5 ms·

If it takes a nineteenth century law to keep pedestrians safe from vehicles whose drivers obey neither convention nor signals of all kinds, so be it.

by nanis 8y ago

larkeith 8y ago
This really isn't how they should be regulated, though - while I have yet to form an opinion on electric scooters, their impact should be evaluated and specific legislation enacted for them, rather than banning them wholesale with no consideration thanks to legal happenstance. That a law enacted nearly 200 years ago is being applied to vehicles significantly out of scope or intention of the original intent strikes me as a legislative failure, regardless of the merits or dangers of scooters on sidewalks.
- JdeBP 8y ago
  Except that they are not significantly out of scope or intention. At time, there was a fair amount of innovation going on in the field, and the concept of people riding mechanical devices on the pavement already existed. The velocipede had already been around for nearing a couple of decades.
- checkyoursudo 8y ago
  The reality is that the UK (and the US and anywhere else with a long tradition of relatively continuous and stable government) has lots of laws that are currently enforced that are dozens to hundreds of years old. In common law countries, we have laws that we can trace back many hundreds of years. If you think a law is outmoded or no longer reflects society's values, then you have recourse: get it repealed or amended. Or flaunt the law and take your chances. People do that all the time, with greater or lesser degrees of success. Societies ruled by law should not ignore old laws just because we think the original authors could not have possibly basic good judgments like, say, pedestrians should be safe on pedestrian thoroughfares.
dionidium 8y ago
The problem, of course, is that the signals and conventions you speak of only make sense at automobile scale. Drivers can (and obviously will) express outrage at scooters and jaywalkers and bicyclists and whatever else until our sun burns out and all life is gone, but non-drivers aren’t going to consistently follow rules that make no sense for the scale at which they’re operating. The solution isn’t to get non-cars to act more like cars. The solution is to modify the streetscape to accommodate all viable modes. Drivers obviously aren’t going to like this, either, because they currently get so much deference that there’s basically no place to go but down.
- nanis 8y ago
  The statement was made from the perspective of a pedestrian who grew up safely in a very non-pedestrian friendly and extremely congested city. There are ways in which pedestrians communicate with drivers to ensure both sides' safety. I've had no difficulty being a pedestrian or a driver in many countries while relying on these signals. Except now, in cities and town small and large, all of a sudden there are electric powered vehicles doing between 15 MPH to 30 MPH on crowded sidewalks whose operators do not seem to understand sidewalks are for pedestrians. They also do not communicate with the pedestrians and others operators around them. Every day I witness collisions and near collisions, but none of that gets reported as widely or loudly as a car crash. This needs to stop. If I have to choose between 19th century law versus trying to argue with every buzzing operator individually, I'll go for the 19th century law.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    We agree that they shouldn't be on the sidewalks. We disagree on this: > Every day I witness collisions and near collisions, but none of that gets reported as widely or loudly as a car crash. This needs to stop. Everybody in this thread knows somebody who died or was severely injured in an automobile accident. It's obscene to compare their losses to the nuisance of scooter "near collisions." This isn't an attack on you, personally. We've all become inured to the carnage, but sometimes it's worth taking a step back to remember that there's a reason we treat cars differently, one that renders arguments of the form, "but what about pedestrians who break the rules!?" inert.

If it takes a nineteenth century law to keep pedestrians safe from vehicles whose drivers obey neither convention nor signals of all kinds, so be it.

by nanis 8y ago

If it takes a nineteenth century law to keep pedestrians safe from vehicles whose drivers obey neither convention nor signals of all kinds, so be it.

larkeith 8y ago

This really isn't how they should be regulated, though - while I have yet to form an opinion on electric scooters, their impact should be evaluated and specific legislation enacted for them, rather than banning them wholesale with no consideration thanks to legal happenstance. That a law enacted nearly 200 years ago is being applied to vehicles significantly out of scope or intention of the original intent strikes me as a legislative failure, regardless of the merits or dangers of scooters on sidewalks.

JdeBP 8y ago
Except that they are not significantly out of scope or intention. At time, there was a fair amount of innovation going on in the field, and the concept of people riding mechanical devices on the pavement already existed. The velocipede had already been around for nearing a couple of decades.
checkyoursudo 8y ago
The reality is that the UK (and the US and anywhere else with a long tradition of relatively continuous and stable government) has lots of laws that are currently enforced that are dozens to hundreds of years old. In common law countries, we have laws that we can trace back many hundreds of years. If you think a law is outmoded or no longer reflects society's values, then you have recourse: get it repealed or amended. Or flaunt the law and take your chances. People do that all the time, with greater or lesser degrees of success. Societies ruled by law should not ignore old laws just because we think the original authors could not have possibly basic good judgments like, say, pedestrians should be safe on pedestrian thoroughfares.

dionidium 8y ago

The problem, of course, is that the signals and conventions you speak of only make sense at automobile scale. Drivers can (and obviously will) express outrage at scooters and jaywalkers and bicyclists and whatever else until our sun burns out and all life is gone, but non-drivers aren’t going to consistently follow rules that make no sense for the scale at which they’re operating. The solution isn’t to get non-cars to act more like cars. The solution is to modify the streetscape to accommodate all viable modes. Drivers obviously aren’t going to like this, either, because they currently get so much deference that there’s basically no place to go but down.

nanis 8y ago
The statement was made from the perspective of a pedestrian who grew up safely in a very non-pedestrian friendly and extremely congested city. There are ways in which pedestrians communicate with drivers to ensure both sides' safety. I've had no difficulty being a pedestrian or a driver in many countries while relying on these signals. Except now, in cities and town small and large, all of a sudden there are electric powered vehicles doing between 15 MPH to 30 MPH on crowded sidewalks whose operators do not seem to understand sidewalks are for pedestrians. They also do not communicate with the pedestrians and others operators around them. Every day I witness collisions and near collisions, but none of that gets reported as widely or loudly as a car crash. This needs to stop. If I have to choose between 19th century law versus trying to argue with every buzzing operator individually, I'll go for the 19th century law.
- dionidium 8y ago
  We agree that they shouldn't be on the sidewalks. We disagree on this: > Every day I witness collisions and near collisions, but none of that gets reported as widely or loudly as a car crash. This needs to stop. Everybody in this thread knows somebody who died or was severely injured in an automobile accident. It's obscene to compare their losses to the nuisance of scooter "near collisions." This isn't an attack on you, personally. We've all become inured to the carnage, but sometimes it's worth taking a step back to remember that there's a reason we treat cars differently, one that renders arguments of the form, "but what about pedestrians who break the rules!?" inert.