I drive a scooter and don’t own a car. But this is the sort of braindead post that will likely drive me to block this community. It’s an embarrassment to anybody who can think logically.
It’s also dumb because there’s no way that 6800 pound truck is going 0-60 in 4 seconds. They even put a slower time on the allegedly 400lb-lighter truck with more horsepower. If I’m wrong about that guesstimate, then oh well, the big trucks are stupid anyway.
Both of the trucks have a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds apparently. The heavier truck being an EV is why it can match the other due to having full torque available and not needing to shift.
It’s also frustrating because it directly undermines the cause. There is absolutely more reliance on cars than there should be. There absolutely are more people buying big trucks than need them. There are so many valid arguments to make, so many thoughtful points to bring up.
But if the arguments and content being presented are factually incorrect, if they contain erroneous arguments or irrelevant comparisons, then it’s easy for people who don’t agree with the entire premise to just dismiss it as nonsense. This convinces no one, and worse, it may actively convince people that people who want to reduce usage of vehicles are stupid.
Our society has a problem with making everything absolutes. Trevor Noah had a great comment once about this where he brought up cats vs dogs and he asked why society suggests we have to pick one and can’t just like both.
Because of that, any dissent or criticism is seen as being against something. You think nuclear energy should be encouraged? Clearly you just want to drill for more oil and spew as much carbon as possible! You think this meme is an utterly illogical and dishonest comparison? Well clearly you must support the ubiquity of oversized cars with poor efficiency, and you don’t think our cities need more transportation options or walk ability!
All of this is to say, you’re right on the money. We have to call out bullshit like this when we see it on “our side” and criticize it as ridiculous. We need to recognize that OP is well intentioned, but this is a nonsensical/extreme take. Extremism forms when these people don’t get called out and a group chastises internal criticism.
I’ve been hit by people on Escooters 3 times in the last 4 years.
If you wanna add speed controls to cars fine, but I think the ones that cohabit the sidewalk that people are routinely driving drunk as fuck can absolutely stay speed locked.
I never said they were mutually exclusive. I’m just saying everyone is sharing some bad experience with scooters but the other side of the coin has been silenced.
Though I will say that I live in a city with plenty of scooter use and I can’t think of a time it’s been a major issue. Meanwhile cars and trucks threaten my life on a daily basis.
The other side of this conversation has been “silenced”?
This is literally the fuckcars community.
There aren’t two “sides”. That’s my point. Considering them as opposing positions is what demonstrates that you and others are considering them as somehow related, somehow in conflict. It’s you seeing an argument where none need exist.
You don’t have to un-govern scooters to govern cars.
You can say “I think we should limit the velocity of any vehicle that operates in proximity to pedestrians to a degree to keep them safe”.
That’s what I want. Where is the argument? Are we on different “sides”??
They’re implying that people who got hit by one of the other two vehicles in the image are not alive anymore to comment about getting hit by it, hence they got silenced.
I don’t know if you really want a “swap” here, so much as a “speed limit all of these, or maybe ban two of them.” If you get on a scooter with a max speed of 118MPH what you’re actually doing is committing suicide.
You are derailing. This post is not about faster scooters. This post is a about absurdly overpowered tanks that can (and do) wreck havoc without being limited in any considerate way.
The entire premise is a bad faith argument, that you need to “swap” anything. You can have BOTH of them GPS speed limited. There is absolutely no reason why ALL vehicles should not be speed limited when operated in proximity to pedestrians.
The “swap” in the title artificially introduce a false dichotomy. The premise is intrinsically bad faith. My initial comment was incredibly measured, all things considering.
You don’t need to GPS limit scooters to 8 mph when their top speed of 15 mph is already less than a person running. If they push someone over or hurt them due to negligent use of the scooter, charge them as you would if they’re a pedestrian. Don’t try to make an alternative to driving less appealing when cars in cities (even if GPS limited) are already hundreds of times more dangerous.
I have been injured by a negligent e scooter rider. A human body at sufficient speed is dangerous. You don’t need to be licensed or insured to ride one.
charge them as you would if they’re a pedestrian.
For the identical reason that this a an insufficient response to other vehicles, it’s insufficient here. I don’t want people who hurt me to be punished, I WANT TO BE SAFE.
This has nothing to do with cars.
Some fucker hurt me and I thank god the max speed was limited.
Just because something is an alternative to driving doesn’t automatically mean we should abandon any thought or reason and say “thou art above reproach and thous’t actions in any circumstances must be wise and good”.
