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?

SwimTheChannel, that’s a very good point about insurance companies also being one of the major sources of accurate accident statistics, and one I had never thought of. And yes, most mobility scooters are uninsured, so that also explains the lack of any real statistics.

I think the hysteria on this thread is not backed up by the data of actual injuries caused and whilst I have every sympathy for anyone who has been injured by scooters a bigger benefit to public safety would be to look at pedal bike tests and insurances.

mumu, i missed this^^ part of your last post. Can you point out to me who (on the side of regulation) is being hysterical on this thread, or did you just use the word for the insult effect? Any hysterics I have seen have come from the people against regulation, but I know using the word hysterics just makes emotions high, so I refrained from using it as it detracts from the issue at hand. Instead of discussing the issue, we end up discussing people's style of posting. I don't find that helpful at all.

As for the push bikes, I have answered that question to you already. If you feel bike regulation is needed, then fight for it. This thread is about mobility scooters.

Thought we'd resolved it sybil but obviously not that easy

I think 700 posts about mobility scooters shows a disproportionate response to the amount of people that are actually effected by scooter injuries.
As lurking said earlier I think SOME posters have used this as a excuse to express, perhaps unconscious, views on the sick and old.
As I said earlier I'm not sure how this happened but I think mobility scooters have a reputation as not being for the properly disabled. I don't believe we would have such strong views on regulation of wheelchairs.

Accidents happens in all environments. If you were really keen on making our roads safer and I'm aware that this thread is about scooters, but life doesn't exist in a microcosm on a thread.
Why not push for yearly car driver tests, insurances and test for bikes and scooters too if you like to minimise ALL dangers on our roads.

I'd also be interested to hear more about those fatalities in Essex, were other vehicles involved? Was it pedestrians or the users themselves that were killed?

happy You seem to be quoting that programme on the BBC a lot - did you produce it?

swim That figure of bikes was for push bikes which are also not covered by the RTA. And as I said earlier I'm sure push bike accidents go unreported too. I was hit by one when a school child came tearing around the corner on a pavement and was I badly bruised.

This is v interesting. Conclusions of report by RICA on mobility scooter controls (RICA are a charity performing consumer research for older and disabled people - their words)

Recommendations
The research shows that a number of improvements should be made that would make a significant impact on the usability of mobility scooter controls, and as a result could potentially increase the safety of scooter drivers and pedestrians. Rica makes the following recommendations:

1. Best practice design standards and guidelines: Although the British Standard (BS EN 12184) specifies the requirements and testing of electric wheelchairs, scooters and their chargers, it hasn’t been officially updated since 2009. Manufacturers should have an up-to-date industry code of best practice that specifies a minimum standard of design to ensure a consistent approach to the colour, shape, size, position and layout of mobility scooter controls. Rica suggests that this set of design standards and guidelines include guidelines on the following: • Use of meaningful colours: All controls must have a colour that makes them distinct from the others and, where relevant, use colours that give them additional meaning to make the control more recognisable, such as red for the hazard lights. Colour should also be used to group controls that are twinned or related e.g. indicators. • Provide audio and visual feedback: When a control has been selected it must provide feedback in the form of a light and a sound e.g. when an indicator is switched on it should make a noise and flash a light on the main control panel. • Ensure audio warnings are distinctive: The sound of a horn warning should be loud and distinctive enough for a pedestrian, and scooter driver, to hear and recognise it from other types of warnings such as reversing, indicators and hazards. • Use clear labelling and symbols: All controls should have a clear, easy-to-see text label and/or symbol to aid their identification. The labels and symbols used should come from a standard set used across all mobility scooters to ensure that they are easily learnt and recognised. • Large controls: It’s important that all controls are designed to a minimum size to ensure that people with poor dexterity can hold, grip and manipulate them, and people with visual impairments can see them, easily. • Position and proximity of core controls: Important, frequently used controls such as the indicators, hazard lights, horn and speed controls should all be within close proximity to a mobility scooter's steering so that they can be easily reached by a user's fingers or hands while they drive along. A user must not have to reach or take their hands off the main steering to reach these main controls. • Base the design of mobility scooter controls on those of a car or motorbike controls: The design and function of mobility scooter controls should be closer to those in a car or on a motor bike. This would make them more familiar to new scooter users and easier to learn and remember. • Legislation, regulation and standardization: Introduce new legislation as well as update and improve current forms of legislation to help regulate the mobility scooter market place and the use of mobility scooters to cover issues including speed limits, the pricing of scooters, vendor licensing, accredited training and tests, medical certification, the policing of unsafe driving, and third party insurance. A number of different organisations have a role in helping to make these improvements happen. These include: • DfT • Manufacturers • British Transport Police • Shopmobility • Mobility centres and other assessment centres • Mobility scooter suppliers and retailers • Motability ?

