The crash likelihood index is a measure of risk associated with the operation of motorized vehicles.
Scooters are motorized vehicles. The risks therefore apply.
If you believe they do not, please explain why disability scooters violate the basic concepts that govern risk and crash likelihood of all other human operated motor driven vehicles, and do not apply.
Absence of statistical data doesn’t mean that there is no risk or that the risk is not significant. It simply means that that particular risk has not been measured, or publicized in a way that we can find it.
I imagine that this is because cart usage has not been a significant part of the traffic pattern until recently.
That being the case I can see no reason why the well understood risks and principles that govern the likelihood of all other collisions would not apply to disability carts.
Allowing carts to be a significant portion of the traffic pattern of child populated pedestrian areas before the risks have been quantified is irresponsible behavior.
They do not need to be proven dangerous. They need to be proven safe.
I cannot prove that if we give everybody a live grenade with their entrance ticket to the park that that will increase the risks to park attendees. There is no data.
Basic principles apply however from what we do know about human behavior and explosive devices that a rational human being can deduce that this would not be a good gate gift.
You are arguing that grenades are safe gate gifts because there is no statistical study to say they are not.
You are ignoring basic principles which clearly apply to the situation.
I beleive your stance is therefore neither reasonable nor rationale.
Yes I know. Dean kamen designed Segways to be safer than Scooters.
Because you are standing up you have better visibility, and Pedestrians have a better ability to see you. They tend to be lighter than scooters as well as smaller which minimizes the energy that a collision would result in. They are more manuverable and have significantly better stopping power. There controls are instinctual rather than learned. It is controlled by natural body movements rather than interpolated through controls.
In other words, a Segway is much safer than a scooter. Dean designed them to be that way.
In spite of all that there is still good reason to think that they are not safe enough to be intermingled with heavy pedestrian traffic.
the data from cars is not extractable to scooters and pedestrians for at least two reasons:
realative speeds of the two objects. Scooters can be (and may be) set to the same speed as pedestrians. In addition, depending on the weight of the individual driving it, they will in fact slow down, so it isn’t a case of a careening car/cart mowing down a small child who won’t have an opportunity to get out of the way. Simply put, the carts can be specifically set so that they are slower than the average walker. So, unless there’s an intentional act on the part of the driver or the driver is distracted and the pedestrian stays in their path, potential for collision is well, damn near not there.
relative space involved and propriatary relationship of same. Cars in roads believe they own the roads and are not expecting pedestrians. carts on a sidewalk do not necessarily have this problem. Sidewalks and walkways in amusement parks are designed to accomodate larger amounts of traffic than sidewalks in a town.
so, extrapolation from your presented data has design flaws that make the comparison much less than compelling.
and again. There should be data available if there is indeed an identifiable risk. If the people who operate parks, the people who license park activities, the people who are intimately involved with the data involved have not identified this as a risk they need to deal with, then how can you assume that any appreciable level of risk exists?
you’ve still not answered why not worry about TB? people have TB, it’s easy enough to catch, why aren’t you demanding health screenings of all park visitors? Perhaps 'cause you recognize that the risk is very slim? But you see carts and think ‘somebody’s gonna get hurt’ therefore there’s a real risk?
you have no data to support your thesis that a real (not perceived, not ‘could happen’ but real) risk is in existence. If you provide data to support that, I’d be willing to budge.
but as long as you simply state ‘put enough machines around enough people and somebodie’s gonna get hurt’ you’ve not demonstrated data to support your thesis which is- that ‘putting 70 carts (or however many there were) in a park that size provides an appreciable level of risk to park patrons’.
realative speeds of the two objects. Scooters can be (and may be) set to the same speed as pedestrians. In addition, depending on the weight of the individual driving it, they will in fact slow down, so it isn’t a case of a careening car/cart mowing down a small child who won’t have an opportunity to get out of the way. Simply put, the carts can be specifically set so that they are slower than the average walker. So, unless there’s an intentional act on the part of the driver or the driver is distracted and the pedestrian stays in their path, potential for collision is well, damn near not there.
[/quote]
**
Incorrect. As you would have seen in my cite relative speed is not mentioned as a risk factor. What is mentioned is simple speed, and that is only one of several factors that govern collision likelihood. The fact that a governor is a possibility does not mean that it has been instituted. To my experience last week, it has not. Even limited to pedestrian speeds these devices still posess the same mass as they did before, and a collision still entails a device of steel and abs impacting softer and more fragile flesh and bone.
The fact that their speed varies with the weight they are carrying is a negative not a positive. What you are telling me is that the controls are not consistent. Weight may make them slower on level ground or uphill, but it will mean that they will have added momentum and speed going downhill.
This inconsistent control does not bode well when combined with the fact that another major risk factor for collisions is inexperience with a particular machine which a renter necessarily has.