Being a scooter driver doesn’t automatically make you not a fucking idiot.
First of all, your Middle English grammar is atrocious, the 2nd-person possessive pronoun is “thine”, not “thous’t”. “Thou’st”* is equivalent to the modern “you’ve”, not “your”, and “you’ve actions” doesn’t make sense.
Second, what makes you think there will be fewer injuries with speed-limited scooters? Wouldn’t you prefer they be fast enough to keep up with bike lane traffic so they don’t have a reason to be on the sidewalks at all? An 8mph scooter can still knock you over, and the fall will be the cause of the bulk of your injuries in both an 8 and 15 mph collision.
I’m not saying that they deserve to be unregulated because they aren’t cars, I’m mad that they’re getting the attention of regulators in a way that doesn’t actually make things safer, and districts from safety issues that really deserve attention.
Wouldn’t you prefer they be fast enough to keep up with bike lane traffic so they don’t have a reason to be on the sidewalks at all?
This presupposes that the only reason they’re on the sidewalks is that they’re too slow for the bike lanes… which presupposes anywhere a scooter rider wants to go has a bike lane in which to travel.
I’m mad that they’re getting the attention of regulators in a way that doesn’t actually make things safer,
I’m empathetic. And I actually agree with you that if there is infrastructure (bike lanes) that are available, then go nuts. That’s the beauty of GPS is that you could conceivably match speed limits to available infrastructure.
And I’d be fine with many alternative mechanisms… maybe you can get some training to understand how to safely ride at higher speeds on sidewalks? Ok. Maybe the scooters have a function to make more noise so pedestrians at least have a prayer of hearing some drunk idiot cruising up behind them? Maybe have a built-in breathalyzer you gotta use after 6pm if you wanna keep the top speeds unlocked?
I’m not unreasonable. I just don’t want to get smoked AGAIN by some drunk asshole going March goddamn 3 on the sidewalk. My safety on a sidewalk shouldn’t be up for negotiation. I think “we can’t enforce any speed limit or else they’ll be shut out of bike lanes” is an extreme conclusion to draw it a lot of big assumptions built into it.
Hey now, off-topic criticisms aren’t bad faith, they’re just bad humor, but I see how that might be misconstrued. I’m not trying to discredit your argument by changing the subject though, so I apologize for that
I think you make some good points about the availability of bike lanes, but I disagree that limiting the speed only where bike lanes are unavailable is a suitable middle ground. I don’t think scooters should be allowed on sidewalks PERIOD. Anywhere I say bike lane, assume “street” if your setting doesn’t have one. And the problem I see is that limiting their speed makes the sidewalk look more appealing than the street, which is my main concern. Scooters should not be available for rental in areas with only bike lanes and fast roads, since there’s not really a good speed to limit them where they’re both useful as a means of transportation and safe for nearby pedestrians. As for the privately owned scooters, increasing the penalties associated with their misuse and promoting public awareness of those penalties will do far more to keep them off sidewalks than to hope the manufacturers implement the proper GPS speed limits and anti-tamper systems.
I’m sorry a drunk scooter driver injured you and I agree that drunk scooter use should be prohibited by some means, but I don’t know how you could attach a breathalyzer to a publicly used vehicle and expect people to put their mouths on it to blow. Drunkenness is a huge problem and our culture around alcohol is a major factor in allowing it to do as much harm as it does.
I think you and I generally agree that scooters are good, and generally agree there is room for improvement in their deployment.
I think we generally believe the speeds in which they operate should be appropriate for their contexts.
I’m pretty sure where our divides are, is just “what are the contexts”, and “is prescriptive law enough?”
I don’t think prescriptive law is enough.we can post speed limits, but they are broken. We can paint bike lane lines, and cars veer into them. Physical barriers are what keep cars out of bike lanes, not paint. GPS governors could keep motor vehicles driving the speed limits, not signs. Throwing violators in jail might be “justice”, but that doesn’t bring back the kid who was mowed down.
I also, despite having been smoked my scooter riders, don’t NEED the sidewalks to be forbidden. If a scooter rider CHOOSES to use the sidewalk, I’m fine with that, AS LONG as they operate the scooter in a way appropriate for the context, and that does mean at a lower speed than on the road or bike lane. You’re right, that if we just plain forbid their operation on the sidewalks then my concerns about pedestrians evaporate entirely, but I still think that’s heavy handed.