The last bullet point ('Legislation') is particularly relevant to this thread.

SWIM I think those are sensible suggestions and whilst some posters have be determined to say I am happy for scooters to run over every child, adult and fox in each town I have never said that.

My main discussion has been on the prejudice way in which SOME posters, have, consciously or not, written in. The way in which the thread title it written says it all really.
If it had been a post saying, 'Should scooter users be offered more help in using their scooters to keep pedestrians safe.' I doubt anyone would have objected.

This is tremendously interesting also.

www.pacts.org.uk/2012/03/mobility-scooter-safety/

"a lot of the people I see using them are grotesquely obese and I can't help but think they need to do more exercise....."

Oh for fuck's sake!

Mamu - I reckon push bike accidents are indeed under-reported. And that use of push bikes is under-regulated.

Not everyone thinks like that, MyFairyKing.

Given the cost of scooters, I'd hazard a vast majority are insured. Certainly my wifes is, on a separate policy which covers 3rd parties.

RTA only obliges drivers to report accidents to the police in the event of injury. However most policies also require accidents to be reported to the insurer - even if no claim is made.

I also think there's something whiffy about 4 deaths in Essex in one year. Population of Essex is 1,179,200. So that's 1 death per 250,000 (if we're being very pessimistic). Scaling up for the whole of the UK would mean we should be seeing something like 240 deaths per year from mobility scooter incidents.

Or IOW one every weekday, somewhere in the UK.

So either Essex is a very unlucky county, or there is something spectacularly bad about Essex driving, or that statistic needs an awful lot more contextualising

My mum bought a second hand one for £150.

The evidence concerning the four deaths in one year (2004) in Essex was given by Richard Boyd, Chair of Disability Essex. In three cases, it was the drivers of the scooters who were killed: one toppled over the edge of a pavement; one was pulled over by her dog; the third was said to be legally blind, and drove his scooter into the path of a bus.

He made the point (to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons), because the Department of Transport's own statistics showed 4 mobility scooter fatalities in the whole of England and Wales for that year -but none of the Essex deaths were included. He wanted the committee to know that the available statistics were seriously flawed.

Just to throw fuel on the fire, the OP could just have easily read:

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

since dogs generally use the pavement too, and certainly are a risk - especially to children.

I also think there's something whiffy about 4 deaths in Essex in one year.

whiffy? as in .... I am lying?

SWIM explained it perfectly, if you want to see it with your own eyes go to

www.publications.parliament.uk website

then look for the pdf of the transport commission report, which sat in 2010 to assess the problem we're discussing, the report of the committee's finding was published around April of 2010.

happy You seem to be quoting that programme on the BBC a lot - did you produce it?

am I supposed to give a serious answer to that?

if so, just to avoid being hounded to answer: No I was not involved in it in any way, shape or form. Besides adding to the viewing statistics by watching it.

Does it bother you in some way that I keep mentioning it?

