5-year old dies on rental scooter - who's to blame?

"davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com" (davesaddiction) 04/24/2019 at 11:05 • Filed to: None

0

100

In a tragic accident last night here in Tulsa, a 5-year old boy was struck and killed on a rental scooter. His mother was riding it with the boy, heading southbound in the northbound lanes at 8:30 at night (illegal at any time to ride with a child on one of these, much less against traffic after dark - horrible series of choices by the mother). The driver of the car that struck them left the scene (perhaps alcohol or drugs involved, or maybe they were speeding? - either way, hit & run is a criminal act). An innocent child is dead because of the terrible, irresponsible actions of his mother and this driver.

My question is: what responsibility lies with the scooter company? Do they bear no legal responsibility in this? Sure, they have all kinds of warnings that tell users not to let kids ride, that everyone should wear a helmet, etc., but no one abides by these rules. There are tons of injuries that have happened involving these, and several deaths. At what point is a legal disclaimer not enough?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:08

5

Let me ask this question: what should the scooter rental company have done differently to prevent or  mitigate this?

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:08

3

Well... Riding on a scooter with your 5-year old in the dark aside, you still can’t run people over with a car.

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:10

1

As an adjuster, I can 100% say, legal disclaimers are hardly ever enough

For Sweden > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:10

9

His mother was riding it with the boy

The driver of the car that struck them

Well, there’s your answer

E90M3 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:10

1

Sounds like both parties are at fault here, the mother for riding the wrong way, and the driver hitting them. 

This is what we'll show whenever you publish anything on Kinja: > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:11

3

In my opinion m om and driver are at fault, at this point anyway. Had the driver stuck around it all may have fallen completely on ol mom’s shoulders, but now they’re both culpable in my eyes. The scooter company is basically held harmless to me, though tech is available to ensure this type of thing can’t happen and their lack of utilizing it could be considered negligence to some degree I imagine.

They all suck. Tragic.

Discerning > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:11

3

Ugh. I’m surprised this didn’t happen sooner (has it?).

I’m sure someone could manage to point blame at the scooters but I’m firmly pointing blame at the parent and the driver. Lots of poor judgement happened here from what I can tell.

I cringe when I see people on any sort of wheeled device without a helmet. But to put your kid on something like that seems moronic.

For Sweden > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:11

12

End operations

Sell scooters

Use proceeds to buy weapons

Overthrow capitalism

Chuckles > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:12

4

Plenty of blame to go around, but I’d probably rank it:

1. The parent for knowingly putting their child in an unsafe situation.

2. The driver who fled the scene.

3. The scooter company for allowing people to rent scooters at night and ride them around in the dark. Either mount lights on your vehicles or make it so they only work during daytime hours.

facw > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:13

5

Plenty of things to blame these scooter companies for, but I don’t think this is one of them. It shouldn’t be the companies job to police whether users are qualified to ride any more than it should be the responsibility of any vehicle rental service. I do think if they are left laying around they should be impounded, and that if they are ridden on sidewalks the rider should be ticketed.

Chuckles > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:14

5

Install safety lights on the scooters for increased visibility. Or disable them after dark. Renting vehicles in the middle of the night with no lights on them seems like a bad idea.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Chuckles 04/24/2019 at 11:15

2

A good point on the lights. Most rental  bike come so equipped.

Tripper > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:17

1

I don’t think the scooter company is to blame .

Separately, I have not seen too may positive posts regarding these scooters. I also don’t live in an area where they prominent (or even exist?). For the oppos that do have them around, is there anything good about em?

dropthatclutch > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:17

11

If I’m stabbed by a knife, then Cutco isn’t liable .

If I’m killed in a car crash, then Audi isn’t liable.

If I’m killed riding my bike, illegal or otherwise, Huffy isn’t liable.

We added these warning and disclaimers, because we thought common sense wasn’t enough. Now we think those aren’t enough, and now what?

Promote personal accountability and stop chasing the entity with the deepest pockets. 

fintail > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:18

3

Vast majority goes to the parent, then driver, then maybe a sliver to the scooter company.

