Rental Scooters

[MAPearce]

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

Uhh .. You mean JUST like guns .

[cv23]

The purpose of a scooter is not to be dangerous, unlike guns

Guns weren't developed to be dangerous, except to the animals that were being hunted as food

... scooter operation becomes dangerous thanks to the environment it is used in

Hold it I thought everyone, including the above poster, says it is the USER who makes then dangerous?

... like being mixed in with cars where drivers are playing with their phones ...

Here we go again with childish schoolyard chant of "I know I am but you're worse" without even showing the maturity to admit the "I know I am" part. Users are mostly to blame for their own injuries, or maybe the ground for being there or gravity for existing is at fault?
Still waiting for someone to point out where in the most recent news release from Interior Health saying rental scooter are dangerous that drivers or cars are noted as being any part of the reason they are so dangerous.

[Queen K]

Is there a "s$hit parking for Rental Scooters" fb page? I can not believe the stupidity I've seen in the last few days for parking jobs.

[Bsuds]

Guns weren't developed to be dangerous, except to the animals that were being hunted as food

"

Apparently that's a wrong assumtion/statement.

"Why was the gun invented?

Guns were invented not for protection against the elements or for sport or for hunting but with the simple purpose to fight other men. The development of guns can be traced back through cannons to the early siege weaponry. The Chinese had already started using gunpowder in warfare much before anyone in the west."

[cv23]

Guns weren't developed to be dangerous, except to the animals that were being hunted as food

"

Apparently that's a wrong assumtion/statement.

"Why was the gun invented?

Guns were invented not for protection against the elements or for sport or for hunting but with the simple purpose to fight other men. The development of guns can be traced back through cannons to the early siege weaponry. The Chinese had already started using gunpowder in warfare much before anyone in the west."

Ok I have no issue with being proven incorrect, it's sad that others can't also

How about I modify my statement?
Unlike rental scooters guns are rarely dangerous to the user.
Is that more agreeable?

[Bsuds]

Unlike rental scooters guns are rarely dangerous to the user.
Is that more agreeable?

I would think that is probably closer to the truth.

[spooker]

"

Apparently that's a wrong assumtion/statement.

"Why was the gun invented?

Guns were invented not for protection against the elements or for sport or for hunting but with the simple purpose to fight other men. The development of guns can be traced back through cannons to the early siege weaponry. The Chinese had already started using gunpowder in warfare much before anyone in the west."

Ok I have no issue with being proven incorrect, it's sad that others can't also

How about I modify my statement?
Unlike rental scooters guns are rarely dangerous to the user.
Is that more agreeable?

So families of injured scooter riders should sue the scooter manufacturers? Isn't that how the gun manufacturers are getting sued? But that falls short of equivalence since the users of scooters are the ones injured whereas the ones hurt by guns are not the users ...

[cv23]

So families of injured scooter riders should sue the scooter manufacturers? Isn't that how the gun manufacturers are getting sued? But that falls short of equivalence since the users of scooters are the ones injured whereas the ones hurt by guns are not the users ...

Ok, how about this one?
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/376979 ... ash#376979

A cyclist suing the bicycle manufacturer for injuries he received as a result of being a user of the manufacturers bicycle.
Does that meet the equivalency?

[Steve-O]

That's just a dude fishing for money with his lawyer CV. I'm sure someone will get hurt on a scooter and do the same thing but does not compare to gun users.

[cv23]

That's just a dude fishing for money with his lawyer CV. I'm sure someone will get hurt on a scooter and do the same thing but does not compare to gun users.

So claimants in legal filings are just "fishing for money" with their lawyers? The cancer "victims" of the Tobacco manufactures products and the cancer "victims" of Roundup certainly seem to have caught whales from their fishing trips didn't they?

I have no issue with taking guns out of the equation as it is not the users who are suing but rather the "injured victims" of the product who are suing the manufacturers for resulting injuries and deaths.

It is admitted above so obviously known that people will get hurt on scooters and the release from Interior Health confirms that fact. The CoK is endorsing the use of this suggested and proven to be dangerous to the user item. Shouldn't they bare some of the responsibility for the resulting user injuries? How long before one of those injured "victims" of one of these dangerous items goes fishing in the CoK's pond and catches a whale of their own?

[spooker]

So families of injured scooter riders should sue the scooter manufacturers? Isn't that how the gun manufacturers are getting sued? But that falls short of equivalence since the users of scooters are the ones injured whereas the ones hurt by guns are not the users ...

Ok, how about this one?
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/376979 ... ash#376979

A cyclist suing the bicycle manufacturer for injuries he received as a result of being a user of the manufacturers bicycle.
Does that meet the equivalency?

Read that this morning and just had to shake my head ... i ride locally on the trails and up at the bike parks, always signing a waiver when needed ... I can't see this going anywhere ... there's a reason that you don't see anyone on a mountain bike trail going without a helmet, it's a dangerous environment, accept the risks or get off the bike ... in other words, "know your limit, ride within it" ...

