      Examples of nanny state in New Hampshire: drivers license are required, licenses plates are required, vehicle registration is required.

      Examples of things New Hampshire doesn't do that near every other state does do: the state doesn't mandate adults wear seat belts, the state doesn't mandate car insurance.

      Not only did New Hampshire decriminalize marijuana, the state restored the right of the people to be free from unwarranted searches by government officials when the US Supreme Court decided that officials can enter your home without warrant for various reasons. The state eliminated the power of the banking department to regulate crypto currency businesses. The state eliminated the power of the government to thrust permissions slips onto those seeking to conceal carry. Among many other positive things- at least for those who seek greater freedom.

    21. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the weight of the helmet becomes a serious risk of breaking the rider's neck

      Since when? I've crashed at over 100mph and gone cart-wheeling down a 8 lane highway. Multiple times at over 50mph and my neck isn't even sore. Motorcyclists crash at all kinds of speeds and breaking their neck is downright rare. Weight has nothing to do with it. It's how quickly and into what you "stop".

      I suggest you read an actually study on the matter.
      https://www.msf-usa.org/downlo...

    22. Re:No helmets? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      No, they don't actively want that. They just don't care. Requiring helmets means either they pay for them (obviously bad) or the customers pay for them (which means fewer customers). So of course they're actively lobbying against it.

    23. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a coworker whose husband used to think just like you. Now she has to feed him manually 3 times a day. He had a motorcycle accident while not wearing a helmet. Sorry, but the burden you put on society is not worth it to us. Wear a damned helmet.

    24. Re:No helmets? by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 3, Funny

      People who like to winge about California often have never spent much time in the various parts of California.

      I lived in California for all my life. I'm somewhat familiar with the Great Nanny State of California. For example, Los Angeles tried to ban IDE cables because the terms Master and Slave were used. Or San Francisco wanting to ban the Blue Angels from flying during Fleet Week for terrorizing families in neighborhoods. And don't get me started on "ban paper bags, use plastic bags instead" in the 1990's to "ban plastic bags, use paper bags and pay per bag instead" in the 2010's.

    25. Re:No helmets? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that helmets are safer on bicycles AND on scooters.

      You DO realize that helmets are NOT any more safe on bicycles, right?
      http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets...

      TEDx Copenhagen - Mikael Colville-Andersen - Why We Shouldn't Bike with a Helmet
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      If you were actually concerned about safety you would lobby crash helmets for motorists instead of just cyclists or motorcyclists. About 38,000 motorists die on U.S. roads every year compared to fewer than 700 cyclists.

      But since we are talking about scooters here, fatalities are usually clumped in with Motorcycles. In 2014 there were 4,295 deaths.

      Florida between 2002 and 2008 had a total of 5,660 moped crashes. The average speed was 25 mph in a 35 mph zone.

      The use of personal protective equipment did not significantly impact crash outcomes. ...

      Previous studies show that nonhelmeted riders have an increased risk of serious injury and poorer hospital outcomes.4, 8, 20 Since over 80% of drivers did not use helmets, this study was likely underpowered to find any significance.

    26. Re:No helmets? by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      All I need to predict "nannystatism" is the state tax rates.

      2016 highest income tax rates (https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/fun-facts/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-taxes/L6HPAVqSF):

              California 13.3%
              Oregon 9.9%
              Minnesota 9.85%
              Iowa 8.98%
              New Jersey 8.97%
              Vermont 8.95%
              District of Columbia 8.95%
              New York 8.82%
              Hawaii 8.25%
              Wisconsin 7.65%

      Yeah...that looks about right. Only real surprise there is that Massachusetts isn't on that list, and Iowa and Minnesota are.

      If you combine state income tax and sales tax rates, here are you top 5:
              New York 12.7 %
              Connecticut 12.6%
              New Jersey 12.2%
              Illinois 11.0%
              California and Wisconsin 11.0%

      Absolutely no surprises there.

      So yeah...I stand by my assertion that you can evaluate nannystateism by just looking at the tax rates.

    27. Re:No helmets? by The+Original+CDR · · Score: 1

      Where did I write that I was against helmets? I gave up riding a bicycle (yes, with a helmet) 20 years ago because soccer moms thought it was okay to drive me off the road (or go through the landscaping on a street corner) with an SUV to get their little devil spawn to school in the morning.

    28. Re:No helmets? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If the law doesn't force you to do it, no reason for you to. You must be American.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    29. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California isn't going to tell you what you can drive/ride, even to the point that you can use an unregistered electric scooter on our roads (excluding highways).

      They most certainly will tell you what you can/can't drive. Hell, California women are *still* forbidden from wearing their house coat, otherwise known as their nighty, when they operate a motor vehicle.
       
      They just prefer to draw tax revenue than ban certain vehicles. for now.

      You've presented arguments that CA is perhaps not the *first* nanny state, or perhaps not the *worst* nanny state. But nothing you've said refutes the idea that CA is, in fact, a "great nanny state"...
       
      Especially when you consider the plethora of local laws contributing to the nanny-state problem. Styrofoam bans, bag bans, fois gras bans, clothing donation bin bans, happy meal toy bans, synthetic grass bans, caffeinated beer bans, and so on. And just about everything in the state must be labeled with a warning that it might cause cancer, including the warning sign itself...

      This is coming from a Bay Area native. We're a huge fucking nanny state.

    30. Re:No helmets? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      What percentage of scooter injuries are concussions? I suspect not that many. On top of that with helmets, we will see a new problem -- pedestrian injuries caused by impact of helmets on pedestrians. There's a reason that America's National Football League is trying to reduce helmet contacts with other player's heads.

