TABLE OF CONTENTS:
ON BIRDS AND BICYCLES: and the Current State of Multi-Modal Transportation in Los Angeles12/31/2018 I. BOO-BOOS and LOL-SUITS Some urbanites have been whining about the interruptive economy again. What is the ire of the loud, vocal minority and their elected officials this time? Electric scooters. Pictures depicting the numerous ways to destroy and dispose of these very dangerous inanimate objects are all over the internet. Cities and townships around the country have debated how to regulate the scooters; others have banned them outright. Los Angeles, for one, can’t seem to figure out what it wants. ===== In August of this past year, Councilmember Koretz, who represents a decent chunk of the Westside, motioned to temporarily ban the scooters, saying that the riders were wantonly dumping the scooters and breaking safety precautions by, among other things, riding without helmets. Despite Koretz’s assertion that “100% of riders” in his neighborhood do not wear helmets, no data or photographs were provided to substantiate this. Councilman Englander, who represents the upscale Northwestern San Fernando Valley, seconded Koretz’s motion. Just over a month later, the Council voted to RETAIN the services from the more than a dozen scooter companies operating across the City—most prominently Bird and Lime. However, in the usual California fashion, the Council attached a long list of —mostly reasonable— regulations that scooter companies operating within City limits must abide by. Then, in late October, Bird and Lime were named as do-defendants in a complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging “gross negligence” and “abetting assault.” The plaintiffs are private citizens who claimed that Lime and Bird, together with the City of Los Angeles, enabled injury to the plaintiffs (“abetting assault”) by allowing devices known to be hazardous to operate on City streets. McGee, Lerer, and Associates, who are representing the plaintiffs, are ambulance chasers who have a dedicated page on their website for scooter accidents. So, this newest lawl-suit is not the result of “Suzy Q, Joe Schmo, and some of their friends got hurt so they sued the City”, but a savy law firm. The outcome of this LOL-suit is still pending. ===== Given the success of these scooter companies (Bird scooters for their part have logged well over 10 million rides) it is strange that so much effort would be channelled towards limiting the scope of their products. It also seems quite intolerant to be inconvenienced by something so small, just because it occasionally ends up in your driveway. There are, definitely, reasonable objections to some aspects of the scooters’ operation, such as their top speed of 15 miles (24 km) per hour, their presence amongst sidewalk traffic, and the tendency of some riders (though not all) to ride without helmets. These are warranted concerns that nobody should dismiss. ===== I propose we should ask ourselves two questions: 1) Does the occasional instance of injury at the hands of these scooters warrant a downright ban; and, on a related note, 2) Are the occasional negative consequences brought about by these scooters ones that are unique to scooters? The answer to both questions is “no”. Bicycles can travel faster than 15 miles per hour. Bicyclists can strike pedestrians and can be struck by cars. They can ride without helmets. ========================================================= Councilmen from affluent areas… with a small number of complacent constituents…grieving about problems not unique to scooters…who are then represented by lawyers specializing in boo-boos. Let us stop pretending all of this furor is about trying to curb some grave danger to people and society. The lawsuit is just plain old opportunism, but thats a different discussion. What is truly preventing these scooters from being a viable way to safely get around is not the product itself, but the current state of shared transportation in this City. ========================================================= II. How to Make Scooters Work AND Make Them Less of A Liability a. Pedestrians and Drivers The truth is, the scooters are a great idea because…well…people ride scooters in this City. Whether you are in a middle-class neighborhood like East Hollywood, or a more working class neighborhood like South Central, people of all ages ride scooters for leisure, errands, interaction with others, and to/from school or work. When I was a kid, Razor scooters were the bomb, and they still are: across class, across race, across gender, and across age. As soon as bike sharing became a thing, I awaited the day when scooter sharing would be as well. The problem is that shared, multi-modal transportation in LA is broken. It is certainly has improved and will continue to improve, but you can’t just stick an agenda into the middle of a mess and have it work. ===== In the first place, LA pedestrians tend to be annoyed by cyclists and scooterists riding on sidewalks. This needs to change. The City of Los Angeles allows riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, unless the cyclist does so “[…] with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property” (Los Angeles Municipal Code, 56.15). Presumably, this ticket for cyclists to ride on the sidewalk extends to scooters. Still, either through pressure or the lack of room, riders are relegated to roadways— which, lets face it, are unsafe. Few districts in Central Los Angeles have stellar pedestrian safety records. Scooterists and cyclists who do not want to take the risk of riding in the street are therefore left without many choices. Second—I’ll throw critics of the scooters an olive branch here. There are many cyclists and scooterists who do not follow the rules of the road and/or do not take safety precautions. The DMV’s FFDL 37 states: “Although bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists and are subject to the same rules and regulations, it is crucial that bicyclists pay attention to traffic signs and signals and follow all rules to reduce the risk of collisions, while on the road.” However, DMV FFDL 37 dictates that only minors have to wear helmets. This needs to change if minors are to be allowed on the streets while riding bicycles or scooters. Now, there are also many cyclists and scooterists who do obey the laws and safety precautions. The problem is, infringements are seldom enforced. Not that they necessarily should be, since the police should be enforcing other laws and not running after folks on bikes and scooters. ===== b. The Scooter Companies (and Other Incidental Considerations) In an ideal world, drivers, cyclists, and scooterists alike would take it upon themselves to share the road and abide by safety precautions. However, since this is unlikely to happen on a large scale anytime soon, there are some other incidental situations that should be considered by the providers of the scooters. First of all, the scooter companies need to address the helmet issue. One one hand, they could permanently attach a helmet to the scooters with a cable—only they would have to figure out a system that is both comfortable and will not strangle the rider. Alternately, scooterists could sign an ultimatum when they download the app saying that they will either wear their own helmet, and if they choose not to, they will not sue the company or their local government. Secondly, there needs to be some kind of assurance for unassuming property owners. In the incident that a scooterist or bicyclist injure themselves upon a sidewalk or parkway in front of a home or business, those property owners should not and cannot be liable. California state law permits many residents to maintain and utilize the spaces in front of their properties. However, many do not have the money to maintain them, or are otherwise uninterested in doing so, and thus should not be held liable for potholes, cracks, tree roots, or other obstructions that would cause riders to bail. ===== IN CONCLUSION, I love the idea of a shared electric scooter system. From my experience growing up all over this City, scooters are a safe and appealing method of transportation across class, race, gender, and age. The injuries incurred by the scooters’ operation, while they should certainly not be ignored, occur relatively infrequently when compared to the tens millions of rides completed: certainly not at a frequency that warrants outlawing the scooters.
Instead, pedestrian safety improvements should be put in place that preserve the flow of traffic while also ensuring a safe path for cyclists and scooterists to do their thing. Sensible transportation planning should guide pedestrian safety improvements, such as European-style “traffic calming”. Dedicated travel lanes should by implemented in low density neighborhoods that are along major corridors (see my blurb on erroneous bike lane placement, coming soon). < HYPERLINK> A great deal of responsibility also falls on anyone and everyone who uses the road. Everyone must signal lane changes, halt at stop signs, stay within their lanes, and the like. Scooterists and bicyclists should wear helmets for their own good, and to prevent frivolous wrongful death suits. Service providers may consider writing waivers that release them from liability and implement an ultimatum about wearing helmets. Finally, Riders should use their judgement when approaching each block of sidewalk, assessing whether riding there would inconvenience the people presently occupying it. And don't mind the butthurt anti-gentrification folks who oppose transportation sharing. Don't bother with them. They're intolerant. They just don't want people they don't know exploring "their" neighborhoods.
2 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
June 2020
Categories |