The claimant has a pretty high bar to get over to prove his points around the manufacturer culpability ... my last full suspension had the rear triangle pivot bolt back out when I wasn't paying attention and came down off a hip jump on Knox and ended up dripping blood all the way back downtown after I picked myself back up ... after that neither myself nor my bike shop could get that bolt to stay in place without regular attention ... never thought about going after the company who designed the bike

[cv23]

Read that this morning and just had to shake my head ... i ride locally on the trails and up at the bike parks, always signing a waiver when needed ... I can't see this going anywhere ... there's a reason that you don't see anyone on a mountain bike trail going without a helmet, it's a dangerous environment, accept the risks or get off the bike ... in other words, "know your limit, ride within it" ...

Hold on a minute.
If we are to believe what has been posted here that the roads of Kelowna are a very "dangerous environment" to ride a bicycle or scooter.
The roads are the legal place to ride a scooter in Kelowna so riders obviously must be operating their vehicle in a "dangerous environment" right? As users aren't informed they will be in a "dangerous environment" and are not required to sign a waiver personally accepting the risks and resulting liability of operating the rental scooter in such a "dangerous environment" that responsibility and liability would remain with the scooter rental company and in part with the authority which permitted that business (read CoK). The RCMP in Kelowna take part of their direction and Bylaws takes all it's direction from the CoK. Neither enforce the law requiring the use of helmets on rental scooters or any other laws pertaining to scooter operation in Kelowna which not only increases the CoK's possible exposure but also could potentially include the RCMP even though I'm pretty sure the RCMP are smart enough to have eliminated their exposure/liability.
As has been noted by many posters here few if any rental scooters users wear helmets and the result is that 90% of the many injuries sustained are by those not wearing helmets as is confirmed by Interior Health.
Hopefully the CoK has made the scooter rental companies sign something absolving the CoK of responsibility and liability but past experience shows us the cumulative brain power at city hall isn't intelligent enough to thought of such a thing. Any possible damages awarded would be at the expense of others (read taxpayers) not theirs personally so not of any real concern to those at city hall.
With any luck one of the many injured rental scooter users successfully sues the rental company for their injuries and that either forces them out of business in Kelowna or makes them change their current business practices to be proactive in ensuring their customers comply with the laws coving use of scooters in Kelowna. As residents of Kelowna our only hope is that the CoK (read taxpayers) don't wind up paying any portion of those potential damages.

[Psychoclam]

Hold on a minute.
If we are to believe what has been posted here that the roads of Kelowna are a very "dangerous environment" to ride a bicycle or scooter.
The roads are the legal place to ride a scooter in Kelowna so riders obviously must be operating their vehicle in a "dangerous environment" right? As users aren't informed they will be in a "dangerous environment" and are not required to sign a waiver personally accepting the risks and resulting liability of operating the rental scooter in such a "dangerous environment" that responsibility and liability would remain with the scooter rental company and in part with the authority which permitted that business (read CoK). The RCMP in Kelowna take part of their direction and Bylaws takes all it's direction from the CoK. Neither enforce the law requiring the use of helmets on rental scooters or any other laws pertaining to scooter operation in Kelowna which not only increases the CoK's possible exposure but also could potentially include the RCMP even though I'm pretty sure the RCMP are smart enough to have eliminated their exposure/liability.
As has been noted by many posters here few if any rental scooters users wear helmets and the result is that 90% of the many injuries sustained are by those not wearing helmets as is confirmed by Interior Health.
Hopefully the CoK has made the scooter rental companies sign something absolving the CoK of responsibility and liability but past experience shows us the cumulative brain power at city hall isn't intelligent enough to thought of such a thing. Any possible damages awarded would be at the expense of others (read taxpayers) not theirs personally so not of any real concern to those at city hall.
With any luck one of the many injured rental scooter users successfully sues the rental company for their injuries and that either forces them out of business in Kelowna or makes them change their current business practices to be proactive in ensuring their customers comply with the laws coving use of scooters in Kelowna. As residents of Kelowna our only hope is that the CoK (read taxpayers) don't wind up paying any portion of those potential damages.

Actually you waive the service providers liability by using the app. The User Agreements are quite specific around safe use of products, limits of liability and and what constitutes fraud when paying for services. If you see a child on a rented scooter or ebike they did so with assistance from an adult which constitutes fraud in the User Agreements that I looked up. People that do not wear helmets or that break traffic laws are in breach of contract. The problem is that nobody seems to want to enforce anything. Not RCMP, not by-law and not the companies themselves. I myself am an ebike rider and pride myself on sharing the roads responsibly and respectfully. I personally feel that the rental scooters are a scourge and the majority of users will break all of the rules until they are corrected. On my rides around town I am in constant danger by *some* of the drivers that do not pay attention or signal. But I also see *some* terrible scooter/bike riders putting everyone at risk. I don't really understand the bike vs cars tribalism happening here.

