e scooters

sauter shop
Advertise with us
UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Phil Pascoe

Phil Pascoe

Established Member
UKW Supporter
Joined
29 Jan 2012
Messages
27,441
Reaction score
6,812
Location
Shaft City, Mid Cornish Desert
From today's Telegraph, concerning e scooter use on the road.

Geoffrey Mott, for Barnet, pointed out that using privately owned e-scooters on public roads was "currently illegal", citing the Government's "guidance for powered transporters".

"Those riders using an authorised hire scheme are required... to possess an 'O' category on their own provisional or full driving licence," he told Judge Luba.
.........................................

Has anyone any idea what the "O" category is? I've just about everything except HGV and PSV but no "O". (Just curiosity, lacking two in the lower limb department here's little chance of my using a scooter. :LOL:)
 
There's a category for 2 to 3 wheeled vehicles with speed between 15.5 and 28 mpd, it's listed as AM, but it does come before P :rolleyes:
 
Oh dear what has happened to people using there legs to walk, don't we already have an obesity crisis without further aiding the issue by providing them with the means for even less exercise. All modes of transport where there is the potential to injure someone or cause damage to propery should require insurance and in the case of two wheels a helmet should be mandatory to reduce the potential injuries that might be sustained and reduce the cost to the NHS.
 
I've seen the story that's linked to the original post repeated a number of times in the last few days.

Quite how you can bring legal action against something/someone whilst not obeying the law is ridiculous beyond words. If anything the woman in question should come away from this with zero compensation, made to pay any legal costs, scooter destroyed, and a police caution given.
 
Spectric said:
Oh dear what has happened to people using there legs to walk, don't we already have an obesity crisis without further aiding the issue by providing them with the means for even less exercise. All modes of transport where there is the potential to injure someone or cause damage to propery should require insurance and in the case of two wheels a helmet should be mandatory to reduce the potential injuries that might be sustained and reduce the cost to the NHS.
Click to expand...

There are more head injuries sustained by people in cars than on two wheels per year. Perhaps we should also insist on car drivers and their passengers wear helmets?
 
alan895 said:
I've seen the story that's linked to the original post repeated a number of times in the last few days.

Quite how you can bring legal action against something/someone whilst not obeying the law is ridiculous beyond words. If anything the woman in question should come away from this with zero compensation, made to pay any legal costs, scooter destroyed, and a police caution given.
Click to expand...
Nick? ........ the lawyer famous for motoring legal cases was interviewed on the radio and he said she'll probably win but get very reduced damages, and that the law needs changing. He said it's akin to your being liable if a burglar hurts himself on spikes on the the top of your fence when attempting to break in - because you haven't warned him of the danger.
 
I think spikes on the top of fence's along with glass on top of walls has now been made illegal for precisely that reasoning.
 
Southdownswolf said:
There are more head injuries sustained by people in cars than on two wheels per year. Perhaps we should also insist on car drivers and their passengers wear helmets?
Click to expand...
Ah, statistics. How do those figures look if you take them as a percentage of those engaged in driving cars, versus riding on two wheels I wonder.
 
Fergie 307 said:
Ah, statistics. How do those figures look if you take them as a percentage of those engaged in driving cars, versus riding on two wheels I wonder.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. More people will go into a hospital with head injuries from a car accident than a cycle accident. So if it is important for cyclists to wear a helmet, then surely a car driver should to as they are a bigger drain on a&e resources.
 
You need to look at the speed at which the accident occurs, if a pedestrian trips, falls and bangs there head then it can result in a serious head injury so increasing the speed to that of a bicycle increases the hazzard so a helmet helps offset that hazzard but in a car at low speeds with a seatbelt and airbags the risk of serious head injury is very low, most injuries in cars occur when traveling at higher speeds or two vehicles collide with a combined higher speed.

So to make the comparison fair you need to only compare accidents at low speed and then the cyclist comes off worse because there is nothing between them and what they hit, if you ever see a cyclist who has come down a long gradient too fast and been restrained by a dry stone wall then it is not a pretty site, the helmet did little to protect them.
 
Southdownswolf said:
Irrelevant. More people will go into a hospital with head injuries from a car accident than a cycle accident. So if it is important for cyclists to wear a helmet, then surely a car driver should to as they are a bigger drain on a&e resources.
Click to expand...
How can it possibly be irrelevant? There will be hundreds, If not thousands of times as many people driving a car every day as riding a bicycle, or any other form of two wheeled transport. Unless the figures for head injuries amongst car drivers are comensurately higher, then the conclusion must be that you are far more likely to sustain a head injury on two wheels. As a lifelong cyclist and motorcyclist I have no doubt this is the case. So what are the figures you are asking your argument on?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top