Electric scooters.

[classic33]

I do hate the way Journalists make things up.
It should read:

An e-scooter rider who broke her leg in a crash is pursuing a personal injury claim against the council responsible for the road and has alleged consequential financial loss and damages totalling almost £30,000.

At the moment the case is still determining fault and is bring up an important legal ruling as the injury was sustained during the illegal use of a private e-scooter. Interesting discussion here:-

https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news...urpi-causa-exclude-claims-for-personal-injury

Part of her claim is that the pothole was the cause of the injury. The council disputes that the pothole existed.
She'll have proof of the hole, photographic, that it did exist. And that the damage, if any was caused to the scooter, wasn't caused by hitting a kerb.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Interesting point made by ths case

https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/01/lond...-barnet-council-after-pothole-crash-17859245/

So - riding illegally on the road on an escooter
BUT was - apparently = wearing a helmet
but - as it says - no knee pads (should I wear them on my bike?????)

anyway - hot a pothole - which may or may not have existed but lets ignore that - front wheel stopped dead and ride goes over the handlebars

I note that the pothole was 'difficult to see' because it was dark - but no mention of lights

so - ignoring the above victim blaming -does she have a case???


I also wonder, if she succeeds and gets a payout will this force councils to maintain roads to a standard where the small wheels on an e-scooter as OK on it and not base everything on what is safe for a car/truck/bike

I hope she gets absolutely feck all compo! It's like a burglar suing a church, after falling off the roof while nicking lead!

 

[icowden]

Part of her claim is that the pothole was the cause of the injury. The council disputes that the pothole existed.
She'll have proof of the hole, photographic, that it did exist. And that the damage, if any was caused to the scooter, wasn't caused by hitting a kerb.

Of course. The problem she has, is that pothole or not, under the law as it stands she was committing an illegal act. Parliament may be planning to legalise e-scooters, but they are not yet legal except in particular licensed schemes.

 

[classic33]

Of course. The problem she has, is that pothole or not, under the law as it stands she was committing an illegal act. Parliament may be planning to legalise e-scooters, but they are not yet legal except in particular licensed schemes.

The fact that she was on the road on an illegal vehicle should have been reflected in your rewritten headline.
Akin to joyriders in a stolen vehicle.

There are no plans to legalise e-scooters at present. Unless you go the whole hog and register, insurer and have it MOT'd, and hold the appropriate license. The date for the end of the trial schemes just keeps on being moved back.

 

[icowden]

The fact that she was on the road on an illegal vehicle should have been reflected in your rewritten headline.

Why? My issue with the headlikne is that journalists keep making personal injury claims look like lottery wins. They aren't. They are for loss and damages and each cost has to be documented.

Akin to joyriders in a stolen vehicle.

There are no plans to legalise e-scooters at present.

Apart from these you mean?
https://www.pureelectric.com/blogs/news/government-announce-plans-to-legalise-e-scooters-on-uk-roads

 

[classic33]

Why? My issue with the headlikne is that journalists keep making personal injury claims look like lottery wins. They aren't. They are for loss and damages and each cost has to be documented.

Apart from these you mean?
https://www.pureelectric.com/blogs/news/government-announce-plans-to-legalise-e-scooters-on-uk-roads

And the rest of that piece,
"Unless you go the whole hog and register, insurer and have it MOT'd, and hold the appropriate license. The date for the end of the trial schemes just keeps on being moved back."

Which is included in the piece you linked to. Which is from a third party response, not the actual piece.

 

[icowden]

Which is included in the piece you linked to. Which is from a third party response, not the actual piece.

And that is relevant because?

The point is that e-scooters are only illegal because legislation has not kept pace with technological change and they are in a strange no-mans land at present. There is a drive to legalise electric transport such as e-scooters despite your assertion to the contrary. How and what the rules will be have yet to be decided. But there are plans to legalise them.

This will be another argument in the case I suspect, as it helps show that there is a grey area where some e-scooters are legal and some are not depending on who owns them.

 

[classic33]

And that is relevant because?

The point is that e-scooters are only illegal because legislation has not kept pace with technological change and they are in a strange no-mans land at present. There is a drive to legalise electric transport such as e-scooters despite your assertion to the contrary. How and what the rules will be have yet to be decided. But there are plans to legalise them.

This will be another argument in the case I suspect, as it helps show that there is a grey area where some e-scooters are legal and some are not depending on who owns them.

Relevant because they have a product they want to sell, namely e-scooters.
The same drive was there in 2000 to increase the speed of e-bikes, came into force in 2015.

They will be classified under light moped, current classification for the trial areas, which will require the registration, VED, MOT, insurance and licence to use them legally. The second the licence requirement for private use is introduced, the vast majority will not be interested in being legal. Hoverboards were the craze before these, which lasted a few years before dying out. Production of Segways, the craze before that, ceased in 2020.
Not that any of the above has anything to do with the case in question.

