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?

If it's genuinely the scooter users you are concerned about then we should be talking about support and training for individual users not 'regulation.'

Regulation should be for the industry itself i.e the manufacturers/sellers to make scooters more safe. Your suggestions upthread were good swim

And I still question the title. If I wrote a thread about, 'bloody wheelchairs, 'bloody white canes' 'bloody guide dogs,' 'bloody raised marks on crossings'
I think I would be (and quite rightly) flamed.

I don't see the disctinction, mumu.

That was re your 12.18 post.

If it's genuinely the scooter users you are concerned about then we should be talking about support and training for individual users not 'regulation.'

why do you get to decide what needs talking about?

my concern is genuine. my logic is also genuine.

no amount of support or training will make my old neighbours visual impairment better. The best we can do right now is ensure he is chaperoned when out and about on his mobility scooter. There is no law to stop him going out without a chaperone, and he has. Which is just one of the reasons I support regulation. For his sake and everyone elses.

swim

Regulation is a difficult word in disabled history. For a long time we 'regulated' how disabled people lived to the point that they were never allowed within the community.
In 2014 we should be enabling not regulating and it may be semantics but there is a clear difference in mind.
If someone genuinely can not operate a scooter, what are the alternatives? Rather than just 'banning' them from using one and only allowing them out at someone else's behest the system should be looking at what we can really do to support them.

The industry yes - regulate to the hilt let's make mobility scooters as fit and safe for purpose as we possibly can.

oh and just to add. regards old neighbour. even with chaperones while he is on his mobility scooter he still isn't safe, just slightly safer. he often goes too fast for his walking chaperones to keep up with him and as he is deaf in one ear and partially deaf in the other, shouting to alert him of a risk isn't always heard. I cycle along side him when I chaperone him, but this has its risks too as when he turns to look at me he pulls the steering to the side he is looking at and that is risky too, for me and himself and other road and pavement users.

SWIM, that was very well thought out and worded post. It sums up my feelings exactly.

as for what has changed since 2010

as far as I know not much at all

except

since 2013 the police now have a system whereby they can if they choose, actually record accidents involving mobility scooters (before that it wasn't even possible, like there was a column for cars, busses, vans, bikes, motor bikes etc, where the police could put a number beside each type of vehicle and the amount of accidents they were involved in, but there was no column was available for mobility scooters). That column now exists. BUT... because there is no regulation police forces don't HAVE to fill this column in, and many police forces as yet are not using it as it's an optional thing. There are steps underway to to enforce the reporting of accidents, but it's still not mandatory. I believe questions were asked a few months back in parliament about this, but as yet no solid steps towards recording incidents.

I see, I think. You're saying that someone whose eyesight (for example) is not good enough for them to continue to use a mobility chair should be actively supported in other ways to enable them to live a full life? Free taxis, maybe, or a paid carer to assist them on public transport?

I would absolutely agree, but I would also say that, if that person refused to accept that their blindness or near blindness made their use of a scooter dangerous to themselves or others, and continued to use it, someone should have the power to take it away.

(The evidence given to the Transport Committee made it abundantly clear that this does happen, and no-one currently has such powers)

I'd read that too, HappyScot

And I still question the title. If I wrote a thread about, 'bloody wheelchairs, 'bloody white canes' 'bloody guide dogs,' 'bloody raised marks on crossings' I think I would be (and quite rightly) flamed.

I think the difference lies in the fact that as far as I am aware very very very very very very very very few people have ever been seriously injured or killed by a guide dog, or a white cane, or a raised mark at a crossing. The same cannot be said for mobility scooters.

Yes that's what I'm saying swim

I would imagine and I may be wrong that a DOL (deprivation of liberty) could be raised in that case.
It shouldn't just be, you have multiple disabilities, your banned. There needs to be a care plan in place with alternative support, similar to what you described, in place.

'Banning' peoples only available option to the outside world with nothing else in place (which a DVLA like system could engender) would be inhumane.

I see, I think. You're saying that someone whose eyesight (for example) is not good enough for them to continue to use a mobility chair should be actively supported in other ways to enable them to live a full life? Free taxis, maybe, or a paid carer to assist them on public transport?