      I'm not opposed to helmets, but maybe a design that is less menacing to innocent bystanders than the "standard" hard helmet ...

      It's my understanding that Segways are limited to fast walking speed -- 8mph (about 13kph) in order to minimize mayhem. Perhaps scooters should also be so so limited.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    31. Re:No helmets? by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 1

      "Helmets don't protect against concussions." That's ridiculous. They don't prevent every concussion, true, but they are very effective. Not 100%, but then what is? I've twice flown over the handlebars and landed on my head, once with a helmet, once without. With a helmet, I caught my breath, dusted myself off, went on my way. Without a helmet, I was worthless. A passing motorist took me to the ER, saved my bike, and got me home, where I spent the rest of the day recovering. Helmets work. Scooters are significantly faster that bicycles and mingle with automobile traffic. That makes them more dangerous.

      --
      Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
    32. Re:No helmets? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      California's helmet law is not about "safety". It is an underhanded way to ban scooter-sharing. A helmet requirement would make it much more difficult for the scooter companies. How can they possibly keep a helmet with each scooter? If riders are expected to bring their own helmets, it would make it much more of a hassle, and require people to plan ahead.

      One example is Santa Monica. They just spent $100M on their "Big Blue Bus" system, and are getting far below the expected ridership. There are not even enough riders to cover the running costs, much less the immense capital investment. So now some hot shots come along with some cheap scooters, which are far more convenient and fun than the bus, and are stealing even more of their riders. The buses obviously were poorly planned and have a broken business model, but, hey, it's the government, so they can just use laws to ban competition, and claim it is about "safety".

    33. Re:No helmets? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      You are attributing conditions to villainy that simply result from greed.

      They don't _want_ their customers to be brain damaged. In fact they'd be happier if no one was ever hurt riding their scooters. However they already know that people continue using their scooters even though people are getting hurt using them, some very seriously.

      On the other hand if this law passes either they would have to provide helmets to go with the scooters (and find some way of preventing people from just walking off with them) or see a huge decrease in their business from people without a helmet declining to break the law by renting a scooter without one.

      So a small concern about their customers' health is overridden by a much bigger concern about their own profits.


      .

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    34. Re:No helmets? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i got the 'its politics/power' vibe when the Santa Monica PD set up a stop and started pulling over people on the beach sidewalk for riding these without a helmet. Generally no one cares what you're doing on the beach as long you aren't hurting anyone so them setting up a dragnet was weird. I didnt know about the buses, but that all adds up.

      --
      Good-bye
    35. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CA is full of vain and stupid people. They won't like helmets because they're not cool.

      The proof is that is not ALREADY state law. Shit even those 'stupid southern states' all have helmet laws now.

    36. Re: No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A helmet is a big deal?
      Then how can they keep TWO wheels on each scooter if they are so broke and incompetent with logistics?

    37. Re: No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They make collapsable batons for that. Next one that does that gets free shattered glass shower.

    38. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not ridiculous. With current helmet designs, it's simply not possible to prevent a concussion. This is just a consequence of how human bodies are designed and what a concussion is.

      What helmets ARE supposed to do is prevent different injuries, such as skull fractures and TBI. Different helmets are designed to prevent different injuries, which is why a construction hard hat and a motorcycle helmet are so different.

      Seriously, try to find any sort of scientific source that supports the view that helmets are "very effective" at preventing concussions. Let me know if you find anything from this half of the century...

    39. Re:No helmets? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Helmets don't protect against concussions.

      Define protect? Eliminate? No. Reduce? Definitely.

      Also, most states don't require helmet use for riding even a motorcycle.

      So never fix anything stupid while something else stupid exists. Got it.

      I know of no states that require them for a bicycle.

      I know of no states that require them for walking either. Or swimming for that matter. Or other things that are not relevant.

      Why should they be required for an electric scooter?

      Because your logic is as stupid from the top down as it is from the bottom up.

    40. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define protect? Eliminate? No. Reduce? Definitely.

      Cite a source that states helmets are effective at reducing concussions.

      That's the thing: helmets really aren't designed to reduce concussions. They're designed to reduce TBI and skull fractures. The mechanics of concussions make them very difficult to reduce with a simple helmet....

    41. Re: No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theyâ(TM)re fighting it because they know that 1. it will be harder to keep helmets with the scooters, and 2. fewer people will want to ride them if they must wear a helmet.

    42. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recently ran across an interesting story...

      Back when World War I started, British troops did not have helmets. After a few artillery barrages, the British government bought helmets (from the French) and started producing their own helmets for troops. Soon, all the British troops had helmets.

      And the number of head injuries increased!

      Well, needless to say, people were quite concerned. What the hell is going on? We got them helmets to keep them safe and it's worse now than it was before!

      But not really. See, the number of deaths went down. But the number of injuries increased. Because, let's face it, a 1 mm thick steel helmet when impacted by shrapnel traveling at hundreds of miles per hour is not going to leave the wearer none the worse. But they probably won't die from the encounter.

      This. Also, to just emphasis this point, as cars got safer with better seat belts, air bags and better crumple zones designed into the cars, the death rate went down. However, the amount of severe leg injuries increased because no one had thought about what happens to people's legs in auto accidents. So peoples legs were hitting sharp corners and horribly designed lower dash areas and coming out of accidents alive but very injured. So they got better at designing for the entire body surviving an accident. Gordon

    43. Re:No helmets? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Helmets are worthless at the speed that most riders get up to.

