E-scooters are coming

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Here's a hint: tends to be the same times cycling, jogging and walking tend to be the most dangerous.

Also, nice job dodging literally everything else I said. Not that I'm surprised.

The scooters won't be around November to March.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by 81MC

The issue with this argument is never ending. Do patients who may have alcohol related issues near the burden as well? How about poor diet and exercise leading to diabetes or heart disease?

If you're going to take my scooters from me, then your god damned right!!!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Here's a hint: tends to be the same times cycling, jogging and walking tend to be the most dangerous.

Also, nice job dodging literally everything else I said. Not that I'm surprised.

"Show us the stats! On second thought, don't bother!"

"Ok *responds to the only thing not stat related with a question for clarification*"

"Wow way to dodge what I said! How surprising!"

Great discussion. Would have again. Thanks for everything.

As topfive pointed out, the scooters don't run in winter. So what's the most dangerous time for the scooters?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

"Show us the stats! On second thought, don't bother!"

"Ok *responds to the only thing not stat related with a question for clarification*"

"Wow way to dodge what I said! How surprising!"

Great discussion. Would have again. Thanks for everything.

As topfive pointed out, the scooters don't run in winter. So what's the most dangerous time for the scooters?

When the drunks come out!

[Resolute 14]

Christ. That's the point, Pepsi. You are comparing counted injuries/incidents in an extremely limited time frame, at a time that is pretty much best case scenario environmentally against an entire fall/winter/spring's worth of data for other outdoor activities - a time where they won't even run the scooters because even simply walking can be dangerous at times.

And you honestly thought that comparison actually made your argument?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Christ. That's the point, Pepsi. You are comparing counted injuries/incidents in an extremely limited time frame, at a time that is pretty much best case scenario environmentally against an entire fall/winter/spring's worth of data for other outdoor activities - a time where they won't even run the scooters because even simply walking can be dangerous at times.

And you honestly thought that comparison actually made your argument?

No, it was just an off-hand comparison to give perspective.

There are many dangerous things... including walking in the winter.

Calgary saw 282 emergency room visits on ONE DAY last spring, due to slips on ice.

My only point was that the level of concern does not actually match the impact on AHS or the danger scooters pose. We've got pretty limited data, but a "scary" number of 145 emergency room visits over a short period of time. Lets maybe wait it out a little more before we pull the scooters from the streets and see what the data shows us over a longer period of time.

[GirlySports]

I've been using them over the last week. I can see if people can't figure out the brake there really is no way to stop.

But you can't gas(electric?) it until it's over 5km/hr so it needs a running start.
New people need an area to just practice before taking it at full speed (20km/hr)

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I've been using them over the last week. I can see if people can't figure out the brake there really is no way to stop.

But you can't gas(electric?) it until it's over 5km/hr so it needs a running start.
New people need an area to just practice before taking it at full speed (20km/hr)

stepping on the rear fender is a brake too.

i've enjoyed using them; they do accelerate pretty quick if you jam down the throttle immediately as opposed to gradually ramping up... and the turning radius can be an adjustment from a bike...and the ppl that aren't used to them should probably stay away from crowded sidewalks or pathways...

i'd be surprised if the number of accidents didn't decrease over time though as ppl get used to them...

now, if they could only figure out a way to penalize the people that don't park them properly, i'd say they have been a really fun addition to have.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's not like I'm saying we shouldn't do anything that involves risk. That's just dumb. People still smoking is a crazy comparison. When the Escooter lobby is worth several hundred billion dollars we can talk about that. We mitigate risk all the time. Escooters at this point are very risky and very costly to a publicly funded health system. We can wait around and do what other places do...limit the number of them, limit the hours they can be ridden, etc. Or just stumble around until we figure it out the hard way. I'm good either way.

Also, hardly anyone gets hurt in a car. You're likely to get in a car accident every 18 years. So what?

You and I have debated risk before in regards to exercising in smoke and I still don't particularly understand your perspective.

Are you suggesting that smoking, which provides zero benefit to society, when used PROPERLY literally kills you, and costs taxpayers tens and tens of million dollars (edit: WOW did I underestimate this, one study estimated it to be $6.5 BILLION each year in Canada) every year is less of an issue than a couple bruised knees from using an escooter the first time and likely improperly? Not to mention the net benefit we get from something like it - less traffic, convenience, better for the environment. If scooters are "very risky", where does that put smoking?

Car accidents are the ninth leading cause of death world wide. Where are scooters on that list?

Everyone just cares about what's flashy and new. Everyone's talking about e scooters so everyone wants their opinion heard. Meanwhile we have far greater issues to worry about that receive no attention despite having far more room for quality of life improvement.

[topfiverecords]

Perhaps we need self driving and self parking scooters.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

You and I have debated risk before in regards to exercising in smoke and I still don't particularly understand your perspective.

Are you suggesting that smoking, which provides zero benefit to society, when used PROPERLY literally kills you, and costs taxpayers tens and tens of million dollars (edit: WOW did I underestimate this, one study estimated it to be $6.5 BILLION each year in Canada) every year is less of an issue than a couple bruised knees from using an escooter the first time and likely improperly? Not to mention the net benefit we get from something like it - less traffic, convenience, better for the environment. If scooters are "very risky", where does that put smoking?

Car accidents are the ninth leading cause of death world wide. Where are scooters on that list?

Your muff on exercising in smoke is that the study you looked at focused on people living in pollution permanently...like in Mumbai...If you live in pollution anyway, you might as well exercise because it could still provide you some benefit even though the pollution is going to kill you way sooner either way. Taking that info and saying it's a good idea to go run in the forest fire smoke is kind of bad logic. Like I think you were pretty sure it gave you super powers at one point.



Your mention of the cigarette industry as an example of something we allow even though it's patently dangerous struck me as odd because the reason it exists is the billions of dollars it has provided lobbying groups and thus political groups throughout the years. That's what it would take to get something so dangerous in our lives again. Not really a good comparison to escooters.


When comparing escooters to automobile related injuries, you'd want to create an equal comparison. You might find out that maybe like 250k people go to the hospital every year in Canada because of car accidents. That sounds like way more than scooters. But maybe there are like 20 million people taking 100 million trips a year in a car. So it's not actually that much compared to the relatively few scooter users.



It's like the bike comparison. People thought that bikes were way more dangerous because more people went to the hospital with bike injuries. Turns out scooters are more dangerous when you compare the numbers properly.



The benefit of scooters is an interesting point. They might take a bit of traffic off the street but not much. I also think it takes some walkers off the street which is not beneficial health wise. And I doubt you'd ever make up the environmental costs of actually making an escooter battery.

[Weitz]

Does the anti-scooter lobby pay well?

[burn_this_city]

Scooters are society’s thresher, removing the uncoordinated from the gene pool one whiskey throttle at a time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

When comparing escooters to automobile related injuries, you'd want to create an equal comparison. You might find out that maybe like 250k people go to the hospital every year in Canada because of car accidents. That sounds like way more than scooters. But maybe there are like 20 million people taking 100 million trips a year in a car. So it's not actually that much compared to the relatively few scooter users.



It's like the bike comparison. People thought that bikes were way more dangerous because more people went to the hospital with bike injuries. Turns out scooters are more dangerous when you compare the numbers properly.

But there's a reason why people are using these comparisons to respond to you. Here's what you said:

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Escooters at this point are very risky and very costly to a publicly funded health system.

Risky, sure. As costly to a publicly funded health system as driving, biking, or even walking? So far not even close. It's a low-uptake activity, unlike walking, biking, or driving. All three of those cost the health system multiple times more by a wide wide margin.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Also, hardly anyone gets hurt in a car. You're likely to get in a car accident every 18 years. So what?

Pretty much the direct reason people are using the car comparison. Hardly anyone? 250,000 people in a year in Canada (your number) is "hardly anyone," but 145 people in a month in Calgary is "a public health concern"? That doesn't make sense. Balancing that out for population and assuming e-scooters hold steady at that number all year (they wont), that would mean that cars account for 6x the amount of injuries at least.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's been determined abnormal in other locations to the point of it being a public health concern.

I would say no, it has not been determined a public health concern, but the stats do show the rate is abnormal. How abnormal? About the same rate as a motorcycle according to a comparison between the numbers here and here.

And where did most of the injuries occur in the CDC report? On the street, where it is already illegal to drive them in Calgary, with many of those injuries due to motor vehicle interaction.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

We can wait around and do what other places do...limit the number of them, limit the hours they can be ridden, etc. Or just stumble around until we figure it out the hard way. I'm good either way.

And again, there are limits, this isn't lawless. You must be 18. You cannot ride on roads. They will not be available in the winter. Bird doesn't run after 11pm. You can only have one person on the scooter. The speed is limited to 20km/hr (lower than other jurisdictions). You can't ride them impaired.

You don't have to wear a helmet, but you also don't have to on a bicycle. It's also worth noting that the majority of the 145 injuries appear to be associated with using the scooters in a way that is against the rules.

So what's the go forward plan for you? What's the solution, or is it just complaining for the sake of complaining? If it's going to be the latter, at least stop touting things like "barely anyone gets hurt in cars" or calling 145 hospital visits "very costly" to the AHS when it amounts to just about nothing in comparison to the amount associated with every other form of transportation.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Have bird and lime (or analysis of) made any reports on the profitability of the e-scooter service in general, and the results in different markets specifically?

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Your muff on exercising in smoke is that the study you looked at focused on people living in pollution permanently...like in Mumbai...If you live in pollution anyway, you might as well exercise because it could still provide you some benefit even though the pollution is going to kill you way sooner either way. Taking that info and saying it's a good idea to go run in the forest fire smoke is kind of bad logic. Like I think you were pretty sure it gave you super powers at one point.

Well I'm sure glad you missed the entire argument of that several post discussion and have clearly moved on to bigger and better things.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Your mention of the cigarette industry as an example of something we allow even though it's patently dangerous struck me as odd because the reason it exists is the billions of dollars it has provided lobbying groups and thus political groups throughout the years. That's what it would take to get something so dangerous in our lives again. Not really a good comparison to escooters.

So by this logic we should ignore what's going on in Hong Kong right now because "the roots are too deep" and instead launch an expensive campaign to stop stubbed toes in China.

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

When comparing escooters to automobile related injuries, you'd want to create an equal comparison. You might find out that maybe like 250k people go to the hospital every year in Canada because of car accidents. That sounds like way more than scooters. But maybe there are like 20 million people taking 100 million trips a year in a car. So it's not actually that much compared to the relatively few scooter users.

I like how you conveniently ignore the hard reality of it. Not many people ride scooters compared to cars. It literally dumbs your problem down a couple of hundreds of thousands worth. Did you know one person dies every year from the cinnamon challenge? AND if we pro-rate the actual hours of people doing the cinnamon challenge, 10,000x the people die per hour of doing the cinnamon challenge than driving. Anti-cinnamon here we go!

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's like the bike comparison. People thought that bikes were way more dangerous because more people went to the hospital with bike injuries. Turns out scooters are more dangerous when you compare the numbers properly.

Frankly I can't believe your insensitivity to our cinnamon problem.

[OMG!WTF!]

Pepsi, brah, here's what I'm saying....you guys are like Nah escooters are not risky at all compared to biking, driving in cars and playing sports.....

They're no more risky than cycling, and much less costly than cycling, driving, falling, playing sports, working out,

That's just not correct. Just because fewer people do it, doesn't mean your relative risk is less. You're more likely to go to the hospital via escooter injury than most of the other things you mention. Given the duration of an average escoot and the number of riders, it doesn't compare at all to any of those other activities.

Risky, sure.

Ok. Good. So it is more risky. I get what you're saying about cost to the health system. Of course it's less costly. The fact that not many people use escooters doesn't seem like a good risk mitigation factor to me.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Ok. Good. So it is more risky. I get what you're saying about cost to the health system. Of course it's less costly. The fact that not many people use escooters doesn't seem like a good risk mitigation factor to me.

What risk mitigation factors are you looking for that don’t already exist? And how do you balance the fact that the majority of injuries are from people ignoring the risk mitigation factors that already exist?

[OMG!WTF!]

What risk mitigation factors are you looking for that don’t already exist? And how do you balance the fact that the majority of injuries are from people ignoring the risk mitigation factors that already exist?

They had to actually remove risk mitigation factors from the Alberta Traffic Safety Act in order to even get escooters here. I think it's a bit of a bad idea to allow them on sidewalks. Even bike paths/ walk ways seem crazy dangerous around Prince's Island and Eau Claire. There will always be wobblers around so you really want them to buzz through a crowd of people at 20 km's/hr? And we will always have dummies who don't follow the rules. You want to hire scooter cops? Build scooter lanes?



I'm sure there will be a study that says the benefit to Calgarians is super massive. So I'll wait for the report. But so far I don't think there is much benefit other than it's kind of fun and it opens up more lunch opportunities.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think it's a bit of a bad idea to allow them on sidewalks.

I'll agree to this. We went for dinner in Kensington last Saturday, and as we were leaving took half a step onto the sidewalk outside of Pulcinella and some twit flying by on an e-scooter almost hit us. Stepping onto the sidewalk really should not require as much caution as stepping onto a roadway.