To think that mobility scooters are bloody dangerous and there should be more regulation of their use?

[JellyDiamond]

I've just nearly run over a man on a disability scooter. I was driving along at 30mph, when he pulled off the kerb right in front of me. He didn't look anyway but when he realised I was coming towards him he didn't seem to know how to stop it and carried on. Had I been going any faster I would have hit him, had another car been behind me they'd have crashed into me...

I appreciate elderly and disabled people need to get about, but many of them don't seem to know how to use these scooters. There's an old chap near me who uses and one and drives along in the middle of the road, holding up traffic and refusing to pull over to let anyone pass. I've nearly been run over myself by them on pavements, in shops, in supermarkets and I've heard of people who have actually been bit and injured by them.

Surely there should be some kind of course and test for users before allowing them lose on the public? Maybe even an assessment to see who actually needs them rather than just giving them out willy billy to any OAP over the age of 70 wants one?

Tinkly your fit DH might be able to walk at 4mph, but my frail, elderly PIL can't. And my FIL has lost most of his hearing, so he might be okay if you came up behind because you are responsible and competent. If he came across someone who was reckless or unable to use their scooter properly the resulting collision could kill him. Doesn't he have a right to walk around in safety too?

Garlic an acceptable solution is for scooters to be more regulated. Training given to people when they first buy the scooter and which is also included in the price. And then regular (like once every 3-5 years say) a training refresher course.

Ok, that's a solution for people that are already using their scooters as they should.

No one has answered the question of what an acceptable solution for these people is if they fail the scooter classes. What then?

Until someone poses an acceptable solution for people that can't use scooters because they failed the test, this idea is disablist.

But Archery, a class three mobility scooter is not a pavement vehicle, it is a road vehicle.

Just because a small minority are poor drivers why are you tarring us all with the same brush? Should we ban all cars and increase regulation because some people drive dangerously?

Archery it's about tolerance and give and take, isn't it?

People who leave the house less able to hear have a greater risk of many things happening to them than people who can hear well. But that doesn't mean they should take a test before leaving home. It does mean that they will want to take extra care of themselves, and that others should move around anticipating that sometimes people won't move in exactly the same way and speed as they do.

Until someone poses an acceptable solution for people that can't use scooters because they failed the test, this idea is disablist.

This is bullshit. No person, disabled or not, has a right to act in a manner that might cause another person - who may also be disabled - an injury. This remains true even when it may cause the first person severe difficulties. Saying this is not disablist.

But Archery, a class three mobility scooter is not a pavement vehicle, it is a road vehicle.

Nope. They can be used on the road or the pavement - that's why they need the ability to limit the speed to 4 mph as well as go at 8 mph.

Just because a small minority are poor drivers why are you tarring us all with the same brush? Should we ban all cars and increase regulation because some people drive dangerously?

Who is talking about banning? I haven't seen anyone want a ban.

I would suggest it is disablist to suggest that a person who can't hear well, or who is unsteady on their feet or frail or all three should be able to leap out of the way of someone who can not ride their scooter properly.

Well of course scooters have variable settings, you don't pull off at 4mph. An incompetent person driving their road scooter at 8 mph on the pavement is analogous to an incompetent driver in a car mounting the pavement. Both are illegal but we deal wth it my punishing the individual perpetrator, not increasing regulation on scooters, or cars for that matter.

Yes, Tinkly, we do punish car drivers who do that. The law is pretty vague about scooters though. In the case I linked to a child was very badly injured, not only was the scooter rider not prosecuted, she was allowed to continue to use her machine.

An lady pushed over my DS travel system when he was a baby. It was a huge heavy thing too. DS broke his arm and I broke my leg trying to stop her, but a busy Christmas shopping day in town next too a road with on coming cars I was just glad that was all that happened. She drove off and didn't even say sorry, or if anyone was hurt.

In a lift in m&s a bloke drove his scooter in and crushed an elderly lady I was out shopping with in the lift, she had major cuts and ending up losing her leg over time due to infection. I found out later that the chap due to arthritis couldn't open his hand to use the brake and had MANY accidents before our one. Still drive it about afterwards though.

A local chap used to drive his around the local village, went a bit far one day and ran out of battery, got stressed and needed his heart mess that were at home, sadly he passed away before the farmer found him.

Plus I've had a few that have ran over my feet

But a scooter + adult + shopping going at 4 mph is still going to pack a hell of a wallop when it ploughs into you.

Actually, as I said up thread, I think that even suggesting that there should be restrictions on the use of powered wheelchair devices is disablist and an invitation to the general public to look at the disabled users of these devises as being somehow in need of regulation.
The mother who shouted at me yesterday said that I 'shouldn't be allowed on the pavement' and called me a cripple. Bear in mind that I was minding my own business and it was her child that decided to climb on my chair.

