At the end of last year and beginning of this year e-scooters dominated the news cycles. I’m still not entirely why they got so much attention but media were absolutely obsessed with them. Perhaps this is a reflection of how Auckland is said to have had one of the strongest uptakes of e-scooter use of any city – a clear sign there’s a demand for more mobility options.
Thankfully the news cycles have died down a bit now. But that may change later this week again though. Scooters from both Lime and later Wave were rolled out under a trial licence which has now expired and a new trial of them is getting underway. This new trial will include new conditions and those conditions are expected to be finalised by Friday. AT explained a bit more about it recently:
The new trial builds on the current trial that ends on 31 March 2019, with new licence conditions for operators. The trial will be for seven months, until 31 October 2019.
Auckland Transport Chief Executive Shane Ellison says the new trial will set requirements for improved incident and maintenance reporting by operators, as well as new fees.
“This week we will be receiving the remaining trip data from the two operators that participated in the first e-scooter trial. By 12 April we will have completed analysing that data and we will be able to confirm how many scooters we believe will be the best number for the city centre and other areas of Auckland,” he says.
“We’re following other cities, such as Portland, Oregon, by holding a second trial with more stringent conditions. E-scooters are proving very popular as a new mode and we are already seeing benefits. They give people more choice for shorter journeys and for the first and last leg of their public transport trips.
“The benefits also need to be balanced with the safety of everyone on our footpaths. It has become clear that there is a need for a national regulatory framework for e-scooters, whether they be a shared service or privately owned,” he says.
“We are increasing our advocacy efforts with central government for the development of regulations for e-scooters and new forms of micro-mobility.
“In the meantime, AT and Auckland Council believe the licences issued under the Street Trading Bylaw enable us, as much as we can, to regulate shared e-scooter services,” says Mr Ellison.
Auckland Council Chief Operating Officer Dean Kimpton says the two current operators will be issued an interim licence until 12 April 2019, when the new trial licence conditions will be finalised.
“The operators will have two days to provide any feedback on the new licence conditions before they are finalised. Once adopted, they will have stringent timelines to meet with the new conditions.
“Other operators are welcome to apply for licences and these will be considered based on the quality and track record of the operator, as well as the number of scooters permitted overall as part of this new trial,” he says.
The new e-scooter trial:
Runs from 1 April 2019 to 31 October 2019.
- Will include new conditions, to be finalised by 12 April 2019, following final analysis of data. provided by the existing e-scooter operators to 31 March 2019.
- Operators will be issued an interim licence until 12 April 2019 when the new conditions are finalised
- Operators will have the opportunity to give feedback on draft conditions ahead of them being finalised.
- Once confirmed, operators will have seven working days to comply with the new conditions
- The evaluation of the first trial is underway and will be completed in the coming weeks.
If I had to guess, some of the additional restrictions placed on Wave when they launched, such as limiting scooters to 15km/h on Queen St and around Wynyard Quarter and the Viaduct Basin are likely to be expanded.
An important point in their press release above is about them increasing their advocacy efforts to central government. We don’t know what that advocacy is (yet) but we do know what the NZTA thinks about it all thanks to the resolution below from the NZTA board back in November last year.
There are a couple of things that really concern me with the stance the NZTA have taken. In particular that they want to see the law amended banning e-scooters from roads and even cycleways. The latter is particularity stupid as cycle lanes are the most ideal place for e-scooters given their size and speed. Even at 10km/h (how is that going to be enforced), using the footpath mixing with pedestrians should be the last option, not the first. I also worry about the helmet stance, if anything we should be removing making them mandatory from bikes, not adding them to e-scooters.
It seems from the minutes that this stance might be a result of the board worried about e-scooters being too successful. One part of the minutes notes:
Board Members also noted concerns about the definition of cycleways and the impact this may have on the network in future in light of the vast array of new types of mobility emerging.
This is purely speculation but is this the board worried they’ll be asked to fund even more cycleways/mobility lanes in the future, like it’s a bad thing.
Anyway, we await with interest the new conditions e-scooter companies will need to adapt to but let’s hope it doesn’t include the draconian rules the NZTA want to see.
Processing...
Absolutely ass backward. If they enforce a speed limit to 10km/hr, no one will use them. The same rules for bikes should apply for scooters, I’m faster than most cyclists, so absolutely no harm in using cycle lanes and as right for me to use the road as a cyclist.
