France to ban electric scooters from pavements in September(rte.ie)
rte.ie
France to ban electric scooters from pavements in September
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0504/1047489-france-scooters/
123 comments
I live in a city center where cars are largely banned, and every time I leave that little "enclave" I am amazed how people put up with that noise, that smell, that constant stress factor...
Cars being largely banned? Forgive my ignorance but where can I find a place like this?
I bet he/she's talking about Houten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFEfr7Amn6U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFEfr7Amn6U
As others have said: Europe ;)
Downtown Minneapolis, Nicollet Mall doesn't allow cars. Only busses and pedestrians. Occasionally you see a car, but it's because it looks like it's someone who didn't know accidentally turn on to the road and get lost.
Pontevedra, Spain is one of them.
Yes !
Some cities have already started to ban cars from their centers.
I have been living in the US for one year. The omnipresence of cars is really bothering me.
Moving from point A to B without using a car is way more of a chore compared to Paris.
I don't believe I will spend all my life here, and I hope that my next destination will be car free.
Some cities have already started to ban cars from their centers.
I have been living in the US for one year. The omnipresence of cars is really bothering me.
Moving from point A to B without using a car is way more of a chore compared to Paris.
I don't believe I will spend all my life here, and I hope that my next destination will be car free.
I would really like to move to San Diego - but then I saw the enormous amount of cars parked everywhere and I was surprised how ugly it made everything look.
There are these gorgeous beaches and then all these ugly cars parked in endless lines right next to it.
There are these gorgeous beaches and then all these ugly cars parked in endless lines right next to it.
Santa Monica and the freeway near the beach killed it for me as well :-/
Paris has an especially exceptional transit system. When you leave your current city, consider another city that once hosted the Olympics recently. They tend to be easy to get around without a car.
>Paris has an especially exceptional transit system
True but so does the other large European cities I have lived in / visited. Heck, even the smaller (compared to Paris) French city I studied in has a better public transportation system than SF.
>When you leave your current city, consider another city that once hosted the Olympics recently
That sounds like a good rule of thumb, thanks, I will keep it in mind :) Although I don't think there is a real cause/effect relation for Paris. The city has had a good public transport system for a very long time. It probably helps that it is a very touristic city, but even non touristic places have a good subway support (although some lines really need to be modernized).
And to be clear, I don't have a pro-Paris bias. Some other cities like Berlin seem to be way more pro-active in the direction of a car free city.
True but so does the other large European cities I have lived in / visited. Heck, even the smaller (compared to Paris) French city I studied in has a better public transportation system than SF.
>When you leave your current city, consider another city that once hosted the Olympics recently
That sounds like a good rule of thumb, thanks, I will keep it in mind :) Although I don't think there is a real cause/effect relation for Paris. The city has had a good public transport system for a very long time. It probably helps that it is a very touristic city, but even non touristic places have a good subway support (although some lines really need to be modernized).
And to be clear, I don't have a pro-Paris bias. Some other cities like Berlin seem to be way more pro-active in the direction of a car free city.
> Moving 2 tons to buy a 500g loaf of bread is just insane.
Such a great way to put it
Such a great way to put it
As a programmer, it doesn't seem like a strange thing to do at all. That's a fair description of using Python or Ruby -- 100x "less efficient" than other approaches, but very convenient.
People value convenience over abstract congruity.
People value convenience over abstract congruity.
... until a service reaches a certain level of operation costs, a switch to other, more efficient technologies will be enforced by management.
Nicely put! ;)
Nicely put! ;)
> Traffic in cities should be remodeled.
Absolutely.
> I wonder why we do protect our workers but pedestrians and cyclists/scooters just don't matter. Have you ever seen a working environment where an object with 2-40tons is allowed to freely move next to a person at a speed of 50km/h and more? I'm glad we do have rules in working enviromnents. It would be great to see the same on roads as well.
There are plenty of jobs where such things happen - even something as 'simple' as working with trains, factory jobs etc.
Let's not get paranoid - death rates from traffic accidents in countries with civilized driving culture(mostly Europe, but not everywhere in there) is about 0.05-0.1%. It also includes car->car collisions and car->object collisions - so pedestrian deaths are even lower.
Separation of lanes(pedestrian vs motorized vs bicycles/electric scooters) should be even higher I agree. I really like overpasses for pedestrian crossings - but they introduce plenty of extra costs and problems(mostly for disabled and/or old people).
> I'm all for 'shared roads' with a speed limit reduced to 20km/h which makes it unnecessary for cars to overtake scooters/cyclists. We wouldn't have to build new infrastructure but could simply use the existing one. I could imagine we could even remove most of our traffic lights replaced by roundabouts.
Outside of specific residential zones(where speed limit is already usually between 20-30 km/h(depending on country) and pedestrians already have a right of way) this is insane.
Economically, convenience wise and paradigm wise.
Such system exists because there is a need for fast transportation - it is tied into very complex economical system. If you want to get rid of it - what do you replace it with? If you replace it in your area, will it give advantage to businesses in there? Do majority people living in such areas want to have that speed limit?
> In the long run I hope to see less cars overall and people switching to smaller means of transportation. Moving 2 tons to buy a 500g loaf of bread is just insane.
People usually buy quite more things than just a single loaf of bread. I personally walk to stores, because i can't transport as much goods as car can, so i spend less money.
There are better ways to waste less resources than limiting speed to 20km/h. Electric cars, good public transportation system(it is a nightmare to use in rush hours over here)
Absolutely.