If it does, i can only assume it's because anyone watching the actual program would support the stance myself and others are taking that some kind of regulation has to be brought in, as at present there aren't even reliable statistics to say how big the problem is.

So in 3 out of those 4 cases the scooter user was killed - maybe we should be asking 'should there be more assistance/support for some scooter users'
Someone mentioned earlier about the woeful level of care within the community. Rather than thinking 'bloody dangerous' scooters maybe we should be looking at how these vulnerable people have been seriously let down.

happy It was a joke but thanks for the in depth explanation.
I am a little confused as to why you have such an axe to grind. Everyone else (including me) has agreed that safety for ALL road and pedestrian users should be improved but you keep pushing the scooter issue only.

So in 3 out of those 4 cases the scooter user was killed - maybe we should be asking 'should there be more assistance/support for some scooter users'

I answered that already above, more than once: but (again!) for the record

Regulation protects the users of mobility scooters as well as the general public. I hate the fact that many of the bad injuries and deaths relating to mobility scooters are to the people who drive them, as well as members of the public

I am a little confused as to why you have such an axe to grind

oh i get it.

when I have an opinion that I feel is in the best interests of the public at large, you call that "having an axe to grind"

but when you go on about bikes and lack of insurance and regulation or testing, that's just you expressing an opinion

why do you feel supporting something i feel is right and good and in the best interests of everyone, is grinding an axe?

Do you feel using language like that aids the debate? I mean we can use it against each other. I could say those against regulation have an axe to grind against because it would mean they have to insure their vehicles, they have to pass a test, they have to have adequate eyesight, they have to show they are safe. I just don't feel that kind of "grinding axes/being hysterical" language helps the debate at all. It just emotes the debate.

Everyone else (including me) has agreed that safety for ALL road and pedestrian users should be improved but you keep pushing the scooter issue only.

did i miss the bit where you and everyone else against regulation of mobility scooters suddenly became pro-regulation?

what you want to do is widen the discussion to talk about bikes and skateboards and roller skates and dogs and wheely boots and whatever else, and I understand why you want to do that, because it takes the focus away from mobility scooters, but sorry, i was under the impression the OP started this discussion specifically about mobility scooters. Why not start a new AIBU about regulating skateboards/bikes/rollerskates etc if they mean so much to you and you think they pose a big enough risk?

No where in this thread have I said I am against scooter safety.

My issues have been with the tone of some posters. To repeat myself again the title of the thread says it all.

If you are really concerned about scooter users perhaps look to volunteer for a charity who work with such users. You could potentially make a big difference to their lives.

And to repeat myself again this issue is a real issue that effects real people, it's not just a thread.
If we are discussing the safety of pedestrians and road users it shouldn't be in a microcosm. Especially when mobility scooters are probably the one of lower risks.

this debate reminds me of the many surrounding dangerous dog breeds. Those owning the dogs generally considered to be the most dangerous breeds, always try to turn the discussion back to all breeds of dogs and how they all have the potential to be dangerous. They don't do that because they genuinely think that King Charles spaniels maul more people annually than a "whatever dangerous breed", they do it to take the focus away from where the dangers really are and keep the discussion general instead of getting in to the real specifics of where the true dangers lie. It's easier to debate that way. You don't have to answer specifics, it keeps the discussion comfortably general and nice and easy.

I just know I would rather be attacked by a pissed off king charles spaniel than a pissed off pitbull/staffie/rottweiler/whatever breed (sorry I am not that familiar with dogs and don't really know the actual ones who do the most damage. and disclaimer: yes I do know the owners are to blame and not the dogs and that irresponsible owners are the exception to the responsible owners rule)

And in general this thread has been about the dangers of mobility scooters to the public. The nuisance to the high street, very few people have talked about the vulnerability of the users.

If the question was 'should we be looking to support mobility scooter users and by proxy make the pavements safer' this would not be a 700+ thread. But it wasn't.

Nice. Comparing people who need to use mobility aids to dangerous dogs.

No one is smoke and mirroring the issue. But in life you have to look at calculated risks and there are much bigger risks to pedestrians than mobility scooters, which makes me question why this thread has so many responses?

If you are really concerned about scooter users perhaps look to volunteer for a charity who work with such users. You could potentially make a big difference to their lives.

I do enough volunteer work for people with disabilities, but thank you for asking before you just assumed i didn't

And to repeat myself again this issue is a real issue that effects real people, it's not just a thread

are you again forgetting that many people responding, who are for regulation of mobility scooters KNOW THAT already? That they themselves are disabled, or they have children, or parents, or spouses with disabilities? I know you would like to keep trying to get the point across that this is an "able-bodied versus disabled"^ thread, but it has been pointed out to you and others, numerous times, that that is not the case. Many people in favour of regulation of mobility scooters are disabled or have loved ones who are disabled. So we really don't need reminding (repeatedly!) that real people are involved here. We know that already.

I'm not against scooter safety. I don't know how many times I can say it. The aggression is unnecessary.

My point is about the tone of some posters on this thread towards those who need scooters.

Nice. Comparing people who need to use mobility aids to dangerous dogs

oh pulease, get a grip!

I was comparing the debating styles, and that was obvious.

you and others continually trying to focus on bikes/skateboards/wheely shoes/dogs....anything to take the focus off of mobility scooters

is the same or similar to people who own dangerous breed dogs who would rather talk about the potential danger of chihuahuas, than about the potential danger of pit bulls/whatever dangerous breed

but you knew that anyway, you just did it in an attempt to derail... i shouldn't bite. But will.

happy

I'm not really sure why you keep arguing with me. I'm not trying to get you to bite... I'm not against scooter safety.

What I am against is the idea that we should only regulate the sick and old but leave the cyclists who ride for leisure to their own devices. I think that's a dangerous path to follow.

Why can't you accept I'm not against what your saying but I'm questioning some posters attitudes to those 'bloody scooters.'

Mind you, he could have been relying on purely anecdotal evidence himself.

Mamu: I don't take issue with the title of the thread, because it contends that disability scooters, not their drivers, are bloody dangerous. And they are. I've spent the morning reading parliamentary publications and other (what seem to me to be) very reputable reports. I can't help concluding that the whole world of disability scooters does need more regulation.

Most of what I've been reading dates back to about 2010. What was being said:

• no roadworthiness standards. Some very reputable manufacturers and distributors, but also entirely possible to buy something flat-packed from abroad on the internet with no pedigree whatsoever.

You could build your own and drive it.

The second-hand market entirely unregulated too.

It is the law that Class 3 scooters should be registered (showing a nil tax value disc) and have a reg number, but this is little-known and almost completely unenforced.

'Pavement' (Class 2) scooters need not have rear-view mirrors or bells/hooters, or lights.

No system in place for ensuring the brakes / throttles / speed governors are working properly on in-use vehicles. An MOT equivalent if you like.

Many vehicles tip far too easily. No 'standard' controls; controls often counter-intuitive.

The regulation around users dates back to a time (1861) when mobility scooters had not been invented, and leaves the police basically without direct powers.

No compulsory tests for drivers, nor fitness checks.

Looking at the evidence that is available, it seems to me (and others) that the person most likely to be injured by a mobility scooter is THE DRIVER OF THAT SCOOTER. I'd really like to repeat that: the DRIVER. Usually because of tip injuries or control-confusion. If there were agreed standards around the manufacture, import, selling and re-selling, and roadworthiness of the vehicles, the majority of these injuries could possibly be eradicated (and so injuries to others would also be reduced).

A simple eye-test would also work wonders.

I wonder how much has changed since 2010? Certainly the 2010 House of Commons Transport Committee accepted that nothing had really been done since the previous review in 2005-6.

That took me a really, really, long time to write