Agree regarding helmet use, let’s not follow cycle law in that regard.
So let’s see… NZTA’s stance is that you should wear a helmet and must ride on the footpath at no more than 10 kmh where possible. If you have no option to ride on the footpath, you can ride on the road or cycleways, but only if you wear a helmet. “You can judge our support for e-scooters by how we want to make them as unappealing as possible”.
It all feels unnecessarily prescriptive. Scooters should be *encouraged* to use protected cycle lanes wherever possible. If e-scooters put pressure on NZTA (and councils) to build more protected cycle lanes, faster, all good.
Instead of limiting scooters to 10kph on sidewalks, why not have some offence for “scooting recklessly”, recognizing that appropriate speeds depend on the condition of the sidewalk and number of pedestrians at the time?
I’m sure it’s no accident that 30kph roads and below are the cut-off for forcing them into the road. Come October they will effectively ban footpath riding in Auckland City centre and require all scooter users to mix with trucks, taxis, drivers etc and to wear helmets.
I assume they think that this will kill off the appeal and bring us all back to our senses, and maybe it will, but there is also the possibility that the roads become so full of helmetless scooter riders that people actually start being more aware of their surroundings.
“…E-Scooters are part of a modern multi-modal transport system…”
Which NZTA will do everything in its power to obstruct.
First of all, I don’t why the NZTA needs to stick it’s oar in on E-Scooters at all – the main governing body affcted is the Council, I would have thought.
Secondly, I don’t get the obsession/problem with E-Scooters. I live in Morningside and walk a lot in the city. I just don’t see E-Scooters being used dangerously much at all. 99% of users are responsible and keep their speed reasonable. A set of bylaws around reckless use and some enforcement is all that is required.
+1
I think what NZTA is proposing is really an uphill scootering tax.
The thing is, on a non-electric scooter you can whizz downhill at well over 10 km/h, like the primary school kids scootering down the footpath on my street to school this morning.
But they won’t be whizzing back uphill so fast on their way home this afternoon. They’ll probably be walking.
e-scooters, like e-bikes take out the hills, of which we have quite a few in Auckland. That makes them a far more viable proposition for short commutes and other journeys. Why is NZTA behaving like that’s such an existential threat?
Oh that NZTA/AT would take the same approach to car as they do these scooters i.e. really conservative speed restrictions and caps on numbers to avoid them dominating our cityscape. The rank hypocrisy of the differential treatment of vehicles is stunning.
+1
Incredible that the most space hungry, energy in-effecient, highest safety risk causing and one of the most polluting modes of transport remains ‘safe’ to operate at 50kmh plus on 99% of Auckland’s roads … go figure
All you can do is laugh at NZTA these days, not much more can be said about them 🙁
So to be clear can we currently use a scooter on the road legally and without a helmet? Confused without looking it up and it contradicts their suggested rules & guidelines IIRC.
Correct, currently you can legally use e-scooters anywhere except paint-only cyclelanes (eg Carrington Rd, Mt Albert Rd, Lake Rd, Taharoto Rd)
Yep, only mopeds and cars can use those painted lanes.
Trucks, for deliveries, too.
Thanks.
I suggest we crowd fund a bounty or reward system for e-scooters. We could have a booth set up at Princess Wharf and pay $10 for each e-scooter dropped into the sea. They are like the rabbit problem, we might never get rid of them all but if we all work together we reduce the problem to a point where they don’t cause us any further issues.
Miffy, do you mean something like this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-09/underwater-shopping-trolley-grave-port-augusta-massive-bill/10979266
Cool, I took a picture a bit like that at Helensville of a whole bunch of trolleys sunk in the mud.
In the 90’s Tranz rail hired a diver to investigate how to retrieve a coal wagon that had accidentally been shunted into the Buller River in Westport.
They returned to the surface to report it was resting on top of and beside five other older wagons.
True story? 🙂
No. This is a revamp of the hoary old story of wagons being shunted off a Lyttleton wharf. Jack Grainger recounted it in his book On And Off The Rails. Richard Prebble used something similar in his book, I’ve Been Thinking.
Hire some Mancunians to do the job for you
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/theft-and-vandalism-drive-mobike-out-of-manchester
Matt I’m confused why you suggest stopping helmets being mandatory for cyclists?
I used to agree with this sentiment, until I started cycling a couple of months ago. We aren’t Copenhagen or Amsterdam, we have lunatic drivers and terrible cycling infrastructure.
Not sure if there have been any polls on helmet use etc, or what data exists that shows it limits cycling uptake but I can safely say from my own perspective, I’ve only started cycling because of the Franklin Road cyclepath…that enables me to get off the road for the ‘hairiest’ bit, so all I need to worry about is Richmond Road (easy) then Ponsonby Road (horrific to cycle on the road). Down Franklin and across the park…
I’d say, get the infrastructure built and safety improved first then can look at helmet use, not the other way round 🙂
That doesn’t require compulsion. I would still wear a helmet on the road but I don’t see why every rider should be forced to wear one.
I’m not required to wear a helmet when climbing in the winter on Mt Taranaki, but there are certainly times when I know it would be wise to wear one.
The same can be said about any protection measures though, seat belts, sports protection etc etc…I agree with the idea that it’s the users decision, nobody wants a Draconian state but people are stupid and people are reactionary and we have terrible Media in NZ and all it needs is a string of head injuries on the roads and we could undo all the work that has gone into getting people to cycle.
Like I say, if there’s data saying that more people would cycle without compulsory helmet laws then go for it. Regardless, I see heaps of people without helmets, heaps of people cycling on footpath (slowly) and I’ve never seen anyone ‘done’ for it.
“I see heaps of people without helmets, heaps of people cycling on footpath (slowly) and I’ve never seen anyone ‘done’ for it.”
Sure but I think we’re only a few media bashups and populist politicians away from going down the same path as NSW: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/aug/24/sydney-australia-war-cyclists-fines
We have the law in place already. A small shift away from the cycling-positivity climate could see enforcement and fines ramped up.
Serious injuries from not wearing a seatbelt are an order of magnitude worse and more common than those from the average cycle accident. There were strong public benefits from healthcare costs for making seatbelts mandatory and very few reasons not to wear them.
As for sports protection, I don’t believe any of this is law, what exists is rules set by individual sports, often in response to ACC levies.
“sports protection” – which sports are you thinking of? Head protection is not required for rugby, horse riding, skiing, or boxing – all of which are classified as more dangerous than cycling. In fact, Olympic boxing has recently banned (not made voluntary, banned) headgear. That’s bebacsue it was found boxers were not moving their head but relying on te headgear, resulting in more concussions.
Unlike seatbelts, cycle helmets have no macro trends that show any effect on cycling deaths or serious injuries. In fact, it seesm the less hel,mets are worn the safer cyclists are. In the UK, only 25% of cyclists wear helmets but you are twice as safe on a bike there than in NZ or Australia. The Netherlands around 2% wear helmets, and you are three times safer on a bike there.
I am not suggesting a causative link, but there appears to be no link between helmets and safer cyclists. Beyond the inevitable anecdotes and didgy studies by Australian academics comparing emergency room admissions.
Good balanced article:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
I think it still depend on the use case. I agreed helmet and hi visibility vest make sense when riding high speed on road shared with trucks and cars.
However it should be optional If it is riding on relatively safe protected area on a safe speed.
The proposed 10kmh helmet cap is too slow.
It is still very safe to ride on Victoria park on 18kmh without the need of helmet.
Rugby players should be required to also wear helmets.
But that wouldn’t stop all injuries would it?
But it would probably stop a whole bunch of people playing rugby …
It wouldn’t make them any smarter.
How would that help? Brain injuries are caused by the brain slamming into the skull on sudden deceleration. How would headgear stop that? It may stop cuts and bruises but not brain injuries.
Many of the most concussed players are the most likely to wear headgear. It often means they use their head as a battering ram as they feel safer, resoluting in more concussions – just like helmets in gridiron, which has much higher concussions rates than rugby.
Remember too that you are more likely to suffer a brain injury in a car than on a bike – despite ABS, airbags and the other billions of $ spent to try and make cars safer. Why are motorists not required to wear helmets?
The biggest risk to people cycling on our roads are drivers not taking care around them, which they do if they consider the person cycling is somehow “other”. Helmets have been found to be part of the “dehumanisation” that drivers do (even some people who cycle occasionally have this tendency when they drive).
Should someone aware of how some drivers will take life-threatening risks around them because of the helmet honestly have to wear it? Shouldn’t they be able to make that decision themselves, based on the evidence they read?
New Zealand decided to make helmets compulsory as a consequence of a tragic accident. Helmet legislation was introduced without debate in Parliament or select committee hearing. This perhaps emotive legislative
response to a single accident needs to be looked again using evidence based research. If there is no decisive scientific evidence that helmets prevent overall injuries or deaths then this law needs to go. I personally believe in helmet choice, it does not make a lot of sense to wear a helmet if you are cycling in a park but you might feel safer with a helmet if you are cycling on the open road. Cycling safety mainly depends on infrastructure, cycling participation as well as driver and cyclist education and should not be dependent on a piece of plastic.
I’d support a 10km/h limit for riding on footpaths that applies to electric scooters, cyclists, wheelchairs and anything else[1]. Turns the footpaths into a “low speed lane”. [1]
I think that pedestrians and micro-mobility should be able to share footpaths safety at slower speeds.
[1] Well not cars and motorbikes, although having a rule limit of 10km/h limit on vehicles crossing over footpaths (eg coming out of driveways) might be a good idea.
It’s important we don’t just leave the footpaths and the [agonisingly slowly implemented new] cyclelanes as the only place for scooters.
There are so many issues for blind and disabled people from the entire transport network being set up around driving, in terms of space allocation, access to public transport, quality of surfaces, regulations around crossing roads, unenforced illegal carparking. I think there are also valid issues for blind people, and people with disabilities, around scooters being left and scooter handles protruding out as hazards which a white cane doesn’t pick up. Yet concentrating on these risks, when the entire car-dominated network is risky, – while understandable on the part of the disability community faced with yet another risk – is unacceptably narrow-minded at the level of leadership that NZTA should be following.
Scooters are part of the necessary and obviously popular modeshift away from car dependency; that overall modeshift will help the most vulnerable users enormously. This nonsensical resolution from the NZTA board is a typical, old-school response that offers absolutely nothing to assist modeshift, and ultimately, pushes back against it, in the gaping omission of the most important message NZTA could give: scooters need to be accommodated through rapid road allocation measures.
Finally a mention about the accessibility issues they create on our already inaccessible streetscape! We need to be designating/designing left areas for them. I don’t believe any amount of legislation will change how they are used. I would suggest NZTAs suggestions are irrelevant as there is no mechanism of enforcement. Will the be allocating funding for police to chase down people breaking scooter laws?
Is there any way we can provide feedback or submissions to the NZTA/MOT about this?
That’s a good point. So many things related to transport are consulted. Why not this?
I’m thinking that maybe having AT set a ceiling on scooter numbers might not be the best idea? Obviously Lime and Wave will support this measure enthusiastically, roll out the allowed number between them and then sit back and watch gleefully as new entrants fail to enter the market.
It might be more chaotic in the short term but perhaps in this case it might be best to let the market decide “how many scooters we believe will be the best number”? No doubt we’d see an overabundance of scooters to begin with but the excess would be unlikely to be replaced when they reach the end of their (short) working lives.
Or people just get fed up and buy their own.
Cool to see my photo still used as the header for Lime posts! I have just noticed that Maungawhau is now out-of-bounds for parking Limes https://imgur.com/H5e8vw9
Oops my link to screencap of the Lime app is broken. Should be https://i.imgur.com/2WuyMhl.png
This rule doesn’t make much sense!
“Scooter can be used in a cycle-lane only when there is no footpath available”
That means people using the e-scooter on Beach road cannot use the cycle-way. Instead they are forced to mix with the pedestrians?
This photo is what I meant:
http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BeachRd-Akld-PathFail.jpg
Agree, baffling. Surely if anything it should be ‘can be ridden on the footpath unless there is a cycleway available’.
Yes, and I cannot imagine people who scooter would have written this. It can only have come from people who see things in terms of drivers’ rights.
Nail. Head. Hit.
Hence my comment about consultation.
Also the helmet should be a recommendation, not a requirement.
Compulsory helmet will mess up the hair for some people.
Given societal norms about appearance, especially what ‘looks professional’, and the cost difference between men’s and women’s haircuts, you could argue that helmet laws (and the transport infrastructure that might make helmets advisable) constitutes subtle but rather nasty gender discrimination…
“If anything we should be removing making them mandatory from bikes”
What kind of idiot makes a statement like that without backing it up with evidence that proves anyone with any idea of what they are talking about wrong?
1500 hundred injuries and 4 deaths in the US last year doesn’t reflect well on their safety or the responsibility of those who use them.