They operators don’t necessarily not have an "own the road “philosophy.” In fact you have no idea what the philosophy of the operator may be. Doubtless some operators will be very careful and concerned. Doubtless other operators will be less so. Still others will feel an increased confidence as a result of their mechanized locomotion, feel they own the road and drive aggressively.
This is exactly the way it works in cars. Different people behave differently. Contrary to your post cars and carts do not think. People think.
The most dangerous places are consistently those where motorized traffic and pedestrian traffic are combined such as parking lots and intersections.
If your hypothesis were correct there would be fewer accidents in these areas because people would realize at these times that they don’t own the road. In fact, the opposite is true.
They are designed for a larger amount of pedestrian traffic, and that is what they have. Adding motor vehicles unnecessarily into the mix in such a situation is inherently foolhardy.
I think you have a personal stake in this and don’t want to accept the reality. Your counterarguments do not hold water as I have demonstrated.
There is data. That data is the principles of the Crash likelihood index which clearly apply. You just don’t want to accept it?
As I’ve said, cart usage has only become a significant part of the traffic recently, so it is unsurprising we have been unable to find a specific study.
I’ll ask you again. Do you think that hand grenades can be argued to be a safe gate gift because not specific study has been done to show they are not?
Because this discussion is about carts not TB. If you start a thread about TB risks I will be interested in participating.
But, if you must know, I am not overly concerned about the risks of TB because those risks are both defined, stable as well as unavoidable to those who venture in public.
I am willing to accept those necessary risks just as I am willing to accept the necessary risks that go with legitimate cart usage.
If the park was engaging in behavior that unnecessarily increased my risk of TB I would take issue with it.
They are not, so I don’t.
I’ve presented you evidence. You don’t like it. It’s not my responsibility to move you off of an unreasonable stance.
More importantly that fact is what you are arguing. You are arguing that adding significant numbers of these machines into pedestrian environments is safe simply because nobody has proven that it’s dangerous to your unreasonable level of satisfaction.
That is not the way we do things in a responsible society. You do not endanger people with unknown and unquantified risks.
From drugs, to toys, to cars, to kitchen appliances, to surgery, to everything we do in life, we demonstrate that it is safe before we do it.
You have it backwards. These carts do not have to be proven dangerous. They have to be proven safe.
Or, do you argue that hand grenades make good gate gifts because we haven’t proven that they don’t?
These carts have weight, energy, momentum, and move under their own power, right?
They are operated by people, right?
People walk into each other and bump into each other all the time in pedestrian traffic.
There is potential for injury but that is mitigated by the usual equal masses of flesh bumping flesh.
People don’t want to run into each other any more than people driving carts want to run into each other.
I would argue that a cart is more prone to a collision than a pedestrian because it has to be operated through an interface, affords lower visibility, less stopping power, and will represent the piloting of an unfamiliar object.
But let’s pretend that the risk of a collision is the same for a pedestrian as for a person on a cart.
Let’s also pretend that all carts have a governor on them limiting them to 3mph.
I found carts ranging from 80 to 300 pounds. Heavier use indicates a heavier cart. We would guess that a rented cart would be of the heavy variety, but let’s give you yet another break and assume a 200 pound cart and a 150 pound passenger.
Wring, that’s 350 pounds of steel and ABS colliding with human flesh at whatever the combined velocity is.
That risk is more dangerous and damaging than a collision with another human being, but at least as likely.
The increased risk and potential for damage is undeniable to a reasonable person.
I am not willing to accept that risk if it is not necessary to expose me to it.
there is data about scooter related injuries to pedestrians? well bring it on. If not, then don’t say ‘there is data’ for that’s demonstratbly false.
you cannot conceivably expect to claim that ‘relative speed’ is not a factor. If you have a pedestrian going 2 miles per hour and a car going 50 miles per hour, there’s an expected tragedy. however a car going 2 miles per hour and the same pedestrian going 5 miles per hour, no tragedy for the probability of a collision is nil.
I’ve seen what you’ve claimed. It does not prove what you think/claim it does.
you claim now that I have an agenda? spare me a mountain.
I should have kept my word about staying out. But I’d hoped that you’d at last admit that you are claiming real risk without providing any demonstration that risk is evident in the real world. If we were talking about a future event, where we had scooters that ran on air, a la back to the future, we could get into theorizing ‘what ifs’ and attempting to extrapolate from what we’ve got data on here and now and making assumptions about what might happen.
But you’re not. You’re claiming that there exists a real risk right now. and have not shown any fact that supports the contention that ‘scooters in theme parks cause injuries to pedestrians’.
it’s a simple statement that you’ve failed to prove over and over.
once you had actual data that supports your thesis, we could potentially discuss ‘relative risks’, (one accident per 10,000 vs. 1000 accidents per 10,000).
I’ll let you have the last word. my last word to you is, once again:
I hope that your daughter is never injured, for from what I know of you, you would find that devestating, and thinking about a small child being injured is sad, tragic.
I hope also that you are never in the position of needing accomodations for anything, yet not ‘looking like’ you need it, and find out on a personal level what it’s like to day in and day out deal with rude, judgemental people who make your already trying day more so.
It’s data. You don’t like it, but the semantics don’t bother me. You can not call it whatevery you like.
There are two things at issue:
The likelihood of an accident occuring.
The likely damage of a given accident.
Relative velocity is an indicator for two. I have not seen it used as an indicator for one. Even in your scenario, assuming a head on collision you still have the pedestrian absorbing the energy of the mass of the car times the square of their combined 7mph velocity.
Do you consider being hit by a car at 7mph nil?
I am talking about the real world. You are the one claiming that there’s no such thing as a risk until somebody’s completed a study.
I can use your same logic to prove grenades make good gifts.
There’s no study to prove otherwise, so they must be safe, right?
Who do you think your fooling?
Similarly you are completely ignoring the general data, evidence, and understanding of collision likelihood which is well documented simply because it doesn’t say “scooter” on it. Oh wait, some of it does.
You have resisted every attempt to apply this general knowledge becuase it is not specific.
But the general dynamic of vehicle/pedestrian interractions is well-understood. The least important factor is the vehicle in question.
When your one attempt to dissociate this data from scooters was shown to be laughable you abandoned the effort.
Simply pretending and declaring it invalid does not make it so.
I’m positive there’s a risk. That’s been proven. Personally, I think the reason there is no specific data or licensing requirements is because of the reaction such a study would get if it were attempted. This thread alone is evidence of how vicious is the response to any percieved slight of disabled rights.
We have no problem demonstrating Mopeds, Segways, Skateboards, razor Skooters, etc unsafe, and we clearly have. Nobody though wants to touch the issue of these scooters.
Why do you think that is?
If somebody were to show they were a hazard they’d be crucified.
I condemn the self-serving attitude that’s been displayed here by several folks. They attack anybody that says something they don’t like. It doesn’t matter if it might be true.
To me it is unforgivably self-serving of someone to claim that a simple prescription to limit abuse, and protect such children puts a cart user out too much.
If I am, I pray to God that I’m not so full of self-serving pity and self-righteous entitlement that I forget that others deserve my consideration as well. And, I certainly hope I don’t put my personal sense of entitlement before the safety of others.
I understand the importance of data, wring. And I understand the importance of proof over conjecture. Many apparent dangers when in context are shown to be not so dangerous after all.
I’m trying to get that data. Personally, I don’t work in the motor side of the business so don’t have the day-to-day knowledge. However, we have the guys here that do (indeed we have a guy here that the market press recently referred to as “the country’s leading motor insurance actuary”). Once I can get to talk to them, they may hopefully direct me towards some hard evidence.
In the meantime, however, we can get some circumstantial evidence. This website indicates that third party, fire and theft insurance for a year for one of these scooters is £48 (about $75). I just checked my own details for a third party, fire and theft policy for my car for a year, and coincidentally enough it came to about £480 - ten times the amount.
Now, in truth, about £28 of that scooter policy will represent expenses and (hopefully) profit. That leaves the risk premium at about £20. Similarly about £120 of my car policy will be in respect of expenses and (hopefully) profit, which leaves about £360. So we’re up to the car risk premium being about 18 times that of the scooter. Hell, call it 20.
And it is of course hard to tell what the public libabity/theft split of that risk premium is. But since my car is worth twenty times a scooter anyway, we may as well net that off on both sides.
But here’s a rub - I’m actually a pretty high risk insured. I’m 26 years old, drive a flashy fast car that is currently worth in the region of £7,000 to £10,000 ($11,250 to $15,000) and do a lot of miles, including business miles. I represent a significant liability risk as well as a smaller but not negligable theft risk.
Therefore, for my premium to be only twnty times that of a scooter is in my opinion at least circumstantial evidence that the insurers view that scooter as a definite non-negligable risk. I trust the insurers on this one. They’re the data gatherers.
Now let’s wait and see if I can gather anything more concrete.
Perhaps another to consider about the differential is the relative time and miles travelled that the insurance company considers you will spend in a car versus a scooter.
I would guess the assumption the Insurance company is making is that you are going to spend less time and travel fewer miles in a scooter than you will in a car on a per annum basis.
Oh, and to put it into perspective, when I had a motorcycle, I insured it with Progressive for about $90/year in Pennsylvania
This was a street cycle not a dirtbike.
Just wanted to point out, just because there is no data on accident rates on scooters doesn’t mean it never happens. Minor things like getting your toes run over generally don’t warrent a police report
And in Toronto, there probably isn’t a regulartor on those things. I’ve seen my share on the bike paths tooling along at a moderate jogging speed (my car speedometer showed about 9-10 kph indicated). It’s certainly fast enough to injure.
