Am I being unreasonable to suggest that scooters should be banned on pavements?

[Morgause]

An hour ago I went up the lane to pay the papers. The pavement isn't particularly wide but not very narrow either. A little girl aged 3 -4 scooted past me quite quickly which made me jump a bit as I hadn't heard her coming. I looked round to see her mother with a buggy quite a way back down the lane. She shouted the little girl's name and told her to wait.

I walked past her and into the shop round the corner and paid the bill. As I came back around the corner the mother had caught up with the little girl and she had begun to scoot on again. Unfortunately she scooted straight into an elderly lady just leaving her gate and they both went flying. I called an ambulance and other neighbours came out to see what could be done to help. It looks like the little girl has broken her arm and the old lady may have broken her hip or her leg - maybe both.

The ambulance man said that scooters are a "bloody nuisance" and if kids aren't falling off them they are ploughing into people on them. He thinks they should be banned anywhere but gardens and parks. The local bobby, also present, agreed.

I think the same after what I saw today. M (the old lady) is the sole carer for her elderly husband who is very disabled following a stroke. Goodness knows what will happen to him now. A neighbour is with him for now and is hoping to contact someone from social services for some emergency care.

I'm not absolutely sure on this, but I was under the impression that nursing care homes are funded under the nhs if the person has been placed there because of a medical issue. I think it's residential care ( because the person can no longer live independently because of old age) that need to be paid for. So hopefully the financial situation won't be too as bad.

Sorry for hideous typos btw, I'm on iPad.

A very relevant link on the subject of scooters on pavements and safety for the elderly:
www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/general/scooters.aspx

I have liability insurance and so does my dd2, therefore we we cause damage whilst riding our bikes someone could claim against us for that damage.
I very much doubt that a court case, even if it was successful would be worth while if the aim is to gain money. The reason being I very much doubt the mother has liability insurance and you may end up with a £10 per month payment for around 10 years that costs 3-4k to secure.

Sorry but not much point in suing someone if they don't have much money or insurance.

There is though nothing to stop anyone getting a 30 minute consultation for legal advise to find out their position

Thanks, fruitsalad, I hope that's the case, at least for rehab for M. The "free" ones can be pretty grim. Most decent ones require a top up above the maximum level that is "free" around here, we found that when my dad needed care.

Thanks for that link, CHJR.

ivy, DH tells me we have liability insurance with our house insurance, perhaps the mother of the tot does as well. I'm pretty sure son will go to one of those lawyers who advertise on a no fee basis. I don't know the circumstance of the mother, they haven't lived around here that long, they own their house. so may well have some kind of insurance, I'd say.

£10 a month isn't going to help so maybe the lawyer will tell the son not to bother if they don't have insurance.

A decent laser would know what was best to advise.

Hope the old lady has a speedy recovery

YANBU but given that there have been several incidents over the last few years where pavement cyclists have killed pedestrians and escaped jail, and little is being done to enforce no cycling on pavements, there is zero hope that anything will happen about other stuff including scooters.

Today when I was driving DS2 to college (his bus pass hasn't come through yet), there were two mothers walking in the road, pushing babies in buggies, while their DC scooted along the narrow pavement!. The school is less than a 5 minute walk from my house,they live at the top of the road so about 3 minutes from theirs!

Utter, utter madness!

Actually when my six year old is on his scooter on the pavement he does not scoot off because it has been drilled in to him not to do so. He knows I will take the wheels off if he is not right next to me.

He has never hit or knocked any one over on a pavement. Unlike some idiot in a mobility scooter who sent us flying when the came bombing down a hill. Respect needs to go all ways.

Morgause...from description, starting to worry you might live near me which makes me hope even more that all involved are ok.

Agree that parents need to keep scooting children under control, but I do not want to live in a culture where it is normal for parents to be sued when their children are involved in accidents.

FruitSalad normally I would agree with you but I've noticed that some people will only do something, eg, parents keeping control over their scooting children, when there are consequences and those consequences only work when they are financial.

In this case an disabled man is going to have to go into residential care which will cost money. Why should this elderly couple, or any of their family, have to bear the financial consequences of this accident.

The thing is, the best parent in the world will lose control of their very young child in public occasionally. Young children are like that. I know my 3yo has surprised me sometimes, and I like to think I am a responsible parent. So what happens if your child runs/scoots off and causes an accident? Legal action just seems inappropriate to me.

Agree the situation is very unfair on the elderly couple, but I do think it was a genuine accident.

Even if you lose control for a second though if that causes an accident you are responsible.

I am on the fence with the legal action argument but I do think that people do need to accept when they are responsible for such an accident.

Agreed. I don't think it's good enough to shrug your shoulders and say, "oh well, my child just scooted off" If your child is liable to do that, it's your job to control them.

The mother in the OP clearly was NOT in control if a child who is too young to think about consequences.

And now an elderly couple have had their life changed permanently because I'm guessing that this accident will cause huge changes. When elderly people are injured it does tend to have major consequences. Ive seen that several times close up.

It wasn't an accident -- it didn't HAVE to happen, and it wouldn't have happened if the mother had properly controlled her child.

