nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Recommend electric folding scooter for end of commute (Mod Note Post #1)

goz83

Mod Note: I've discussed with site admins, due to the current legal situation recommendations cannot be made for use of electric scooters on public roads in Ireland, but can be made for use on private property. However, we will allow discussion of e-scooters for purchase for use on private property, and other jurisdictions such as France/Germany where they are legal for use. This restriction will be lifted as soon as the legal situation changes, which will hopefully be soon.

I was thinking of getting one of those xiaomi m365 folding scooters to cover the last 5 kilometres of the journey as I come into the city and traffic gets mad. I am looking for peoples experiences with them.

I understand they are in a bit of a legal grey area, but you need to push this scooter to get going, so technically it doesn’t operate on mechanical power alone which is what the rsa site mentions as the definition of an mpv.

I’ll be travelling about 15km each way from urban to city. Due to a back injury, I can’t spend an hour stuck in traffic twice per day. I can’t tolerate public transport and it would be much more expensive (over €100 per month, compared to about €5 per month in my Leaf and m365).

So, my plan would be to drive about 10km and park the car before hitting the city centre. Parking would be free as I would be well outside the cc. I would then scoot the rest of the way to my destination and do the reverse on my return journey. I wouldn’t be stuck in traffic for too long and the range of the scooter should easily cover the return journey without destination charging. The scooter will cost around €400 to buy and claims 30km per charge...I am expecting 15.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rubadub

McGiver wrote: »

Not this bullshthing again. No more.

jesus the irony of that!!

McGiver wrote: »

It's like telling bricklayers not to wear a helmet. Yeah you'll die instantly if a brick falls on your head, that's the benefit. You won't suffer!

I would be open to hear bricklayers opinion on the wearing of helmets. I would not just assume I am right in my opinion that "common sense" says there are only "pros" and no "cons" at all. The increased head size means they would be more prone to getting knocks. On a site with pranksters they are probably more likely to be pranked if wearing a helmet -just like I remember helmets and shin guards becoming popular in school and injuries increasing, and drivers giving even closer passes due to the helmet wearer being "grand".

In my workplace I have heard people brand machinists "mad" for not wearing gloves, and they will commonly get cuts. "common sense" tells the layperson that wearing gloves is advisable -not if that glove gets caught up in a turning lathe.

I feel safer commuting without a helmet, I would wear one if going mountain biking. I would sooner wear one on the luas, bus or in a car or walking in icy weather.

Martynet wrote: »

Exactly! And are those banned? No. So why ban another, new mode of transport.

Many are banned, and many on the roads are not road legal.

https://www.aol.co.uk/cars/2018/01/02/one-careful-owner-police-pull-over-vehicle-with-no-lights-wipe/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD1BsuWehK0XoAerA2O9d23tzLnsrg8K3wq-7s8aBW_X9Qr57FYuczf_6tZ8Qex1UBXSV6F9lAQtyuT50B2byVwyWO4Rgxc6BgEsdKP3yac2q3nB9hGzh01BhHE2MxUi77DFpW1tFLm2ZcuoAY3D60KfYS7RijVH-ma22EXJqCTD

Screen+Shot+2018-01-02+at+13.02.23.png

Cheshire Police Roads and Crime Unit
@CheshireRCU
Stopped in @PoliceCrewe 😳 we kid you not!! Driver reported for having no insurance and using a vehicle in a dangerous condition!! Vehicle seized. It was once a Rover in red by the way! 🤦*♂️👮🚓🤷🏻*♂️ #RPU

A bicycle and I guess cars and motorbikes have to have lights up a certain distance off the ground.

ted1

McGiver wrote: »

Not this bullshít thing again. No more.

It's like telling bricklayers not to wear a helmet. Yeah you'll die instantly if a brick falls on your head, that's the benefit. You won't suffer!

This is antiscientific nonsense and it's totally against common sense and medical evidence.

And don't tell me that so many governments are so stupid that they've mandated wearing helmets just out of impression that helmets may work but in reality they don't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/

The study is flawed it seems to only look at the effect of helmet in certain accidents. And doesn’t give indications as to the frequency of events.

Let’s look at where it doesn’t.
In Any of the deaths in Ireland in the past few years, a helmet wouldn’t have made a difference. A piece of polystyrene doesn’t protect against being crushed by a truck

Drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets and thus increases the dangers.

Cyclists tend to take more risk when wearing one and thus increase dangers.

People particularly teenage girls are less likely to cycle when helmets are mandatory as it messes their hair. And thus all the associated health benefits are not realised.

grogi

McGiver wrote: »

Not this bullshít thing again. No more.

