Hate e-scooters? Join the club of the pals of 190 riders in Austin TX who ended up in hospital The scourge of cities around the world, app-rented e-scooters aren't just a thorn in the side for urban curmudgeons – they're also behind a rash of head injuries. Researchers in Austin, Texas, counted the number of people injured while using the things in the US city between September and November 2018. Dockless scooters were …
Had a go on these things a couple of times on a recent trip to Madrid. Yes there's loads of potential for misuse, but people using them at slightly-above walking pace on spacious pavements or bike-speed on roads are mostly only risking themselves rather than others.
They will almost certainly emit way less carbon and particulates per KM than a diesel-spaffing Uber or a bus or wotevs, and so used responsibly could massively help pollution problems. Longer-distance we would need clearer rules (say only allowed on bike lanes where present) but that's easily fixable.
They're also pretty fun!
I'd like to see someone actually work that out when you factor in the average life expectancy of these things is only 30 days! https://mashable.com/article/escooter-lifespan-shared-new-models/?europe=true
I wouldn't be that surprised to hear they produce more CO2 than a taxi when you factor in the taxi being good for 500K miles and the scooter for probably less than 100.
IIRC a few years ago VW said 40% of all CO2 emitted by their cars was during production and disposal which is pretty scary when you think how many thousands of gallons of petrol a car will burn in its lifetime.
The EA189 emissions problem was nothing to do with CO2, it was NOx. The "fix" AFAIK actually made their engines produce more CO2.
Although this does demonstrate that what's good for the planet (ie less CO2) can be worse for us humans and vice versa.
Obviously these scooters are great for air quality in cities, they're just (probably) fscking the planet as a whole.
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, you're not likely to get a posh coffee from any chain. You're likely to get putrid filth, beans bought at the very lowest price.
However, the thing that you lack to note is that it's the very barista serving you coffee most likely to have nearly run you over on his e-scooter in the first place...
Austin (Travis County) is an island of liberal nuttiness in a vast sea of right wing lunacy. They've actually been known to try to ban firearms in some areas like their city hall. Austin is actually rather a nice place -- if you can tolerate six month long, 38C, high humidity, summers.
""20 people were seriously injured per 100,000 e-scooter trips taken in the city."
That doesn't actually sound like a lot. What's the comparable rate for pedestrians / bicycles / cars etc?"
Massively lower. If you were seriously injured every 5000 trips in a car, given that you easily make 500 trips a year, you would be seriously injured every ten years.
Other means of transports' statistics are measured in KSI (killed/seriously injured) per billion miles.
They can be but this is misleading. In terms of mileage per trip it is roughly
pedestrians << bicycles << cars << passenger aircraft
so this would explain why if you just use this as a measure, a 747 for your trip to the local supermarket is wayyyy safer than walking (assuming you live in one terminal and shop in another that is)
"They can be but this is misleading. In terms of mileage per trip it is roughly
pedestrians << bicycles << cars << passenger aircraft"
This is true, but that was for context. These scooters are several orders of magnitude more dangerous than any other form of transport on the roads or in the air. Going from pedestrians to bicycles to cars doesn't change the orders of magnitude that much.
And accidents per bpm are a reasonable method of deciding which form of transport to make for a particular journey, if the two methods are available. So cars and motorcycles can be directly compared, and motorcycles are comparative death traps.
Not as much as these scooters, though.
You have to remember that the majority of these people were injured on their first ride - i.e. when they were inexperienced and probably pushed it too far.
Most people learn to cycle as a kid.
I'd be interested in the numbers of non-first ride incidents vs cycling, as that would appear to be more comparable in terms of the situation.
Sounds less than I gather the attrition rate is at a local AirHop trampoline centre here ... and to ensure you understand the risks there you have to sign an agreement before getting to bounce to state that (a) you understand you may get severely injured or even killed and (b) agree that if you cause any injuries to anyone else you indemnify AirHop against all claims from anyone else along with any legal costs involved.
I live in Austin. The number of scooters here is crazy. They just showed up like a plague of locusts. They litter the sidewalks, people ride way too fast on sidewalks, and most ignore the law (like not riding on sidewalks!). I've nearly been hit from behind twice on the sidewalk by out-of-control riders. And the head injury issue would all but disappear if helmets were required - which, by the way all of the scooter companies claim to tell their riders is part of the terms and conditions. But there's zero enforcement by anyone, because if there's anything that will kill the scooter craze it's forcing riders to wear a helmet. No self-respecting scooter bro is ever going to put one of those things on. Just no way to be hip wearing a helmet. So maybe Darwin will have his day, but I pity your town when the infestation reaches you.