      Not at all. To see why, stand on a stairway a couple of steps above a landing, then throw yourself headfirst into a wall as hard as you can.

      OK, that's a thought experiment that you wouldn't want to do even with a helmet, but unless you're an Olympic broad jumper the speed you hit the wall is going to be a lot less than the speed you can easily hit even on a crappy dockless bike. And the physical circumstances of this thought experiment are fairly representative of the worst case bike accident where you go over the handlebars into a stationary object like a curb or a car. You could easily kill yourself without a helmet; with a helmet, not so easy.

      Now these e-scooters are exactly what you'd come up with if you want to maximize the frequency of that worst case accident. They've got small wheels that can snag on mior obstacles like potholes, a very short wheelbase, and your center of mass is far, far above the axles. They're also capable of speeds that will generate a significant probability of death or debilitating brain injury in such an accident -- 15 mph/24 kph. Add to that a lack of rules or norms for mixing with pedestrians or other wheeled traffic and you've got a TBI perfect storm.

      Research has shown that helmets are still highly effective at those speeds. At 20 kph a helmet cuts your risk of brain injury in half, and death nearly in half on a bike. The risk reduction is bound to be much higher on a fast e-scooter because the chance of a worst-case accident is higher.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    44. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Under 18, and in the Nanny state of California.

      You were ignorant of what state(s) require a helmet, you are no longer (as) ignorant, so now you pull a "no true Scotsman"?

    45. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest booster of helmet laws is the auto industry. They know people will give up bikes when they have to wear helmets and buy cars, paying for gas, insurance etc., other industries behind the helmet laws.

    46. Re: No helmets? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, a big deal since if they provide a helmet, it will soon disappear. If they don't, few people who might decide on impulse to rent a scooter will just happen to have their own with them.

    47. Re:No helmets? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it's the kind of scooter I'm thinking of, that's nonsense. Worst case you can hop off and stay on your feet at 15 MPH. Or do you advocate requiring a helmet for running as well?

    48. Re:No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about they ban apostrophes in date ranges such as "1990's."

    49. Re:No helmets? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > And don't get me started on "ban paper bags, use plastic
      > bags instead" in the 1990's to "ban plastic bags, use paper
      > bags and pay per bag instead" in the 2010's.

      Paper bags are OK, but not brown bags in Seatlle, Washington. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/...

      > It's not a brown bag lunch, it's a "sack lunch." The Office for Civil Rights
      > in Seattle, Washington has suggested that government workers refrain
      > from using the common term because it could be offensive to some people,

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    50. Re:No helmets? by piojo · · Score: 1

      California's helmet law is not about "safety". It is an underhanded way to ban scooter-sharing. A helmet requirement would make it much more difficult for the scooter companies. How can they possibly keep a helmet with each scooter? If riders are expected to bring their own helmets, it would make it much more of a hassle, and require people to plan ahead.

      Not every business plan is viable. If this business model depends on people riding unsafely, it should probably fail. (Are the bikes really slow? I don't see the issue if they're no faster than bicycles. And you can probably see the obvious--that I'm not a libertarian on the topic of letting idiots kill themselves.)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    51. Re:No helmets? by hey! · · Score: 1

      To put it in perspective, 15 mph is the pace of a 4 minute mile run, which is faster than most people's top running speed. An elite sprinter could hop off a scooter going 15 mph, but it's a safe bet *you* can't.

      But you *think* you can, because driving cars has given you a distorted view of what that speed means to an unprotected human body. That makes this the worst kind of dangerous thing: a dangerous thing that people think is safe.

      As for wearing a helmet while running, not on a track. But if you are running a four minute mile pace dodging in and out of city traffic and between pedestrians, yeah.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    52. Re:No helmets? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The part you're missing is you only have to run 15 MPH long enough to stop running when you're hopping off of an electric scooter. That's a LOT easier than trying to maintain that pace for a mile.

      Weaving in and out of traffic is another matter. Then you need a helmet because the car windshield your head will soon meet will be going more than 15 MPH. In other words, don't do that, didn't your mother ever tell you not to play in traffic?

    53. Re:No helmets? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      (Are the bikes really slow? I don't see the issue if they're no faster than bicycles.

      I'm not sure that the issue is particularly about speed, but it's about likelihood of head coming into contact with the ground in the event of a malfunction, mis-balance, or collision. Humans aren't too bad at handling slips trips and falls in bare feet or up to a couple of cm of shoe thickness. Start to lengthen the leg (effectively) - by wearing one of high heels; platform-sole shoes (yes some of us can remember wearing them - they were murder on the ankles!); being on a mobile platform 8-10cm above ground level: being on a saddle 75-100cm above the ground, with a big frame to tangle your legs in - then your likelihood of controlling a fall and protecting your head falls.

      Speed is certainly a factor, but it's not the only one.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    54. Re: No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't New Hampshire the meth and opiate abuse leader per capita? Hardly a ringing endorsement.

    55. Re: No helmets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done twenty mph down a hill on a kick scooter and it is terrifying. Fun, but fun as in a thank god nothing failed on it or I would be dead or faceless and paralyzed sort of way. The brakes don't work once you pass about 18mph on those things. They melt/peel off and you run the risk that only the front wheel brake may bite, aka, the scooter pile drives you into the road via torque.

  2. agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    friend of mine had this exact thing happen. she has major injuries to face, skull and nerves due to a low speed scooter crash. ongoing months of surgery and repeat hospital visits, pain, depression, nerve damage. and she use to ride bikes so it's not like she's new to 2 wheels or has bad balance.

