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?

Happy I am talking from my own experience, using a small 4mph scooter that is not allowed on the road. Presumably these are the sort that people are worried about running into them, not the massive class 3 ones that are on the road, and are frankly in more danger from cars than cars are from them.

I am neither a toddler, nor a frail aged person, but I was still hit hard enough to cause major damage by a scooter user who came barreling out of a small path on to the main path without stopping to check it was safe to do so., not even a ring of a bell or beep to let people know they were coming. Aside from my injuries, I was out of pocket because I had no recourse. No one should be out of pocket because the user of any form of vehicle is uninsured (and I feel the same about cyclists). No one is denying that users of scooters should not be able to use them, but I hardly think expecting the users to pay for injury they are proved to be at fault for is unreasonable eith

I used that example because the insane bloke who knocked over a bunch of cafe tables keeps appearing on this thread. I can give you an extremely long list of people who've caused injury & death while using their legs, obviously.

Right. So you all want people who might cause injury while using their scooters to not use their scooters.

And none of you can come up with a viable answer to their mobility problem.

It goes without saying that a fully-able adult can do the same while temporarily impaired while drunk or stoned. How about them?

Then it's pretty likely they would be charged with criminal damage or assault. Their being drunk or stoned doesn't absolve them from responsibility.

Children can, and often do, cause this type of disruption while using their legs.

Show me the child that weighs several hundred ibs and is motorised, then I will concede you are not being ridiculous.

In my view they should be subject to compulsory 3rd party insurance.

I recall a case where 2 elderly ladies on a day out at the seaside were knocked over by a lady driving a scooter on the pavement. Fortunately the scooter had insurance primarily to cover theft but also covered this eventuality.

Neither lady was able to go out on a bus trip to the seaside again, had to move into care homes etc.

But Tinkly - lots of people fail driving tests every day and then aren't allowed to drive. "Learning to drive" isn't just learning how to make a car go and stop, but also learning to do that safely enough to pass the very hard test. A lot of people pick up very quickly how to make a car go, but take a long time to learn how to do that safely. Those who do pass and then drive dangerously and hurt others, have their licences taken away and therefore aren't allowed to drive again.

With a scooter, you could hit someone and cause serious injuries to them, but there will be no sanctions, no legal route to remove your right to drive the scooter. The person you hurt could sue you, but that is down to the individual you hit, and that still won't stop you being able to go out and carry on unsafely driving a scooter. There is no requirement to have any training at all.

Some people could just get in a car after a 10 minute explaination how to make it go and would be a safe driver. Most people need training.

So come on then, what happens to the people no longer deemed fit to tootle to the shops and get their shopping? Because there's sure as hell no provision in the welfare state to help them out any more.

But hey, out of sight, out of mind.

"A walking adult with dementia, MS, stroke, epilepsy, or any number of conditions can blunder into a group of tables outside a cafe, causing injury & damage. This thread's logic would have it that they aren't allowed to walk about if they can't guarantee this won't happen!

It goes without saying that a fully-able adult can do the same while temporarily impaired while drunk or stoned. How about them?

Children can, and often do, cause this type of disruption while using their legs.

Small personal example - my legs gave out while crossing the road. The driver coming towards me was somewhat more alert than OP, pulled to a gentle halt and checked I was okay. If that had been OP, perhaps you'd all be on this thread now, saying I shouldn't be allowed to use my legs??"

I'd expect anyone whether disabled or not, not to use a heavy machine when they were incapable of using it safely. I have MS, and if I reached the stage where I was unsafe to use anything like this, I wouldn't use it. Being disabled isn't an excuse to cause harm to another person, whether accidentally or otherwise.

A walking adult with dementia, MS, stroke, epilepsy, or any number of conditions can blunder into a group of tables outside a cafe, causing injury & damage. This thread's logic would have it that they aren't allowed to walk about if they can't guarantee this won't happen!

if you're sitting enjoying a cuppa, would you rather have a person walk/stumble into you, or have a massive piece of machinery traveling at 8mph smash into you? I know which I would chose.

It goes without saying that a fully-able adult can do the same while temporarily impaired while drunk or stoned. How about them?

While I don't cherish the though of a drunk/stoned adult stumbling in to me, it would still be vastly preferable and far less risky than to have a very heavy mobility scooter traveling at 8mph run into me.

Children can, and often do, cause this type of disruption while using their legs.

I have been ran into by umpteen kids with nothing much more than a mild bruise as the result. Would my chances of no/minor injury be as good if I was hit by a heavy piece of machinery traveling at 8mph? I seriously doubt it somehow.

You really have to stop comparing apples (children bumping into people) with oranges (heavy pieces of machinery traveling at fairly high speed).

There is no answer, if somebody is not safe to use a mobility scooter then sadly that person will have to rely on people to push a manual wheelchair to get out.

Show me the child that weighs several hundred ibs and is motorised, then I will concede you are not being ridiculous.

that just about sums it up. It was a ridiculous comparison.

mary someone upthread has linked to a person who was banned from using their scooter. So the provision is already in place.

Tinkly - that's also an argument for letting people with disablities that mean they can't control a car being allowed to keep their driving licences so they can still drive to the shops. We currently prioritise the other road users and pedestrians.