[spooker]

Read that this morning and just had to shake my head ... i ride locally on the trails and up at the bike parks, always signing a waiver when needed ... I can't see this going anywhere ... there's a reason that you don't see anyone on a mountain bike trail going without a helmet, it's a dangerous environment, accept the risks or get off the bike ... in other words, "know your limit, ride within it" ...

Hold on a minute.
If we are to believe what has been posted here that the roads of Kelowna are a very "dangerous environment" to ride a bicycle or scooter.
The roads are the legal place to ride a scooter in Kelowna so riders obviously must be operating their vehicle in a "dangerous environment" right? As users aren't informed they will be in a "dangerous environment" and are not required to sign a waiver personally accepting the risks and resulting liability of operating the rental scooter in such a "dangerous environment" that responsibility and liability would remain with the scooter rental company and in part with the authority which permitted that business (read CoK). The RCMP in Kelowna take part of their direction and Bylaws takes all it's direction from the CoK. Neither enforce the law requiring the use of helmets on rental scooters or any other laws pertaining to scooter operation in Kelowna which not only increases the CoK's possible exposure but also could potentially include the RCMP even though I'm pretty sure the RCMP are smart enough to have eliminated their exposure/liability.
As has been noted by many posters here few if any rental scooters users wear helmets and the result is that 90% of the many injuries sustained are by those not wearing helmets as is confirmed by Interior Health.
Hopefully the CoK has made the scooter rental companies sign something absolving the CoK of responsibility and liability but past experience shows us the cumulative brain power at city hall isn't intelligent enough to thought of such a thing. Any possible damages awarded would be at the expense of others (read taxpayers) not theirs personally so not of any real concern to those at city hall.
With any luck one of the many injured rental scooter users successfully sues the rental company for their injuries and that either forces them out of business in Kelowna or makes them change their current business practices to be proactive in ensuring their customers comply with the laws coving use of scooters in Kelowna. As residents of Kelowna our only hope is that the CoK (read taxpayers) don't wind up paying any portion of those potential damages.

BC decided to require people on bikes to ride on the roads with cars when there were a lot less cars ... as a kid I didn't wear a helmet (yes, that's what my wife says causes my mental problems now) ... unfortunately the landscape has changed quite a bit, including more distractions for those behind the wheel, which is the most dangerous part for cyclists ... while people on bicycles and people in cars are responsible equally for injuries to people on bikes the severity of injury, resulting death is much great when a vehicle is involved ... I use bikes since scooters are too new to have much data to base these statements on

And who says the helmet law isn't enforced? Officers with both services, RCMP and Bylaw, have issued tickets ... they've also issued warnings ... the data from ICBC shows that and so did the FOI request I put into the CoK a few years back ...

Feel free to encourage an injured scooter rider to sue ... it'll be interesting ...

[cv23]

Actually you waive the service providers liability by using the app. The User Agreements are quite specific around safe use of products, limits of liability and and what constitutes fraud when paying for services. If you see a child on a rented scooter or ebike they did so with assistance from an adult which constitutes fraud in the User Agreements that I looked up. People that do not wear helmets or that break traffic laws are in breach of contract. The problem is that nobody seems to want to enforce anything. Not RCMP, not by-law and not the companies themselves. I myself am an ebike rider and pride myself on sharing the roads responsibly and respectfully. I personally feel that the rental scooters are a scourge and the majority of users will break all of the rules until they are corrected. On my rides around town I am in constant danger by *some* of the drivers that do not pay attention or signal. But I also see *some* terrible scooter/bike riders putting everyone at risk. I don't really understand the bike vs cars tribalism happening here.

Thank you for the information. While the service agreement limits the service provider's liability I would be a whole lot more comfortable knowing the CoK (read taxpayers) liability was also limited or even better eliminated by the same agreement. If it isn't to much trouble could you provide a link to one of the rental scooter service agreements?
You are right on the money that the major issue is that while we have laws no one is enforcing them. This is further highlighted by the stolen bike crisis here in Kelowna where even though theft is illegal bicycle thefts are beyond rampant and only increasing daily. The RCMP have shown to be totally ineffectual at even reducing the problem let alone controlling or eliminating it.

The primary reasons for the so-called "bike vs car tribalism" happening in these forums is that our resident cycling zealot paints all drivers with the same negative brush so of course in simply following that shining example set for them drivers paint all cyclist with the same brush. The other reason is that same zealot never admits that any cyclists ever commits any discretions on the road (or sidewalk) and every time an indiscretion is even mentioned rather that acknowledging the possibility of it happening the response is a childish school yard whine of "but, but, but, you drivers are so much worse because you .....".
I'm more than confident if more cyclists like yourself continued acknowledging there are indeed indiscretions taking place on both sides and the constant belittling of drivers by cyclists stopped that the drivers posting on here will follow that example and reply in kind.