    1. Re:agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So your saying women are as bad at driving scooters as cars?

    2. Re: agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really so hard to figure out that the words you want here are "you are" or "you're" and not "your"???

  3. Helmets by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing claims that most of these cities already have laws on the books mandating helmet use for these things, yet I've NEVER seen a helmet on any riders in my area, or on the riders in any of the news reports about their rollout. Perhaps if the companies were liable for the injuries suffered they would find a way to enforce helmet usage. Sadly that would only be possible if their app was running on a platform that had access to a camera, oh wait...

    1. Re:Helmets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, there are very few places in the US that mandate helmet usage for adults on bicycles/similar devices.

      No one wears helmets on those because doing so is stupid. You don't wear a helmet driving your car do you? You're more likely to get a TBI doing that than bicycling.

  4. Ship now, fix bugs later approach in real world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tech companies have taken the approach of software where you deploy ASAP on a massive scale, and just address any issues as they come up.

    Except maybe that's not such a great idea when the problems are injury, or death. It's not as if nobody saw this coming. There were any number of dire predictions of the effects of just dumping scooters on a city, and letting other people deal with the problem.

  5. Well, yeah... by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I started seeing rental scooters in the area a few years ago, but they've really taken off here in the last year or so.

    And most of the time I see people on these things, they're not wearing the provided helmets. Or they're riding double on them (occasionally triple). I've even seen some scooter riders flat out ignore stop signs and stop lights, and a couple who were driving on the sidewalk.

    I saw one guy who clearly didn't know how to operate the scooter cut a wide turn, and sideswipe a concrete barricade. The helmet popped out of the wire cage on the back of the scooter (of course he wasn't wearing it), and he kept going down the street. I called after him, but either he didn't hear me, or he ignored me. And then he turned onto a much busier street.

    Honestly, I'd feel bad for them, but instead I feel bad for the people who are going to be in accidents with these thundering idiots.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    1. Re:Well, yeah... by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Once you eliminate the most vicious forms of disease, starvation, and exposure, nature needs to develop new ways thinning out the heard as it were. Life (or I suppose death) finds a way.

      For some people, their only notable achievement will be a Darwin award.

  6. Especially Worrying by Translation+Error · · Score: 1
    From the article:

    What's more, the firms acknowledge that they can't always know about serious mechanical problems in their vehicles unless riders flag problems. Indeed, the scooter companies are still learning how their vehicles perform in various weather conditions and from regular use, according to a senior executive at one of the three companies who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about industry challenges.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    1. Re:Especially Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then learn from countries where scooters are already massively used, Italy, India, whereever. It's not like they are a new invention or so.

    2. Re:Especially Worrying by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not 'Vespas', more like a kid's kick scooter with a battery and motor.

      Kids were making them for themselves about 10-15 years ago, was a minor trend.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re: Especially Worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10-15 years ago? Kids were making variants of this stuff in the 1985 movie back to the future...during the 1955 scenes. I think the Little Rascals had them even and that almost a hundred years back.

    4. Re: Especially Worrying by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      With a battery and motor?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Freedom to be stupid by mi · · Score: 1

    One's not wearing a helmet only endangers the non-wearer. There is simply no standing for the government to mandate it.

    Of course, these companies are doing it for a different reason — they want (more) people to use their services, helmet or not.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Freedom to be stupid by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It also places others at risk of severe psychiatric trauma, bloodborne disease, and funerary costs.

    2. Re:Freedom to be stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you crash at 30 mph+ you're probably going to have all of those things anyway. NEXT!

    3. Re:Freedom to be stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One's not wearing a helmet only endangers the non-wearer. There is simply no standing for the government to mandate it.

      In the USA's health system, the cost of your injuries is (directly or indirectly) borne by the public.

    4. Re: Freedom to be stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you end up in the hospital seriously injured without a helmet and you have no insurance or you cant pay, then we all have to pay for it.

    5. Re:Freedom to be stupid by mi · · Score: 1

      It also places others at risk of severe psychiatric trauma

      You realize, of course, how I can ban just about anything based on that argument? No? Let's begin with "traumatizing speech" and "verbal assaults"... Voila — down with the First Amendment! And so on...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Freedom to be stupid by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not black and red, you know. A pinprick and a little blood aren't going to hurt anyone; killing another human being causes serious psychological trauma.

      We also do ban speech to incite violence.

    7. Re:Freedom to be stupid by mi · · Score: 1

      It's not black and red, you know.

      In ACLU's own terms, it is a "slippery slope" without the "clear bright line" separating the reasonable and egregious applications.

      Once you accept an argument, that preventing somebody's "psychological trauma" is a sufficient reason to limit another's pursuit of happiness, the government can ban just about anything — may as well abolish the Constitution.

      Because one can always pull out a poster boy — err, scratch that — a poster person, who may be "traumatized" by simply a sight of something. Such as, for example, a weapon. Voila, the Second Amendment sinks together with the First...

      No, this argument is not valid and should not be allowed in a discussion about exercising freedoms.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Freedom to be stupid by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      In ACLU's own terms, it is a "slippery slope" without the "clear bright line" separating the reasonable and egregious applications.

      So are a lot of things. There are noise restrictions: you can't blare music at 120dB at night or the police show up. I can hear my neighbors talking and hear people outside driving cars sometimes; they're not loud but they're audible. At what point do we fine you for making "noise"?

      I can shine a flashlight at an airplane. Laser diodes require a lens to form collimated light, and they do scatter over distance: a spot at 2 kilometers is larger than a spot at 2 meters. At what point is shining a bright light with its focal point on the windscreen of an airplane illegal?

      You can wave a sword or firearm at someone without actually attacking them with it. At what point are you assaulting them with a deadly weapon? When it's visible? When you look angry? If it's waved in your general direction, is that assault?

      Harassment is just annoyance and is only illegal because it causes a sense of insecurity and psychological trauma. Maybe you shouldn't have any recourse just because you "feel unsafe", and if you assault me for constantly hanging around your house and badgering your wife you can be put in prison for a very long time. Sound good?

  8. Scooters way more dangerous than skateboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skateboards give you the same level of transportation, but with your hands free. On a scooter if you take your hands off the handlebar, you will crash. Moreover, if you start to get into trouble, you have to clutch the handlebar all the way to your doom, knowing if you let go you will crash instantly. Scooters are absolutely fucking retarded. If people would take the extra ten minutes it takes to learn to use a skateboard, most of these idiotic injuries would be avoided.

    1. Re: Scooters way more dangerous than skateboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scooters have brakes. And taller, often pneumatic wheels which massively reduces the jarring effect of hitting pebbles. I have skateboards too, but at the low speeds it is safe to step off a skateboard is safe enough to step off a scooter too, except you wouldn't unless brakes failed and even then you can still leave a hand on the handlebars to keep the scooter from flying into traffic and causing another accident.

  9. Pedestrian collisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Collisions with people on sidewalks are a serious issue. Once a pregnant woman loses her baby or an old lady gets a broken hip because some douche on an e-scooter runs into them on a sidewalk their legality will be short lived.

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. What the article doesn't talk about by taustin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    is the cause of accidents. They talk about people injured by mechanical failures, and undoubtedly those occur.

    But no mention of what percentage is caused by that, what percentage caused by rider error (which is likely rather higher) and what percentage is caused by other drivers (since it's illegal to ride these things on the sidewalk, which means you're in a bicycle lane or on the street). Most motorcycle accidents are cause by drivers of cars who never saw the bike. I suspect the same is true on these toys.

    But let's not let facts get in the way of any propaganda! There's money to be made, selling advertising to outrage monkeys.

    1. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except I always see them ride in sidewalks, facts, what are those again?

    2. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most motorcycle accidents are cause by drivers of cars who never saw the bike.

      No, they're caused by reckless driving, including, but not limited to, travelling above the posted speed limit by over 30 mph, riding the line between lanes, showing off, changing lanes rapidly with no warning, and not paying attention to surroundings. Most motorcycle accidents include a car whose driver did not see the idiot on a motorcycle.

      I have seen 3 safe motorcyclists, and all in the last year. The first one was a surprise, as I had not seen a motorcyclist actually obey a non-trivial portion of traffic laws in the prior two decades of driving.

    3. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by taustin · · Score: 1

      That the cops don't enforce the law doesn't change what the law is.

    4. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by taustin · · Score: 1

      Most motorcycle accidents are cause by drivers of cars who never saw the bike.

      No, they're caused by reckless driving,

      Not according to statistics from accident investigators.

    5. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I have seen 3 safe motorcyclists, and all in the last year. The first one was a surprise, as I had not seen a motorcyclist actually obey a non-trivial portion of traffic laws in the prior two decades of driving.

      It's always the guys that look like extras out of Sons of Anarchy riding the giant Harleys and Indians that tend to obey the laws while the assholes on the crotch rockets drive like, well, assholes.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, all those things would be great to know. How would we possibly know it if these things just came out this summer?

      The article is about raising awareness the problem these things cause, and possible causes. It's not a scientific study.

      But let's not let facts get in the way of any propaganda! There's money to be made, selling advertising to outrage monkeys.

      Facts? What facts? You're talking about LACK of facts. What we do know is there's some anecdotal evidence that scooter accidents are on the rise. That's interesting, and we should do something about it. Likely investigate further, and try to get answers to many of the questions you raised.

      I don't see any propaganda. I see an article that raises concerns about tech companies just dropping something on cities across the country, and turning them all into "someone elses problem". That's stupid, short sighted, and wrong.

    7. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      is the cause of accidents. They talk about people injured by mechanical failures, and undoubtedly those occur.

      But no mention of what percentage is caused by that, what percentage caused by rider error (which is likely rather higher) and what percentage is caused by other drivers (since it's illegal to ride these things on the sidewalk, which means you're in a bicycle lane or on the street). Most motorcycle accidents are cause by drivers of cars who never saw the bike. I suspect the same is true on these toys.

      Scooters are worse.
          * Very short wheelbase;
          * Very small wheels;
          * Extremely tight turning radius.

      That's a formula for falling off. Now, it wasn't so bad with those "Razer" scooters, where you'd only break your wrist. But these things go much faster, and in most cities are forbidden from riding on the sidewalk. For example, CA vehicle code says so for anything motorized.

      And 15 to 40 mph on the sidewalk is not a good idea in a neighborhood with old people walking dogs, and mommies with strollers. One rider almost broke my wife's arm, and acted like it was her fault for being "in his way".

      No rider error required. These scooters are very prone to falling over, or going out of control. You might say that they are designed to be unsafe.

    8. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "it's illegal to ride these things on the sidewalk"

      Surely not everywhere and always. Someone ran a survey of the local laws in Vermont's 250 odd towns and cities. They found that in some it's illegal to ride bicycles on sidewalks (if you can find a sidewalk), in some it's optional, in some it's mandatory. I expect the same would be true of scooters.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    9. Re:What the article doesn't talk about by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No but it does change people's perception of the law. If I know something is illegal but I wouldn't get in trouble for doing so I have no incentive not to do it. Kind of like here cycling drunk is illegal and subject to the same fine as driving a car. Yet I cycle home sometimes so drunk that I fall off my bike because of the unwritten rule that you don't punish cyclists for things that would prevent them from cycling.