Make me think of the idiot parents who let their little kids bumble around without helmets  at the crowded public skating sessions here on weekends. One bad fall or collision due to not teaching your kid to look before moving, and it won’t be pretty.  

nermal > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:22

1

Zero responsibility to the scooter rental company.

What they should do is charge the cost of the totalled scooter to the person that rented it. Just ding their credit card (if funds are available) and send an invoice with details. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > For Sweden 04/24/2019 at 11:22

0

So, what would you think of a similar company that laid potato guns all over the city to rent? Chef’s knives? Compound bows with arrows? Rifles?

There are all tools that are perfectly safe if used properly, but potential fatal if used improperly. 

412GTI > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:23

2

That’s terrible. I believe it’s both the mother and the drivers fault. Now I wonder why she was riding this with a child at night? Did she not have any other transportation - whether that be a personal car, city bus, uber, etc. We all know these scooters are cheap to use but I’m amazed someone would consider carrying a child on one. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 04/24/2019 at 11:23

0

What do you see as the future for these companies, as more and more get hurt and killed? 

phenotyp > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:23

1

I’d also bet that neither mom or kid was wearing a helmet. A friend is a brain scientist, and apparently in cities where these 2-wheeled curses are prominent, traumatic brain injury reports have skyrocketed over the last year.

It’s just idiocy all around. Everyone’s to blame. For being stupid.

My daughter and I played with one that one of our neighbors had rented-- they’re fast, they’re a lot of fun, but I would NEVER EVER EVER ride alone on even a semi-busy street, and completely fucking forget allowing my daughter on one.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo 04/24/2019 at 11:24

0

The law is on the side of the driver if he wasn’t drunk or speeding. 

My bird IS the word > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:25

2

Legally speaking, none. Their terms of service likely indemnifies them of all wrongdoing. If it happened on a scooter this lady owned, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:25

2

We don’t have them in Vancouver, so my experience is limited, but I would guess this fad will fade away.

For Sweden > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:27

0

I think they can make it work without too much hand-wringing. Zipcar seems to do fine.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:28

2

Right up until he or she fled

Snuze: Needs another Swede > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:28

6

I’m placing the blame 100 % on the mother’s shoulders here because she was dumb enough to put herself and her child in the situation in the first place and ignored multiple common sense good practices - don’t put a freaking child on a scooter, don’t ride at night, don’t ride the wrong way.

There’s a difference between fault and accountability here, which is why I wouldn’t assign blame to the driver. I think fleeing the scene was wrong, and upon initial consideration it certainly suggests the driver was doing something wrong (speeding, under the influence, suspended license, etc.) but it’s also just as likely that they panicked. So I think the driver deserves to be punished for fleeing the scene, that’s the accountability portion, but I don’t think they are at fault.

I also  hold the scooter company harmless because there was nothing unsafe about the product they provided, only the manner in which it was used, which falls on the shoulders of the operator.  

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:30

4

I don’t know. Their business model itself is so hands-off that there’s seemingly no way to make it any safer without greatly increased costs and killing their business model . But they clearly know that people are getting injured and killed. It seems reckless for them to continue.

This is a service, not a product, but consider if there was a product that, if used properly, was perfectly safe. A kitchen implement, for example. However, users kept using it unsafely, and many were injured and several killed. Should the company keep selling the product? “Corporate responsibility” is what I’m looking for here...

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > For Sweden 04/24/2019 at 11:32

1

We just throw them in the Bay.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:33

3

Maybe going forward they could change something (add lights or whatnot) , but if we’re talking in terms of liability in this case (particularly legal as opposed to moral) I don’t see them holding much.

For Sweden > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 04/24/2019 at 11:33

1

Yes we all know Bay-Area residents are terrible at implementing socialism

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 11:34

0

It’s unsafe if used properly, but they know that a large percentage of users are using them improperly. I definitely agree that this is mostly down to personal responsibility, but there has to be some corporate accountability as well (if you’re providing what’s proving to be a dangerous product or service). 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:35

1

Exactly.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:36

1

Well I work I SF so i have been around these things, I think it says for you to wear a helmet but nobody does. I'm sure when you use your card you sign away all responsibility, it's up to you to follow the rules. But if there is an age limit I don't know how they enforce it. The have beer in vending machines in Japan! 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > For Sweden 04/24/2019 at 11:37

0

In the case of the scooters, there’s also the element that it looks like the grown-up version of a child’s toy... Who knows if the kid didn’t actually plead  with his mom to ride the scooter with him? 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 04/24/2019 at 11:38

0

Let’s hope so. Banned in Vancouver? Good for them. 

