E - Scooters

Not based on experience.
Probably just perception then.
But regardless of how far people feel safe riding from the kerb and what gap motorists should leave when overtaking, if it is an equal right to all be able to use the road, so if motorists need training a licence, some means of registration and insurance, then cyclists should also meet the same requirements as should e scooter riders.
 
It's the fact that they make no effort to make themselves visable,
What like car drivers do when thier car has p*** poor or non-existant DRL. Try driving a vehical with no rear view mirror in the rain on a motorway and tits in grey cars dont put thier lights on.

There isn't that much debris in the kerbs, and if you are looking where you are going, you will be able to see it in good time to signal to motorists behind, your intention to steer around it. Cars don't drive a meter from the kerb so why should cyclists have to? Totally unnecessary and ridiculous.
They dont drive inches from it either and have 4inch wide wheels to absorb driving over drains, cars are more stable, remain in a straight line more easily, do not get buffted by cross wind passing vehicals or have rotaing parts sticking 8 inches out from the side that can catch kerbs

There is a segment of cyclists that feel they are also more important, when infact we all get equal rights.
Far more car drivers on the road the cyclists and far more drivers think they own the road and they have priority and rights than other users.

There are f***wit car drivers just as there are f***wit cyclists just as there are f***wit pedestrians.
 
There are f***wit car drivers just as there are f***wit cyclists just as there are f***wit pedestrians.
Not alot you can do about pedestrians unless we impose jaywalking laws like they have in America, but there is a means to catch and try to deter the errant drivers and motorbike riders. But with nothing to catch or deter the errant cyclists, so they figure it is ok to do as they please.
Imagine how many more errant motorists there would be if there was no deterrent.
Perhaps they ought to ban cyclists from wearing helmets, it could be giving some a false sense of security.
After all a wise man said the best way to improve motorists driving would be to remove the airbag from the steering wheel and replace it with a nice sharp 6" metal spike.
 
Last edited:
Not alot you can do about pedestrians unless we impose jaywalking laws like they have in America, but there is a means to catch and try to deter the errant drivers and motorbike riders. But with nothing to catch or deter the errant cyclists, so they figure it is ok to do as they please.
Imagine how many more errant motorists there would be if there was no deterrent.
Perhaps they ought to ban cyclists from wearing helmets, it could be giving some a false sense of security.
After all a wise man said the best way to improve motorists driving would be to remove the airbag from the steering wheel and replace it with a nice sharp 6" metal spike.

It is very easy to kill or seriously injure people in a car - It is very difficult to do the same with a bike (yes, I am aware of some examples with pedestrians but far less likely).
 
Ride a bike sensibly. Don't be bullied by other road users into unsafe actions.

A large proportion of the deaths in London are from left turning lorries, crushed against crash barriers or under wheels in 'blind spot'. There's education needed on both sides and infrastructure changes needed too.

One of the questions should be "Why do cyclists only make up 1% of road users"*. People don't walk, cycle nearly so much now. Partly because the motor vehicle has been glorified and become a status symbol, and partly because we have spent 60 years developing the network of roads for one type of user, to the detriment of other users, who have been bullied off and corralled away.

* The 1% figures is an investing one. Is it a head count, a proportion of trip mounters, time spent travelling, or distance travelled?

100% spot on brother.
 
Not based on experience.
I don't know what you are replying to as I have one member on Ignore. (Only person ever that I've ignored in 20 years of being on forums on the internet!) but I imagine it is to do with your post about staying close to the kerb, and other issues where cyclists annoy petrol heads. :rolleyes:

We are in an unprecedented time. Climate Change is here, and will get worse. The only way to deal with it is to change our lifestyles. Electric Vehicles won't do it, they simply fool us into thinking we can carry on as we are.

Making the change successfully will be painful but mean that our children and hopefully grandchildren will have a chance. Right now, if we have grandchildren, they are going to be fighting for the remaining land that is habitable. We have to make a change. Now.

Human powered vehicles make a massive difference.
Whenever you hear someone saying that they need a car to commute to their job, ask them to consider how important that job is to the planet, rather than to that individual. Choose jobs that are good for the future of humanity, rather than a selfish short-term personal future.
Whenever you hear a car driver complaining about someone who is human powered, ask them which is sustainable. There is only one answer. (Walking!, although cycling is a very efficient method of travel)

I know that WFH is a privileged class option, but compare how it was viewed a year ago, with how it is viewed now. Things can change very fast if we want them to.

Things can change. We should do it and not leave the mess to our children and grandchildren.

E-scooters? BRING THEM ON!
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you are replying to as I have one member on Ignore. (Only person ever that I've ignored in 20 years of being on forums on the internet!) but I imagine it is to do with your post about staying close to the kerb, and other issues where cyclists annoy petrol heads. :rolleyes:

We are in an unprecedented time. Climate Change is here, and will get worse. The only way to deal with it is to change our lifestyles. Electric Vehicles won't do it, they simply fool us into thinking we can carry on as we are.

Making the change successfully will be painful but mean that our children and hopefully grandchildren will have a chance. Right now, if we have grandchildren, they are going to be fighting for the remaining land that is habitable. We have to make a change. Now.

Human powered vehicles make a massive difference.
Whenever you hear someone saying that they need a car to commute to their job, ask them to consider how important that job is to the planet, rather than to that individual. Choose jobs that are good for the future of humanity, rather than a selfish short-term personal future.
Whenever you hear a car driver complaining about someone who is human powered, ask them which is sustainable. There is only one answer. (Walking!, although cycling is a very efficient method of travel)

I know that WFH is a privileged class option, but compare how it was viewed a year ago, with how it is viewed now. Things can change very fast if we want them to.

Things can change. We should do it and not leave the mess to our children and grandchildren.

E-scooters? BRING THEM ON!

All well and good but many people do need a job that pays the bills, the future of humanity may not pay the mortgage!! And I also think all jobs are important. It’s like an ecosystem. If part of it breaks the rest can too. While a nurse may get the headlines they could not do their jobs without people to build the hospital or IT staff to run systems or even the cleaner working at the factory making furniture which goes in there. Many jobs create wealth which in turn tune into tax which then should provide the services we need.
 
All well and good but many people do need a job that pays the bills, the future of humanity may not pay the mortgage!! And I also think all jobs are important. It’s like an ecosystem. If part of it breaks the rest can too. While a nurse may get the headlines they could not do their jobs without people to build the hospital or IT staff to run systems or even the cleaner working at the factory making furniture which goes in there. Many jobs create wealth which in turn tune into tax which then should provide the services we need.
Yes. Indeed.

But could a nurse that lives in Northampton and works in Cambridge be sorted out with a nurse that lives in Cambridge and works in Northampton? Or should the wonderful use of the freedom of the car win?

You are right, behaving in a way that deals with the future of humanity will not pay the bills. However behaving in a way that deals with the bills will not ensure the future of humanity.
 
Or should the wonderful use of the freedom of the car win?

I take it you don't own a car or ever have need to use motorised transport ?
 
I take it you don't own a car or ever have need to use motorised transport ?
You take very wrong.

i know it is very difficult to come to terms with the fact that our lifestyles are unsustainable and will have to change. It does mean a fair amount of reflection and soul searching.
 
Yes. Indeed.

But could a nurse that lives in Northampton and works in Cambridge be sorted out with a nurse that lives in Cambridge and works in Northampton? Or should the wonderful use of the freedom of the car win?

You are right, behaving in a way that deals with the future of humanity will not pay the bills. However behaving in a way that deals with the bills will not ensure the future of humanity.
This probably won't get a reply as I suspect I am the one on ignore.
I live in one of the largest London boroughs, we have just one Hospital to serve the whole borough, so if a nurse or doctor lives the furthest distance from the hospital, it can take a long time to get to work by public transport. For me to get to the hospital by public transport, it would take close to an hour, by car, 15 minutes at most. If a nurse lives further away than me, some places require several bus changes, their journey time will be longer, that isn't an ideal or fair situation for an early start or late finish.
I have a friend who works as a carer helping people in their homes. Whilst the company she works for will try to keep their work local, if someone is off sick or on holiday, other carers have to pick up the work so travelling further will be required.
They have to provide care in the morning, lunchtime and again in the evening. They also need to get from one clients home to the next in a timely manner. Public transport can't provide that ability.
The fact that we are running out of land on which to build houses, has nothing to do with people having cars. That problem is down to too many people and people living longer.
 
Yes. Indeed.

But could a nurse that lives in Northampton and works in Cambridge be sorted out with a nurse that lives in Cambridge and works in Northampton? Or should the wonderful use of the freedom of the car win?

You are right, behaving in a way that deals with the future of humanity will not pay the bills. However behaving in a way that deals with the bills will not ensure the future of humanity.

A car is more complex than that - needing to pick kids up for example, go places, public transport is pretty poor in most rural areas unless you are possibly going to a major town.

I am sure most nurses dont commute that far but people may want to live in a certain area, or in Cambridge's case I am sure most live well outside town due to cost of living. We are a 2 car household and need it to be that way.
 
You take very wrong.

i know it is very difficult to come to terms with the fact that our lifestyles are unsustainable and will have to change. It does mean a fair amount of reflection and soul searching.
Most peoples lifestyles are sustainable, it's the outliers than create the problems, having far too many kids. Obviously you can't account for multiple births, but is more than two really necessary.
The world can't sustain people having too many kids, having a car as personal transport isn't the problem.
 
It’s not bikes ,cars,or e.scooters that’s the problem it’s the sheer arrogance of quiet a few of the riders . .. I have no objection to cyclists on a cycle path, or cars on a road , but when as is the case up here they designate a cycle path and mix it with a footpath it becomes a accident waiting to happen .
Cyclists out on a leisure ride are not a problem , Lycra clad idiots doing 30mph along a mixed use ARE a problem . The council up here have put in chicane style gates to slow them down they take them off and throw them in a hedge . Selfish arrogant t***s are the only way to describe them
 
If they are going at 30, in fact if they are going over 18mph, they should be on the road.

I think it is the sheer arrogance of quite a few people, whatever mode of transport they are using.
 
A car is more complex than that - needing to pick kids up for example, go places, public transport is pretty poor in most rural areas unless you are possibly going to a major town.

I am sure most nurses dont commute that far but people may want to live in a certain area, or in Cambridge's case I am sure most live well outside town due to cost of living. We are a 2 car household and need it to be that way.

Public transport is poor in rural areas because of cars!

Somehow what has to be done is replace the wasteful private car with something more sustainable. e-scooters are one answer.

Also, we will have to realise that living in a rural area comes with a cost. Currently cheap dino-fuel allows us to make lifestyle choices that rely on cheap dino-fuel. It's gong to be painful - as can be seen in some of the comments in this thread.
 
Public transport is poor in rural areas because of cars!

Somehow what has to be done is replace the wasteful private car with something more sustainable. e-scooters are one answer.

Also, we will have to realise that living in a rural area comes with a cost. Currently cheap dino-fuel allows us to make lifestyle choices that rely on cheap dino-fuel. It's gong to be painful - as can be seen in some of the comments in this thread.

Ah yes, my wife could ditch her car and get an escooter, and spend over an hour getting to work rather than 15/20 mins in the car, getting wet, and also having to ride part of the way on main roads. What a great idea.

You simply cannot have good public transport in rural areas, people may go from village to village, and have many different destinations. If you are bothered about it you should focus more on people having more than 2 kids or meat eaters as that is far worse than cars
 
Public transport is poor in rural areas because of cars!

Somehow what has to be done is replace the wasteful private car with something more sustainable. e-scooters are one answer.

Also, we will have to realise that living in a rural area comes with a cost. Currently cheap dino-fuel allows us to make lifestyle choices that rely on cheap dino-fuel. It's gong to be painful - as can be seen in some of the comments in this thread.

No, public transport in rural areas is poor because there just aren't enough people living there to make it financially viable to run a more regular transport service, or indeed in many cases, any public transport service at all for the more remote areas. It was the same before the car.

Oh yes, I can just imagine doing my weekly supermarket shop and transporting 5 large, heavy, bags of shopping on an e-scooter! E-scooters are for lazy townies who can't be bothered to walk, not a transport answer for country dwellers!
 
Last edited:
So dino-cars are to be replaced by Dynacars and lots of E-Scooters? This sounds like a job for those advocates of the command economy who ran Germany and the Soviet Union in the 1940s with such great success! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:
 
Last edited:
No, public transport in rural areas is poor because there just aren't enough people living there to make it financially viable to run a more regular transport service, or indeed in many cases, any public transport service at all for the more remote areas. It was the same before the car.

Oh yes, I can just imagine doing my weekly supermarket shop and transporting 5 large, heavy, bags of shopping on an e-scooter! E-scooters are for lazy townies who can't be bothered to walk, not a transport answer for country dwellers!

Always easy to take a personal situation and extrapolate it as if it applies to everyone.
 
Public transport is poor in rural areas because of cars!

Somehow what has to be done is replace the wasteful private car with something more sustainable. e-scooters are one answer.

Also, we will have to realise that living in a rural area comes with a cost. Currently cheap dino-fuel allows us to make lifestyle choices that rely on cheap dino-fuel. It's gong to be painful - as can be seen in some of the comments in this thread.
Everybody's lifestyle relies on "cheap dino fuel". Even the people that don't own cars, don't drive all rely on people who do need to own a car and drive.
An E scooter or public transport won't get all the food or other goods delivery drivers to work.
An e bike or scooter would definitely be out of the question for the likes of my son to get to work. Public transport would take him a good few hours, basically having to catch a bus into town then a train into London, then another train back out of London then a bus to work if there is indeed a bus route that goes anywhere near where he works. As it is he has to get up around 4:30 am to get to work, if he used public transport, he would need to get up around 2:30 am. As it is he can drive to work in 50 minutes at most.
Cars spend alot of the time parked up not producing any emissions, so they aren't adding to any problems. I could have a dozen cars, but I can only drive one at a time, and that one can only cause "harm" for a very small portion of a day.
Not sure where you get the impression that dyno fuel is cheap, I can remember paying around 55p a gallon, now it costs around £1.30 for a litre, that is around £5.80 a gallon, I wish my wages had gone up ten fold in that time.
 
Ah yes, my wife could ditch her car and get an escooter, and spend over an hour getting to work rather than 15/20 mins in the car, getting wet, and also having to ride part of the way on main roads. What a great idea.

You simply cannot have good public transport in rural areas, people may go from village to village, and have many different destinations. If you are bothered about it you should focus more on people having more than 2 kids or meat eaters as that is far worse than cars
You were doing alright until you mentioned meat eaters. :(
 
Ah yes, my wife could ditch her car and get an escooter, and spend over an hour getting to work rather than 15/20 mins in the car, getting wet, and also having to ride part of the way on main roads. What a great idea.

You simply cannot have good public transport in rural areas, people may go from village to village, and have many different destinations. If you are bothered about it you should focus more on people having more than 2 kids or meat eaters as that is far worse than cars

Always easy to take a personal situation and extrapolate it as if it applies to everyone.

By the end of this year humans have built as much stuff as there are lifeforms on the planet. For every person in the world, more than their body weight in stuff is now being produced each week.

That is pretty scary. It cannot continue - you cannot have limitless growth.

 
I often find those who vociferously moan and wish to ban the use of private, fossil-fuelled cars think nothing of jetting off on two or three overseas holidays per year! What total hypocrites! If we ban the use of private cars as it's 'selfish' and bad for the planet, then we must also ban all holiday flights, and any business flights that can feasibly be replaced by video-conferencing or train journeys (regardless of time or expense). Let they without sin cast the first stone... and without using the word 'but'! :naughty:
 
Last edited:
Always easy to take a personal situation and extrapolate it as if it applies to everyone.

But if I think of people I know, good friends they work a combination of going more than 10 miles to work, not suitable ways to work, isolated locations, have other things to do (like pick kids up). We have even thought about dropping to 1 car but dont think it is feasible. My son plays football each Sat and that will often be up to a 30 minute drive away. That applies to lots of friends whose kids do the same.

The issue is ideas like yours are driven by people who dont need a car/work a mile from home/live in a large city.
 
Always easy to take a personal situation and extrapolate it as if it applies to everyone.

By the end of this year humans have built as much stuff as there are lifeforms on the planet. For every person in the world, more than their body weight in stuff is now being produced each week.

That is pretty scary. It cannot continue - you cannot have limitless growth.


So the obvious thing is to restrict who can have kids, thats the driver!
 
But if I think of people I know, good friends they work a combination of going more than 10 miles to work, not suitable ways to work, isolated locations, have other things to do (like pick kids up). We have even thought about dropping to 1 car but dont think it is feasible. My son plays football each Sat and that will often be up to a 30 minute drive away. That applies to lots of friends whose kids do the same.

The issue is ideas like yours are driven by people who dont need a car/work a mile from home/live in a large city.

No, the ideas are driven by the fact that we cannot carry on as we are. Trying to hide from the ideas by choosing a selection of people and pointing at them doesn't help.
 
