Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BIAS WARNING
Subject: RoSPA UK E-scooter Safety Report April 2022. RoSPA’s analysis of e-scooter risk of injury and death in this report is highly suspect. I am writing this because I have asked RoSPA to clarify their analysis several times since May 2022, yet they refuse to identify the source accident data upon which their conclusions depend. So, I challenge RoSPA to respond.RoSPA claim “E-scooters are safer than many other travel modes, with significantly lower casualty rates (0.66 collisions per million miles travelled) compared to bicycles which were 5 times more likely to be
involved in a collision (3.33 per million miles)”.
However, nowhere in their report do they state their estimated mileage of e-scooters or how they might have derived the figure. It appears they use Neuron’s rental trial data, and apply that to all e-scooters, which is a blatant misrepresentation. Moreover, the report is riddled with references to “e-scooters” without distinguishing between rental trials and privately owned e-scooters. In fact, there is NO data on the mileage covered by private e-scooters because the DfT do not collect data on illegal activity. Similarly, the DfT has NOT facilitated e-scooter accident recording on STATS19 forms.
And why has RoSPA partnered with one specific rental e-scooter provider (Neuron) of the many out there? Shouldn’t RoSPA be independent and offering advice to all providers?
Finally, it is worth reading RoSPA’s May2020 response to the Transport Cttee’s call for evidence ahead of the DfT’s rental trials, regarding the wearing of helmets.
1.“RoSPA would not call for the mandatory use of safety equipment, such as helmets, by electric scooter users. This is because it is not clear whether such a law would discourage some people from using electric scooters”
. Irresponsible! In most other aspects of life, reputable safety agencies would demand simple, cheap safety equipment (eg cycle helmets) for PUBLIC TRIALS of untested, new motor vehicles, known to be problematic in other countries. But not RoSPA. Their main concern is not to deter people from having a go.
2.“RoSPA’s position is that we strongly recommend that electric scooter riders wear a helmet. However, it is important to remember that helmets do not prevent crashes from happening.”
Incredible! Here is RoSPA sticking to their literal title. It beggars belief that RosPA should make such a crass statement. So, their focus is solely on preventing accidents, and not on reducing their consequences. They discount any consideration that cycle helmets reduce the severity of head injury and especially death from head trauma, the most common cause of death for cyclists. It would seem RoSPA needs a lesson on risk assessment 101. Risk = probability of an accident x consequences of the accident. So, perhaps RoSPA should rename themselves Royal Society for the Reduction of Risk of Accidents.
Rod
Well that explains everything. I would tend to agree that high performance private vehicles should have some speed limiters, the question would be….. at what speed? And would we also limit acceleration? It could not be 70mph as that would result in all cars travelling the same speed on dual-carriageways and motorways for example; we might as well get the train. Indeed, with autonomous electric cars on the horizon the likelihood of cars being electronically linked into a “train” is a real possibility, whether that be by automatic distance keeping or indeed the cars communicating with each other. I fear motoring is going to become merely perfunctory in the future.
If there’s anything you wish clarifying on e-scooters let me know. I have extensive internet research, particularly fatalities in UK and abroad.Rod
Its not a slur, its called scrutiny. And it is your interpretation that I “dont agree with it”. The article you linked referred to the the following OECD/ITF CPB report, which has already been well scrutinised on line. If you read page 3 carefully you will find Bird listed alphabetically, and the disclaimer I quoted verbatim previously – which actually means the OECD/ITF has not checked it, nor approved it. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/safe-micromobility_1.pdf
I suggest you don’t get perplexed on limiting e-scooter speed. That elephant left the room long ago. There are numerous precedents. The law requires limiters on mobility scooters to 8mph (Class3) for the road and 4mph (Class2) on pavements. The law requires the power assistance on e-bikes (EAPCs) to cut out at 25km/hr – hence the rental trial e-scooter limit, both for very good reasons. Indeed, a mobility scooter lobby raised a rather hopeful Parliamentary Petition to increase the mobility scooter speed to 25km/hr when they saw the Gov permitting rental e-scooters at 25km/hr on cycle paths. Mopeds by definition , also have design max speed limits under the law – 28mph for example.
Besides, if the Gov does legislate for private e-scooters it WILL require them to be tamper-proofed limited to no more than 25km/hr, perhaps less – you can bet your pension on it. Why? Well, apart from most other countries limiting them to that EU-wide speed, and the DfT only has evidence from UK rental trials up to 25km/hr, it is one of the few factors the Gov can legislated for. For example, they are unlikely to require a driving licence, registration, MOT, training, insurance etc any more than they would for pedal cycles. Indeed, it is the DfT’s published aim to legislate for e-scooters “as close as possible to pedal cycles and EAPCs”….not motorcyles. So the Gov’s main, or indeed only, effective control will be regulatory approved design eg max weight, max continuous power, min wheel size, lights etc etc and tamper-proof speed limiters (as indeed the DfT has specified for rental trial e-scooters).Just a quick addition to Rod King’s reference, and is a warning we must scrutinise all data even that which has an official title. The linked report refers to an assessment by OECD’s International Travel Forum (ITF)’s Corporate Partnership Board. In their report “Safe Microbility”, they make such statements as “There is no difference in the risk of rider fatality per trip between e-scooters and bicycles”. This is evidently rubbish, but is explained by 2 things.