For Sweden > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:40

6

I’m not sure of a reasonable vector for Lime to verify that mothers have healthy relationships with their small children

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:43

2

I heard about this on the way to work, but they were a little light on the details. Tragic, preventable, and, against all odds, not the fault of the stupid scooter company. Maybe they should make an effort to fit the scooters with better head and tail lights (they should) but other than that I don’t really see anything that would have helped.  T hey didn’t even rent a scooter to a child , they rented it to an adult who then had a child ride with them.  They could technically prevent this, but it would be difficult or expensive.

Mother was initially in the wrong. Driver made things worse by running, and certainly makes you wonder if they were on something. Riverside is pretty well lit, so this might be a case of intoxication or maybe target fixation.

Tragic.

benn454 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:43

2

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The fault for the kid's death lies it the mother's poor choices. The driver is at fault for fleeing the scene of an accident. 

Wrong Wheel Drive (41%) > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:44

1

I think its dumb to put any of the blame on the scooter company. Sure I hate those things but its the people who use them, not the companies that are the problem. I think its a great solution to the “last mile” transit problem that many cities have. But there needs to be better enforcement of the rules along with people actually following them. I see these all the time with two people on them riding in places where there are clearly posted “NO SCOOTER” signs. So I blame the mother for the death almost entirely, although the city is also not in the right, considering there arent harsh enough punishments for this crap . But that is for a court to decide and now the driver is a criminal for the hit and run portion.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > dropthatclutch 04/24/2019 at 11:46

0

I definitely believe in personal responsibility, but there also has to be corporate responsibility if your product or service is injuring and/or killing a lot of people. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/24/2019 at 11:51

0

So, if you provide a service like this, how many is an acceptable number of injuries or deaths? What if half of all the people who used them ended up with a serious injury? 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo 04/24/2019 at 11:55

1

Every one of these should at the very least have a helmet included.

My first reaction was to want to charge the mother with child endangerment, but she’s certainly suffering enough today for her terrible decision...

So sad.

Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz) > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:55

4

What was the road they were on? Actually, doesn’t matter, these things should not be ridden on roads. Period. Every yokel shouldn’t just be able to rent one an d d o what they want with it. Period. Kids shouldn’t be on them. Period. As horrible as this is, she should receive some sort of punishment. That may sound harsh, but she should.

The idiot scooter company has 0 fault. I’m putting fault on the mother for making such stupid fucking choices. The driver, until I see something about dui or similar, is at fault for the “& run” portion of hit & run. While I’m inclined to say that the driver has to be somewhat at fault, until I know more, it’s on the mom.

Chuckles > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 11:58

0

I agree with you that the mother is at fault here, but there is something unsafe about renting vehicles out at night with no safety lights. The company could easily restrict access to daylight hours or just install some safety lighting. Not saying they're at fault in this accident, but if you're putting a product out there you need to think about how people will use it.

ranwhenparked > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 11:58

0

Apportioned between the driver and the mom.

Yeah, the scooter company should maybe have lights and maybe shouldn’t rent after dark, but a responsible adult should also know better than to ride one around in the street at night. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to or should. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz) 04/24/2019 at 12:00

0

It’s very harsh, but I’m afraid you’re right.

How much of enforcement of the company’s rules are on the company itself and not local law enforcement? This is the issue: these companies are so hands-off that the only thing preventing someone from doing something stupid and dangerous is the legal disclaimer. That’s clearly not enough. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ranwhenparked 04/24/2019 at 12:02

1

If this was a one-off accident, I’d agree with you, but thousands of people have been injured on these, and several killed. At some point, t here has to be some corporate responsibility.

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:05

2

Every one of these should at the very least have a helmet i ncluded.

I agree... s ort of, but that’d be super gross. Apparently you can request a helmet from Lyme and they’ll send you one for free.

DipodomysDeserti > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:08

2

Kind of an interesting point. Raises some interesting questions if applied to other industries. Oil companies, for example, provide a product that, even when used properly, causes damage to human health and environmental systems, but most of us willingly use it.

However, even if an individual chose not to personally own products that use petrochemicals, anyone living in a modern society is forced to use them in one form or another (electric grid, food transport, public services...). And I’m sure the burning of fossil fuels kills a whole lot more people than scooters.

Oil companies are currently being sued by both cities, farmers and fishermen for the harmful effects of their products.

Outlander Engine's Dimensional Emporium > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:11

0

His Parent is guilty.

Why is this a discussion?

Chariotoflove > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:11

1

I was driving home from work, and I had to wait behind two 20-something dipshits riding these things side by side in the middle of the lane like they were Ponch and Jon. Without helmets of course.

These scooters are a menace.  They’re not even good for efficient transport like the Lime bikes are.  They should all be trashed.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:11

3

But much like a bicycle rental or bikeshare is no riskier than a normal bike , using one of their scooters seems no more dangerous than using a normal electric scooter.

shop-teacher > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:12

5

Go ahead an lock up the mother and the driver.  We don’t need either one of them in society.  I’m most angry at the mother.

just-a-scratch > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:13

2

This looks like personal responsibility of the user and the driver. The user is responsible to stay within safe and reasonable uses of the device. The driver is responsible to stick around and help when involved in a collision. The scooter provider is responsible to provide a machine that’s reasonably safe and without significant defects.

How is this different from people being killed while riding a scooter they own? I don’t see a difference. If I’m right, the cases that the corporation is at fault implies that there is something wrong with the scooter itself. I don’t see how that’s the case.

If the scooter provider is encouraging behaviors that are unsafe or illegal, that’s a different matter. I see no indication of that here.

Long_Voyager, Now With More Caravanny Goodness > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:13

3

Then at least 1/2 of the people who used them are complete morons?

Here’s hoping they might have learned something......

bob and john > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:14

0

0 responsibility. Its not on the scooter company. this is entirely on the mother/driver. 

DipodomysDeserti > Discerning 04/24/2019 at 12:14

0

There’s been a handful if deaths. I think DC had three in one year.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > For Sweden 04/24/2019 at 12:15

0

BigBlock440 > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:15

3

This is a service, not a product, but consider if there was a product that, if used properly, was perfectly safe. A kitchen implement, for example. However, users kept using it unsafely, and many were injured and several killed. Should the company keep selling the product? “Corporate responsibility” is what I’m looking for here... 

Like a knife? Or a stove? I’ve been injured with both of those, and my mother in law was injured pretty severely with one requiring a trip to the hospital.  People, including children, have even been killed through the misuse of them.  I don’t really see it as being that big of a deal, but I don’t have any near me and am big on the personal responsibility thing.  I don’t think people should be protected by their own stupidity if it will affect use by people who are responsible.  

bob and john > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:15

3

...not really? how people use your product is beyond you. You dont see people going after knife compnaies for stabbings do you?

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > shop-teacher 04/24/2019 at 12:17

1

Same here. 

For Sweden > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:17

1

SNL? We have too many Trump platforms already.

Future Heap Owner > shop-teacher 04/24/2019 at 12:20

0

She screwed up real bad, but I don’t see why she should be in jail.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > bob and john 04/24/2019 at 12:21

1

What if a knife was designed so poorly that a large percentage of people injured themselves with it, and a few people died?

This is how poorly this company’s service is designed.

Future Heap Owner > Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz) 04/24/2019 at 12:22

0

What sort of punishment do you think is appropriate? What is the goal of said punishment? What corrective to her behavior do you think it could induce that losing her child would not?

WilliamsSW > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:23

2

  The one thing we know for sure - it was absolutely not that child’s fault.

Yet he is the one who paid the ultimate price.

May h e rest in peace.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > just-a-scratch 04/24/2019 at 12:23

0

It’s basically encouraging it by barely discouraging it (zero enforcement of rules). 

Future Heap Owner > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:24

0

I’m surprised that the popular opinion in this thread is to further punish the mother.

Discerning > DipodomysDeserti 04/24/2019 at 12:24

1

That makes sense. People seem to ride these more recklessly than cyclists in Atlanta. And that’s saying something.

I can’t help but chuckle while feeling a slight moment of exasperation when I see a cyclist blow through a red light while riding on the sidewalk and then yelling at or flipping off a car that screeches to a halt while honking at the idiot on the bike.

The scooters seem to be worse than pedestrians and cyclists. Yield to pedestrians on the sidewalk? Yeah right! Stop at cross walks that are red? Ha! Look around before turning? That’s for suckers.

It’s almost like if you took a pedestrian and gave them the ability to consistently run at 15mph+ while limiting their ability to maneuver because they don’t know what they are doing. Actually, it’s pretty much exactly that.

P eople can’t even manage to ride a bike responsibly and these things seem to attract people who are either equally unaware of the law or just apathetic about it. Don’t ride on sidewalks and do follow traffic signals. Or, you know, just do the opposite of that and get squished or seriously injure a pedestrian.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future Heap Owner 04/24/2019 at 12:25

0

She’s clearing suffering enough today... I’m on the fence about her being charged with child endangerment. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > DipodomysDeserti 04/24/2019 at 12:27

0

They’re definitely challenging questions.

See also: opioid makers, distributors

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Future Heap Owner 04/24/2019 at 12:29

0

She is the most at fault for her son’s death, but she’s definitely suffering greatly today because of her mistakes... 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > WilliamsSW 04/24/2019 at 12:31

2

Such a terrible, and easily avoidable, tragedy. I hope it makes national, if not international news, and prevents many other parents from making the same grave mistakes his mother did.

Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz) > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:35

2

I understand the feeling that they aren’t enough, however, I’m not sure how they can be enforced. Perhaps there could be some kind of legal limit on their limit of liability to try and force companies to figure something out. If these kinds of agreements/disclaimers/etc. are made illegal though, we wouldn’t have any companies left, at all. And let’s be honest, when people decide to use a company’s product incorrectly, the consequences are their own fault. If the scooter (for example) had a defect or flaw that caused an accident, then fine, it’s their fault.

Consider it this way, assuming the driver was speeding or breaking some other traffic law, the driver of the vehicle and/or mother shouldn’t be allowed to sue the manufacturer of the vehicle (s)he was driving.

Cities/Counties could put laws in place regarding proper use and enforce them as they would any traffic law.

boredalways > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:41

1

Scooter company is not legally bound. Someone will talk someone else into a civil suit that only the lawyers will benefit.

Rest in peace, little kid.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > For Sweden 04/24/2019 at 12:44

0

Those scooters just bring out the worst in people. For it to work everyone should have their own folding scooter, if they don’t own it they will just pile them up in front of a train station. If they owned them then they could be held responsible. I think that is the only way to manage something like this in a big city. The homeless steal the Ford bikes and just ride them with no power. I have no idea if they have LoJack or something that can prevent the wheels from turning, I guess not since they are all around. You must have to return it to a dock, but clearly they don’t all make it to one! I hate the city, I wish I didn’t have to work there, I just want to surf and kayak in west Marin and be around as few people as possible.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:45

1

I don’t buy the argument it’s unsafe if used properly. It may be, but I don’t suspect it to be significantly more unsafe than a bicycle or a car. Every action carries a certain amount of inherent risk, if you engage in the activity you are accepting the risk. If you don’t want to take risks, stay the hell home, and even that’s a risk. Your house could catch on fire, a car could hit it, or an airplane engine could fall on it.