It's like telling bricklayers not to wear a helmet. Yeah you'll die instantly if a brick falls on your head, that's the benefit. You won't suffer!

This is antiscientific nonsense and it's totally against common sense and medical evidence.

And don't tell me that so many governments are so stupid that they've mandated wearing helmets just out of impression that helmets may work but in reality they don't.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/

You cannot argue that wearing helmets reduces risk of injury while cycling while you cite research to show the helmet reduces risk if injury while in cycling accident. There is no direct link between the two.

Nobody would argue that in an event of accident, the helmet is beneficial.
But helmets have other effects... Let's see:

Introducing mandatory helmets would
- reduce number of people cycling
-- negative health effect (for those who stopped cycling)
- increasing the number of people driving,
-- which increases pollution and reduces air quality - negative health effect (for everyone, not only cycling community)
-- more congestion and more stress as a result - negative health effect (again, for everyone)
- increases risk of accident - as drivers care less and bicyclers risk more - negative effect
- reduce the risk of serious injury in an accident - positive effect (and the only one).

It is my opinion that under no circumstances helmets should be mandatory.

Johnboy1951

grogi wrote: »

You cannot argue that wearing helmets reduces risk of injury while cycling while you cite research to show the helmet reduces risk if injury while in cycling accident. There is no direct link between the two.

Nobody would argue that in an event of accident, the helmet is beneficial.
But helmets have other effects... Let's see:

Introducing mandatory helmets would
- reduce number of people cycling
-- negative health effect (for those who stopped cycling)
- increasing the number of people driving,
-- which increases pollution and reduces air quality - negative health effect (for everyone, not only cycling community)
-- more congestion and more stress as a result - negative health effect (again, for everyone)
- increases risk of accident - as drivers care less and bicyclers risk more - negative effect
- reduce the risk of serious injury in an accident - positive effect (and the only one).

It is my opinion that under no circumstances helmets should be mandatory.

So all of that is based on

- reduce number of people cycling

and nothing else except what might result from that.

So for the cost/inconvenience of wearing a helmet there will be a significant reduction in the numbers cycling?

Garibaldi?

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Fianna-Fail-look-to-regulate-electric-scooters-199b0d29-a4e3 This looks good.

ED E

Garibaldi? wrote: »

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Fianna-Fail-look-to-regulate-electric-scooters-199b0d29-a4e3 This looks good.

If you copied the full link that'd help

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Fianna-Fail-look-to-regulate-electric-scooters-199b0d29-a4e3-4631-85be-a2bff28333ef-ds

ted1

ED E wrote: »

If you copied the full link that'd help

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Fianna-Fail-look-to-regulate-electric-scooters-199b0d29-a4e3-4631-85be-a2bff28333ef-ds

I love this part
“Thus far the Minister has failed in his duty to all road users, ”

But I’d should read
“Thus far the Minister has failed in everything ‘

prinzeugen

ted1 wrote: »

I love this part
“Thus far the Minister has failed in his duty to all road users, ”

But I’d should read
“Thus far the Minister has failed in everything ‘

Here we go again.. Quote - "“Thus far the Minister has failed in his duty to all road users, leaving scooter users in a legal limbo, Gardaí with unenforceable obligations and pedestrians at risk,” concluded Deputy Troy."

There has been no legal limbo. The road traffic act is 100% clear. These things are illegal as the law stands. Deputy Troy must have read the version that I call Trumps Traffic Law.

Just limiting the speed is not enough. There must be crystal clear rules about lights, helmets etc. The garda must be able to seize non complaint scooters and prosecute people that have tampered with any speed/power limiting device.

McGiver

ted1 wrote:

Letâ€™s look at where it doesnâ€™t. In Any of the deaths in Ireland in the past few years, a helmet wouldnâ€™t have made a difference. A piece of polystyrene doesnâ€™t protect against being crushed by a truck

Sorry for OT but this is an antiscientific mumbo jumbo. Of course helmet won't save you from being crushed by a truck, that's not its intended purpose! This is an uber strawman. It's intended purpose is to reduce head and face injuries and it does so quite successfully, not perfectly of course and the reduction is modest, but it is far better than no helmet. It is better to have some protection than no protection. There is a clear, undeniable evidence of this. No ifs no buts.
Talking about car drivers being encouraged to become cycle murderers by seeing cyclists wearing helmets is frankly ridiculous as well.

Back to scooters, mandated helmet as for bikes for sure. That will happen.