1. A disclaimer for the OECD/ITF report “Safe Microbility” states : “Funding for this work has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board. This report is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the ITF. It has not been subject to the scrutiny of ITF or OECD member countries and does not necessarily reflect their official views or those of the members of the Corporate Partnership Board”.
2. The members of the OECD/ITF’s Corporate Partnership Board include Bird – the e-scooter company!
Enough said?Ref e-scooter speed limiting. If they could be limited to roads, you may have a point. But the truth is that private e-scooters are ridden on pavements, pedestrian crossings and pedestrian precincts, universally and with impunity. Why? Because many find the roads too dangerous. That is exactly how the majority will be ridden when legalised, especially if the Gov permits 16 year old “children”, or even 14 year olds to align with e-bikes.
Of course, the Gov would also permit them on cycle paths shared with walkers, children, cyclists, horse, mobility scooters etc. How fast should a 30kg+ e-scooter (+one rider, perhaps 2 illegally!) to be able to travel on a shared cycle path? On 2 June 2022, in Rainworth, a 14 year old e-scooter rider killed a 71 year old pedestrian on the pavement, presumed at no faster than 25km/hr. And then there is the question of small wheels versus potholes and surface irregularities. The very first e-scooter fatality was caused by the rider deflected into the path of a lorry by an uneven inspection hatch in the road. At least one other was killed by being deflected by an uneven pavement into a fence…all at 15mph.
Of the 29 e-scooter riders killed since the first in 2019 (including 3 children), all in England&Wales only, 48% (14) involved no other vehicle; they lost control, fell or hit static objects eg parked cars, a tree, a lamp post, a fence etc. How many more deaths would there be at 20mph or 30mph on such unstable machines, and without mandated helmets!?
Data available at PACTS. https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/E-scooter-casualty-data-for-the-UK-fatalities.pdf
It may help for the forum to be given a dedicated “E-scooter” category under “Road Users”. This topic will expand as the Gov works towards its public consultation on legalising e-scooters.Most people do not realise that it is the DfT’s intent to legalise personal e-scooters in 2023-4, so confiscating personal e-scooters now would only have a short term effect at best. Besides, the Police have neither the resources nor motivation to do so, except perhaps the Metropolitan Police. The DfT intend the current e-scooter trials of rental e-scooters to inform their legislation for personal e-scooters, which Rachel Maclean MP has stated will be “as close as possible” to pedal cycle (including e-bikes) legislation ie no licence, no registration, no training, no helmets, limited to 25km/hr. Indeed the phrase being used is “e-scooters will be permitted anywhere a pedal cycle is permitted”, as with the rental e-scooters today. That includes all roads (except motorways) and “shared pedestrian space” eg shared cycle paths and bridleways, up to 25km/hr, and possibly with a minimum age limit of 14 as currently with e-bikes. The DfT would like any and every local authority to host a trial, at no expense to the local authority. They want the public to become acclimatised to them. The trials will be a declared a “success” in the DfT’s interim report due at the end of September. Of course, e-scooters will not be permitted on pavements, but then neither are pedal cycles or parked cars, but they still do with impunity and public acceptance, albeit reluctantly perhaps. The same will happen with e-scooters, especially if under 18s (ie schoolchildren) are permitted, noting that the DfT set a minimum age for renting a trial e-scooter at 16. Most future e-scooter riders will find roads too dangerous, especially with their small wheels and reduced stability, and will use cycle paths where available and pavements where not. In other words, the e-scooter behaviour and accidents we witness now portends to the behaviour when they are legalised. The behaviour of rental e-scooters is NOT representative as there are effective behavioural controls (geo-fencing, ID/age checks, bank details and instant fines), which cannot and will not be applied to personal e-scooters.
Regarding the comment about “fear that the stats for injury and death will inevitably rise unless enforcement of the existing laws is undertaken more intensely and publicly by the police”. They have already risen, and police action is nothing more than a sticking plaster. That is my point. 2019 = 1 death, 2020 = 2 deaths, 2021 (to 5August) = 7 deaths, 6 deaths between 8June and 5August. The increase in rider fatalities coincides with the rapid expansion of the trials from 31 March 2021 with a doubling of the DfT-permitted rental e-scooters from 36,000 to 66,355. Indeed, in their risk assessment for the London rental trials, TfL identified “an increase in illegal use of e-scooters” as a HIGH risk because the appearance of rental scooters on the streets would encourage illegal personal use. They were right, but they still approved up to 19,800 rental e-scooters within Greater London on 31 March 2021, that’s 6600 from each of the 3 rental companies.
