Rental Scooters

[GordonH]

I’ve noticed a number of individuals using scooters & bikes today, unfortunately numerous ones are not paying attention to the traffic lights. I suspect sooner or later there will be a some 911 calls made for ambulance/s.

As for helmets... none were wearing them.

Are they not paying attention to the lights or are they just ignoring what they are expected to do at lights while paying attention to the traffic around them? While we don't allow the Idaho Stop in BC it has been shown to be effective for everyone in places where it has been implemented ... there are days you can find me and my dog crossing Harvey without a green light after 6am if the gap in traffic is something that I know we can cross safely without disrupting other traffic ...

Yeah, helmets are always a good bet when you have to be around cars ...

1st group rode though a late yellow with half of them on a red. Yes there were line up of vehicles at traffic light.
2nd group took their chances dodging traffic at an intersection.

It either group gets injured with this stupidity, that will be on them.

Oh yes 1 in second group had helmet, she was youngster.

[cv23]

Yeah, helmets are always a good bet when you have to be around cars ...

So not a "good bet" or helpful when contacting the ground or trees in places like sidewalks where there are no cars?

I seem to have missed where cars are even mentioned in the news story about injuries to scooter riders, but I'm sure someone can point it out.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/3 ... his-summer

[spooker]

Are they not paying attention to the lights or are they just ignoring what they are expected to do at lights while paying attention to the traffic around them? While we don't allow the Idaho Stop in BC it has been shown to be effective for everyone in places where it has been implemented ... there are days you can find me and my dog crossing Harvey without a green light after 6am if the gap in traffic is something that I know we can cross safely without disrupting other traffic ...

Yeah, helmets are always a good bet when you have to be around cars ...

1st group rode though a late yellow with half of them on a red. Yes there were line up of vehicles at traffic light.
2nd group took their chances dodging traffic at an intersection.

It either group gets injured with this stupidity, that will be on them.

Oh yes 1 in second group had helmet, she was youngster.

Exactly, people should know and operate with the proper risk assessment ... being an adult is all about taking responsibility and dealing with the consequences of one's actions ...

[cv23]

1st group rode though a late yellow with half of them on a red. Yes there were line up of vehicles at traffic light.
2nd group took their chances dodging traffic at an intersection.

It either group gets injured with this stupidity, that will be on them.

Oh yes 1 in second group had helmet, she was youngster.

Exactly, people should know and operate with the proper risk assessment ... being an adult is all about taking responsibility and dealing with the consequences of one's actions ...

Yet they rent scooters to ANYONE, even those who have zero knowledge how to operate them so can't do proper risk assessment, and to children who are not adults so aren't yet held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[spooker]

Exactly, people should know and operate with the proper risk assessment ... being an adult is all about taking responsibility and dealing with the consequences of one's actions ...

Yet they rent scooters to ANYONE, even those who have zero knowledge how to operate them so can't do proper risk assessment, and to children who are not adults so aren't yet held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

So who should we hold responsible? The companies who provide the product? or the adults who put themselves in the position of risk for not taking the time to know everything possible about their situation? Wasn't this thread originally just about the users?

[JLives]

Oh no. Someone might get hurt. Aren't most of the people posting this sentiment old enough that they spent a good amount of time riding in the open box of pickup tricks? I did. Still not dead. I commute through downtown every day. It's busy but it's fine. Just pay attention.

[cv23]

So who should we hold responsible? The companies who provide the product? or the adults who put themselves in the position of risk for not taking the time to know everything possible about their situation? Wasn't this thread originally just about the users?

Good question.
Current actions are to try and hold guns and their manufactures responsible for the deaths and injury they cause. We hold cigarette companies responsible for deaths even though their product is covered in warning labels right in the users face. We fine those who provide tobacco product to minors so obviously hold them responsible for providing a dangerous product to non-adults incapable of understanding the risk. We hold pesticide companies responsible for deaths their product cause even though the product is cover in warning labels. Some here seem to think that automobiles are the problem (ban cars!) not the drivers for deaths and injury and we hold automobile manufactures responsible for defects in their products which result in injury or death.

So in answer to the question yes. Those who provide dangerous items like scooters to those with no experience or don't ensure safe and legal operation of those scooter are and should be held responsible for the deaths and injuries resulting from use of the product they supplied. The users are already paying their share of the price so time to hold the providers accountable too.

[TylerM4]

So in answer to the question yes. Those who provide dangerous items like scooters to those with no experience or don't ensure safe and legal operation of those scooter are and should be held responsible for the deaths and injuries resulting from use of the product they supplied. The users are already paying their share of the price so time to hold the providers accountable too.

So what you're saying is "Nothing should be marketed that might be dangerous or unhealthy". No fast food, no junk food, nothing with an engine in it, no tanning beds, no medications, no surgery, no knives, no guns, no power tools, no heavy objects, no bicycles, nothing with a wheel, nothing that floats, no hiking trails, no swimming pools....