The all party working party trying to get them legalised for road use fell over the same hurdles. Not wanting the legal obligations passed onto the user. Everyone else would have to make do with them, and pay when things went wrong. Sorry, but I'm not responsible for the illegal actions of another person who chose to break the law, repeatedly, over a three year period who was then injured as a result of her own illegal actions. The case shouldn't even be allowed to get into court. My opinion only.

 

[icowden]

Hoverboards were the craze before these, which lasted a few years before dying out.

Because they couldn't be used anywhere useful legally and the government didn't legislate.

Production of Segways, the craze before that, ceased in 2020.

Because they couldn't be used anywhere useful legally and the government didn't legislate.

The all party working party trying to get them legalised for road use fell over the same hurdles. Not wanting the legal obligations passed onto the user. Everyone else would have to make do with them, and pay when things went wrong.

At the moment they want to set safety standards (max speed, helmet wearing etc), then they will decide on the laws for usage. I doubt that an e-scooter will be classified as a light moped unless it is set to go at high speed.

 

[Tenkaykev]

We’re in one of the “ Beryl Bikes “ test areas. There are both Electric and manual bikes as well as Electric Scooters. They have become “ part of the furniture “ I’ve seen the Electric Scooters being ridden responsibly, there’s a few people locally who commute on them, and I’ve also seen the “ ninjas “ wizzing down the road after dark clad all in black. The irresponsible ones tend to be young and immortal ( until they’re not )
I can see them becoming a permanent feature, good for commuting over short distances and some see them as less of a faff than owning and riding a bicycle.

 

[classic33]

Because they couldn't be used anywhere useful legally and the government didn't legislate.

Because they couldn't be used anywhere useful legally and the government didn't legislate.


At the moment they want to set safety standards (max speed, helmet wearing etc), then they will decide on the laws for usage. I doubt that an e-scooter will be classified as a light moped unless it is set to go at high speed.

It's their current classification for the trials, why change it, or any part of the requirements for legal useage, should they become legal. And for use as a road vehicle, due to their speed.
So you should never meet one on the footpaths.

Explain what may be has to do with the case in question please, or don't answer.

 

[icowden]

Explain what may be has to do with the case in question please, or don't answer.

I did. Her solicitor will likely argue that e-scooters are a grey area in terms of legality due to some e-scooters being legal and some not.

 

[captain nemo1701]

Interesting point made by ths case

https://metro.co.uk/2022/12/01/lond...-barnet-council-after-pothole-crash-17859245/

So - riding illegally on the road on an escooter
BUT was - apparently = wearing a helmet
but - as it says - no knee pads (should I wear them on my bike?????)

anyway - hot a pothole - which may or may not have existed but lets ignore that - front wheel stopped dead and ride goes over the handlebars

I note that the pothole was 'difficult to see' because it was dark - but no mention of lights

so - ignoring the above victim blaming -does she have a case???


I also wonder, if she succeeds and gets a payout will this force councils to maintain roads to a standard where the small wheels on an e-scooter as OK on it and not base everything on what is safe for a car/truck/bike

I don't think she should get any cash. To say she didn't know it was illegal in the digital age when you can find out that fact in seconds on Google, is a non-starter.

This took me under a minute:

So no, ignorance shouldn't be a defence.

 

[classic33]

I don't think she should get any cash. To say she didn't know it was illegal in the digital age when you can find out that fact in seconds on Google, is a non-starter.

This took me under a minute:
View attachment 670209
So no, ignorance shouldn't be a defence.

I don't think she can claim ignorance as a defense, depending on where you look.
She had owned the e-scooter for three years, but only used it twice, or on a regular basis during the three years of ownership. Knowing it to be illegal.

I say let the insurance companies fight over it. After all it's the way with other motor vehicles incidents.

 

[captain nemo1701]

It's their current classification for the trials, why change it, or any part of the requirements for legal useage, should they become legal. And for use as a road vehicle, due to their speed.
So you should never meet one on the footpaths.

It's their current classification for the trials, why change it, or any part of the requirements for legal useage, should they become legal. And for use as a road vehicle, due to their speed.
So you should never meet one on the footpaths.

Explain what may be has to do with the case in question please, or don't answer.

Explain what may be has to do with the case in question please, or don't answer.

It's their current classification for the trials, why change it, or any part of the requirements for legal useage, should they become legal. And for use as a road vehicle, due to their speed.
So you should never meet one on the footpaths.

Explain what may be has to do with the case in question please, or don't answer.

Sorry, but 'You should never meet one on footpaths'...gets a from me.
In Bristol, they infest the pavements everywhere. Once saw a bloke on one wobbling along the pavement chatting to his two mates who were walking & he had 'issues' with trying to go that slow. Transport for the bone idle.

Voi might as well ditch the 'don't ride hire scooters on pavements' because its 100% ignored.

Best place for no escooters is Exeter. Didn't see ONE. But in Bristol...you need eyes in the back of your head & long-distance Star Trek scanners to know if these hellish things are coming.