(Internet shopping, family/employee driving them/pushing a wheelchair/taxis - all more expensive, but that's an argument for more DLA)

There's no regulation, Tinkly. People are free to buy second hand scooters and there's no checks that they can use them competently. The provision is rubbish, something that is only in place after someone's already had an accident, and by then the person they have hit is harmed. Surely it needs to be there from the start, before someone starts to use the scooter? Even learner drivers have to have someone with them whilst they are driving. If you go to your local post office there's ads for second hand scooters on the wall, no questions asked.

So come on then, what happens to the people no longer deemed fit to tootle to the shops and get their shopping?

So come on then, Tinkly, what happens to the people who are hurt by people who can't adequately control a large piece of moving machinery? You haven't answered that.

Archery - A child knocked my face into the pint glass I was drinking. It smashed in my mouth. I was okay, but some people have died or been permanently mutilated by identical accidents. Stop going on about scooter users as if they're any different from leg users. There will always be some accidents.

I can see both sides but i don't know what can be done.
There's an elderly bloke by me on one who whizzes on his and just expects people to move out the way. Iv seen him seen him go over the crossing when the lights are on green and last week he came into a shop and twice nearly ran over my toes.
I think there may need to be some form of regulations, and this is coming from somebody who's been struggling with walking for the last three years.

Weren't Google (or someone) developing a car that could drive itself? That seems like a good idea that could benefit people with disabilities which meant they were unable to drive themselves.

As others have mentioned up thread, maybe the safety of mobility scooters could be improved with some redesigning.

It's ironic, Tinkly, that you say, "out of sight, out of mind", because that's the message you're putting across regarding the risks to other pedestrians and even the scooter drivers themselves. Honestly, how many people have to be seriously injured or die before you'd reconsider compulsory training following the purchase of one of these vehicles?

A child knocking a pint into your face isn't quite the same as someone smashing a pedestrians legs because they don't know how to drive a heavy machine, Garlic. A child doesn't understand what they are doing, and you wouldn't let them lose with a scooter. You can't compare them.

Why are there only 2 alternatives for people who are unable to walk any distance: (1) capable of safely controlling a mobility scooter or (2) trapped at home.

Surely the alternative is that if you are not capable of safely controlling your scooter, you need a responsible adult with you who can help you?

Of course, the debate about why our society does not prioritise funding or value volunteering for one-on-one care who do not have close-by family willing or able to help them is another matter entirely! But that's the theoretical solution to this theoretical argument though?

The lack of a good emergency brake is shocking though. I hadn't realised it and will adjust my pavement and road awareness accordingly, so thanks to those posters who highlighted that.

Oh and in none of my posts have said anything that could possibly be offensive. All I have said is that scooters should be more regulated. I even said cyclists should be far more regulated. I have no idea why you just decided to offend people with Autism. Oh and my child doesn't have meltdowns and hasn't done since she 4, so technically she wouldn't be effected by your weird skewed laws on Autism.

Oh good. So we decide to regulate autistic kids and make them take a simple test to make sure they're worthy safe to be out in public you'll be fine with your daughter being singled out because of a disability since she'd pass. Good to know. :)

Bikes are not the same as scooters. That's like saying "I think all NT children should have to take behavior classes too. Therefore it's ok to hold autistic children to the same standard as NT kids." Equality yo.

I bring up autism because it's a disability that is generally accepted you don't discriminate against. By showing you how it would look on a different disability, it shows how disablist this idea of regulating scooters is. It's unfortunate that some disabilities are ok to look down on and other's aren't. But by showing it on a "protected" disability, it shows just how abhorrent this idea is.

I can bring up all sorts of news articles of autistic kids causing damage and death. It doesn't make it ok to start regulating them and deciding who should be out and who shouldn't be. Even car drivers don't lose their cars after an accident.

Hold scooter drivers responsible for damages, sure. They can be held responsible for their actions. But don't single them out, make equipment hard to get, or take away their legs and only semblance of independence. Disabled people face enough challenges as it is. No need to pile on more shit.

tinkly: If there is no regulation, training, and standards, there is no way to define 'deliberately misusing' In order to justify banning someone, or restricting them to the smaller sort of scooter or, like some car drivers, restricted only to daylight hours. There may be other levels of skills and ability level restrictions above an outright ban.

If you agree there are cases in which restrictions or banning might be necessary, then can't you see the vehicle and drivers must be regulated via training and licensing? Otherwise, it gets left up to individual judges, and only if a case goes to court, and that truly would be unfair, both to the injured, if the judge feels as you do, or the scooter driver, if the judge dislikes them.

Look, I am pretty wobbly, someone's toddler ankle tapped me from behind while I was walking across the playground to get my son. The result for me was a black eye, bruising to my face, bruising and grazes to my hands, knees etc. Very, very painful.

Had to be picked up one of the (admittedly rather buff) Dads. All very embarassing. The Mum (who is a lovely person) was absolutely mortified. Poor toddler got a right telling off (and now hides his face from me when he sees me).

But the point is, it was an accident. It does not mean toddlers should be regulated or insured. It does not mean most toddlers are dangerous and toddler handlers should undergo some kind of test.

Same applies to scooters.