      A law that isn't enforced is not a law, it's a kind request.

  12. Pedestrians by wickerprints · · Score: 1

    Where I live, scooter riders almost always ride on the sidewalks, which are already very narrow. They almost never wear helmets. I have seen several instances of two people squeezing onto a single scooter. I have seen falls and accidents. I've seen pedestrians get hit. Almost every day I walk around in my neighborhood, some scooter rider whizzes by me, unannounced--I can't hear them coming, and they get within inches of me.

    Whether or not a law is passed to regulate the use of these motor vehicles--and they ARE, by construction, motor vehicles--is irrelevant, because the users have already become accustomed to riding them on sidewalks, leaving them wherever they want--often obstructing doorways and walkways, wearing them without helmets, and so forth. The only way this will change is if the police start handing out $5000 tickets and court appearances for violations. Just having a law isn't enough--it is the enforcement of existing laws, with penalties steep enough to make users painfully aware to change their behavior, that will have an effect.

    On the flip side, requiring that these scooters be on the roadway is also problematic because now the drivers have to watch out for what amounts to a 15 mph pedestrian sized object weaving in and out of traffic, making illegal turns, not having signals or mirrors, and so forth. They're smaller than a bike rider, and because scooter riders are casual users who do not have to expend energy to power themselves, they are less likely to obey traffic laws. But at least if someone gets injured, it'll be the idiot on the scooter.

    I don't want to become a statistic. These things are so quiet and move so fast, that I can't possibly react in time to avoid them while walking around my neighborhood. Moreover, my neighborhood is filled with bars, so consider the combination of public intoxication with electric scooters. The bottom line is that sidewalks are for pedestrians ONLY. You are a pedestrian if you are walking, or you are in a wheelchair. It is only a matter of time before a child gets mowed down by one of these.

    1. Re:Pedestrians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way this will change is if the police start handing out $5000 tickets and court appearances for violations.

      You are a rich asshole if you think $5000 tickets is in any way a reasonable amount for such violations. We are talking about people who probably cannot even afford a bicycle. That much money is maybe 25 to 50% of their annual income.

      Would you agree to $250,000 driving tickets?

    2. Re:Pedestrians by lgw · · Score: 1

      You're right, Summary execution is a much better punishment.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re: Pedestrians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The definition of motor vehicles generally intentionally excludes devices with a motor smaller than a certain size (50 CCs or 1000 watts in my area). Scooters and mopeds fall under that exception.

    4. Re:Pedestrians by wickerprints · · Score: 1

      They can afford a smartphone--that's how one reserves the scooter. So don't tell me that they can't afford a bike. That's not to say it should be a $5000 fine, but it should be high enough that even the rich and entitled Bay Area brats that are commonly seen recklessly tooling around on these scooters would think twice about zipping around on a sidewalk. For a lot of these riders, even $5k is not that much money. Ideally, traffic fines should be a percentage of your income, like they do in certain Scandinavian countries.

  13. This article sponsored by Uber, Lyft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and it's not a scooter problem, it's a cultural problem. There are countries that have literally a hundred times more cyclists and scooterists than you, and still fewer accidents.

    Riding or driving like a massive asshole and refusing to wear a helmet because it's not cool is the problem, and it's wholly a problem of American culture, not a problem of scooters.

  14. Who's getting hurt? by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    It's one thing if it's the people riding the scooters are the ones getting injured.

    It's another thing if it's people they run into, or someone trips on a scooter that some idiot just dumped on the ground (because none of these things have stations to park them, like rental bikes)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Fractured patella by dstyle5 · · Score: 2

    I wasn't wearing protective equipment a few years back when I got tripped up inline skating, ended up landing on my right patella (kneecap) and broke it into 3 pieces. Prior to this incident I hadn't fallen in over 20 years of skating and was over-confident and stupidly not wearing protective padding. Painful lesson learned...

    Needless to say I wear full protective gear after two surgeries, months of physio for my extremely tight and shrunken quads, etc. Mandating a helmet for these type of activities where you are moving on concrete should be a no-brainer. I see dumb people with very small children in my area with no helmets, wobbling on bikes and scooters, makes me cringe.

    1. Re:Fractured patella by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandating a helmet for these type of activities where you are moving on concrete should be a no-brainer.

      Natural selection should be allowed to run its course. You do humanity a disservice by trying to protect the terminally stupid.

    2. Re:Fractured patella by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And their cost drain the whole while?

      The drain that insurances will not shoulder (yacht payments to make) but pass on? And it's not like medical staff will hesitate to pimp away, they just sign off. Complete the trifecta with $500 saline etc.

    3. Re:Fractured patella by lgw · · Score: 1

      a helmet for these type of activities where you are moving on concrete should be a no-brainer

      It's lack of a helmet that's a no-brainer. Eventually.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  17. Not illegal to ride on sidewalk everywhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    ...what percentage is caused by other drivers (since it's illegal to ride these things on the sidewalk...)

    In Denver it's illegal to ride the scooters in Bicycle lanes, you are expressly told to ride them on the sidewalk.

    Of course you are also told to ride with a helmet and I've not ever seen that...