37,000 motor vehicle deaths during 2017 in USA. (source wikipedia)
Doesn’t reflect well on their safety or responsibility of those who use them.
If anything we should be removing making them mandatory from buildings.
How many of the deaths could have been prevented, I wonder, by car occupants wearing helmets?
Probably about the same rate as for cycle occupants
Q. How many deaths from diseases of inactivity would be saved if the mandatory helmet law was repealed?
A. Many, many times more than the number of people who would die from trauma by not wearing a helmet.
Q. How many deaths from diseases of inactivity would be saved if the mandatory helmet law was repealed?
A. Many, many times more than the number of people who would die from trauma by not wearing a helmet.
Here’s the thing, where is the data or the polls to show that removing Helmet Laws would provide a massive upturn in people wanting to cycle?
The numbers are climbing every month, yet we still have helmet laws, those numbers are growing due to a double header of more cycle infrastructure and abysmal congestion.
Cycling uptake would probably increase I’m sure, but I have never seen anything to prove that our cycle helmet laws are responsible for disease from inactivity!
Is this because you’ve read the research and not been convinced, don’t think overseas research is relevant here, or haven’t seen the research? If it’s the last, I’m sure someone can dig something out for you, but I won’t bother now in case it’s one of the first two reasons.
It’s the 3rd, I’m saying I haven’t seen.. 🙂
google
I think this is a good article, with research linked. You do need to read it all, as many of the points come out lower down.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
At a guess: Zero, because adding a helmet adds weight which places more pressure on the spine in a collision. You’d likely end up with more net deaths without also implementing some sort of HANS device to prevent basal skull fractures.
But feel free to point out the advanced crash protection features of the bicycle; that will be a short post 😉
Comments on this one, Buttwizard?
https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/reports/atsb160
Yes, cycle helmets can reduce head injuries, but the definition of “head injury” is important.
My reading of the research is that cycle helmets are good at preventing relatively minor head injuries such as cuts, bruises etc. A helmet has certainly saved me from such injuries in the past and for that reason I will continue to wear one. However they are not particularly effective (to put it mildly) at preventing serious head injuries of the type that normally spring to mind – fractured skulls, brain damage etc.
The forces required to cause brain injury can certainly be achieved in bike accidents, but they are far beyond what a cycling helmet is designed to withstand. The standards are extremely low and don’t reflect real-world situations. To be effective we would need something like a motorbike helmet. People say things like “My helmet saved my life because it cracked when I hit my head”. If you tape an egg to your head it would do the same. Doesn’t mean it will keep you safe.
So the argument for compelling people to use them is extremely weak, even ignoring the negative impact it has on participating, overall health etc. Taking that into account I suspect compulsory helmets have caused a significant number of early deaths, or rather prevented people from staying alive due to better health.
Great post.
And where is the big picture effect? If helmets are so effective and almost eferyone in Australia and NZ wears them, we should have really good stats for cyclist safety. But we don’t. They are as bad or much worse (the UK, Netherlands) than countries where almost no one wears a helmet.
The only thing that makes cyclists safe is lots of people cycling. And the only way to achieve that is segregation and/or low motor vehicle speeds. Simple but hard to implememnt for political reasons.
Cycle accidents are very high in the Nederlands – despite all those cycle lanes – there are a lot of deaths.
I would say most people wear a cycle helmet in the UK. They may not be able to work out Brexit, but they are not so stupid as to think their head isnt worth £20
That statement is completely meaningless without any context around population and kilometres cycled.
This article doesn’t answer that either as it is entirely focused on the Netherlands but it provides some interesting context into their cycling fatality rate.
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/more-cycling-fatalities-than-deaths-in-cars/
Just ignore him, it’s the same old troll from under the bridge using another fake name to whinge about cycling.
The fast uptake of e scooters has caught the roading provision and regulators by surprise and in their current form woefully ill equipped. Tweaking existing rules and designs is insufficient. What is required is much more fundamental, starting with a complete evaluation of all vehicle types from roller skates to road trains. This must be broad enough include all powered and un powered personal transport and recreational wheeled craft that are road corridor capable. Broad definitions need to be found to group them according to loaded mass and speed capability and vulnerability to group like vehicle types according to potential collision kinetic energy and collision or falling off, likelihood.