> I wonder why we do protect our workers but pedestrians and cyclists/scooters just don't matter. Have you ever seen a working environment where an object with 2-40tons is allowed to freely move next to a person at a speed of 50km/h and more? I'm glad we do have rules in working enviromnents. It would be great to see the same on roads as well.
There are plenty of jobs where such things happen - even something as 'simple' as working with trains, factory jobs etc.
Let's not get paranoid - death rates from traffic accidents in countries with civilized driving culture(mostly Europe, but not everywhere in there) is about 0.05-0.1%. It also includes car->car collisions and car->object collisions - so pedestrian deaths are even lower.
Separation of lanes(pedestrian vs motorized vs bicycles/electric scooters) should be even higher I agree. I really like overpasses for pedestrian crossings - but they introduce plenty of extra costs and problems(mostly for disabled and/or old people).
> I'm all for 'shared roads' with a speed limit reduced to 20km/h which makes it unnecessary for cars to overtake scooters/cyclists. We wouldn't have to build new infrastructure but could simply use the existing one. I could imagine we could even remove most of our traffic lights replaced by roundabouts.
Outside of specific residential zones(where speed limit is already usually between 20-30 km/h(depending on country) and pedestrians already have a right of way) this is insane.
Economically, convenience wise and paradigm wise.
Such system exists because there is a need for fast transportation - it is tied into very complex economical system. If you want to get rid of it - what do you replace it with? If you replace it in your area, will it give advantage to businesses in there? Do majority people living in such areas want to have that speed limit?
> In the long run I hope to see less cars overall and people switching to smaller means of transportation. Moving 2 tons to buy a 500g loaf of bread is just insane.
People usually buy quite more things than just a single loaf of bread. I personally walk to stores, because i can't transport as much goods as car can, so i spend less money.
There are better ways to waste less resources than limiting speed to 20km/h. Electric cars, good public transportation system(it is a nightmare to use in rush hours over here)
The avg. speed in London for example is already down to 19km/h due to traffic jams. I don't see a problem with setting it to 20. You'll even reduce the chance of traffic jams by lowering speed limits.
There's quite a pleasant traffic simulator to play with:
http://traffic-simulation.de/
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37200/umfrage...
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37200/umfrage...
The simulator is neat. Is the source code for it available?
Looks like the source is here: https://github.com/movsim/traffic-simulation-de
I am all for safer roads, less city car traffic, but in the end it is the perspective of people living in the city who can commute by train or bike. Lots of people live outside of cities though and commute. For many a car is the only way to get to work in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm actually more concerned about the pollution and i'd rather bet on electric and self driving cars to solve both of these issues. Getting rid of many parked cars would free up so much space. I hope this happens while I am still working though.
It's pretty much the American concept of Suburbia that makes it hard to use public transport if you don't live in a city (or even if you live in a lot of cities, it seems).
Most European and Asian (specifically Japanese) cities have very good connectivity from the outskirts into the city centers.
Granted, it can be complicated and time consuming to connect from outskirt to outskirt. This is no reason, however, to throw away well working public systems of connectivity for some pipe dream, which still uses much too much resources for the density of a city.
Most European and Asian (specifically Japanese) cities have very good connectivity from the outskirts into the city centers.
Granted, it can be complicated and time consuming to connect from outskirt to outskirt. This is no reason, however, to throw away well working public systems of connectivity for some pipe dream, which still uses much too much resources for the density of a city.
It would really be good if the remaining cars were substancially smaller though. Driving an SUV into the city is not ok and does not provide significant increases in utility for the one doing it compared to a small car.
So build parking spaces at the outskirts and have people switch to public transport or bikes to enter the city proper. Or just extend the rail lines to the outskirts and have people commute by rail all the way.
Why self-driving cars would help reduce pollution (or traffic)? People who can't drive will start using those cars, so probably there will be more, not less cars on the roads.
Really self driving cars won’t be much difference than how pervasive taxi use is in countries where labor is cheap, except traffic will be much more optimized.
Uber and Lyft are the mechanical Turk version of self driving cars. They cause congestion.
Self driving cars will be a godsend to congested cities, maybe not in America where there won’t enough political will to ban manual driven cars in mega cities, but definitely in Asia, and especially in China.
I haven’t seen anything like Beijing or Manila since moving to LA and then Seattle, America has first world traffic problems only.
I haven’t seen anything like Beijing or Manila since moving to LA and then Seattle, America has first world traffic problems only.
- They could park somewhere else, underground, or just be always in use (for shared cars). This alone would cut space usage in half for typical streets with parking on both sides
- Near-perfect safety would reduce the need for structural safety. That could cut size and weight drastically
- Coordination might allow more efficient use of roads, obviating the need for multiple lanes, allowing cars to travel bumper-to-bumper, drastically increase throughput on intersections
- Near-perfect safety would reduce the need for structural safety. That could cut size and weight drastically
- Coordination might allow more efficient use of roads, obviating the need for multiple lanes, allowing cars to travel bumper-to-bumper, drastically increase throughput on intersections
Why not small (ish) self-driving buses that run very regularly (you shouldn't wait more than 10 mins for one) that people can hop-on hop-off. Networked so that you can get from one side of the city to the next in no more than 3 hops.
Big enough also to takes prams/buggies/bicycles/luggage/large shopping items, so that people can also get to do many of the normal things they would do with their day and still use public transport.