    The best option would be to speed limit scooters to about 2x walking speed, so that people could not get up enough speed to really hurt themselves or others.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not illegal to ride on sidewalk everywhere by taustin · · Score: 1

      The article, however, is about California (Santa Monica), where, as far as I know, it's illegal to ride them on the sidewalk.

  18. I'm totally mystified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I completely fail to understand why so many people find these scooters appealing. It literally boggles my mind.

    And I never would have imagined that renting scooters could be a viable business model. To me, the idea sounds just as ridiculous as renting spatulas on the street corner. Because, you know, sometimes you really need a spatula and it would be convenient if there were always some spatulas lying around nearby.

    1. Re:I'm totally mystified... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And I never would have imagined that renting scooters could be a viable business model. To me, the idea sounds just as ridiculous as renting spatulas on the street corner. Because, you know, sometimes you really need a spatula and it would be convenient if there were always some spatulas lying around nearby.

      My god, have you been living in a cave for the last 15 months? Don't you know about SpatulasForRentOnTheStreetCorner.com?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:I'm totally mystified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I want to travel a mile in 5 minutes (12 mph) instead of walking 20 minutes (3 mph). Leaving me an extra 15 minutes to do whatever.
      Maybe I don't want to drag a scooter onto the bus/train.
      Maybe the cost of ownership of a scooter is prohibitively expensive when maintenance and potential theft is factored in.

    3. Re:I'm totally mystified... by TimTucker · · Score: 1

      I don't ride the scooters here, but I do make frequent use of a bike share membership and imagine that the rationale behind why people ride scooters is pretty similar.

      Here's a sample use case where I see the scooters making sense -- going to lunch 1.5 miles away in a crowded city:

      1. 30 minutes to walk
      2. 20 minutes to take your car (walking to a paid lot or garage + travel in traffic + parking in closer lot / garage, walking the rest of the way)
      3. 10 minutes to get a ride from a cab / Lyft / Uber (wait time + travel in traffic)
      4. 5 minutes to grab a scooter parked in front of your office and ride it to your destination

      Cost-wise, the scooter rental is likely the cheapest (other than walking).

    4. Re:I'm totally mystified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, you know, sometimes you really need a spatula and it would be convenient if there were always some spatulas lying around nearby.

      Don't you have a Spatula City nearby?

    5. Re:I'm totally mystified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a sample use case where I see the scooters making sense -- going to lunch 1.5 miles away in a crowded city:

      For over 100 years bicycles have been used for that sort of transportation. Why weren't scooters this popular in the past? What are the advantages of scooters over bicycles? They really seem like a niche device that's vastly inferior to a bicycle.

    6. Re:I'm totally mystified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes you 20 minutes to walk one mile? Are you on crutches or something? Any adult that can't walk a mile in 10 minutes and hold that pace all day has some serious fitness problems.

    7. Re: I'm totally mystified... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see.
      1 mile per ten minutes...
      6 miles per hour... (I am from NYC and even we don't walk that fast!)
      8 hours per work day...
      6*8...48miles per day.
      You are suggesting that anyone who can't run a marathon in four hours, and then basically do it again that afternoon, isn't fit.

      And the judges have a ruling... Yes, you are full of shit.

  19. forget Byrd.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Byrd,,

    its a shame that your choosing to collect profits versus considering the safety of your riders, customers, and the public @ large...

    Layme,,
    perhaps everyone should give you the "Bird"

     

  20. I don't care if they wear helmets... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ... in fact, I'd rather they didn't. I want them as soft as possible if they crash into me.

  21. Organ Donors Need by Zorro · · Score: 1

    No helments and FASTER scooters.

    We need all the fresh young organs we can get from volunteers.

  22. These companies take safety seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah let's just litter an entire city's sidewalks with metal scooters and leave them wherever we want so they become a hazard and an eyesore. We won't ask anyone if they want these things in their neighborhoods either, so in addition to creating hazards and eyesores, we're dicks too.

  23. Not surprised by Thundercat007 · · Score: 1

    Seeing people on scooters in my city, I'm not surprised they're in the hospital. Nearly all of them just zoom around, don't adhere to road rules. Then if you do hit one, media blames car driver with titles that read "car hits scooter". I actually almost hit one today, driving south, put my blinker on to turn right onto a street. I get to where I'm about to turn the wheel, Scooter driving on my lane towards me and tries to left turn onto the road I'm on. I see them also driving down very busy streets middle of the road. Cyclist attitude

    1. Re:Not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the most likely cause of most scooter accidents. For many years I have seen people on bicycles ignore all traffic laws. Such as not signaling a turn, ignoring stop signs and traffic lights, changing lanes without signaling, riding on sidewalks (illegal here) and abruptly turning into the street etc... Fortunately my being alert has prevented several accidents where cyclists would have been at fault and possibly killed.

      People riding these electric scooters most likely regard these electric scooters as they would a bicycle. There are several young girls (look to be 8-9 years old) that ride electric scooters in the streets in front of my home almost daily in good weather. Its a miracle that they have not been hit, as the street is quite busy, with many speeders.

  24. Cars cause more deaths per capita by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    So, the problem is just that we aren't using the streets and roads for their original purpose of bikes, horses, and the odd delivery truck.

    In the 50s everyone warned of lawless youth on scooters, the kind you pushed by hand.

    You see the problem only from the perspective of the group you're not part of, not the group you are part of.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Cars cause more deaths per capita by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your argument is that I have been part of both groups. Into my 20s, I had both a car and a bicycle, and used both. Most of the problem, and certainly most of the accidents are cause by the cyclists

    2. Re:Cars cause more deaths per capita by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Obviously your perceptions are biased by observer's influence. We all know it's those nasty nasty skateboarders causing all the accidents, and all the cyclists, scooter-users, and drivers that are totally blameless.