Then all road corridor transit space, needs be classified by type. Currently basically roadway, cycleway and footpath, as to what vehicles, (and pedestrians) can do, under what conditions on each classification. Some sub classifications are necessary for motorway carriageway, and I would suggest carriageways with posted speeds sub 30kph and 10kph to recognise these carriageways greater shared use capabilities. Also the various subtypes of cycleways.
Only then should a matrix of rules be devised depending on transit type, and the transit space being traversed.
The rules should encompass:
Allowed for, and prohibited transit devices for each carriageway classification
Speed limits for transit devices on footpaths.
Required vehicle, and personal protection required for each transit device and carriageway being traversed.
It sounds more complicated then then it is.
Taking a 50kph road with a cycleway and footpath.
Footpath
Prohibited. All motor vehicles over xkg loaded weight all vehicles over 1m? wide.
Speed limit. 10kph max all vehicles.
Personal protection. None required.
Cycleway.
Prohibited. As per footpath.
Speed limit. Posted speed limit for motorised vehicles only.
Personal Protection. None required.
Carriageway.
Prohibited (but only when there is a cycleway available) : Extra light personal vehicles.
Speed limit. Posted speed limit all vehicles.
Personal Protection. High visibility clothing and helmet on cycles and extra light vehicles. (none required on roads posted at sub 50kph)
Some of the detail may be contentious but the point of the post is to suggest a structure rather then individual rules.
Ideally this should be nationally driven by the NZTA, but AT may well have to implement a local version to get anything done.
From a risk perspective the 10kmh limit doesnt make sense. We should be setting the risk at close to the same level for all road users.
If we are accepting that 30kmh is the acceptable risk limit then:
In a 30kmh road speed zone, the speed of a cyclist might be 10kmh, so a 20kmh differential. A pedestrian typically has 0 velocity in the direction of a vehicle so the differential so the differential velocity is 30kmh.
On a footpath a runner might have a speed of 10kmh. Assuming a head on crash with an e-scooter then the e-scooter speed limit should be 20kmh (10+20=30 differential head-on)
The other implication of this is than where the road speed limit is > 30kmh, off road cycle facilities should be provided.
Speed limits perform two functions.
Primarily lower speeds mean that potential hazards and conflicts have more time to be identified and resolved. This is especially important on footpaths because of the huge diversity of activity and transit, as well as the huge diversity of skills, experience and faculties of footpath users. Unlike roadways there is an absent of rules such as keep left and give way to the right. Footpaths must remain as a safe haven from vehicle traffic hazards for the very young, the elderly and those with vision and hearing impediments.
Secondly because the kinetic energy of a collision is hugely dependant on velocity, in fact the velocity squared. Collision energy is the injurying force.
I have nothing against E scooters and really this is a very efficient mode of transport, privately owned of course.
But how and why do billionaire/millionaire-backed Uber/Lime get to bludge of the NZ tax and ratepayers so blatantly? If the Hosk et al wants to nash their teeth over bludgers, why not start here?
They do not pay for infrastructure, they use our paths as their showrooms to the detriment of ratepayers, they pay no ACC and cause plenty of injuries, they can be an utter pain in the arse to navigate as a pedestrian and as far as I can tell they provide low paid work for a very few whilst making a killing for no other investment apart from the scooters themselves.
Meanwhile, every other mode of public transport is wrapped up in regulation and fees and frequently for good reason!
I agree. Commercial operators, and therefore users should at least pay realistic ACC levies, and some form of road user charge to reflect their use of a public asset. Such road user income would enhance the case for the provision of a lot more cycle cum scooter ways.
Making proper provision for these extra light powered vehicles is essential now as they are already demonstrating that they are very low impact transportation system in Auckland with far more potential the autonomous cars could ever have.
The commercial organisations that make money from the driving mode are fleecing us, though. Don’t forget the huge subsidy to driving. Whereas at least with scootering, the benefits are likely to be somewhere between cycling and using public transport.
Article about this from RNZ this morning. Lime are explicitly asking to be charged a per-ride levy:
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/386709/e-scooter-companies-ride-on-as-councils-lack-authority-to-charge-or-regulate
So I imagine these new rules and regulations will include such a levy.
What infrastructure do scooters need? We probably had the required infrastructure for scooters 100 years ago. If by infrastructure you mean a safe place to ride on the road, surely dangerous vehicles should be paying for that.
