3 ms·

Runners and scooter riders are not the same thing at all. Runners, and specifically regular runners, are by definition self-trained to hit both higher speeds a

Runners and scooter riders are not the same thing at all. Runners, and specifically regular runners, are by definition self-trained to hit both higher speeds and frequency of runs. The average adult just can't get up and run at 10mph for 10 minutes without training. The average adult probably couldn't do 6mph for 2 minutes. Yet this same average adult, without training, can get on a scooter and move at 5-10mph down a sidewalk. Second, runners do not run everyday, multiple times for every trip and errand. You can grab a scooter for lunch, for an errand, etc multiple times a day. Scooter trips are more frequent, done by everyday people and should be banned on sidewalks. Lastly, it is not the job of pedestrians to accommodate scooters because there is no better alternative yet. That is not how laws and regulations work.

com2kid 7y ago
> Scooter trips are more frequent, done by everyday people and should be banned on sidewalks. Someone should do a cost benefit analysis of danger to pedestrians from the level of cars on the road due to air pollution compared to the reduced harm from cars but increase in risk from scooters. Having cars drive by is non-0, exposure to break dust and car exhaust are known to case long term irreversible health effects, is there a crossover where a certain % of people getting hit by a scooter at 10mph is a net benefit if there is a large enough reduction in vehicle traffic? Of course tire particles still exist from some scooters, but the tire types are different and I also wonder what the rate of tire dust from the tires scooters use, and what the exposure impact is there. We tend to fear the immediate dangers we can see, but not bother doing the math on long term consequences.
Someone1234 7y ago
> Runners and scooter riders are not the same thing at all. Wasn't something that was claimed. It was an analogy to show the absurdity of your argument. > Second, runners do not run everyday, multiple times for every trip and errand. You can grab a scooter for lunch, for an errand, etc multiple times a day. Above you argued speed was the core problem, now it is frequency? You said a post ago that anything on the footpath going "5 to 10mph" is dangerous due to "the kinetic energy and momentum at 10mph of an adult is considerable." Why is that suddenly safer when it is less frequent? You said it could "lead to bone fractures." Bone fractures are fine when runners do it but not scooter users..? Seems like you've forgotten the argument you were making above. > Lastly, it is not the job of pedestrians to accommodate scooters Wasn't something that was claimed.

com2kid 7y ago

> Scooter trips are more frequent, done by everyday people and should be banned on sidewalks. Someone should do a cost benefit analysis of danger to pedestrians from the level of cars on the road due to air pollution compared to the reduced harm from cars but increase in risk from scooters. Having cars drive by is non-0, exposure to break dust and car exhaust are known to case long term irreversible health effects, is there a crossover where a certain % of people getting hit by a scooter at 10mph is a net benefit if there is a large enough reduction in vehicle traffic? Of course tire particles still exist from some scooters, but the tire types are different and I also wonder what the rate of tire dust from the tires scooters use, and what the exposure impact is there. We tend to fear the immediate dangers we can see, but not bother doing the math on long term consequences.

Someone1234 7y ago

> Runners and scooter riders are not the same thing at all. Wasn't something that was claimed. It was an analogy to show the absurdity of your argument. > Second, runners do not run everyday, multiple times for every trip and errand. You can grab a scooter for lunch, for an errand, etc multiple times a day. Above you argued speed was the core problem, now it is frequency? You said a post ago that anything on the footpath going "5 to 10mph" is dangerous due to "the kinetic energy and momentum at 10mph of an adult is considerable." Why is that suddenly safer when it is less frequent? You said it could "lead to bone fractures." Bone fractures are fine when runners do it but not scooter users..? Seems like you've forgotten the argument you were making above. > Lastly, it is not the job of pedestrians to accommodate scooters Wasn't something that was claimed.