That's what we've been saying all along Tinkly. Asking for more regulation.

Why have you not responded to Saskia's comments about the danger posed to her elderly father by scooters users.

Her ablist slurs were horrible, and I'm sorry she did that to you, but I haven't seen anyone on this thread condoning them.

I call bullshit

They are bad enough in the US where a large percentage of users probably have had years of automotive experience, even though they may not be ineligible to drive to to eyesight, hearing and reaction time issue. They at least have a clue about how to move about in a machine, which isnt quite the same as riding a bike or manipulating a pram. Here, it is possible for someone to get one who has never driven any machinery at all previously. That they are unlicensed, unregistered, faster than foot traffic, modifiable to go faster, and the drivers seem to swap between pavement and road on a whim means they are a tragedy in waiting.

No person, disabled or not, has a right to act in a manner that might cause another person - who may also be disabled - an injury.

True enough. Now we need to think about what might cause an injury means, and also what we mean by rights.

I don't accept that everyone has the right to go about their business unless they're using a mobility device. They're no more likely to cause an injury than other road & pavement users: significantly less likely, in fact, going by the stats posted here.

You're wrong, Happy. My point is he'd be committing an offence & endangering others if he'd been WALKING on the motorway. It has fuck all to do with the scooter.

oh you have such a nice, polite and civil way with words. Keep it up.

it has everything to do with the fact that he is given/sold a vehicle that he is unable to operate safely. Partially sighted people, with eyesight as poor as this man should not be allowed to own or operate a mobility scooter. If he hadn't been allowed to own one, and to drive one, then he could never have drove on to the motorway into oncoming traffic. The fact that anyone could have walked on to the motorway, to use your own phrase, has "fuck all to do with it", the fact is, a partially sighted man, with eyesight so poor he runs into market stalls and knocks down diners on terraces should never be given the option to accidentally drive southbound onto a northbound carriage of a motorway.

if mobility scooters had regulations where a basic safety test (minimum level of eyesight necessary to operate one to demonstrate that the driver can read and understand basic road signs, awareness of basic road rules and regulations, awareness of speeds for pavements, the drivers ability to demonstrate that they know the difference between putting the vehicle in reverse or in drive) would have meant this old chap in his mobility scooter could never have mowed down a market stall, reversed into tables full of diners or driven on to a motorway into oncoming traffic. The law as it now stands didn't just fail his old man, it failed everyone he injured too, as well as the people he could have killed in a motorway carnage.

Not at you archeryannie, sorry.
I know no one is condoning that sort of language or behaviour. It's about perception.
A lot of people are aware that there is a divide and rule campaign being perpetrated in the UK at the moment. The government wants the public at large to perceive people on benefits (including disabled people) as 'scroungers'. Stories about benefits cheats and high levels of benefit fraud are fed to the papers, programmes on the TV are designed to make us look down at people in council houses in receipt of benefits.

Saying that we need to be tested to see if we are allowed to use our wheels is going further down this path.

This post is a very good reminder to all drivers that they should always be able to stop within the distance they can see and to be aware of all potential types of hazard. It's not just other vehicles we need to look out for, it's bikes, motorbikes, pedestrians, buggies, kids on scooters, wheelchairs and mobility scooters. I'm sure there's more.

It's driver awareness we should be focusing on.

I rather suspect this is why OP's so antsy Neither scooters nor children actually 'come out of nowhere', do they? Good drivers are aware of potential hazards at all times.

I would love it if my DM could get a scooter as she has copd. It would revolutionise her life.
But the steps to her house mean it isn't possible. Which is sad, but also a relief as she also has age related dementia and would probably put herself at risk, as well as others. So it is difficult. She isn't capable of walking far and she doesn't have the concentration or reflexes to drive a scooter safely.

It's driver awareness we should be focusing on. Not the scooter drivers.

you can focus on whatever you chose, I would like to focus on mobility scooters drivers meeting certain basic safety standards, and those standards being enforced in the same way driving/cycling standards are enforced.

But we do not need more regulation. There are accidents with poor scooter driving, just as there are accidents with poor car driving. Do you think there should be more car regulation then? Car drivers cause more accidents. Do you think car drivers should have to pass a test every 3 to 5 years?

Archery, for your frail FIL to walk about in perfect safety we would have to regulate dogs, toddlers, jogger, prams and general fast walking non attention paying pedestrians. I've been knocked over myself by quite a few of those. I have never been knocked over by a disability scooter.

Yanbu - myself and my daughter just nearly been knocked down by one on the path!