Anyways, if there exists technology for a Tesla can more or less drive itself, I’m sure a scooter can know if it’s on a sidewalk. In your world, it could maybe stop and force the rider to dismount because they’re prohibited from that space, but I’m fine with it just being like “since you’re on the sidewalk we’re speed limiting you to 8mph”
I think you’re right. I just hate it when bandaid solutions for failures of infrastructure are left as “good enough” when they should be treated as a way to buy time while long-term solutions like divided bike lanes, narrower roads with more speed tables, and public transit upgrades. The actual solutions are ignored when the bandaid solutions aren’t themselves criticized, and without actual investment in public infrastructure we’re never going to make our walkways actually totally safe.
Does participation in good faith mean only agreement with you? One is an unregulated vehicle capable of hugh speed, the other two require specific licensing, and are already regulated by countless rules.
These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents and are electronically speed-limited, meanwhile for the device that causes 99% you put the responsibility of keeping speeds safe in the hands of individuals ranging from considerate over careless to outright methheads.
is often ridden on footpaths and walking areas
Why could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those are the only places where said 99% mode of transport responsible for 7,500 pedestrian deaths a year is banned and streets, where e-scooters should normally a go in cities, are designed for 2.5 tonne cars going 40?
The limit makes sense.
I mean yea, it does, but it is in essence just another concession to car dependency. Can’t curb pedestrian deaths because infrastructure is dogshit, drivers are careless and cars become more and more unsafe? Just regulate the hell out of every means of transport other than the one causing all the deaths and make getting from a to b as hard as possible for everyone not driving. Helps to a) blur the blame and cause some infighting (for instance, this post) and b) getting more people in cars must mean fewer pedestrian deaths right?? also more cars sold and no expensive infrastructure changes. Phew.
So how is it not a valid argument? It’s blatantly obvious that if cars were invented right now, with models as they are right now, safety concerns would be through the roof and they’d be regulated to hell and back with electronical speed-limits just like e-scooters are right now. The only reason cars are not limited in such a way is because they are a legacy device, part of America’s cultural identity and with a uncontrollably powerful lobby behind it so any attempt in that regard would immediately lose you public support. You’re asking for more well considered arguments, but I’m wondering what your argument is that cars should not be speed limited, other than that’s just the way it is, let everything concede to the status quo?
These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents
Percentage is meaningless without context. The stat you’re actually looking for is pedestrian deaths per mile. And it’s probably quite bad for these vehicles because they explicitly commingle with pedestrians.
Cars don’t spend very much time on parts of roads that have pedestrians on them, and when they do, there’s signage or traffic lights to help. Cars also have lights to help drivers see pedestrians and help pedestrians see cars, and generally make a lot of noise. You get none of these benefits with personal motorized vehicles. (Well ok, a scooter probably comes with some lights, but they’re probably also small and shitty and unregulated, so they don’t really count…)
Note that cars are heavily regulated, have speed limits, collision regulations, are required to only operate on designated paths and require training to operate.
Meanwhile the scooters can be used by anyone without licensing, have no speedometer, and can go anywhere without a pedestrian even having a clue a scooter might be coming.
Things could be better, but in these areas frankly an even lower speed limit would not make cars that much safer, and you’d be better off without roads in some areas and poof, cars would be gone. However electric scooters would still be zipping around.
What is the solution then? The problem is probably more that there aren’t enough pharmacists to run 24/7 pharmacies within walking distance of everyone in a city.
Also even cities with great public transport infrastructure have a spotty night schedule or don’t even have one at all. Like even in Tokyo you can get stranded if you miss the last bus/train and then you have to wait till the morning or call a taxi
This situation would have happened in any city , walkable or not, unless you live near a pharmacy that is open at night.
I could rant for ages about the state of public health in my country, but this is not the community for that.
There are a lot of things to be improved on the area of public transportation.
The night routes are not enough, it’s not like the buses are empty. Also, if the metro operated during the night this would have been a 15min trip. Remember autopilot is a thing, night routes shouldn’t be an issue for metro lines.
The bike infrastructure is non existent, a good bike path would make the time to get there about the same as driving a car.
Last but not least, the problem still stands and escalating an issue as simple as picking up a medicine increases the burden on the already overloaded health services.
Lololol those scooters fly past you in your lane of travel. I’m glad for the lockdown. I’m really not worried about the trucks. They are rare and I usually see shit boxes driving like asses compared to expensive vehicles.
When you skip the sponsor-ads it’s only about 35 to 40 min, max of actual content. So if you have premium or vanced I don’t think their episodes are much longer than they should be
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.