We all know that's ridiculous. The reality is that some level of danger is accepted by our society, it's not defined, and it's inconsistent. Bicycles and kitchen knives cause way more serious injuries than scooters and nobody is calling for them to be banned.

[cv23]

So in answer to the question yes. Those who provide dangerous items like scooters to those with no experience or don't ensure safe and legal operation of those scooter are and should be held responsible for the deaths and injuries resulting from use of the product they supplied. The users are already paying their share of the price so time to hold the providers accountable too.

So what you're saying is "Nothing should be marketed that might be dangerous or unhealthy". No fast food, no junk food, nothing with an engine in it, no tanning beds, no medications, no surgery, no knives, no guns, no power tools, no heavy objects, no bicycles, nothing with a wheel, nothing that floats, no hiking trails, no swimming pools....

We all know that's ridiculous. The reality is that some level of danger is accepted by our society, it's not defined, and it's inconsistent. Bicycles and kitchen knives cause way more serious injuries than scooters and nobody is calling for them to be banned.

The only person calling for anything to be banned is our resident cycling zealot who has repeatedly stated "ban cars".
What I'm saying, and showing by example, is that those providing products which are shown to cause injury and/or death are and should be held at least partially responsible for the injury and deaths the products they provided cause. especially those who provide that product with zero instruction on the safe use of that product.

[JLives]

So what you're saying is "Nothing should be marketed that might be dangerous or unhealthy". No fast food, no junk food, nothing with an engine in it, no tanning beds, no medications, no surgery, no knives, no guns, no power tools, no heavy objects, no bicycles, nothing with a wheel, nothing that floats, no hiking trails, no swimming pools....

We all know that's ridiculous. The reality is that some level of danger is accepted by our society, it's not defined, and it's inconsistent. Bicycles and kitchen knives cause way more serious injuries than scooters and nobody is calling for them to be banned.

The only person calling for anything to be banned is our resident cycling zealot who has repeatedly stated "ban cars".
What I'm saying, and showing by example, is that those providing products which are shown to cause injury and/or death are and should be held at least partially responsible for the injury and deaths the products they provided cause.

Lol. No. The people riding them are responsible.

[cv23]

Lol. No. The people riding them are responsible.

Interesting that Monsanto is being held responsible for death and injury their product caused as are the suppliers of tobacco products, Pharmaceutical drug manufactures for their products as are automobile manufacturers who supplied product which cased injury and death to users and others effected by the products supplied. It is the users of those products who are ones doing taking the legal action and receiving the settlement from that legal action.
Why aren't the courts holding the users at fault rather than the provider?

[JLives]

Lol. No. The people riding them are responsible.

Interesting that Monsanto is being held responsible for death and injury their product caused as are the suppliers of tobacco products, Pharmaceutical drug manufactures for their products as are automobile manufacturers who supplied product which cased injury and death to users and others effected by the products supplied. It is the users of those products who are ones doing taking the legal action and receiving the settlement from that legal action.
Why aren't the courts holding the users at fault rather than the provider?

Chemicals are a whiole different ballgame from riding scooters.

[GordonH]

The only person calling for anything to be banned is our resident cycling zealot who has repeatedly stated "ban cars".
What I'm saying, and showing by example, is that those providing products which are shown to cause injury and/or death are and should be held at least partially responsible for the injury and deaths the products they provided cause.

Lol. No. The people riding them are responsible.

Not the 2 groups I witnessed this morning, 2nd group teaching their child it’s okay to play dodge with vehicles.

[JLives]

Lol. No. The people riding them are responsible.

Not the 2 groups I witnessed this morning, 2nd group teaching their child it’s okay to play dodge with vehicles.

Not everything is safe. Did anyone die? I see them all the time darting into traffic. Not safe by any means. I'm always watching as a driver. All I can do. And I hope they have fun and possibly learn a lesson or two along the way. I've done worse I'm sure.

[spooker]

So who should we hold responsible? The companies who provide the product? or the adults who put themselves in the position of risk for not taking the time to know everything possible about their situation? Wasn't this thread originally just about the users?

Good question.
Current actions are to try and hold guns and their manufactures responsible for the deaths and injury they cause. We hold cigarette companies responsible for deaths even though their product is covered in warning labels right in the users face. We fine those who provide tobacco product to minors so obviously hold them responsible for providing a dangerous product to non-adults incapable of understanding the risk. We hold pesticide companies responsible for deaths their product cause even though the product is cover in warning labels. Some here seem to think that automobiles are the problem (ban cars!) not the drivers for deaths and injury and we hold automobile manufactures responsible for defects in their products which result in injury or death.

So in answer to the question yes. Those who provide dangerous items like scooters to those with no experience or don't ensure safe and legal operation of those scooter are and should be held responsible for the deaths and injuries resulting from use of the product they supplied. The users are already paying their share of the price so time to hold the providers accountable too.

Can we false equivalence? The purpose of a scooter is not to be dangerous, unlike guns ... scooter operation becomes dangerous thanks to the environment it is used in ... like being mixed in with cars where drivers are playing with their phones ...

Good luck with that crusade!