Comment by thomascountz
13 hours ago
A 30 km/h limit and decline in driving means zero people have to die. If enforcing scooters meant zero people have to die, I'm not sure what the objection is, truly.
13 hours ago
A 30 km/h limit and decline in driving means zero people have to die. If enforcing scooters meant zero people have to die, I'm not sure what the objection is, truly.
Scooters kill people too (often the drivers themselves but not always).
The problem with escooters is that basically any accident is "bad" since you have no protection while you toodle along at 15.5mph. Not just slamming into the ground, but into street furniture, trees, building, bikes - you name it. A helmet (which no one wears) is not going to help you if you wrap your abdomen around a solid metal bench at 15.5mph. The real world has a lot of hard sticky-out bits (and perhaps ironically cars don't due to crash testing rules, so I guess crash I to a stationary car is your best bet)
It's a bloodbath in London.
Not sure I’d say blood bath but here’s some data
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
Maybe enforce pedestrian crossings instead. Zero deaths without annoying anybody.
Do you think people rightfully crossing crosswalks never get hit, or do you include the cars in the equation too? What about every other type traffic accident that could be prevented from being fatal by just lowering the speed?
They had pedestrian crossings already, and that was not the deciding factor. It was the speed limit that kept people alive.
If people like you getting annoyed by having to drive slower is the price for just one person not dying in traffic, that’s already a win in my book.