I met the guy whose job involves driving around Austin in a pickup at about 6 in the morning scouring the streets for abandoned scooters, collecting them, and then returning them to the main downtown areas where people expect to find them.
Also seen some spectacular crashes at the bottom end of Brazos ;)
"I met the guy whose job involves driving around Austin in a pickup at about 6 in the morning scouring the streets for abandoned scooters, collecting them, and then returning them to the main downtown areas"
I read an article lat year about scooter companies outsourcing the collecting / recharging / redeploying of scooters to anyone who wanted to via a second app. It started with students / part-timers doing a lot of the collecting and ended up with territory-grabs and fights over who got to collect / recharge (and therefore get paid) the scooters
Helmets are the red herring of road safety.
Helmets won't help in many accidents such as when people brake arms and legs, etc.; or crash into pedestrians, cyclists or other hipsters. Reducing the maximum speed would be much more effective, as is separating traffic streams.
A broken arm or leg is unlikely to kill you. bump on the head can turn from "I've got a bit of a headache" to "I'm unconscious in a blue-light taxi with a 50/50 chance of death or permanent brain damage resulting from an undiagnosed bleed" really unexpectedly (ie, many hours after the initial trauma.)
There's no dispute with the head injuries argument. However, it is often the only argument when other injuries are far more frequent. It neatly shifts the blame away from road planning to the victims.
You can do funny things with statistics but, for example, head injuries in The Netherlands where virtually no one wears helmets are very low, especially compared with somewhere without traffic segregation such as in the US. It's some time ago but I remember reading about the relatively high incidence of fatal cycling injuries in Portland in Oregon where the cyclists get mown down by crossing vehicles.
In summary, I'm not going to argue that helmets don't save lives, just that there is too much attention focussed on them instead of road safety.
Road planning is one issue - the overarching belief that since "I'm saving the world by riding my bike/scooter/etc" road rules don't apply is another huge issue. If bicycles could run on smugness very few riders around here would have to pedal.
It is actually refreshing to see the occasional rider actually stopping at intersections, signaling and using appropriate safety devices (lights at night, reflectors, bright clothing).
In my experience the vast majority of cyclists are fine and generally play by the rules. Yes, there are always some knob jockeys who are going to endanger themselves and others. But they'll probably do this with whatever form of transport they're using, so it's not much basis for policy.
Back to the hipsters on VC-funded toys: these are very cheap to make in China and have a builtin collection & recharge business model. From The Economist last year:
Another aspect of the model is that people can make money by charging them. Freelance “bird hunters” pick up scooters with empty batteries and plug them in at home. The startup pays between $5 and $25 per vehicle charged, depending on how hard they are to find (the locations of “dead” scooters are shown in another app). Charging mostly happens at night and the vehicles must be back on the street in specified locations before 7am the next day. That Bird and other firms can outsource this activity explains why they have been able to launch their services so quickly in so many cities.
Clearly an unsustainable bit of arbitrage but should run long enough to qualify as "blitz scale" which will bring an exit either through an IPO or takeover, and more savers will find their savings have been whizzed away.
@ Charlie Clark
"In my experience the vast majority of cyclists are fine and generally play by the rules. Yes, there are always some knob jockeys who are going to endanger themselves and others. But they'll probably do this with whatever form of transport they're using, so it's not much basis for policy."
Good for you, but here is another story. It isn't just anecdotal evidence. There have been a couple of local Uni sponsored studies that proved that bicyclists in this area were much less likely to obey the rules of the road or even exercise good sense when riding in town. Outside of town the numbers were much better - probably because those riders are generally more serious and understand consequences.
As far as basis for policy - almost all policy is based on outliers instead of majority. IE - most people don't drive drunk but we have policies against that. Yeah, yeah, extreme example but relevant.
"In my experience the vast majority of cyclists are fine and generally play by the rules. "
I dunno know what *city you are talking about, but the exact opposite is true here in Chicago. I've never seen any bike rider actually stop at a stop sign... except for the one that hit the back wheel of my bike because I stopped.
All that being said, there's clearly a bigger issue with drivers and pedestrians doing thier *thing while trying to read the phone in thier hand... something, it seems, being a scooter rider will, perhaps, not allow... although I'm sure some will just stubbornly insist on one-handed operation... proving the applicability of the word "wanker".
In summary, I'm not going to argue that helmets don't save lives, just that there is too much attention focussed on them instead of road safety.
People used to say the same about seat belts too.
Just make them mandatory, and in a few years, nobody will even remember why they kicked up a fuss, but the death toll WILL be noticeably lower.
Try and fall from a bike while standing and hitting your head: the physics are very much against it. It's no coincidence that in the whole history of the Tour de France there has only been one fatal head injury (one too many, I know) where one guy hit his head on a kerb going downhill. Even crashes at over 70 km/h in the sprints do not result in head injuries, though the injuries they do cause are bad enough. These are almost always the result of collisions with other vehicles.
"Andrei Mikhailovich Kivilev (Russian: Андрей Михайлович Кивилёв, 20 September 1973 – 12 March 2003) ... he crashed during the Paris–Nice race and subsequently died of his injuries. His death was the trigger for the UCI to implement the compulsory wearing of helmets"
I've cracked three helmets - once involving a SUV driver being a moron, once involving another biker with earbuds being a moron, and once due to a little rain on a painted sidewalk. The one with the biker knocked me out cold. Physics would suggest that a 10 lb ball at the end of a pivot is unlikely to travel several feet and stop without moving a few inches past the shoulder.
Oh, I'm painfully aware of how dorky I look in my business clothes and bike helmet. But it's cheaper than a car, easy to park, free to recharge (at work), and fun to commute on, so on balance I've been very happy to have swapped the car for the scooter.
Try changing a tube on one of the bastards, though!
My observation about bike helmets (and seatbelts) is that they don't prevent accidents. They simply protect the pilot of the vehicle from certain injuries if an accident occurs. What prevents accidents is reliable adherence to standard signaling protocol, preferably given during a minimum of formal training.
re. no hipster, I dunno, maybe, like, make some hipster helmets and promote them as hipster? Shouldn't be easy, just make them out of cardboard ("100% eco-friendly"), remove the top part ("superior ventilation") and charge USD 99.99 for "proven track record".
Just last week, there was a hipster doofus on one these in front of me. He wasn't wearing a helmet, naturally. What he was doing was swerving wildly in the road while I was approaching him. I had to slow down to below the 25 MPH posted speed limit to avoid running him over. Eventually, he looked behind to finally see that traffic was approaching him on the road, so then he darted onto the sidewalk, where he almost hit a person.
It is probably incorrect to say I do not like e-scooters. What I really don't like is the idiots who pilot these things.
Those (minimum speed limits) are rare as hen's teeth in my experience - if I was referring to one I'd feel it incumbent to mention that it was a minimum, not the more usual maximum)
And, again IME, they are almost exclusively reserved for regions with non motorised traffic completely banned and behind physical barriers (i.e. in a tunnel).
"Absent a reason to go slower (rain, obstacles etc) it is the speed at which you are expected to drive. Try going slower on your test and you will fail."
No - absent hazards you are expected to make "good progress" that will be within a few mph of the posted limit.
I've yet to encounter a road without hazards.
The presence of people - on foot, scooter, bike, horseback, skateboard, motorbike, other car... All are hazards which will require me to modify my speed to ensure that I am not endangering the lives of others.
To be stopped for travelling too slowly is exceptionally rare - I've only ever heard of it happening on NSL roads.
Actually, John , the speed limits in most urban and suburban locations hereabouts are designed - from data captured by those suspicious-looking cables "they" sometimes stretch over the road - with the goal of ensuring a given amount of revenue from speeding tickets.
'Round here the "magic number" is 65%. That is: after measurement, the speed limit is set at the average which 65% of the local traffic moves at in that place. I'd bet time of day plays a part too, but cannot confirm that rush-hour is a favourite sampling point.
So in point of fact, at least in my locale, speed limits are *not* a limit, they are a threshold for end/beginning of month revenue generation.
Powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters (rules 36 to 37)
Rule 36
There is one class of manual wheelchair (called a Class 1 invalid carriage) and two classes of powered wheelchairs and powered mobility scooters. Manual wheelchairs and Class 2 vehicles are those with an upper speed limit of 4 mph (6 km/h) and are designed to be used on pavements. Class 3 vehicles are those with an upper speed limit of 8 mph (12 km/h) and are equipped to be used on the road as well as the pavement.
Rule 37
When you are on the road you should obey the guidance and rules for other vehicles; when on the pavement you should follow the guidance and rules for pedestrians.
On pavements (rules 38 to 40)
Rule 38
Pavements are safer than roads and should be used when available. You should give pedestrians priority and show consideration for other pavement users, particularly those with a hearing or visual impairment who may not be aware that you are there.
Rule 39
Powered wheelchairs and scooters MUST NOT travel faster than 4 mph (6 km/h) on pavements or in pedestrian areas. You may need to reduce your speed to adjust to other pavement users who may not be able to move out of your way quickly enough or where the pavement is too narrow.
