6 ms·

If you have evidence that Brogan is lying, that would be a useful contribution to the discussion. If not, it's really weird to just accuse someone of fraud out

If you have evidence that Brogan is lying, that would be a useful contribution to the discussion. If not, it's really weird to just accuse someone of fraud out of the blue. > A 63yo is less able to take evasive action such as using foot to brake at speed and maintain balance before it's too late. This wasn't a matter of reflexes. She blew through three intersections with no brakes before deciding to bail out. If she panicked and didn't think of foot-braking, or believed that it would just cause an immediate crash at that speed, that's a shame, but it has nothing to do with age. A 20-year-old could make the same mistake. You really don't need to double down on this.

exodust 8y ago
What's weird is your conviction of facts based on some bloggy article which seeks to link this incident to a wide-spread problem. With a $100,000 surgery bill and talk of law suits, you're quick to take the side of the person wanting the payout. You don't go to court with "the brakes didn't work. The end." as the submitted evidence. You have a report about the scooter, and a lot more facts at hand. > "After cruising along for about a mile, the couple started to descend a steep hill." There's your problem. 63 years old on a scooter, probably new to scooters, and descending a "steep hill". What could go wrong? And she scooted a whole mile apparently without using the brakes at all? Doesn't add up. You may be interested to know that scooter manufacturers often specify an age range the scooter is suitable for. One popular scooter I looked at recently said "Age: 16 - 55". > You really don't need to double down on this. Nor do I need to triple-down, but I'm quite comfortable with the reasoned position I'm taking thanks.