3 ms·

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

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.

nanis 8y ago
I am not understanding what you are saying because it sounds like you are claiming it is OK for people on electric vehicles to slam into pedestrians in pedestrian crossings because a lot of people have died in accidents involving cars. And, keep in mind that a 180 lb male on an electric skateboard doing 25 MPH slamming head on into a little old lady crossing the street is more than an inconvenience. The fact that the operator decided to operate his vehicle in a pedestrian crossing adds insult to injury. Another example: It is one thing when a motorcyclist decides to weave through cars in congested traffic ... A pedestrian can hear that approaching and, in my experience, motorcyclists do not think they have the right to ram into people. With a silent electric vehicle carrying your average entitled punk, the situation is different. I have not seen one person operating such an electric vehicle who obeyed any rules. So, if there is a 19th century law that can be used to banish them, I support that.
- dionidium 8y ago
  With respect, I think you understand what I’m saying, because it’s not a difficult proposition to understand. You just don’t like the double-standard I’m defending.
  - nanis 8y ago
    No, I have no idea what you are defending.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      Let's play a game. Here's what I want you to imagine: - You're on a game show and your aim is to summarize my position in good faith - If you get 70 out of 100 impartial observers to agree that your summary is a fair reading of my comments, then you get $100 thousand - If fewer than 70 out of 100 agree, then you get nothing - Do you think you'd still write down, "[I]t sounds like [he is] claiming it is OK for people on electric vehicles to slam into pedestrians in pedestrian crossings because a lot of people have died in accidents involving cars"? Integrity is coming up with the same summary when there's no money on the line as you would on that game show.

nanis 8y ago

I am not understanding what you are saying because it sounds like you are claiming it is OK for people on electric vehicles to slam into pedestrians in pedestrian crossings because a lot of people have died in accidents involving cars. And, keep in mind that a 180 lb male on an electric skateboard doing 25 MPH slamming head on into a little old lady crossing the street is more than an inconvenience. The fact that the operator decided to operate his vehicle in a pedestrian crossing adds insult to injury. Another example: It is one thing when a motorcyclist decides to weave through cars in congested traffic ... A pedestrian can hear that approaching and, in my experience, motorcyclists do not think they have the right to ram into people. With a silent electric vehicle carrying your average entitled punk, the situation is different. I have not seen one person operating such an electric vehicle who obeyed any rules. So, if there is a 19th century law that can be used to banish them, I support that.

dionidium 8y ago
With respect, I think you understand what I’m saying, because it’s not a difficult proposition to understand. You just don’t like the double-standard I’m defending.
- nanis 8y ago
  No, I have no idea what you are defending.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    Let's play a game. Here's what I want you to imagine: - You're on a game show and your aim is to summarize my position in good faith - If you get 70 out of 100 impartial observers to agree that your summary is a fair reading of my comments, then you get $100 thousand - If fewer than 70 out of 100 agree, then you get nothing - Do you think you'd still write down, "[I]t sounds like [he is] claiming it is OK for people on electric vehicles to slam into pedestrians in pedestrian crossings because a lot of people have died in accidents involving cars"? Integrity is coming up with the same summary when there's no money on the line as you would on that game show.