So the obvious thing is to restrict who can have kids, thats the driver!

OK, that's a start - How are you going to do that? And what are we going to tell the 80% of the world that has lifestyles less profligate than ours? Not easy. Not palatable...

The premise of the thread appears to be that bicycles should be treated like e-scooters, and then a lot of posters piled in with anti-cyclist stuff.

e-scooters could be one way of reducing our effect on the planet. Bicycles certainly already are.

(edited for typo in last line)
 
Last edited:
So the obvious thing is to restrict who can have kids, thats the driver!
And restrict what they buy their spoilt, fat, little kids too! All that plastic tat that ends up going to landfill or an incinerator just a few months after little Timmy has got bored with it or broken it doesn't bear thinking about! We need to end the throw-away society before we choke to death on our own garbage!
 
OK, that's a start - How are you going to do that? And what are we going to tell the 80% of the world that has lifestyles less profligate than ours? Not easy. Not palatable...

The premise of the thread appears to be that bicycles should be treated like e-scooters, and then a lot of posters piled in with anti-cyclist stuff.

e-scooters could be one way of reducing out effect on the planet. Bicycles certainly already are.

yes, escooters can and should be allowed, i agree but we have evolved and changed over the years. However work is something we have less control over. I cannot dictate and neither can many, where they work. Sure, I could find work much closer to home but would a) probably not be qualified for it, b) not earn anywhere near as much as i need to and c) not be any good at it!
 
Always easy to take a personal situation and extrapolate it as if it applies to everyone.
No one is saying such a personal example applies to everyone, but you'd have to be blind to not recognise that it is applicable to a very high majority.
 
yes, escooters can and should be allowed, i agree but we have evolved and changed over the years. However work is something we have less control over. I cannot dictate and neither can many, where they work. Sure, I could find work much closer to home but would a) probably not be qualified for it, b) not earn anywhere near as much as i need to and c) not be any good at it!

Currently businesses have to be run with the main eye on keeping shareholders happy. Relocating to a cheap location somewhere else, employing best staff who travel rather than training up, can all be done to keep shareholders happy, but at a cost to the community and the environment. It is all set up for a conflict with the planet.
 
The premise of the thread appears to be that bicycles should be treated like e-scooters, and then a lot of posters piled in with anti-cyclist stuff.
No one did any such thing. All that has been pointed out are the reasons why cyclists should be regulated in the same way as motorists. Whether the bike is adorned with a registration plate or the rider wears a high vis with the registration number and pays £10 or £20 for insurance, and take a test, won't endanger their personal freedom, just as it doesn't any motorist, but it does help to hold those that break the law accountable and make the place easier and happier to live in.
 
Currently businesses have to be run with the main eye on keeping shareholders happy. Relocating to a cheap location somewhere else, employing best staff who travel rather than training up, can all be done to keep shareholders happy, but at a cost to the community and the environment. It is all set up for a conflict with the planet.

many businesses are already established and I dont think that many relocate to cheaper locations, I am not aware of many in my career! They start in one place and if they move its normally within a couple of miles.
 
No one did any such thing. All that has been pointed out are the reasons why cyclists should be regulated in the same way as motorists. Whether the bike is adorned with a registration plate or the rider wears a high vis with the registration number and pays £10 or £20 for insurance, and take a test, won't endanger their personal freedom, just as it doesn't any motorist, but it does help to hold those that break the law accountable and make the place easier and happier to live in.

Do other countries do this and does it work.

You also need enforcement - which comes at a cost
 
Do other countries do this and does it work.

You also need enforcement - which comes at a cost
No idea if in place in other countries, but on the whole it works for motorcyclists and motorists, so why not cyclists.
It doesn't require anymore enforcement or cost than what is already in place. It doesn't make any difference whether the police catch an errant cyclist, motorcyclist or motorist.
 
From what I see here in a pedestrianised city centre, e-scooters are a dangerous menace.
Fewer people walking will only add to the obesity epidemic too.
 
From what I see here in a pedestrianised city centre, e-scooters are a dangerous menace.
Fewer people walking will only add to the obesity epidemic too.
At least with a normal scooter, one leg was getting exercise. ;)

I wonder if there is a weight carrying limit to e scooters, could end up being stopped by VOSA for weight checks. ;)
 
Back
Top