McGiver

grogi wrote:

Introducing mandatory helmets would - reduce number of people cycling -- negative health effect (for those who stopped cycling) - increasing the number of people driving, -- which increases pollution and reduces air quality - negative health effect (for everyone, not only cycling community) -- more congestion and more stress as a result - negative health effect (again, for everyone) - increases risk of accident - as drivers care less and bicyclers risk more - negative effect - reduce the risk of serious injury in an accident - positive effect (and the only one).

Nah you can't be serious

I'm literally laughing and falling on the floor.

This is a logic along the lines of telling that if we don't mandate muzzles for dangerous breeds of dogs, the owners will be inconvenienced by putting on the muzzles and hence they will stop walking the dogs because of that, and hence they will sit on the coach instead, watch TV instead, eat more fish and chips, and hence get obese and hence get high blood pressure and hence will eventually die of a heart attack. This is exactly your line of logic!

ted1

McGiver wrote: »

Sorry for OT but this is an antiscientific mumbo jumbo. Of course helmet won't save you from being crushed by a truck, that's not its intended purpose! This is an uber strawman. It's intended purpose is to reduce head and face injuries and it does so quite successfully, not perfectly of course and the reduction is modest, but it is far better than no helmet. It is better to have some protection than no protection. There is a clear, undeniable evidence of this. No ifs no buts.
Talking about car drivers being encouraged to become cycle murderers by seeing cyclists wearing helmets is frankly ridiculous as well.

Back to scooters, mandated helmet as for bikes for sure. That will happen.

Bolloxs, there is scientific prove and police reports to show that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets.
I’ve a MSc and Honda BEng so am well capable of looking up studies and bull**** reports

How does a skull helmet prevent facial injuries?

You need to look at the overall picture. A undertaker will say that every cyclists he meets is a dead one so it’s dangerous. You are missing the bigger picture

You say It’s better to have some protection than no protection. Think of teenage pregnancies, if a condom was 90% effective , they say it’s safe to have sex but 1 in 10 lead to pregnancy

Where as without condoms , they might have sex so there’s less teenage pregnancies.

So in this case no protection is better.

ted1

McGiver wrote: »

Sorry for OT but this is an antiscientific mumbo jumbo.

Here an article on a scientific study: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/14/motorists-punish-helmet-wearing-cyclists-with-close-passes-confirms-data-recrunch/amp/

prinzeugen

ted1 wrote: »

Bolloxs, there is scientific prove and police reports to show that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets.
I’ve a MSc and Honda BEng so am well capable of looking up studies and bull**** reports

How does a skull helmet prevent facial injuries?

You need to look at the overall picture. A undertaker will say that every cyclists he meets is a dead one so it’s dangerous. You are missing the bigger picture

You say It’s better to have some protection than no protection. Think of teenage pregnancies, if a condom was 90% effective , they say it’s safe to have sex but 3 in 10 lead to pregnancy

Where as without condoms , they might have sex so there’s less teenage pregnancies.

So in this case no protection is better.

Off topic again but.. You are basing your findings on dead people. There are probably 1000s of incidents that involve a single cyclist/motorbike rider that go unreported.

I have had two incidents myself on a motorbike. Cow **** in one case and black ice in the other. Both times my head hit the ground hard, and in both occasions I was able to get home. I would have been in an ambulance or on a slab if I did not have the helmets.

Johnboy1951

ted1 wrote: »

Here an article on a scientific study: https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/14/motorists-punish-helmet-wearing-cyclists-with-close-passes-confirms-data-recrunch/amp/

Walker suggested that drivers believe cyclists who wear helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those who ride without, and motorists, therefore, overtake them with less care.

IMO, the study did not show less care by drivers, but rather showed greater care by drivers who overtook cyclists who appeared to be uncaring of their own safety, and thus the safety of others, by not even wearing a helmet.

As a driver I most definitely give children a wider berth when overtaking them, than I would a cyclist who is mature and stable in their course.

That does not mean I overtake any cyclist too closely, only that I taken extra precautions based on judgement at the time.

ted1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As a driver I most definitely give children a wider berth when overtaking them, than I would a cyclist who is mature and stable in their course.

Why do you give shorter , slower cyclists more care than others ?

McGiver

ted1 wrote:

Bolloxs, there is scientific prove and police reports to show that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets. Iâ€™ve a MSc and Honda BEng so am well capable of looking up studies and bull**** reports

And I have BSc and gave you a review study i.e. review of multiple studies which concludes the opposite of what you say. One isolated study proves nothing conclusively. A systematic review study has a higher weight, I'm afraid.

Johnboy1951

ted1 wrote: »

Why do you give shorter , slower cyclists more care than others ?

You think I should base the care I take on how short or otherwise other road users are?

ted1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You think I should base the care I take on how short or otherwise other road users are?

