Royal Parks accused of having “lost the plot” over banning electric scooters

WHilst you do have a point, the rules for the trials state over 18's, np pavement riding and you need a valid driving license (can be provisional) to sign up. Yet school kids and others are using them because I suspect they signed up under a parents account. I think the speeds should be lowered to 8-10mph if this becomes the norm. People still get around faster and they are less likely to be a danger to themselves or others when going through the areas as they are going at medium running speed and not 12-15mph. 

From what I have read the escooter trials have gone very well.

Can you point me to any evidence that they are "dangerous" or that the "majority on them are breaking the rules".

The trial near me has plenty of illegal use. A danger to themselves for sure and limited danger to pedestrians where they are used on the pavemnts in busy streets. They are also a pain to people wih limited vision and in wheelchairs when they are dumped with little consideration for others.

sean1 wrote:

From what I have read the escooter trials have gone very well.

Can you point me to any evidence that they are "dangerous" or that the "majority on them are breaking the rules".

Try going to any city with a trial and see if you can find anyone actually using them on the roads, and above the age of 16. They're far outnumbered by kids using them to zigzag past people on pavements. They've been pulled from multiple cities already because of the issues i've stated.

People buy them because they can, despite the fact that they're not legal for use anywhere other than private land. The police have made occasional sporadic attempts to stop them but seem to have given up. Now that trials of hire scooters are starting, they're here to stay. We can't uninvent them. 

The trials of the rental scooters are a way to try and manage their introduction. Personally I'm not a fan. I rode some in Paris and they're fun but not as practical as an e-bike IMHO.

I had a close pass at speed on me from an e-scooter rider travelling on the wrong side of the road last week when I was riding home from training, just saying.

OldRidgeback wrote:

I had a close pass at speed on me from an e-scooter rider travelling on the wrong side of the road last week when I was riding home from training, just saying.

That's nothing!  I can have close passes from motor vehicles on the wrong side of the road any time I go out on the bike. Or on foot.

!

Road-legal mobility scooters are restricted to 8mph (4mph on the pavement). Road-legal e-scooters are not. I wonder why they are treated differently.

Reminds me of when I saw two oldsters, (man and woman who might have been married / together) racing along at the 8mph through a shopping centre. I don't know who won.

The Royal Parks is a charitable trust. The board of trustees will be the sorts of entitled, out of touch, conservatively minded buffoons who like to drive wherever they like. They don't get cycling or anything else that's not their status quo.

It's not complicated. Good old fashioned self-interest.

Yes, but there's out of touch and there's really out of touch! 
As a 'charitable trust' do they not need a mission statement which the Charity Commission have to approve? Their press release re the e-scooter trial contains some obvious contradictions, as mentioned above.

Usual ill thought out twaddle here created by the crappy click bait. Why would you want e scooters in a park? They will be everywhere, nt just on the road. The totally irresponsible use of them shows that. 

Banging on about cars is a different point but at least they are used on the roads part whereas scooters go where the hell they want. Both need to be banned as do any cyclist of the road. 

mattsccm wrote:

.... Both need to be banned as do any cyclist of the road. 

Eh?  Fancy elaborating on that &/or correcting it?

I think they meant off road ie cyclists using the park should stick to the prescribed road routes ( plus I think there is one dedicated cycle route around the edge).

zero_trooper wrote:

Yes, but there's out of touch and there's really out of touch!

Precisely.

It beggars belief that the Royal Parks can claim that a e-scooters are the greatest risk to pedestrians and enjoyment of the park when it's glaringly obvious that car drivers cause far more wide-ranging issues than e-scooters ever will.

zero_trooper wrote:

Yes, but there's out of touch and there's really out of touch! 
As a 'charitable trust' do they not need a mission statement which the Charity Commission have to approve? Their press release re the e-scooter trial contains some obvious contradictions, as mentioned above.

You mean like this?

THE ROYAL PARKS [LIMITED] - 1172042

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/...

Charitable objects

1. TO PROTECT, CONSERVE, MAINTAIN AND CARE FOR THE ROYAL PARKS, INCLUDING THEIR NATURAL AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT, TO A HIGH STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH THEIR HISTORIC, HORTICULTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE;

2. TO PROMOTE THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE ROYAL PARKS FOR PUBLIC RECREATION, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING INCLUDING THROUGH THE PROVISION OF SPORTING AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS WHICH EFFECTIVELY ADVANCE THE OBJECTS;

3. TO MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP THE BIODIVERSITY OF THE ROYAL PARKS, INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF THEIR WILDLIFE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, TOGETHER WITH PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY IN THE MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE ROYAL PARKS;

4. TO SUPPORT THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION BY PROMOTING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY, CULTURE, HERITAGE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE ROYAL PARKS AND (BY WAY OF COMPARISON) ELSEWHERE;

5. TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL HERITAGE INCLUDING BY HOSTING AND FACILITATING CEREMONIES OF STATE OR OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE WITHIN AND IN THE VICINITY OF THE ROYAL PARKS.

Thank you Brooksby!

I think that the use of motor cars in the park contradicts 1, 2 and 3 <facepalm>

brooksby wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

Yes, but there's out of touch and there's really out of touch! 
As a 'charitable trust' do they not need a mission statement which the Charity Commission have to approve? Their press release re the e-scooter trial contains some obvious contradictions, as mentioned above.

You mean like this?

THE ROYAL PARKS [LIMITED] - 1172042

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/...

Charitable objects

1. TO PROTECT, CONSERVE, MAINTAIN AND CARE FOR THE ROYAL PARKS, INCLUDING THEIR NATURAL AND DESIGNED LANDSCAPES AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT, TO A HIGH STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH THEIR HISTORIC, HORTICULTURAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE;

2. TO PROMOTE THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE ROYAL PARKS FOR PUBLIC RECREATION, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING INCLUDING THROUGH THE PROVISION OF SPORTING AND CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS WHICH EFFECTIVELY ADVANCE THE OBJECTS;

3. TO MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP THE BIODIVERSITY OF THE ROYAL PARKS, INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF THEIR WILDLIFE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, TOGETHER WITH PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY IN THE MANAGEMENT AND USE OF THE ROYAL PARKS;

4. TO SUPPORT THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION BY PROMOTING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE HISTORY, CULTURE, HERITAGE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE ROYAL PARKS AND (BY WAY OF COMPARISON) ELSEWHERE;

5. TO PROMOTE THE NATIONAL HERITAGE INCLUDING BY HOSTING AND FACILITATING CEREMONIES OF STATE OR OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE WITHIN AND IN THE VICINITY OF THE ROYAL PARKS.

That's odd; there is no explicit or implicit aim to provide motorists with a short cut, and all the aims seem to oppose that.

But, but it's not a sports venue, well not for cycling.