Skip to content

Once more with the WEF

An analysis by the Department for Transport found that scooter users were about three times more likely to get hurt compared to cyclists – with 13 “casualties” every million miles.

Wayne Ting, chief executive of Lime, the world’s largest e-scooter and e-bike rental company, believes it is not his transport that is to blame.

Ting, a former Uber executive and Obama adviser, says: “We know how to make riders safer and it is not by blaming modes of transport that are not creating serious accidents.

“The question is what is actually causing these accidents?”

For Ting, the answer is clear: cars. The solution? Make drivers go slower.

Actually useful autonomous transport must be banned, d’ye see?

19 thoughts on “Once more with the WEF”

  1. If the problem was cars, the casualty rate would be the same for bicycles and e-scooters. Ting is just bullshitting, with a view to improving the attraction of scooters versus cars by eliminating the time differential for an urban journey.

  2. Wayne Ting, chief executive of Lime, the world’s largest e-scooter and e-bike rental company, believes it is not his transport that is to blame.

    OK, lets test it by electronically limiting the performance of his rental products to have the same performance as an average cyclist.

  3. Riders of two wheeled motorised vehicles are normally required to wear helmets. Why does this not apply to motorised scooters? The fact that the motor is electric won’t save anyone’s head.
    Similarly why is there no requirement for a license or a test?

  4. Be careful Tim

    PJF will come on shortly to accuse you of being a Russian stooge or a conspiracy theorist. There’s nothing to the WEF agenda – it’s all wibbling.

  5. Yeah, absolutely nothing to do with scooter riders changing their minds every other second what they are, flitting from footpath to cycle lane to road willy nilly; not being fitted with lights or indicators, and flying through stop signs, red traffic lights and ‘no entry’ signs with gay abandon that would give even the most hardened of lycra louts pause for thought.

    When a scooter hits and injures a pedestrian on the footpath (and gets to just ride away with no consequences), the solution is obviously to reduce the speed that cars are allowed to drive on the road.

  6. Thanks for the intro, Van_Patten; and I have to say I do find the World Economic Forum connection to these two stories rather tenuous to the point of being silly. Occam’s shaving kit offers easier explanations, in this case it’s just a business owner trying to shift blame from issues related to his business model.

    And since increasing numbers of people use e-scooters it can be said to be an actually useful form of autonomous transport. Is the WEF for or against? It could all be a conspiracy, of course; and I would support a pogrom on economists just to be sure.

  7. . . . absolutely nothing to do with scooter riders cyclists changing their minds every other second what they are, flitting from footpath to cycle lane to road willy nilly; not being fitted with lights or indicators, and flying through stop signs, red traffic lights and ‘no entry’ signs with gay abandon that would give even the most hardened of lycra louts pause for thought.

    Applies to a lot of cyclists just as well, and there are a lot more cyclists. Currently, e-scooter users are either law breakers or renters; so as a group they will have a higher proportion of irresponsible types.

  8. (Ting) To what extent are scooters inherently more dangerous than cars and bicycles?
    (Ting) To what extent are scooter riders inherently more likely to ride dangerously?
    (Ting Ting)

  9. Not nearly enough in my opinion. A 100% fatality rate’s the target to aim for.

    And believe me you do not want scooter proliferation in the UK. We have it here. They are, impossible as it sounds, far worse than cyclists. They don’t seem to be able to make up their minds whether they’re a vehicle or a pedestrian. They want the advantages of both. So they just switch mode to suite the advantages.

  10. About that switching mode thing. Here we have the right turn (your left) on a red light convention. The pedestrian lights on the road you’re entering will be on green & the exiting lights on the junction on flashing amber. Prioritising pedestrians on the crossing.
    The cyclist’s or scooterist’s way of tackling this. Confronted by a red light & wishing to go straight on, detour across the pavement & use the pedestrian crossing. And on the evidence of a recent experience, shout & swear & any pedestrians impeding your progress.

  11. They don’t seem to be able to make up their minds whether they’re a vehicle or a pedestrian. They want the advantages of both.

    How terrible; people maximising their advantage.

    To be less flippant, we are faced with adapting to a new technology; its inherent difference and in getting used to that difference. There will be a solution, and I hope it’s closer to freedom than bansturbation.

  12. @ bloke in spain

    You’ll be seeing a cultural element at play. India, Paris, Vietnam, Russia, etc., all have longstanding traffic regulations but a brief explore of YouTube will reveal the tragicomic reality of mobile people interacting.

  13. Oh yes, PJF. I remember that so well from London. The pedestrian controlled traffic lights (pelicans?) And the enrichment’s preference for ignoring them. One crosses with the same caution as if they didn’t exist. Purely street decoration.

  14. There will be a solution, and I hope it’s closer to freedom than bansturbation.
    Problem is, PJF, there’s an asymmetry of responsibility. Cars have number plates & insurance. And thus can be held culpable. Bikes & scooters don’t & can’t. It will always be the registered vehicle driver catches the grief.

  15. ‘ For Ting, the answer is clear: cars.’

    But cars are on the roads, e-scooters on pavements where the hurtle past pedestrians with only inches to spare, and riders clearly believe they have right of way and pedestrians should get out of their way.

    They need to be banned, or included in grouse shooting season.

  16. Occam’s shaving kit offers easier explanations, in this case it’s just a business owner trying to shift blame from issues related to his business model.

    Not a fan of the WEF as others will recall, but this seems as PJF suggests, a case of a business owner with shitty customers trying to distract from their bad behaviour.

    Ting knows full well that if the weight of motor regulation is brought down against his business model, then he is screwed, therefore others must be to blame.

    Personally, I think helmets, licensing and insurance are an essential, not just for the safety of other road users, but for pedestrians as well. If that screws Mr. Ting’s business then that’s a bit unfortunate.

    I think cyclists and others on wheels should be similarly helmeted, licensed and insured. Why? because we’ve had numerous deaths where the uninsured were at fault and apart from some weak tea fines from a magistrate, they’ve gotten away with it.

    How are we to square that circle with ebikes, cyclists, pedestrians and motorists without equivalent regard for the accidents they cause?

  17. “or included in grouse shooting season.”

    Don’t need to shoot.. With the widdle wheels the things are instable as f8ck, and a “carelessly” wielded backpack/shopping bag does well for a demonstration of conservation of momentum.

    Seen some beautiful faceplants and truly impressive scorpions that way..

  18. @AndyF – “OK, lets test it by electronically limiting the performance of his rental products to have the same performance as an average cyclist.”

    They are limited to 12mph in London. If you can’t cycle faster than that, you need to ride more than once a year.

    @bloke in spain – “Cars have number plates & insurance… Bikes & scooters don’t & can’t.”

    Lime scooters have registration numbers and when you hire one you are easily tracable to it as you must show your driving licence or equivalent ID.

    @John Galt – “Personally, I think helmets, licensing and insurance are an essential, not just for the safety of other road users, but for pedestrians as well.”

    How does a rider wearing a helmet improve the safety of anyone except themselves? And why should we care about people deciding their own risk thresholds? And I don’t think it’s in the least bit practical to try to get pedestrians to wear helmets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *