These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents and are electronically speed-limited, meanwhile for the device that causes 99% you put the responsibility of keeping speeds safe in the hands of individuals ranging from considerate over careless to outright methheads.
is often ridden on footpaths and walking areas
Why could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those are the only places where said 99% mode of transport responsible for 7,500 pedestrian deaths a year is banned and streets, where e-scooters should normally a go in cities, are designed for 2.5 tonne cars going 40?
The limit makes sense.
I mean yea, it does, but it is in essence just another concession to car dependency. Can’t curb pedestrian deaths because infrastructure is dogshit, drivers are careless and cars become more and more unsafe? Just regulate the hell out of every means of transport other than the one causing all the deaths and make getting from a to b as hard as possible for everyone not driving. Helps to a) blur the blame and cause some infighting (for instance, this post) and b) getting more people in cars must mean fewer pedestrian deaths right?? also more cars sold and no expensive infrastructure changes. Phew.
So how is it not a valid argument? It’s blatantly obvious that if cars were invented right now, with models as they are right now, safety concerns would be through the roof and they’d be regulated to hell and back with electronical speed-limits just like e-scooters are right now. The only reason cars are not limited in such a way is because they are a legacy device, part of America’s cultural identity and with a uncontrollably powerful lobby behind it so any attempt in that regard would immediately lose you public support. You’re asking for more well considered arguments, but I’m wondering what your argument is that cars should not be speed limited, other than that’s just the way it is, let everything concede to the status quo?
These devices probably cause < .1% of fatal pedestrian accidents and are electronically speed-limited, meanwhile for the device that causes 99% you put the responsibility of keeping speeds safe in the hands of individuals ranging from considerate over careless to outright methheads.
Why could that be? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those are the only places where said 99% mode of transport responsible for 7,500 pedestrian deaths a year is banned and streets, where e-scooters should normally a go in cities, are designed for 2.5 tonne cars going 40?
I mean yea, it does, but it is in essence just another concession to car dependency. Can’t curb pedestrian deaths because infrastructure is dogshit, drivers are careless and cars become more and more unsafe? Just regulate the hell out of every means of transport other than the one causing all the deaths and make getting from a to b as hard as possible for everyone not driving. Helps to a) blur the blame and cause some infighting (for instance, this post) and b) getting more people in cars must mean fewer pedestrian deaths right?? also more cars sold and no expensive infrastructure changes. Phew.
So how is it not a valid argument? It’s blatantly obvious that if cars were invented right now, with models as they are right now, safety concerns would be through the roof and they’d be regulated to hell and back with electronical speed-limits just like e-scooters are right now. The only reason cars are not limited in such a way is because they are a legacy device, part of America’s cultural identity and with a uncontrollably powerful lobby behind it so any attempt in that regard would immediately lose you public support. You’re asking for more well considered arguments, but I’m wondering what your argument is that cars should not be speed limited, other than that’s just the way it is, let everything concede to the status quo?