It’s a profit making commercial operation that uses our infrastructure, that is the paths and roads for free that we pay for to enrich the already well off.
Try parking your whatever on our footpaths, especially the CBD and see how long Auckland Council tolerate that nonsense for.
Try asking these fine young capitalists for a free ride like that, they’d be horrified and tell you to get an education, work hard and all the other horseshit hollow beliefs they claim to subscribe to!
Every waking thought is about maximizing return on their investment and if they had share holdings in our paths they would take the skin off your back to charge you for the privilege of using them, to line their wallets!
So why don’t we to them?
“Try parking your whatever on our footpaths”
Do you not see the cars, Waspman?
What has that to do with commercial users making money out of us for no contribution?
And yes, they get ticketed. But me and others sidestepping Limes parked horizontally across footpaths, left their in neat racks by “juicers” to entice customers or discarded in the middle of the path by a user are more than equally annoying and hazardous.
Man, drivers park horizontally when they park in their driveways and block everything: footpath, berms, etc. Then you have people who just park on the whole footpath like they are parking on some rural farm grass, in all kinds of places. The worst is when there is a building/fence right next to the footpath, and that footpath has no berms next to the road. I see it like 12 times a day. Ticketing drivers is a game of Whack’O’Mole. It just doesn’t stop and puts people in wheelchairs, kids riding bikes on footpaths, etc in lethal danger.
Wait, that was a bit of an exaggeration. More like five a day. More if you counted all the people in cars parking in cycle lanes.
“What has that to do with commercial users making money out of us for no contribution?
And yes, they get ticketed. But me and others sidestepping Limes parked horizontally across footpaths, left their in neat racks by “juicers” to entice customers or discarded in the middle of the path by a user are more than equally annoying and hazardous.”
When limes actually block footpaths your comments will be relevant. Mechanics, car sales yards, and food delivery businesses across the country fully block footpaths with vehicles related to their commercial enterprises. At least Lime is providing a social good.
Limes pretty much do block footpaths, you need to get out more Sailorboy!
Not as much as cars do. Cars are presenting this problem across the whole city, throughout suburbia, light industrial areas, retail areas.
You’re usually concerned about how much adults shit on kids, Waspman. Cars parked everywhere does exactly that. Children can nimbly pick their way over limes – others can’t, so that needs addressing too – but they cannot nimbly pick their way over cars. The whole car situation is terribly unsafe, and focusing on the limes is yet another example of the media going off about something that affects older people (more) while they ignore something that affects younger people (more).
Waspman – I think you have a fair point about Lime scooters parked diagonally and horizontally across footpaths, just because cars and trucks do it doesn’t make it OK.
I don’t agree with other charges though, people riding private scooters also have accidents and also take up footpath space when riding, but we have no plans to charge these ACC levies or council charges as far as I know.
Also Lime pay fees to the council, it is incorrect to say they make ‘no contribution’.
The supposed selfish evilness of e-scooter hire businesses is way overstated. A rider is exercising their right to use the public domain regardless of whether their vehicle is owned or hired. All Lime has done is wear a lot of financial risk to reduce the entry cost to $1.30 from $700. Only last year it was still $1000+
I ride my own E scooter to work every day and have been doing it almost 2 years and have come off once, luckily no injury. But can see why they are dangerous.
Before I got my driver licence I rode my push bike everywhere. Riding my scooter reminded me of my bike days.
But still feels more dangerous,
might be because I’m older but it is definitely the smaller wheels,
These rental scooters should have a much larger Front wheel to make the ride more stable.
I rode a lime last night and it doesn’t feel as safe as my Imax S1 scooter which has 10″ wheels lime has 8″ wheels. The small wheels make scooters more portable, but the rental scooters don’t need to be as portable.
Are the smaller wheels, which definitely compromise stability, just a work around for an inappropriate historical vehicle type classification rule that needs to be circumvented to allow their use?
If so this reinforces my belief that vehicle classification rules need rewriting to accommodate new technology.
That could be the case, but there are currently standard kick scooters with front wheels of about the same size as a bmx bike and some much larger.
But no company I can find are making these electric.
I use e-scooter almost everyday.
Here are the 3 main risks:
1. Random cars coming in and out from driveway at speed. They can’t see you and you can’t stop quickly.
2. People walking unaware of you, suddenly change direction when you pass.
3. Hidden hole/bump on the road, it could trip over the scooter
I think the safest is the scooter should have a warning chime, the road should be flat and smooth, and driveway should have good visibility.