Big enough also to takes prams/buggies/bicycles/luggage/large shopping items, so that people can also get to do many of the normal things they would do with their day and still use public transport.
I wonder what the economics of this look like.
A bus averaging 20mph running 24/7/365 puts 175,000 miles on it yearly. Ignoring fuel costs, that's a lot of wear & tear on the moving parts. How many passenger miles per day do you need to get out of the bus for it to be economical?
A bus averaging 20mph running 24/7/365 puts 175,000 miles on it yearly. Ignoring fuel costs, that's a lot of wear & tear on the moving parts. How many passenger miles per day do you need to get out of the bus for it to be economical?
Realistically, no city bus fleet is going to average 20 mph, 24 hours a day. Perhaps 1/4 to 1/2 of that, even with 24-hour autonomous operation.
It’s likely the electric drivetrains in modern buses will last longer than their diesel predecessors, while reducing maintenance costs.
It’s likely the electric drivetrains in modern buses will last longer than their diesel predecessors, while reducing maintenance costs.
Like the Marshrutka in ex-Soviet countries, or the Dolmus in Turkey? I found them to be very convenient and also very cheap. Not sure they would be happy to fit a pram in, though.
My thinking would be more efficient driving.
The suburbs are a problem. We badly need to re-urbanize and live more closely together so that public transit works better.
this isn't a traffic problem, it is a zoning issue. Most cities suffer the same problem, affordable housing at any level is almost impossible to build for many reasons. From the land use regulations prohibiting tall buildings, from "concerned groups" looking for their slice of the pie or exercise of their political connections to city leadership, to environmental concerns which most are copies of the previous issue, to labor use issues restricting who can even do the work.
If more people could afford to live in town it would alleviate a lot of in town traffic. So until we can take city planning, at least the veto and coercion part, away from local politicians, not much is going to be done. I am not saying cities should have no say, what I am saying is that independent boards should be established to stop political graft which is the biggest inhibitor.
If more people could afford to live in town it would alleviate a lot of in town traffic. So until we can take city planning, at least the veto and coercion part, away from local politicians, not much is going to be done. I am not saying cities should have no say, what I am saying is that independent boards should be established to stop political graft which is the biggest inhibitor.
Trouble is that rich people don’t want to share cars with homeless people. If they did, they would actually have to spend money on fixing homeless issue.
Good thing that most people are not rich.
> I'm all for 'shared roads' with a speed limit reduced to 20km/h which makes it unnecessary for cars to overtake scooters/cyclists.
1. People don't obey speed limits
2. In the US at least, there are people who aren't very wealthy living outside of cities.
They may commute 20+ miles into the office. Their retirement may depend on their house retaining its value.
Drastically reducing throughput of streets is nice for people who are only traveling a mile or two, but it hurts long-distance commuters.
1. People don't obey speed limits
2. In the US at least, there are people who aren't very wealthy living outside of cities.
They may commute 20+ miles into the office. Their retirement may depend on their house retaining its value.
Drastically reducing throughput of streets is nice for people who are only traveling a mile or two, but it hurts long-distance commuters.
People don't perfectly obey speed limits, but lowering speed limits does lower average traffic speeds. When limits were reduced from 30 mph to 20 mph in much of Cambridge (the original one), local news reported that average traffic speed in those areas reduced from 35 mph to 25 mph.
Also in Cambridge, there’s a thing called “park and ride”. I have no idea how common park and ride in the USA, but Wikipedia says it exists. Summary of the idea [1]: out-of-town car park with a good public transport link to where commuters need to go.
Unfortunately, people whose retirement depends on their house retaining its value are probably screwed regardless — what happens when self driving, self-charging, solar covered RVs/mobile TinyHomes/seasteads can be mass produced (including interiors) by the sort of robots currently used for cars? Material costs for those should only come to about $35k, most of which is the battery, which doesn’t need to be as large as the one in a commuter vehicle like a Tesla.
[1] implementations vary in quality.
Also in Cambridge, there’s a thing called “park and ride”. I have no idea how common park and ride in the USA, but Wikipedia says it exists. Summary of the idea [1]: out-of-town car park with a good public transport link to where commuters need to go.
Unfortunately, people whose retirement depends on their house retaining its value are probably screwed regardless — what happens when self driving, self-charging, solar covered RVs/mobile TinyHomes/seasteads can be mass produced (including interiors) by the sort of robots currently used for cars? Material costs for those should only come to about $35k, most of which is the battery, which doesn’t need to be as large as the one in a commuter vehicle like a Tesla.
[1] implementations vary in quality.
Well, at least here in Switzerland (where you would expect things to be done perfectly), Park & Ride are often half-assed effort that doesn't work that well.
Yes there is some obscure remote car parking. It takes 6-12 months to get through the queue of getting a spot (or more, depends). While waiting you have no idea how long till you get a place. They are almost as expensive as renting a private parking spot in the center. Then there is public transport - there is some, but far from ideal, and very far from motivating commuters to use this system, since it adds so much overhead that they prefer driving straight to the center of the town, even in densest traffic hours.
The message from city government cannot be more clear - we ticked a checkbox, but in reality we couldn't care less. City I am most familiar with this issue - Geneva.
Yes there is some obscure remote car parking. It takes 6-12 months to get through the queue of getting a spot (or more, depends). While waiting you have no idea how long till you get a place. They are almost as expensive as renting a private parking spot in the center. Then there is public transport - there is some, but far from ideal, and very far from motivating commuters to use this system, since it adds so much overhead that they prefer driving straight to the center of the town, even in densest traffic hours.
The message from city government cannot be more clear - we ticked a checkbox, but in reality we couldn't care less. City I am most familiar with this issue - Geneva.
There's the same situation in Europe too.
One option is to build large car parks on the outskirts of cities close to the highways and with good access to public transport.
This way people living outside the city center can still use their cars to get to the city, but can bike/escooter/walk or take the subway/bus/tram to get to work.
Even in Marseille, a city with terrible public transport, there are some of these, with new ones in construction or planning stages.
Parking is free or heavily discounted if you have a transit pass.
I believe this could work well in major US cities with a dense downtown area.
One option is to build large car parks on the outskirts of cities close to the highways and with good access to public transport.
This way people living outside the city center can still use their cars to get to the city, but can bike/escooter/walk or take the subway/bus/tram to get to work.
Even in Marseille, a city with terrible public transport, there are some of these, with new ones in construction or planning stages.
Parking is free or heavily discounted if you have a transit pass.
I believe this could work well in major US cities with a dense downtown area.
At least in the bay area this does exist. Many caltrain/bart stops have big park&ride parking places next to them.
This should be a several-story parking structure to minimize footprint.
The area next to rail/metro stations is the most valuable place to put higher-density housing. Surrounding the stations with giant surface parking lots is a horrendous waste of space.
The area next to rail/metro stations is the most valuable place to put higher-density housing. Surrounding the stations with giant surface parking lots is a horrendous waste of space.
Several places, like Daly City, it is.
1. And this should be what? An argument to against speed limits in general?
2. You read that this was a case for speed limit IN cities? No one said you should drive 20km/h on highways or country roads.
Just park your car at a P&R just outside the city and use a scooter / public transportation for the last mile.
Just park your car at a P&R just outside the city and use a scooter / public transportation for the last mile.
The goal is to reduce instantaneous speed, not throughput (or even necessarily total travel time).
Because people don’t obey speed limits, the roads must be physically redesigned. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
Urban streets should be limited to 15–20 miles/hour. Any faster and cars are grossly unsafe for everyone else on the road.
On my street the average speed is something like 40 mph (despite a speed limit of 25 mph), and some cars drive 55 mph. At that speed cars can’t react in time to avoid obstacles in the road, and if a pedestrian (e.g. young kid) or cyclist gets hit by a car, they are almost certain to die. And yet this is perceived by Americans as perfectly normal and acceptable.
Because people don’t obey speed limits, the roads must be physically redesigned. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
Urban streets should be limited to 15–20 miles/hour. Any faster and cars are grossly unsafe for everyone else on the road.
On my street the average speed is something like 40 mph (despite a speed limit of 25 mph), and some cars drive 55 mph. At that speed cars can’t react in time to avoid obstacles in the road, and if a pedestrian (e.g. young kid) or cyclist gets hit by a car, they are almost certain to die. And yet this is perceived by Americans as perfectly normal and acceptable.
1. Is quite true, but you can improve compliance by designing streets in ways that encourages low speeds.
2. Can be solved with park & ride. Just make sure that the park & ride is significantly cheaper than driving/parking in the city.
2. Can be solved with park & ride. Just make sure that the park & ride is significantly cheaper than driving/parking in the city.
If we believe we can have driverless cars in 10 years, I don't understand why we can't have smart speed limiters as a first step now.
It's already illegal to ride scooters on the sidewalks. And anywhere else really, given that these vehicles don't fall into any category.
As usual, France is really good at introducing laws that don't bring anything new instead of simply enforcing the current ones. I've seen seven different companies providing free floating scooters in Paris, and plenty of them are used by complete idiots. There have been several deaths already. The mayor could easily ban all these startups if she really cared about the law and public safety. Riders who own their own scooter seem to be a bit more responsible, and those are the ones that should be targeted by new laws.
As usual, France is really good at introducing laws that don't bring anything new instead of simply enforcing the current ones. I've seen seven different companies providing free floating scooters in Paris, and plenty of them are used by complete idiots. There have been several deaths already. The mayor could easily ban all these startups if she really cared about the law and public safety. Riders who own their own scooter seem to be a bit more responsible, and those are the ones that should be targeted by new laws.
In fact, the french law is that vehicles are tolerated on sidewalks as long as they are not faster than reasonable (which is understood to mean up to 6km/h). Electric wheelchairs for example have the right to use sidewalks.
However, people do not know the law, so an explicit ban by a mayor is better than status quo.
However, people do not know the law, so an explicit ban by a mayor is better than status quo.
> As usual, France is really good at introducing laws that don't bring anything new instead of simply enforcing the current ones.
The usual French way is to have law that makes almost everything illegal but with laws that are never enforced in practice.
And when you want to make something really illegal, you pass 10 laws on the same topic to be really sure one of them is enforced in practice.
The usual French way is to have law that makes almost everything illegal but with laws that are never enforced in practice.
And when you want to make something really illegal, you pass 10 laws on the same topic to be really sure one of them is enforced in practice.
> I've seen seven different companies providing free floating scooters in Paris... There have been several deaths already.
Cite? I couldn't find any news stories about electric scooter (not mopeds) deaths in France, and this page suggests they are exceedingly rare.
https://m.ranker.com/list/worst-electric-scooter-accidents-a...
Cite? I couldn't find any news stories about electric scooter (not mopeds) deaths in France, and this page suggests they are exceedingly rare.
https://m.ranker.com/list/worst-electric-scooter-accidents-a...
you will find below a 2018 article (in French), it lists a 23% rise in injuries, though fatalies appear stable year on year. Experts are cited as expecting a sharp rise of both with the increasing numbers of "trottinettes électriques". Seeing the people ride everyday (headphones on, no helmet), it seems like it's pretty much a statistical certainty.
http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/les-accidents-de-trottinett...
http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/les-accidents-de-trottinett...
[deleted]
Fatalities stable (from 6 in 2016 down to 5 in 2017) in a category that combines rollerblades and scooters.
And we obviously expect injuries (and deaths) to rise with increased usage. The pertinent question is whether the injury/death rate per km (or whatever) is high compared to similar forms of transport.
And we obviously expect injuries (and deaths) to rise with increased usage. The pertinent question is whether the injury/death rate per km (or whatever) is high compared to similar forms of transport.
Note also that these deaths are for all of France. I would say this is, if anything, evidence against hocuspocus's suggestion that there have been several deaths from electric-scooter accidents in Paris.
It's illegal to ride scooters on the sidewalks in my city in the US, but everyone still rides them on the sidewalks.
There's no practical way to enforce the sidewalk law. We know that's true because laws regarding cars are often ignored as well.
There's no practical way to enforce the sidewalk law. We know that's true because laws regarding cars are often ignored as well.
Plenty of them about in Toulouse, can't tell whether they are owned by their user or not, all the ones I have seen have been the same colour.
It seems entirely reasonable to ban powered vehicles from sidewalks, and I say that as a daily user of a Boosted Board.
Now in exchange, go forth and create more dedicated (and preferably protected) lanes for bikes (electric or otherwise), electric scooters, skateboards, and other light personal vehicles.
In 2001 Dean Kamen said Segway would "cause cities to be redesigned". I think he was only off by a couple decades and a slight variation on the vehicles' form factor.
Now in exchange, go forth and create more dedicated (and preferably protected) lanes for bikes (electric or otherwise), electric scooters, skateboards, and other light personal vehicles.
In 2001 Dean Kamen said Segway would "cause cities to be redesigned". I think he was only off by a couple decades and a slight variation on the vehicles' form factor.
The problem here is that in the year 2019,
a) most cities have few, if any protected bike lanes (or equivalent)
b) scooter riders experience more danger from cars in the road than pedestrians do from scooters on the sidewalk (just think if you'd rather be hit by a scooter while walking or by a car while scooter-ing)
Thus, forcing scooters off the sidewalk is a net negative for safety, is it not?
a) most cities have few, if any protected bike lanes (or equivalent)
b) scooter riders experience more danger from cars in the road than pedestrians do from scooters on the sidewalk (just think if you'd rather be hit by a scooter while walking or by a car while scooter-ing)
Thus, forcing scooters off the sidewalk is a net negative for safety, is it not?
Banning cars from downtown areas would be a net safety improvement for everyone.
Well that’s just not going to happen without major infrastructure projects, so it’d be nice if people could stop suggesting it as if it was viable.
Seems viable though, as some cities are moving in that direction. Barcelona for example, implemented "superblocks" where traffic is closed off in the middle https://www.barcelona.cat/infobarcelona/en/over-8000-square-...
Here's an example of the required infrastructure: https://fitzrovianews.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/warren-st-...
The madman solved city planning! I can’t believe it!
Closing streets can actually improve traffic. It many cities, you could close many side-streets to all but local traffic (residents). This would make the city much more bike & scooter friendly.
Electric bikes and scooters really change the game, you no longer have to be in great shape or sweaty in order to avoid taking a car to your destination. Really, safety is the main concern many people have.
Electric bikes and scooters really change the game, you no longer have to be in great shape or sweaty in order to avoid taking a car to your destination. Really, safety is the main concern many people have.
Banning scooters is a net positive for safety for everyone until the infrastructure can handle them safely.
Not necessarily. You have to factor in that cars generate danger, so if some drivers scoot instead, they're generating less danger (but of course they're also more vulnerable themselves).
That's a very simplistic view. In Paris for example cars come from outside the city, from people who live too far / don't have access to public transportation / have kids / need cars for their job / or are just too lazy to do something else. These people can't/won't use scooters.
I'd agree with you if 1 scooter = 1 less car, that would be awesome. But it's pretty obvious when you visit Paris that it's not the case though, scooters are mainly used teenagers and tourists, who wouldn't use car in the first place.
I'd agree with you if 1 scooter = 1 less car, that would be awesome. But it's pretty obvious when you visit Paris that it's not the case though, scooters are mainly used teenagers and tourists, who wouldn't use car in the first place.
This seems fair. I was in Paris a month ago and we used Birds to get around. Many people rode them on the roads but plenty were whizzing up pavements too, pretty dangerous considering the top speed, speed delta with pedestrians and nobody wearing helmets.
The only issue with riding scooters on the road is a lot of the roads in the centre-north area of Paris are cobbled, but you can just slow down.
I don’t find anything remotely controversial about banning a powered vehicle capable of ~30 km/h from pavements.
<3 Paris!
The only issue with riding scooters on the road is a lot of the roads in the centre-north area of Paris are cobbled, but you can just slow down.
I don’t find anything remotely controversial about banning a powered vehicle capable of ~30 km/h from pavements.
<3 Paris!
>I don’t find anything remotely controversial about banning a powered vehicle capable of ~30 km/h from pavements.
30km/h?!
Here in Sweden they forced the company to bring the top speed down to 20km/h for rental scooters.
Of course many have bought their own since the fad started dying down. And those are sometimes capable of illegal speeds up to 40km/h. Impossible for police to tell, and also a waste of time seeing as there are more pressing issues.
30km/h?!
Here in Sweden they forced the company to bring the top speed down to 20km/h for rental scooters.
Of course many have bought their own since the fad started dying down. And those are sometimes capable of illegal speeds up to 40km/h. Impossible for police to tell, and also a waste of time seeing as there are more pressing issues.
> Impossible for police to tell.
How's that? Here in Holland there's quite an industry making scooters faster, but the police regularly set up funnels where they test the maximum speed of the scooters they catch. From what I hear some people even install hidden buttons to limit the top speed whenever they're checked (which I suppose is not too difficult to figure out now the police knows).
How's that? Here in Holland there's quite an industry making scooters faster, but the police regularly set up funnels where they test the maximum speed of the scooters they catch. From what I hear some people even install hidden buttons to limit the top speed whenever they're checked (which I suppose is not too difficult to figure out now the police knows).
A better mouse: a circuit that detects something akin to a knock sequence. You can put it into turbo mode with a cheat code, and it's only detectable if you analyze the circuit
Yup, the ones we rode had a digital speedo, and I rode mine almost 30 a few times when the roads permitted it (on the southern side of Paris where they're smooth and relatively open). It was kind of scary though given the small wheels and lack of helmet so we generally kept our speed lower than that.
Yea, had to go to Paris recently. These scooters on pavements drastically change the feel of the city: it's suddenly way too chaotic.
In San Francisco, there's this common view that you can't ride on the sidewalk because _it's dangerous_! So I took this long trip to Japan, and everyone rides their bikes on the sidewalk there and shifts to the road when they want to and Japan is safer.
Made me wonder.
And it was everywhere. In Tokyo, where it's crowded. In Odawara, where it's less so.
EDIT: You know what I think? This is the same thing as the panic around kids playing outside. The notion of 'danger' is overplayed in the West.
Made me wonder.
And it was everywhere. In Tokyo, where it's crowded. In Odawara, where it's less so.
EDIT: You know what I think? This is the same thing as the panic around kids playing outside. The notion of 'danger' is overplayed in the West.
I saw the same thing in Tokyo. It may have something to do with the common courtesy of the bikers to yield to pedestrians and not buzz past them. Here in NYC, I'm much more terrified of bikers who stick to the road (given that I occasionally have to cross the street) than I was of bikers on sidewalks in Tokyo.
To clarify for the Americans, "pavements" means sidewalks in this case, correct?
Yes, British English pavement means American sidewalk. I suspect that when the word was first used only that part of the street was paved.
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pavement
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pavement
In German, sidewalks are called "Bürgersteig", which means "citizens' step". Probably because the middle part of the street was used by peasants and merchants bringing goods into the city on carriages, while the citizens were walking on the sidewalks.
And FWIW in Australia they're called footpaths.
In the UK, official signage often calls them that, but it's not something ordinary people tend to say.
Interesting. Over here they're called footpaths in everyday spoken language.
That's exactly what I was confused about too. You must be right.
Imagine saying "you can't ride on the pavement, you have to ride on the street!"
You and I would be scratching our heads, thinking the street is paved.
Aha! I just noticed a clue: "pavements". That is a word that almost doesn't exist in English. It's like "sands" or "waters". Those are actual words, but it's pretty rare to see them.
Imagine saying "you can't ride on the pavement, you have to ride on the street!"
You and I would be scratching our heads, thinking the street is paved.
Aha! I just noticed a clue: "pavements". That is a word that almost doesn't exist in English. It's like "sands" or "waters". Those are actual words, but it's pretty rare to see them.
> That is a word that almost doesn't exist in English
American English.
It's perfectly ordinary in British English. In British English although the road is usually paved the use of pavement in that sense is a jargon word applying to a particular trade (road building or mending) whereas pavement in general means what American English calls a sidewalk.
Also paving in British English generally brings to mind paving slabs not tarmac even though most pavements are of course tarmac. And tarmac is also mostly British English for asphalt.
It's perfectly ordinary in British English. In British English although the road is usually paved the use of pavement in that sense is a jargon word applying to a particular trade (road building or mending) whereas pavement in general means what American English calls a sidewalk.
Also paving in British English generally brings to mind paving slabs not tarmac even though most pavements are of course tarmac. And tarmac is also mostly British English for asphalt.
I always found it strange that American English uses “tarmac” almost exclusively for the tarmac at the airport beside the runway while British English uses “pavement” almost exclusively for the pavement on the street beside where the cars go.
Thanks for the clarification. Of course I meant American English. That's what I get for commenting from my phone in the late evening!
"Two great peoples divided by a common language..."
"Two great peoples divided by a common language..."
What is the sidewalk called in British English when the sidewalk is not paved?
Yes, it's the same.
Was in Paris earlier in the year. It appeared that most people were already riding in the street rather than the sidewalk.
Traffic in Paris is rather chaotic though (it's actually nice to see quite a few cyclists despite this chaos). I'd be concerned about rider safety.
Traffic in Paris is rather chaotic though (it's actually nice to see quite a few cyclists despite this chaos). I'd be concerned about rider safety.
Yeah, the article is somewhat confusing, or wrong? I didn't see much people driving on pavement as well (I can't recall any), but had to move four of these to the side so that the lady with a roller can go through the pavement. The parking is literally - just leave them anywhere. And then they fall on the side, making them unwanted since nobody wants to drive scooter that's on the ground, so they stay there for days.
> She said parking in such a way as to obstruct traffic or pedestrians will mean a 35-euro fine -- but the Paris city council has pledged to build parking spots for 2,500 scooters.
> She said parking in such a way as to obstruct traffic or pedestrians will mean a 35-euro fine -- but the Paris city council has pledged to build parking spots for 2,500 scooters.
> And then they fall on the side
No they don't, some assholes push them and make them fall on purpose, I have seen it done many times here in Paris. Those idiot vigilantes seem to hope that by wreaking havoc they will increase the negative perception of the population against the scooters and their riders.
No they don't, some assholes push them and make them fall on purpose, I have seen it done many times here in Paris. Those idiot vigilantes seem to hope that by wreaking havoc they will increase the negative perception of the population against the scooters and their riders.
[deleted]
I guess you were lucky or in a very specific area. Most of the "shared" electric scooters in Paris are used on the sidewalk, sometimes going very fast. I'm kinda split on the issue, on one hand they're a danger to pedestrian and there's a non negligerable amount of accident involving scooters on the sidewalk. On the other hand, it's hard to blame them from not using the cycle pathes because motorcycles will happily use them to avoid traffic. Still, bikes manage to use the streets just fine, so there's no reason electric scooters can't.
Overall there's a huge need for traffic rules enforcement in Paris, for everyone. Pedestrians complain about cyclists/scooters, cyclists complain about motorcycles, motorcycles complain about cars, cars complain about pedestrian and bikes, all in good reason.
Overall there's a huge need for traffic rules enforcement in Paris, for everyone. Pedestrians complain about cyclists/scooters, cyclists complain about motorcycles, motorcycles complain about cars, cars complain about pedestrian and bikes, all in good reason.
Yeah I was mostly in district 7 and 1 which is not exactly representative of the whole of Paris.
I've lived in Japan before and cyclists aren't allowed to ride on the sidewalk sure to danger to pedestrians but this happens way too often anyways due to lack of enforcement. Unexpectedly some of the worst offenders are middle aged housewife types. Agreed that in pedestrian heavy cities like Tokyo or Paris you really need to look out for their safety.
I've lived in Japan before and cyclists aren't allowed to ride on the sidewalk sure to danger to pedestrians but this happens way too often anyways due to lack of enforcement. Unexpectedly some of the worst offenders are middle aged housewife types. Agreed that in pedestrian heavy cities like Tokyo or Paris you really need to look out for their safety.
The road is dangerous, the pavement is banned. Scooters and bikes need dedicated road space.
In some parts of Europe that is the case. In most of the world it isn't unfortunately.
In the Netherlands those scooters are allowed on the pavement if their max speed is 5kph but this is a grey area if the law. Otherwise they need a "specialized electronic moped" type approval and can either be classified as a bike (max 18kph), a low speed moped (same place on the road as a bike, max 25kph outside, 20 inside cities, requires driving licence and insurance) or moped (helmet, required to go in the car lanes in cities, max 45 kph, requires driving licence and insurance).
A rental company came by my office a while back to promote people into buying one. They completely ignored the obvious safety concerns people had as it is far les easy to stay up with smaller wheels but still compared it to biking. We will see where this is going but I would not go fast on one without proper body protection especially if they go > 20 kph.
In the Netherlands those scooters are allowed on the pavement if their max speed is 5kph but this is a grey area if the law. Otherwise they need a "specialized electronic moped" type approval and can either be classified as a bike (max 18kph), a low speed moped (same place on the road as a bike, max 25kph outside, 20 inside cities, requires driving licence and insurance) or moped (helmet, required to go in the car lanes in cities, max 45 kph, requires driving licence and insurance).
A rental company came by my office a while back to promote people into buying one. They completely ignored the obvious safety concerns people had as it is far les easy to stay up with smaller wheels but still compared it to biking. We will see where this is going but I would not go fast on one without proper body protection especially if they go > 20 kph.
> In the Netherlands those scooters are allowed on the pavement if their max speed is 5kph but this is a grey area if the law.
Wrong. The law is quite clear on this. They are not allowed on public roads, unless they are RDW-approved. Those that are approved (like the Segway) are considered mopeds, require a moped-licence and the minimum age of 16, and are consequently forbidden from using the pavement.
Cf.: https://www.vraaghetdepolitie.nl/verkeer/overig-verkeer/mag-...
Wrong. The law is quite clear on this. They are not allowed on public roads, unless they are RDW-approved. Those that are approved (like the Segway) are considered mopeds, require a moped-licence and the minimum age of 16, and are consequently forbidden from using the pavement.
Cf.: https://www.vraaghetdepolitie.nl/verkeer/overig-verkeer/mag-...
The article says they are being placed in bike lanes and streets. Paris streets aren't super safe but they are considerably easier to ride on than they are in American sroads.
No way, that's a lie been repeated for the last 60 years to get rid of bicycles and leave the roads only for motorists. Cyclists have the same right to use the public roads as motorists, no more but certainly no less. Some of us, cyclists, are actively fighting against the cyclist apartheid.
I dont think the intention is to get rid of bycicles on the streets, rather to seperate them into their own lanes, to increase safety. By fighting against the 'cyclist apartheid' you are fighting against your own safety.
Quite the opposite, it is more dangerous to ride in a segregated manner because it contradicts the basic principles of traffic which exist so that vehicles of all types can safely share the road. For example there is a basic principle that says that when you reach an intersection you position yourself according to your destination, right if you are going to turn right and so on. Bike lanes that force vehicles not using it to turn right from the adjacent lane contradict this rule and increase the chances of right hook type of accident. The people who build these things completely ignore that bicycles are vehicles, they only build them for the convenience of motorists not for our safety.
I think you are confusing the poor excuse of bike lanes in the USA with the much better dedicated biking paths in the Netherlands. The latter don’t have the problems you mentioned.
I read it as "we should get rid of cars and use the space they currently occupy"
For a second I thought this was actually about scooters being abandoned on the sidewalks. I was in Paris in February and there were scooters littered all over the place.
Singapore seems to have gone the opposite direction and banned electric scooters from the roads. They also require government registration of every device.
https://www.gov.sg/news/content/are-e-scooters-allowed-on-ro...
https://www.gov.sg/news/content/are-e-scooters-allowed-on-ro...
They just rolled out scooters in Helsinki. People are riding on the sidewalk everywhere. I contacted the city to suggest learning from the other examples of cities which have had many teething problems with scooters, but they were not in any position to enforce any form of rules on the operators. Crazy.
The Finnish habit of riding bikes and scooters on the pavement is outright dangerous. Alas, I couldn't find a single candidate willing to raise the issue in the recent elections. :/
I believe it's technically against the law to cycle on the pavement here. It's also legal to ride a small scooter (e.g. a Vespa) on the cycle lane, yet nobody can tell me if it's actually illegal to ride an electric scooter on the sidewalk.
For me it would be as simple as this:
- Make it illegal to ride a scooter on the sidewalks with an immediate on the spot fine of 100e.
- Make it illegal for scooter companies to operate the park anywhere model. They must work with the city to install stations. The city could even offer a standard model where operators can use the city-run recharging stations.
- Get rid of the majority of city center parking and aggressively install more central bike lanes, allowing future mobility solutions (e-scooters, e-skateboards etc.) more transit ways.
For me it would be as simple as this:
- Make it illegal to ride a scooter on the sidewalks with an immediate on the spot fine of 100e.
- Make it illegal for scooter companies to operate the park anywhere model. They must work with the city to install stations. The city could even offer a standard model where operators can use the city-run recharging stations.
- Get rid of the majority of city center parking and aggressively install more central bike lanes, allowing future mobility solutions (e-scooters, e-skateboards etc.) more transit ways.
Agreed, although if it isn't backed up with resources to actually enforce it, it's just a meaningless gesture. As sad as it is, a large part of the traffic offences are simply ignored outside ring III (apart from speeding caught by speed traps, of course).
Riding a bike on the pavement is legal for children under the age of 12 iirc. For adults it's a no go.
Riding a bike on the pavement is legal for children under the age of 12 iirc. For adults it's a no go.
I wonder why it's considered legal for children. They probably present even more risk to an elderly person, or child in a push chair.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy
The USA is one of the very few places on earth where you can both prosecute and marry five year olds. (Not in every state, of course.)
The USA is one of the very few places on earth where you can both prosecute and marry five year olds. (Not in every state, of course.)
I assume it's because they are occasionally behaving unpredictably and thereby pose an even larger problem when on the road. There were probably not a lot of bicycle roads or bicycle lanes back when the law was written.
I'd assume it's for the safety of the children. At that age they're perhaps not the most rational street users.
The rentable scooters already have surveillance built in, so they could just fine the rider in real time. I'd like to see that regulation!
Thats the old europe we all know and hate. Dont even search for a solution to a problem, just ban it, until the fad goes away. There are laser projectors, to mark your trajectory ahead of time.. a thousand ways- and instead - the nays.
Like a grumpy old guy, on a bench, envying the still living for his life wasted, hating on the new joys and the joy of the new.
Like a grumpy old guy, on a bench, envying the still living for his life wasted, hating on the new joys and the joy of the new.
A question from a rider, I ride on the pedestrian side when the road is full of holes and broken pieces of asphalt which is only possible to ride on a car wheel. Are they going to fix the roads to be ridable as well or just make one more stupid law?
Where I live the streets are so much better than the bike paths. I tend to residential since they're quieter but damn, I would love to have some nicely maintained dedicated lanes.
Clickbait. They aren't banning scooters from anywhere - you just can't physically ride them on the sidewalk anymore.....if anyone was dumb enough to anyway.
Currently, approx. 7/8 of public space is used by cars. Most of the time they're stuck in traffic or 'dead capital' while in parking mode. Furthermore, where I live, the price to park a car is ~10 times cheaper than to rent (per sqm) and highly subsidized by tax payers.
I wonder why we do protect our workers but pedestrians and cyclists/scooters just don't matter. Have you ever seen a working environment where an object with 2-40tons is allowed to freely move next to a person at a speed of 50km/h and more? I'm glad we do have rules in working enviromnents. It would be great to see the same on roads as well.
I'm all for 'shared roads' with a speed limit reduced to 20km/h which makes it unnecessary for cars to overtake scooters/cyclists. We wouldn't have to build new infrastructure but could simply use the existing one. I could imagine we could even remove most of our traffic lights replaced by roundabouts.
In the long run I hope to see less cars overall and people switching to smaller means of transportation. Moving 2 tons to buy a 500g loaf of bread is just insane.