I just see this as a case of people deflecting blame for their own stupidity. If the company had provided a faulty scooter, go after them. If the company had advertised the product in such a manner as to misconstrue it’s use (i.e. had billboard ads showing an adult riding with their kid on the same scooter) then yeah, go after them. If a company is releasing an unproven, untested product on the market without sufficient warning and training (I’m imagining something out of the ordinary like a scooter you steer with mind impluses instead of handlebars and you can just go to a kiosk and get one with no training or licensing requirement) then sure they bear some fault. But this is a scooter. It’s a board with 2 wheels and a stick you turn to steer it. Everyone knows what it is, how to ride it, and knows or should know you should wear a helmet, either not ride after dark or if you do wear bright reflective clothing and/or have lights, you shouldn’t ride 2 up with your kid, and you shouldn’t ride in traffic.

If deaths resulting from scooter misuse are a problem, I think that’s up to society, and by extension its representative form , the government, to enact legislation to regulate scooter usage. The company did all that I think can and reasonably should be expected of them by providing warnings on a common product. If there are already ordinances governing scooter usage and the company is breaking those, then again they do bear resonsibility, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here .

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Chuckles 04/24/2019 at 12:56

1

That’s a good point, and worth arguing. I like to think if I was going to rent scooters to people I would do my best to rent them safe scooters, i.e. install reflectors or something on them. B ut I believe at the end of the day that personal responsibility eclipses corporate responsibility. The user has to make the judgement call regarding the risk of riding an unlit scooter in the dark.

That said, I was just thinking that a lot of places have laws regarding bicycling at night and what you have to wear/ display (reflective clothing, reflectors on the bike , lights, etc.). Do these laws extend to scooters? If they do, and the company was allowing people to rent scooters after dark now I firmly see a case where there’s some level of corporate responsibility.

Also, if scooter related deaths are truly a problem, and there are no laws or bicycle laws don’t extend to them, I think it’s up to society to fix that, i.e. pressure the government to pass regulation to regulate scooter usage by mandating safety lighting or banning scooters after sunset, or whatever.

DipodomysDeserti > Discerning 04/24/2019 at 12:56

1

Yeah. They banned them from ASU campuses, so I could only imagine the fuckery that was ocurring.

bob and john > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 12:57

2

then learn to use the knife.

the product is the product.

IMO, we need to get rid of all warning labels and enough with this ‘everyone will get by’ mentality. it has done nothing but let idiots get along too far. you donthave the common sense to realise: oh shit, maybe I SHOULDNT ride something with no lights, at night, in the dark, into oncoming traffic? then tough shit, you arent fit for this world. 

merged-5876237249235911857-hrw8uc > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 13:11

1

Yes and no, ultimately individuals should be responsible for their decisions. The corporation is just providing a means of transport. But then again, if it’s not supposed to be rented at night, how was it able to be rented and operated? Doesn’t the app stop that? But other than that, we need to hold individuals responsible to make proper decisions, or else we perpetuate this type of thing happening.... the thinking of “well I can do it, so it must mean it’s okay” type thinking. We have removed personal responsibility from people so much that they don’t have to think anymore. Not a good path to go down. But if a company can put in safeguards to save people from their own stupidity, then I guess they might as well do so, but don’t penalize them if they don’t. Eventually you just need to let stupidity weed itself out. I always think of the lawnmower warning signs as my example, I mean really, do you need a sign to tell you not to put your hands near  a large spinning metal blade?  Same with the hot coffee deal at the drive through.  I mean at what point do we just have to say, you should know better.  The more we try to make things idiot proof, just makes better idiots.  

This situation though is just tragic, and that poor child and mother. I can’t even imagine being in her shoes right now. 

Chuckles > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 13:13

1

“But I believe at the end of the day that personal responsibility eclipses corporate responsibility.”

We are on the same page there. I don’t think that the company is at fault here, but I do think that they have a responsibility to try and provide a safe product/service.

I don’t know where electric scooters fall in terms of cycling related laws, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they fell through the cracks. Those scooters can hit speeds of 15mph, which is comparable to a bike.

Let's imagine a different scenario: dirt bikes. Hypothetically, let's pretend that a startup exists that let's you rent dirt bikes by the hour. They go out and dump a bunch of motorcycles (off road only, not street legal, no lights, etc) at trail heads so that you can rent one and have fun. Now let's pretend that instead of going on trails, people start using them on nearby public roads to get around town, sometimes at night with no lights. Is the company liable for this behavior? It's not how they intended their product to be used, but it's how people are choosing to use it. 

Berang > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 13:29

0

How do you reason that? 

Berang > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 13:36

0

Hit and run driver is 100% to blame.

Saying “oh well the scooter riders were breaking the instructions on the scooter” is victim blaming, and akin to somebody saying “they were asking for it”. The mother’s choices may have been stupid, but would not cause the driver of the car to lose control of their vehicle.

Berang > ranwhenparked 04/24/2019 at 13:38

1

They do have lights, from what I’ve seen where I live.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Chuckles 04/24/2019 at 13:43

2

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I’m gonna quote you quoting me on this because I actually thought you, or someone here, was going to rip into me on this. After I posted it I realized that it didn’t come out quite the way I intended. I do think corporations bear a huge amount of responsibility to provide a safe product to the consumer and to follow the law . I also think it’s fair to expect the consumer to use the product in a reasonable manner.

Again, I do see the argument and I think you can appeal to my humanity that morally, the company should feel some obligation to provide scooters with lights/reflectors if they are going to be available for rent at night. But in terms of liability I still think the company is harmless because I think it was ultimately the consumers choice to use the product in an unsafe manner.

Regarding dirt bikes, I don’t think that’s a fair argument. T here are laws and statues that already criminalize the usage of un registered, non-emissions compliant, off road motorcycles on public roads. But if the bikes were provided at trailheads where it was clear the intended usage was for the trails then I don’t think the company holds any responsibility for people missusing the product.

With the bike argument, if it does become a huge problem I think the government has the right to step in and introduce more specific regulations (maybe they can’t do it with an automated kiosk, maybe it should be like a guided tour thing). Or maybe the company could put GPS locks on the bikes that would disable them outside of a certain radius of the trailhead. And I feel the same way with the scooters, I wouldn’t feel bad at all if the government decided to impose safety regulations on these scooters if this is bec o ming a problem. In fact, I would encourage it.

Chuckles > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 14:01

0

My dirt bike analogy was not so great. It was more about the idea of users not using a product or service in the way it was intended. This seems to be a common issue with startup culture.

Take Uber. “Let’s create an app that lets people earn money a few hours a week when they aren’t at their 9-5 job” ends up turning into “uber drivers demand health benefits as they work 17 hour days, 7 days a week and they sleep in their cars.” Clearly, there were some unintended consequences there.

Or how about Airbnb. “Let’s create a way for people to rent out their spare bedroom and make a few bucks” turned into “tenants are being evicted from their apartments so that their landlords can convert entire buildings into more lucrative short term rentals.”

With these scooter companies, they were probably just thinking about people commuting to and from their 9-5 day job. Who needs lights in the daytime? Surely nobody will use a scooter at night or put their kid on one!

WilliamsSW > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 14:13

0

Speculation on my part, but it seems at least plausible that the child fell off the scooter and into traffic, given that the mother didn’t even require treatment.

It’s * possible* that the only thing the driver did wrong was leave the scene. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > bob and john 04/24/2019 at 14:20

1

I completely agree with the “play stupid games, win stupid prizes” mentality for adults , but t he child is the one who died.

Clearly the mother is at fault, but this company knows for a fact that very few people will follow its rules, that a large number of people will continue to get hurt, and that a certain number of children will die using their service. They have to look at all that, and say “we’re okay with that”.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 14:22

0

I meant to write “ safe it used properly”...

I do wonder how many more places will ban these. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Berang 04/24/2019 at 14:24

0

That she’s the most at fault?

She placed him in a very dangerous situation due to her terrible judgement.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Berang 04/24/2019 at 14:25

2

She was going the wrong way, in a lane of traffic, at night. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > WilliamsSW 04/24/2019 at 14:28

0

No idea, but she was injured.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 14:29

0

Gotcha.

Are they banned in a lot of places? 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 14:35

0

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/electric-scooters-cities-ban/

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Chuckles 04/24/2019 at 15:00

1

You’re actually touching on a very interesting topic, which is the ways technology disrupts society and it’s impact in our lives.