10km/hr for footpath use sounds OK to me but I don’t think helmets should need to be worn at this speed. Lime/Wave could have a selectable 10km/hr limiter.
I think they should otherwise be treated as bicycles, i.e. helmets required, able to ride at any speed 300W can achieve on cycleways and roads.
I find my boner contacts the stem when I ride a Lime.
Ellison and Kimpton are Morons.
New modes of transportation and they as Public servants are delving into the unknown.
The only way that laws can be adopted and we stop thesebpricks spendingvrate payers money and consultants fees on things that none of them are experienced with including the mindless NZTA to set a rule that isnt mandated on whetherv300 Watts is dangerous and allow 2400 W machines which are faster than most motorcycles and can be crash @ over 100 km/hour.targeting specific operators for the benefit of information while those people like Inokim and Dualtron are opersting outside thebboundaries of the targeted brands like Lime and avoidingbany compliance.
For that reason a vote of no confidence should be taken againstvEllison and Kimpton whobshould resign for creating a danger to the public by not incorperating mandated responses for allnusers and only targeting indibidual operators because they are cash cows.
The only way forwsrd is to license all modes and persons and adopt or purchase the Singapore Legislation that has done everything already
Why do we have to listen to tbese idiots for the next 5years onbtheir 600000.00 dollars salaries create laws that already existbin other societies.
And whyvshould these deconstructive companies like Lime dump Faulty Product without operational technology to stop them braking when they cross cell phone towers with no suspension or rules for delinieation on pavementsbused by blind People that are afraid of being hit.
All rides should be subject to ACC levies and contribute to the the ACC funding.
Specialist orthapedic clinics should also be funded by the operators and they should not be allowed to fillbalready burgeoning waiting rooms in Emergency departments
More Diagnosticvequipmentvshould be funded for MRI and CT scanning machines as these are the areas of of major surgery for Escooter Accidents
Salesmen like Rodney Holton and Henri Tan Escoozi Importers should be forced to sell only scooters that are 300watts and all other should be seized or made to he roadworthyband liscenced to comply with Road Safety Regulations
Riders should also be liscenced as well.
Escooter warrant shops should be awarded and mandated laws for compliance officiers should be undertaken to create revenue for their management.
Please support the Sacking ofcEllison and Kimpton whovshouldnt be allowed to single out certain operators while ignoring importers who are only there to make avwuick buck and innbreach ofvthe Fair TradingvActvand Commerce commission act
By not informing customers that they are huying equipment that isnt aproved.
Further to that Auckland council Analyst uses a 1200w machine to gobto her offices insidevauckland council and illegally plugs innher Inokim Ox charger and steals power thats big enough to drive a Heater so she can commute to and from work at taxpayers expense
The chargers are Illegal and not approved by Energy Safety and are a fire Hazard.
Chargers up to 2400w and 1680 watts are on the boundaries and upper limits of supply to normal circuits sobthesebneed to be monitored and the Devises identified and removed this is another reason Ellison and Kimpton should redogn from their jobs for failing to act in the interrsts of Public Safety.
Epic
No one is whinging about cycling Nick R – just pointing out that wearing a helmet is a sensible thing to do on a bike and a Lime Green scooter.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/cycling-helmets-save-lives-researchers-say/7867904
I guessed right that this post would get deleted
All your posts get deleted Phil.
Well the jury is out on this and this the problem with this law. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no sound scientific proof that helmets save lives if all factors are considered. Look a bit further and you can find hundred of scientific articles that claim that helmets do not save lives ( I am not going to bother here). There are only two countries in the world with universal mandatory helmet laws and at the moment the science for these laws is inconclusive. Australia and New Zealand are still not the most safe countries for cycling in the world. If you really want to keep cyclist safe increase the fines for parking on cycle lanes, reduce the speed in CBD and suburbs to 30 kmh and enforce a minimum distance when overtaking cyclists.
It is largely about appearances. The attraction to a government of having mandatory helmet laws for cyclists is that it gives an impression that they are serious about cyclists safety at a very low cost to themselves. The costs are borne by cyclists.
Real improvements to cyclists safety with better provision for cycling facilities, involves costly spending of public money, and a reduction of the entitled motoring amenity. This under the prevailing political and commercial climate spends risky political capital.
Keep lobbying.
Fully agree Don