      Excuse me while I use my blue flame skateboard to speed past all of them on my way to the Seattle Cider Summit ...

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  25. Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Jesus Christ, FINALLY something in my favor.

    -Charles Darwin

    --
    -Styopa
  26. Crazy kids with a deathwish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scooters are ridden around by a bunch of foolish kids, who have no concern for their safety or that of the pedestrians around them. Is it any wonder that they get injured? (The kids, mostly, not the scooters)

  27. Louis Rossmann, report in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you check his YouTube channel, he had a nasty accident riding his electric bike. He could give a first-hand account of the dangers. He does read Slashdot.

  28. Speed governors by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 1

    Scooters need to be limited to 12-15mph, tops. This is a trivial fix. Anyone arguing against helmets and other safety gear at speeds exceeding 12mph is ignorant of what can happen to a human body crashing at speed. Anyone who cries out "nanny state" - just because that state wants to protect people from hurting themselves - should not be permitted to have children. /s

  29. sneak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The electric scooters need to emit a sound from them at all times so you can hear them approaching.

  30. scooter wheels are too small by rapjr · · Score: 1

    The wheels on a scooter are too small to make the ride stable. And some scooters go too fast. Being able to go 25mph on little wheels is a recipe for disaster. Even small obstacles can cause your path to alter. Compare the rate of accidents of bicycles to the rate for scooters. Are the ER's reporting large numbers of biking accidents also? Maybe the gyroscopic characteristics of larger wheels is what makes bicycles more stable? Maybe bikers tend to follow the rules of the road more than scooter riders do, as well, which could be solved with laws.

  31. Never ride a scooter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scooters are for guys that like to ride bikes whilst feeling the win on teir vaginas...

  32. Biking helmets by DrYak · · Score: 1

    No one wears helmets on those because doing so is stupid.

    Whereas in other parts of the world (lots of countries in Europe), you'll see lots of people wearing helmets.

    Mostly because there are numbers showing that it helps reducing some injuries and reduce risks of death (sorry the only english language source I found. But this seems corroborated by our swiss nationnal accident statistics, too - this one is done by the national accident insurance fund, they have a strong financial interest into promoting anything that might reduce injuries).

    You don't wear a helmet driving your car do you?

    I don't wear a helmet driving my car, mostly because a have a whole car around me which is available to shield me from injury or cushion me before impact.
    This includes simple things like the car's own body, or more advanced accessories like airbags, safebelts with pre-tensionning, etc.
    There's ton of numbers supporting this, and the main reason why most of these accessories have became mandatory over time.

    And that is if a collision actually happens to begin with. (Features like FCAS might cause the car to autonomously hit the brakes and perform an emergency stop if it sense a risk of collision. This kind of feature is common in lots of high-range vehicle (e.g.: Volvo) and with some manufacturer (e.g.: VW) is a standard feature which is installed on even the shittiest cars (e.g.:VW Up!) )

    Meanwhile if anything wrong happens while you're biking, your head will be hitting the hard-ground mostly at whatever speed you were biking at during this moment (which can be anywhere between 15km/h and 45km/h depending on the presence and type of electric motorization)
    This type of impact is of sufficiently high energy to be potentially lethal and surely leading to injury. Helmet have shown to be helping in reducing these risks.

    You're more likely to get a TBI doing that than bicycling.

    Nope. Incidence of accident seem more or less in the same ball park according to national accident statics (e.g.: in Switzerland).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  33. Unrealistic expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asked Quora: "How long does it take to walk 1 mile?"

    about 20 minutes
    The average time it takes most people to walk a mile is about 20 minutes (walking at about 3 mph). If you walk briskly, it will probably be more like 15 minutes.

    Additional searches turn up insightful forum replies to similar questions:

    The average walking speed of a person is 3.1 miles per hour. So in normal walking speeds in 10 minutese you will cross about half a mile,

    ( 3.1/60)*10=0.51 miles

    So you might need to walk for 20 minutes to cross a mile distance.

    And cited excepts from Wikipedia indicate something closer to 3 mph being average and 4 mph being relatively fast walking.

    the average human walking speed at crosswalks is about 5.0 kilometers per hour (km/h), or about 1.4 meters per second (m/s), or about 3.1 miles per hour (mph). Specific studies have found pedestrian walking speeds at crosswalks ranging from 4.51 kilometers per hour (2.80 mph) to 4.75 kilometers per hour (2.95 mph) for older individuals and from 5.32 kilometers per hour (3.31 mph) to 5.43 kilometers per hour (3.37 mph) for younger individuals; a brisk walking speed can be around 6.5 kilometers per hour (4.0 mph).Champion racewalkers can average more than 14 kilometres per hour (8.7 mph) over a distance of 20 kilometers (12 mi).

    So take that racewalker speed of (8.7 mph), that's a little less than 7 minutes to speedwalk a mile. 6 mph for walking is beyond what a typical person who is not a trained athlete can sustain "all day".

    Really you should consider 6 mph to be a jogging speed or slow run for person who isn't trained to hold that gait as a speed walker. If you were running for a 5K you should aim for around 7.5 mph run, which gets you to about 8 minutes per mile. Assuming you're experience and healthy.

    As I don't see 5 billion people running marathons or speed-walking races (65% of the World population are between ages 15-64), I'm going to say that you're idea of what constitutes average is a mistake. Arguing as if most people are exceptional athletes is as irrational as saying: most people aren't average.