Law UICHR reg 4
Rule 40
When moving off the pavement onto the road, you should take special care. Before moving off, always look round and make sure it’s safe to join the traffic. Always try to use dropped kerbs when moving off the pavement, even if this means travelling further to locate one. If you have to climb or descend a kerb, always approach it at right angles and don’t try to negotiate a kerb higher than the vehicle manufacturer’s recommendations.
What it doesn't mention is that e-scooters are illegal in the UK, unless and until one taxes & insures them (good luck with that) and it is issued with a number plate (diito with that as well). One presumes that they count as mopeds so a rider will need a CBT course and a licence. Oh and don't forget the compulsory helmet.
Hearken to this here old-time mountain biker's words of wisdom.
Wheel size is important for bikes. The biggest cause of falling off a bike and getting hurt is when the front wheel stops due to a hole of some sort. The bigger the wheels, the bigger the hole has to be to stop them and the more likely the rider is to see the problem and deal with it, hence the recent trend for 29" mountain bike wheels. Scooters generally have tiny wheels and poor brakes and if you throw in an incautious and inexperienced rider together with speed and an uneven surface then very soon the scooter front wheel will find a nice friendly pot-hole to tarry in, and the rider will land on the road in front.
Basically, e-scooters are a crap design and for that reason alone should be limited to a very low speed such as 8MPH or less.
"Scooters generally have tiny wheels... "
The trend is for 'push' scooters to have larger and larger wheels (I believe they go up to 8 or even 10 inches rather than the 4 or 5 that used to be standard). For some reason the escooters I see around seem mostly to have stuck with smaller wheel size.
Most likely, the reason is that the smaller wheels are cheaper to produce. No one really expects e-scooters to stick around more than a couple years anyway, so likely the manufacturers figured why bother spending all that money on a proper design?
For some reason the escooters I see around seem mostly to have stuck with smaller wheel size.
The reason is torque. The smaller wheel requires less torque to turn for a given speed, thus it can be got moving quicker and accelerate up to speed without an epic run up.
Push scooters, as you describe them, have quite a lot of torque available given the average human leg length and muscle strength.
This, and where the centre of gravity is, is something that the designer of the Segway realised.
However, the Silicon Valley VC industry saw scooters as useful for going up hills in San Francisco and decided that they were what the world was waiting for: the answer to pollution, global warming, cancer and presumably inceleb. They have since been lobbying hard around the world to get these things approved, including bribing the German Transport Minister – thank fuck he's not the one responsible for local bye-laws.
^^^THIS
...and, they have miniscule handlebars, meaning any twitch of the bars causes a large change in front wheel angle...and over you go.
Those tiny wheels are no match for Boston's potholes. There's already concern over the number of scooter injuries here...and the majority of riders I see are not wearing helmets. They have not really caught on here in Boston, the "blue bikes" are far more popular. I do see the random powered scooter or skateboard rider, but they usually own the equipment, and, thus, are more likely to be wearing a helmet.
>I do see the random powered scooter or skateboard rider, but they usually own the equipment, and, thus, are more likely to be wearing a helmet.
That, and if they own the thing they most likely have experience in how to operate it correctly. I would presume that the vast majority of injuries caused by these scooters came as a result of the rider having never touched one before and not knowing what the thing's limitations are.
That the 'wear a helmet' should be *way* down the list... Avoiding accidents is clearly the best measure.
The demographic doesn't really help without knowing roughly the demographic of all users, but when I was last in Austin I didn't see many scooters on the move at all, so can't really offer even an opinion as to whether the injuries are clustered around young males (i.e. traditional risk takers) or whether it's just clustered around the users of the scheme.
Speaking from personal experience and actually being old enough to know better I bought a discounted alloy-with-skateboard-wheels scooter when they were just falling (!) out of fashion. I lived in a coastal town at the time and while the pedestrianised town-centre areas were fun, they were too crowded, so off to the promenade I went. Sadly, the Council hadn't kept up with the pavement (UK definition) repairs, and my speedy glides became a nightmare obstacle avoidance test. I lost. My front wheel got diverted by a large crack and I ended up sprawled AOT. Not fun. Not clever.
Two observations:
20 per 100,000 = 1 per 5000 or .02%, which is a very low risk factor from where I sit.
Missing were any questions along the lines of:
Were you operating a GoPro during the accident?
Did you begin your accident on a standard thoroughfare, or was it more like the railings of a concrete staircase or perhaps the roof of a garage or shed?
Were the wheels of the scooter on the ground immediately before the accident or were they above the footboard, in mid-air, during an attempted loop-de-loop?
Were you the sole occupant of the scooter at the time of the accident, or was your cameraman/camerawoman taken to a different hospital under an assumed name?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