I have conducted the research and analysis myself. I have compiled and distributed spreadsheets of: fatal accidents; VSOs issued by the DfT to licence rental trials; e-scooter rental companies and their e-scooter specifications; and e-scooter manufacturers. Then I have lobbied the TfL, DfT, the Transport Select Committee, RoSPA, PACTS and numerous local authorities who are hosting the e-scooter rental trials. PACTS actually updated their database based on my research. I have submitted two FOI request to the DfT to obtain accurate information, and keep the pressure on them. I have submitted my analysis to the BBC and several national newspapers. I have contacted every rental company to determine the specifications of their e-scooters. I have chastised the CEO of Halfords for selling e-scooters, including providing staff discounts for commuting, and their online petition to legalise e-scooters. I report every illegal use of an e-scooter. I have engaged with the local police and the chief constable. Believe me, complaining about e-scooters being a nuisance, even injuring children on pavements, will not overturn the DfT’s intent to legalise personal e-scooters. However, I am hoping that publicising 6 rider deaths in 2 months would make them and local authorities think twice. But the commercial pro-e-scooter lobby is very strong, led by major retailers like Halfords and Argos. Moreover, the Government will overstate the environmental, congestion and health benefits (another COVID excuse) on the flawed assumption that every e-scooter journey is one less car or bus journey.
I would suggest that any person who has reservations about the legalising of personal e-scooters do something about it, take some action, make their voice heard, and not just moan.I am going to answer my own question!
There have been at least 10 e-scooter rider deaths in the UK since the first in 2019. Hence, pre-2019 stats are irrelevant. 8men, 1woman, 1child, average age 37. Most worryingly, 6 of those deaths occurred between 8June and 5August 2001 equating to ONE DEATH EVERY 10 DAYS.
All were riding personal e-scooters in public ILLEGALLY. There have been no VICTIM fatalities, yet. There have been no rental e-scooter rider fatalities, yet.
For John Walsh. “mowed down”? Were you a witness? I would not expect such emotive terms on this website. The person “mowed down” was a 16year old riding a personal e-scooter on a public road illegally at 1.20am in the morning. The driver of the other vehicle was arrested because he gave a “positive breath alcohol sample”. Of the 9 other fatalities, only one other vehicle driver was arrested, suggesting the blame lay with the e-scooter rider.I can upload all the fatality details as a pdf if someone tells me how. It is more detailed than PACTs.
I tend to agree with Andrew Fraser. There is nothing positive about sharing “pedestrian space”. It is a poor compromise. Every time another “sharing category” is added, it increases the dangers (to all users). I am not averse to shared paths in principle, but they are an easy copout for local authorities to claim they are cyclist or environmental friendly. All too often, a “cycle path” is created by merely painting a white line down the middle of a pavement, or often no line at all. The problems and antagonism that creates is left to the users to sort out and suffer. Indeed, I usually cycle on the road because I find shared cycle paths too restrictive and more dangerous!
Moving on, there is a far more insidious threat to pedestrians (and cyclists) on the horizon. The DfT is intent on legalising personal electric scooters ASAP, regardless of the outcome of the ongoing RENTAL trials. They intend to legislate for them “as close as possible to pedal cycles”, and be permitted “anywhere a pedal cycle is currently permitted”. The minimum age may be 14 as with e-bikes, but note e-bikes are pedal cycles. Hence, in 2-3 years time there will be 100,000s of e-scooters to add to the shared “pedestrian space”, the majority travelling at 25km/hr wherever they can. I await the first death caused by an e-scooter driving at 25km/hr into an extended dog lead, or into a child cyclist, or into the back of a mobility scooter at 4mph. E-scooters will, of course, be prohibited from pavements, but that’s pointless as cyclists (especially children) do already with impunity, and so will (do!) e-scooter riders. One unforeseen consequence is that mobility scooters lobbyist are demanding parity..ie the ability to drive at 25km/hr on shared use paths. The death toll for e-scooter riders in England and Wales is currently 10 (8men, 1woman, 1 child, average age 37 – so not reckless youths). Indeed, 6 have been killed between 16June and 5August alone, equating to a death rate of ONE DEATH EVERY 10 DAYS. ALL were riding personal e-scooters ILLEGALLY, not rentals. There have been numerous well publicised pedestrian victims including two 3year olds and a policeman, but no victim fatality yet (unlike Paris last month when 2 nurses on an e-scooter killed a pedestrian in a hit&run – one has been charged with aggravated manslaughter). Yet Halfords and Argos continue to sell them. The rental trials are a red herring. They are NOT representative of personal e-scooter rider behaviour. NONE of the behavioural controls imposed on e-scooter renters can be applied to personal e-scooter riders.
So, my positive message about sharing the “pedestrian space” is MAKE SURE MOTORISED VEHICLES OF ALL DESIGNS ARE PROHIBITED IN SHARED PEDESTRIAN SPACES. Unfortunately, these days it is politically incorrect to challenge anything electric because “everything electric must be environmentally friendly”, and of course COVID friendly also.
Note to editor. I suggest you add “e-scooters” as a distinct category on the website. They are yet another mechanism for death and injury on our streets and pavements.
