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?

You have to be 'able' to walk less than 50 metres to make any claim high or low.

The conundrum is: either we have 'care in the community' or we don't. Current ideals say it's better to allow greater independence for the elderly & disabled, using aids wherever needed. The community care part of that means everybody has to take a bit more care.

When I was a kid you never saw people with disabilities. They were all shut away in institutions. A lot of MNers have children, friends & relatives with disabilities; it's worth thinking about that, and about communal responsibility.

Mamuka - and that 50 metres is with walking aids and as many rests as needed!

And miss I think your idea is a very sensible one.
I think it should be introduced for bike use too.

Ah thank you.
I agree about bike use as cyclists travel at speeds which could cause significant injury despite having lightweight cycles.

And I think we should stop with the anecdotes, no one is arguing against safe use.

Alas, there was a poster upthread who was doing just that, saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions even for people with dementia-related anger issues, impaired judgement, etc etc.

^falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/changes-to-mobility-allowances-under-pip-ask-your-mp-to-stop-this-injustice^

According to this ^^ the distance is 20m which is shocking.

Yes you're right Miss I was think of the banding that says you could walk 50 metres but no more than 200.

The problem is that the goalposts have been moved and the criteria to qualify for the enhanced rate severely restricted.

From now on the only people who will qualify for the enhanced rate are those who can “stand and move” less than 20m (around 60 feet).

This includes with the use of aids such as a prosthetic, crutches or a walking stick. Anyone who can move further than this distance will only qualify for the standard rate, even if they then need to use a wheelchair for longer distances. Furthermore, anyone who can “stand and move” more than 50m becomes ineligible for the benefit completely.

Under DLA, the cut-off point for the ‘higher rate’ mobility component was 50m, and for the ‘standard rate’ 100m, so this is a huge change. 20m is a very short distance indeed – a bendy bus is roughly 20m long

To give you an idea of what this might mean, think of someone who is able to walk with a walking stick around their house and from their front door to the road or garage to their car but would have to use a wheelchair once they arrived at their destination. At the moment they would get high rate DLA. They would qualify for Motability and could get an adapted car. Under PIP they only get standard rate as they can “move” more than 20m. They lose Motability and their adapted car.

How do they now get around, as public transport is clearly unsuitable?

It is expected that at least 480,000 people will lose their entitlement to the higher rate mobility allowance of whom an estimated 100,000 are reliant on Motability. Remember that these are disabled people with high mobility impairments deemed under DLA “virtually unable to walk”.

Copy and pasted from the website I mentioned above. There is a letter on the website which you can send to your MP asking for these changes to be reconsidered.

Alas, there was a poster upthread who was doing just that, saying that there shouldn't be any restrictions even for people with dementia-related anger issues, impaired judgement, etc etc.

That was me. I was actually asking people to think up ways for such individuals to get around safely.

People with those conditions, whose legs work properly, can go around in public. What's the solution for them if their legs don't work?

Nothing wrong with using scooters on roads provided the users do so safely

I actually think they're awesome things, my grandmother had one. and for the elderly, disabled or infirm with right guidance and regulation are fabulous.

as with all things through everyone, including the users_ need to be conscientious of other people, e.g not parking a foot from the door allowing no pedestrians to pass by in a safe manner.

I spent a week in a hospital bed because some old lady had parked her motorised chair right outside the exit door way of a shop and I had to move it/lift the pram over it in order to get out.

a lot of the people around here that use them are between my age and 40, morbidly obese, smoking away and using them improperly so that's the type of user I have an issue with.

and to whoever it was who said they assumed I had no disability you're wrong. in the last five years I've spent two on crutches, one in a wheelchair and still now am unable to stand unaided in a motionless position, I have to continually be moving. I have steroid and long acting painkillers injected into my spine every six months and its a condition that will only deteriorate and I'm only 25. so I DO understand. but I'm still not a selfish shmuck as half the users of mobility scooters are around my town.

The trouble is that some people are selfish or irresponsible or stupid or all of that, and those people will behave like that no matter what - walking, running, driving, cycling, etc. A lot of what I have found upsetting on this thread is the blanket references to mobility scooter users as though we are all like this without exception, and therefore our lives should be even further restricted.

Punishing the majority because of the few. Assuming guilt rather than assuming innocence. I know this is generally the direction in which our society is moving, but it is upsetting when it is pointed at me and no matter how much I tell myself to get a grip, I remain feeling threatened. More threatened, rather. I am threatened by ms all day every day, by the cuts, by the Government. We used to emphasise the importance of quality of life, well, mine has very little already. It is hard to remain optimistic and hopeful and try to make goals for myself, when I can feel the things which do help me live - not a normal life, oh no, I don't have that, nothing like - my life as normally as I can, are forever being taken away.

I'm sorry to splurge on you. I kind of have to post this. Ignore me, I know it's not relevant.

The trouble is that some people are selfish or irresponsible or stupid or all of that, and those people will behave like that no matter what - walking, running, driving, cycling, etc.

A point I've made repeatedly (but may as well have saved my typing!) Making them immobile won't make them any nicer to be around; just more frustrated when they do get out. We have to make allowances for possible risk all the time, this is just another part of that. As it goes, I don't assume scooter users are going to be ace at manoeuvres - I make sure to leave a good space around them. They're disabled; if I make any assumption, it's that they may have additional needs. I do this, too, where there are kids playing, when a buggy comes towards me, if folks look unsteady, if works are in progress and so on. It's normal, surely? Now I know about the lack of brakes, I'll bear it in mind as well.

The rest of what you said, too, Jux :(

Punishing the majority because of the few. Assuming guilt rather than assuming innocence.

The things people have suggested - training, regulation and a speed restriction - would not punish the majority you speak of, only the few who are not currently willing or able to use the scooters safely.

And as for assuming guilt - we already do this with cars, motorbikes, etc, when we regulate their use, and require drivers to pass a test and get insurance, rather than trusting they will do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts and their community spirit. This isn't some special thing designed specifically to punish disabled people, it's just acknowledging that the machines are getting heavier and there are more of them on the roads and pavements. It's just what we do already with other large pieces of machinery.

Your posts are offensive, beeraykay and disablist. You are okay with disabled people as long as they're not fat eh?

If the complainants are so reasonable, how come they're all saying disabled people should be further restricted instead of saying powered aids should be lighter or more agile, for instance?

I'd imagine a huge part of the weight is the battery. How about smaller batteries and numerous charging points all over the place?

Or how about subsidised, on-call minibus services all over the country, and shops to provide lightweight devices on arrival?

How about buggy lanes on all pedestrian streets?

The difference is that a bike is a LEISURE tool. A mobility scooter is a disability AID. The person who has a bike has an option. If you are so against mobility scooters your better route would be to lobby government to change local authorities rules on who qualifies for a power chair.

that is exactly what I have been saying. Lobby government to change local authority rules on who qualifies to drive a mobility scooter. The drivers must have safe levels of eyesight to be able to drive one, and safe levels of reflexes and concentration. If they can't meet the thresholds for eye sight, concentration and reflexes, then they should be allowed to drive such a heavy piece of machinery.

Lighter scooters are a great idea Garlic, but I can't imagine you would support all the heavier ones being taken off the road in the meantime. Until your bright new lighter-scooter dawn, what then?

As for buggy lanes - you have wilfully ignored all the posts which point out that a scooter plus grown adult can weigh hundreds of pounds, whereas a buggy plus baby weighs maybe 40 lbs, if it's one of those big travel systems, and in most cases much, much less.

Sorry, I mean buggies as in powered mobility devices. (I used to live somewhere where they used beach buggies Now, they were often drunk & going very fast!)

And I think we should stop with the anecdotes, no one is arguing against safe use. Even with tests etc there will still be people who break the rules same with bikes, cars etc. I'm sure we could write a whole thread on injuries caused by cars but they are not banned or sneared at.

oh right I get it.

people who want mobility scooters regulated have to stop using anecdotal evidence of accidents caused by mobility scooter drivers

but people against mobility scooter regulation are free to keep adding anecdotal evidence of cyclists causing accidents, or dangerous children walking into them, or drunken people falling on top of them -all on a thread specifically about mobility scooters.

that's not very fair now is it? You can't call for one side of the argument to stop using anecdotal evidence, while you use anecdotal evidence yourself.

Fair enough, Garlic. Cyclists have been pushing for cycle lanes for an age, so maybe that's the way for scooter-users to go. But again, it isn't going to happen overnight, so what to do in the meantime?

If the complainants are so reasonable, how come they're all saying disabled people should be further restricted instead of saying powered aids should be lighter or more agile, for instance?

I'm not reading that at all. I see no one saying disabled people should be restricted further. I am reading lots of people saying ANY person, able bodied or disabled, young or old, male or female, tall or short, fat or thin, should have to demonstrate they have enough eyesight, reflexes and concentration to SAFELY operate a mobility scooter before they are allowed to operate them in public places. It's about the safety of all.

A powered mobility device is the only option for many, Happy. So, in saying that those with multiple disabilities shouldn't be allowed to operate them in public places, you are saying they should be further restricted. This is the problem.

I'm surprised you still don't get that. It's been said often enough.