One problem is that technology allows things to move significantly faster than people are used to and we don’t do a good job of keeping up with that. Tangentially, it certainly moves faster than the speed of regulation.

Regarding Uber, I’m not sure why people are working 17 hours a day, 7 days a week for them and sleeping in cars? If it was created and marketed as a way to make some side money with your car why would you expect the equivalent of full time pay and benefits? If you gave up a previous career to pursue driving for Uber full time, you’re at the mercy of the market. Boohoo. I think there’s a very real discussion to be had about minimum wages and living wages, but Uber isn’t the proper avenue for it. Now if Uber had you sign a contract and gauranteed a salary, benefits, etc. and wasn’t delivering, then yeah, that’s a problem. But that’s not how it works, its marketed as an alternative revenue stream and assumes that the people who are using it are just trying to make side cash.

Regarding AirBnB, if landlords are illegally evicting tenants to convert properties to AirBnB then that is a matter for the courts. If, however, they are waiting until tenants leases run out, and not renewing, I don’t have a problem with this. I used to lease an apartment and was aware that just as I could move on at the end of the lease and not stay there, the apartment also had the right to continue asking me not to be a resident. I always had a plan B. Additionally, the market corrects for this kind of stuff - there’s only so much demand for AirBnB - at some point people will stop AirBnBing, or the usage will plateau, and those apartment owners are going to need tenants and convert back into apartments. And some are going to lose money and realize it would have been better to stay apartments the whole time.

I don’t know that it’s always a companies responsibility to attempt to forsee every single way in which their product is going to affect society and attempt to account for that. What if I found a cure for cancer? Would you argue that releasing it is bad because of the economic devestation it would cause to swaths of the science, medical, pseudoscience , and charitable communities? And that would just be the short term impact as huge parts of those industires implode. What about the long term impacts from more people, living healtheir and longer? Would I have to bear that burden in exchange for curing cancer?

To be honest, I don’t have answers to those sorts of questions. I would argue that we as a society need to figure out how to handle this and that it’s the place of the government, as an instrument of society’s will, to apply the right kinds of regulatory pressure to solve or at least mitigate these problems.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/24/2019 at 15:10

0

Thanks for the link, it brings up some interesting points.

Regarding the responsibility/liability of the scooter company, I replied to Chuckles above that I don’t think the scooter company is liable. But I think there is a very real case to be made that the company should feel some moral obligation to provide the best (safest) product possible and lack of lights or reflectors seems like an oversight. As the article you linked mentions, there’s an economic interest for companies to protect their brand image, so this seems like an opportunity (however unfortunate) for the scooter company to step up and add safety features to improve their brand image.

I also think there should be government intervention, as necessary, to protect the consumer. We have laws regarding safety standards for cars, bicycles, etc. There’s no reason we can’t extend that to scooters. It sounds like, from the article, the city bans aren’t actually based on safety or consume misuse , though that is a great pretense and I’m sure on some level it does factors in , but it seems these bans are more to protect the status quo, i.e. bike shares and other forms of plublic transportation.

Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz) > Future Heap Owner 04/24/2019 at 15:26

0

Child endangerment? Negligent homicide? I’m no legal expert and I’m not going to research all the possible charges, but there certainly are some that apply.

The goal, as with most charges against someone, is to dissuade them from doing it again. To dissuade those paying attention to do similar things. To reinforce following rules and regulations. Etc.

I hate that argument. Yeah, she lost her kid. Sure it’s tragic and she is going through the worst thing she’ll probably ever go through. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t responsible or that she didn’t break a law or two. Just because someone’s idiotic actions result in, arguably, their greatest loss doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be held accountable for said actions. I realize this may seem harsh or unnecessary to some, maybe it’ll make some people consider me heartless, but that’s just the way I see it.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/24/2019 at 15:32

1

Yeah, it’s definitely more of a moral responsibility than a legal liability.

As for government regulation, it’s always a balance between risk and reward. Lots of people die every year in auto crashes, but society views the benefits as far greater than the downsides. 

AMGtech - now with more recalls! > Chuckles 04/24/2019 at 16:08

0

All of them in my city have lights. Do some not?