"Morgause there are a family today waiting to hear about their relatives care as the OAP was hit on the pavement by a car her husband will have to go into care - shall we ban cars?" - but cars are already banned from driving on pavements, the OP is suggesting scooters should be banned on pavements too, not altogether.

Well said, RustyBear!

This is going to make me hugely unpopular...

But is there no way the "blame" is shared 50-50 (or 20-80 or whatever) - could the adult (no matter if she's an older lady, she's still an adult, capable of caring for her husband and therefore still fully "with it") also not have really been looking and walked out without looking, into the child?

This is all very "Elderly people, who cannot be in any way responsible for anything that happens to them, are being savagely attacked by dangerous toddlers" ... The child was hurt too, and being elderly and fragile doesn't automatically make a person infallible and the victim in every situation they are involved in - there were 2 vulnerable members of society involved in the collision...

Even if she hadn't been looking, she still should not have to navigate small people whizzing by fasting that walking pace. No one is blaming the child FFS, they're blaming the parent.

*faster than

OK, where do you stand on adults on scooters? Because I have one that I use all the time. On cycle paths and yes on footpaths, but have spacial awareness and can judge speed, I also have a bell to ring if people arent moving out of my way aren't aware of my presence. Does that make it ok?

"Even if she hadn't been looking, she still should not have to navigate small people whizzing by fasting that walking pace"

So candycoated - we're banning "small people" running too are we?

What is the minimum height for moving on pavements at above walking pace.

My kids don't even scoot much - just isn't a big thing where we live, and we are a 6 mile 'round trip from school - my school age child takes the bus, so its not that I have a vested interest or am a defensive "scooter mama". I see that pavements choc full of small children on scooters are not ideal, most certainly. However this thread seems to have gone crazily far in one direction without any sense of balance - elderly person was injured in an accident (and yes of course it was an accident, the fact it didn't have to happen doesn't mean it wasn't an accident, most accidents are theoretically preventable) obviously this is a bad thing and has consequences. However adults (and small children on scooters) need to look where they are going when leaving their drive ways and entering a more major thoroughfare - the pavement in this case, and that does not only mean looking for people of 5 ft and above ... if you don't look lower down than adult head height you won't see a self-propelled adult wheel chair user either, nor an adult with dwarfism for that matter (who, presumably is banned from going jogging on the pavement under the rules of this thread, or at least candycoated 's rules).

No lack of sympathy for the lady and her husband, but it was an accident, not every accident means somebody (child or parent or elderly lady) has done terrible wrong and needs to be vilified, unfortunate things do happen, sometimes nobody has done anything that needs to be banned...

"Even if she hadn't been looking, she still should not have to navigate small people whizzing by fasting that walking pace"

So candycoated - we're banning "small people" running too are we?

What is the minimum height for moving on pavements at above walking pace.

My kids don't even scoot much - just isn't a big thing where we live, and we are a 6 mile 'round trip from school - my school age child takes the bus, so its not that I have a vested interest or am a defensive "scooter mama". I see that pavements choc full of small children on scooters are not ideal, most certainly. However this thread seems to have gone crazily far in one direction without any sense of balance - elderly person was injured in an accident (and yes of course it was an accident, the fact it didn't have to happen doesn't mean it wasn't an accident, most accidents are theoretically preventable) obviously this is a bad thing and has consequences. However adults (and small children on scooters) need to look where they are going when leaving their drive ways and entering a more major thoroughfare - the pavement in this case, and that does not only mean looking for people of 5 ft and above ... if you don't look lower down than adult head height you won't see a self-propelled adult wheel chair user either, nor an adult with dwarfism for that matter (who, presumably is banned from going jogging on the pavement under the rules of this thread, or at least candycoated 's rules).

No lack of sympathy for the lady and her husband, but it was an accident, not every accident means somebody (child or parent or elderly lady) has done terrible wrong and needs to be vilified, unfortunate things do happen, sometimes nobody has done anything that needs to be banned...

Sorry, no idea why that posted twice!

But the parent was at fault this time as she was a fair distance away and not fully supervising.

YoutheCat that makes the mother partly, not fully to blame.

It sounds to me pretty clear that both parties are actually at fault.

On 8th Sept at 11.30 the OP states that "The child was hidden from view by the 3ft fence until M got to the gate. M stepped out onto the pavement, and would most likely have looked both ways before going any further"

If I pull out of my drive way on my motorbike slightly into the road, not far, but a few feet, and claim that I would "most likely have looked" before going any further, and am then mown down by a ten tun truck speeding at 70 down the 30mph road, the consequences for me are most probably fatal, and the lorry driver is likely to escape mainly unhurt. He is then at fault for speeding BUT I am not an utterly innocent victim, because I pulled out without looking properly. I know this thread is not about cars before anyone says that, but there is a parallel - the most vulnerable party in the accident is not automatically blameless, and the blame does not have to fall 100% on one party, regardless of who is more injured.

An adult, unless very unusually short, can look over a 3 ft fence...

Again - not taking away from the sympathy for the older couple, just pointing out that distressing as the accident is for them, it does not necessarily follow that the blame falls roundly 100% on the other party.