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?

personally i don't think the argument of xyz is also dangerous is a very sound one. we should be attempting to make life as safe as reasonably possible. no-one wants to be run over by anything. Just because something else isn't safe is not a good reason to not worry about another mode of transport

Can we stop thinking of them, and calling them, vehicles please ?
If you describe my mobility scooter as a vehicle you are assigning it the same purpose as a moped or bicycle, which is not helpful in this discussion.
They perform the function of legs.

The toddler's mother was knocked flying by the scooter which came up behind them unannounced. Do not attempt to blame the poor woman for an incident which was beyond her control. She did not have eyes in the back of her head. Eye witnesses (I know one) said there is absolutely nothing she could have done to prevent it.

The woman should not have been using a scooter. She was a danger to herself and others.

Happy, that bloke was a hazard no matter what he was doing, and was committing an offence. Same as if he'd been walking/crawling/dancing/riding a push bike down the M1. It has fuck all to do with the fact he was on a scooter.

his driving license was removed as he was deemed unfit (due to eye problems) to continue to have a driving license. But there are no requirements to owning a mobility scooter. So even if his eye sight is so poor that he reverses into diners at a cafe, knocks down a market stall, or joins the motorway in the wrong direction, no law specified that his eye sight was too poor to drive one. So far from having "fuck all to do with it", it has everything to do with it, if he hadn't been on a scooter with such poor eyesight, he could never have entered the motorway in the first place. Minimum standards MUST be set for the people who want to drive these things. And I would think an eye test is just one of the things necessary. Maybe not as sharp eyesight is needed for a mobility scooter as for a car. But one should be able to distinguish something as big as a market stall, or a terrace full of diners, or a motorway. If they can't, then they have no business driving mobility scooters on public roads and pavements.

So based on Handsoff's data, user for user, cars are more dangerous. Despite drivers needing training and a test.

One piece of opinion: using a scooter should not be compared to driving. It is a replacement for running/walking for people who can no longer do either well enough.

Yes they can travel at 8mph and weigh ~40kg + the weight of the owner but a fast able bodied person can run at 20mph so would have far more momentum.

The handful of serious incidents in my opinion shouldn't lead us to a massive restriction of the lives of the disabled/elderly.

As to the elderly whose reactions are slowing it's much better they switch to a scooter than carry on driving!

we should be attempting to make life as safe as reasonably possible.

For everyone, not just full-abled adults! In the real world, "making life safer" means making extra allowances for those who are not adults or not fully able.

If you don't accept that, you are an oppressor of others: disablist, and quite likely ageist as well.

wheredo - but they do have the same purpose as a moped or bicycle in that they are designed to take people from A to B. Agreed some people use them instead of legs but that doesn't change the classification. some people use sofas instead of beds....but sofas are still sofas

Yesterday I was in the town centre on my mobility scooter. A small child, aged around 4 or 5, chased me for a short while until he caught up with me, upon which he grabbed the back of my scooter seat and hoiked himself up for a ride. This was the point that I became aware of his presence. I stopped immediately and his mum was running along to grab him and pull him off me. She then started shouting at me. My fault for being there. Apparently.

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.

Garlic, just out of interest, would you consider it sensible to allow an individual who has mobility issues and who is also legally blind use a scooter? Because you seem to be implying that access to mobility aids is more important than the safety of other vulnerable people using pavements, and that all efforts to regulate their use should be resisted whatever the cost. If you think that said blind person shouldn't be using one, then you're agreeing that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I honestly don't have anything against people who choose to use scooters, but they have to be able to take evasive action to account for other pedestrians, animals and street furniture. Eight miles an hour against someone's ankle....doesn't even bear thinking about.

handsoff - i do agree with your last point. i followed someone for half a mile through our town the other day driving to the supermarket. most of the time they went at 10 mph, on the straight bit they reached at top speed of 18mph. this is in perfect driving conditions.

Well, OP, it is all theoretical. you thankfully did NOT crash into him.

There was not a car behind you, and if there would have been, and the car would have crashed into you, it would have been that car's fault for not keeping enough safe braking distance from the car in front.

Maybe we should all be more aware of these scooters, and be a bit more tolerant.

Everyone can make a mistake, like the guy on the scooter did, if it was a pedestrian, would you want to ban walking?

I think mobility scooters are amazing for giving people who need it "legs" so they can go to the shop, and to the pub. Maybe to some on here that is not "worthy" enough a destination, but to someone disabled it can mean a way out of isolation. Thanks to the scooter.

Try to walk a mile...oh wait, no, try to imagine NOT being abel to walk a mile. Ever . At all.

No, you are wrong, dreamingofsun, they absolutely do not have the same purpose as bikes or mopeds.

Legs.

sorry should have said....driving in a car on the road

X-post with where do all the calculators go.

Dreaming of sun - they may be more dangerous per mile. They are not more dangerous per user.

Of course we should look to reduce accidents but even if the restrictions only made 1/4 of users give up, that's still 75,000 people confined to their homes to reduce a serious injuries rate of 4pa. Far too high a price IMO

A lot of the problems could be resolved if mobility scooters, by law, had to have governors on them that prevented them travelling at more than 4 mph.

and very at the willy nilly comment.

Are you saying most people on a mobility scooter don't deserve one?

Maybe we should all be more aware of these scooters, and be a bit more tolerant.

THANK YOU, Brave! Yes, that's the exact point.

I partly disagree, dreaming, I think it is relevant to look at other risks which we regard as acceptable as society, if we're thinking about regulating an area which is not currently regulated.

These aren't easy decisions, but stats like Handsoff located are helpful.

The general principle is that regulation of anything is a last resort, after all other ways of achieving the desired outcome have been tried/ruled out.

It's also important to consider, and include in any cost-benefit analysis, potential unintended consequences.

So, an obvious one for me, would be the cost-benefit analysis of placing a potential barrier in the way of people with a mobility-impairment accessing normal day-to-day activities via a mobility scooter.

This will clearly have an impact on them, but also on public services (e.g. increased demand for meals on wheels, befriending services to tackle isolation, possible increase in treatment for depression associated with isolation, etc) and society at large (people no longer able to get to work, so don't earn and pay taxes, increased benefits bill, etc).

Interesting perspective, Craic. Let me just feed that logic back to you. Would you consider it sensible to allow an individual who has children and who is also legally blind use a baby buggy?

Sunna, the pavement ones do have 4mph governors on them.

My DH uses a mobility scooter due to ischemic heart disease and emphysema.

I would need many hands to count the amount of times ive seen car drivers turn corners without indicating.

... although, afaik, people with both sight & mobility problems tend to use powered chairs as it's less risky for them as well as everyone else. They are, however, far more vulnerable to assaults like being pushed over or into the road.