You said you do. I have no idea why you think shot lives matter more

Johnboy1951

ted1 wrote: »

You said you do. I have no idea why you think shot lives matter more

If you really think that then you obviously have serious difficulty understanding written English, and apparently some difficulties with your spelling too.

Bye!

ted1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If you really think that then you obviously have serious difficulty understanding written English, and apparently some difficulties with your spelling too.

Bye!

That’s right, Focus on obviously incorrect autocorrects by phones clear sign that you are wrong.

mike_2009

I'm having an all electric day tommorow - e-scooter over to car pick up point, put e-scooter in boot, drive to other side of the country in the electric car. Top up charge on the way down. Recharge scooter at destination. Return back and drop off rental and ride e-scooter home. Just have to avoid low flying pigeons and bird droppings...!!

antodeco

ted1 wrote: »

That’s right, Focus on obviously incorrect autocorrects by phones clear sign that you are wrong.

He's actually not wrong. Why do you think there are slower speeds around schools on roads?

Children = less aware of their surroundings = potentially swerve out in front of a car in a more dramatic way. (I accept that an inexperienced cyclist could do the same, but children have a little more of an inability to be consciously aware of their surroundings)

rubadub

McGiver wrote: »

No ifs no buts.

There are...

For someone so hyped up about the issue your ignorance about it is astonishing.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

[Deleted User]

rubadub wrote: »

There are...

For someone so hyped up about the issue your ignorance about it is astonishing.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

The problem with the review sites like this is that they all concentrate on casualties. The idea of the bike helmets is that they potentially reduce a concussion and road rash to just road rash.

When I fell from my bike and smashed my helmet on the ground I never went to the hospital or reported it to anybody so the fact that the smashed helmet probably saved me from injuries needing professional care means that my case is not in any statistics. I just know that it was a good call to wear helmet that day and every bike ride since then.

If I had to choose I would rather grate my gear and the helmet against the road then my knees and side of the head. For example. If it was a case of head on collision with a lorry not wearing the helmet would be least of my worries. Maybe it would keep my dead head prettier for funeral?

tuxy

antodeco wrote: »

He's actually not wrong. Why do you think there are slower speeds around schools on roads?

Children = less aware of their surroundings = potentially swerve out in front of a car in a more dramatic way. (I accept that an inexperienced cyclist could do the same, but children have a little more of an inability to be consciously aware of their surroundings)

Exactly it's like how everyone is more patient and give new drivers with L and N plates more space, same thing here.

Amirani

McGiver wrote: »

And I have BSc and gave you a review study i.e. review of multiple studies which concludes the opposite of what you say. One isolated study proves nothing conclusively. A systematic review study has a higher weight, I'm afraid.

This is false. Though it's a fairly understandable misconception.

A systematic review study doesn't necessarily have higher weight just by virtue of having included multiple trials or studies in its analysis.

magentis

ted1 wrote: »

Bolloxs, there is scientific prove and police reports to show that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets.
I’ve a MSc and Honda BEng so am well capable of looking up studies and bull**** reports

How does a skull helmet prevent facial injuries?

You need to look at the overall picture. A undertaker will say that every cyclists he meets is a dead one so it’s dangerous. You are missing the bigger picture

You say It’s better to have some protection than no protection. Think of teenage pregnancies, if a condom was 90% effective , they say it’s safe to have sex but 1 in 10 lead to pregnancy

Where as without condoms , they might have sex so there’s less teenage pregnancies.

So in this case no protection is better.

Do tell me more about this "Honda BEng".

Garibaldi?

Cant wait to get a scooter if they're made legal!

[Deleted User]

A cycle helmet will give you some very limited protection in very limited circumstances but it puts a barrier in the way of cycling that will stop people doing it... Stuff like forgetting the helmet having to lug it around with you etc is a pain in the ass. I say this as a motorcyclist. Granted the helmet is a bit bigger but its still a royal pain. Clearly a motorcycling helmet protects a lot more than a cycling one.

If I found motorcycling a utilitarian form of transport the helmet would put me off big time. On balance I say no helmet needed.

Defo will get one too if made legal. I think they are a fantastic innovation for eco friendly and fun urban transport.

McGiver

Amirani wrote:

A systematic review study doesn't necessarily have higher weight just by virtue of having included multiple trials or studies in its analysis.

Not necessarily, but if you look at multiple studies, you are more likely to reach a correct evidence based position than by looking at a single study! Looking at a single study to reach a conclusion is not good enough and you may reach a wrong conclusion. It is always better to look at several studies or better perform a systematic review.