I can think of a 100 things that I want my old neighbour to be get to enhance his life and independence, this though isn't the thread (imo) to discuss it on. This thread is about the need (or not) for mobility scooter regulation. If you want to start a thread about what can be done to assist the lives of disabled people I will be happy to join in and put forth ideas (I have MANY!, lol). But rest assured I do think we, as a society in general, should be doing more for disabled people.

Sorry too many 'in places' but hopefully you get what I mean!

Then you've missed my point happy If regulation doesn't go hand in hand with support then you are removing peoples 'aids' without offering anything to replace it. They are synonymous.

Or should be synonymous if not you are making life very difficult for a lot of multiply disabled people.

but I would also say that, if that person refused to accept that their blindness or near blindness made their use of a scooter dangerous to themselves or others, and continued to use it, someone should have the power to take it away

^ this. I 100% agree. Like I said earlier, my neighbour, even with his chaperones, is a danger to himself, all road users, and all pedestrians. He shouldn't be able to overrule everyone who has tried to convince him to get rid of it. The law should forbid him from owning and operating a mobility scooter.

sorry by the way. the "if anyone wants to start a thread on things we could do to help disabled people" wasn't aimed solely at SWIM, it was for everyone. I have ideas (not just about mobility scooters but including them). I just don't want to derail this thread with them as this is about regulation.

Looks like there's no hope for him then, perhaps best to regulate, get him arrested for breaking the law and let him spend the rest of his days in prison. Cheaper on the care bill.

Maybe you should be asking why he's not listening? Is it because he is being treated like a child with chaperones? Maybe he is struggling with going from being an independent adult to someone who gets told what to do. Seems to me the system needs to think of options to assist him rather than criminalising him.

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.

a) We already regulate other motorised vehicles. This would bring it in line with all the other people who are driving who are already being regulated. This isn't singling out the "sick and old" but quite the opposite.

b) The "sick and old" are already the people most at risk from death or serious injury from those people who can't operate a scooter safely. If you were so keen on protecting the sick and old, you'd be in favour of regulation.

c) It's not either/or. If someone is calling for something which has already been proved to cause death and injury then it's derailing nonsense to keep on banging on with "yes but THIS other circumstance is also dangerous!" If you think that other circumstance is also dangerous, then do something about it, but don't stop the first issue from being addressed.

Then you've missed my point happy If regulation doesn't go hand in hand with support then you are removing peoples 'aids' without offering anything to replace it. They are synonymous.

then start a thread titled something like "what would you do to aid disabled people if they were unable to legally drive a mobility scooter" and I will join in.

the question posed in this thread was about regulation. I don't want to be accused of taking it off topic.

And to be honest, I do see it as a seperate topic anyway, as not everyone who drives a mobility scooter is disabled. I was just reading an article an hour ago (about evidence presented in the house of commons, not something from the daily mail) that more and more young and/or fit people are buying them as a far cheaper alternative to a car or motorbike. No road tax etc, no regulation to ensure they are safely maintained like with cars and MOTs.

archery

You may have missed my posts below in which I said regulate the 'industry' and support those who need alternatives to scooters for their own or others safety.

'Looks like there's no hope for him then, perhaps best to regulate, get him arrested for breaking the law and let him spend the rest of his days in prison. Cheaper on the care bill. '

No-one (I hope) is saying that proper regulation aimed directly at mobility scooters and their users should aim for criminal proceedings and imprisonment. I was thinking more of impoundment of the item, not the user ...

happy For me 'regulation' with no support is not something I am willing to discuss.

Let's ban all multiple disability users and hope someone, somewhere in the system picks up their needs.

If the law isn't changed hand in hand with a care bill then heaven help those effected.

Looks like there's no hope for him then, perhaps best to regulate, get him arrested for breaking the law and let him spend the rest of his days in prison. Cheaper on the care bill.

Maybe you should be asking why he's not listening? Is it because he is being treated like a child with chaperones? Maybe he is struggling with going from being an independent adult to someone who gets told what to do. Seems to me the system needs to think of options to assist him rather than criminalising him.

I am not even going to grace any of that with a serious answer. You lost me when you assumed we (that's all his family, his neighbours and his friends) just treat him like a child and have never listened to him. You need to learn to ask questions before you make baseless and insulting assumptions about people.