Electric scooter troubles | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Electric scooter troubles

BusaBob said:
Thanks for looking that up.

I once passed a group of 30 or 40 bicycles (roadies) struggling uphill on a highway (single lane either direction, no centre dividing line). You should have heard the swearing and yelling from the cyclists as I passed (safely). From their hostility, it was clear that they were under the belief that they had the right to take up the entire right hand side of the roadway (although stretched out, there were areas in the group that were riding 4 or 5 abreast).

I don't have anything against cyclists, but they need to move over and allow vehicles to pass.

scooter style e-bikes should be banned.
Click to expand...

I have frequently had to deal with groups of cyclists, in both Halton and Caledon, who think that they are running in the Tour de France and refuse to turn out to the right. Cyclists, and especially eBike riders, seem to be woefully uninformed, when it comes to the law.

As to the insurance issue, I would pursue it like I would an incident with a bicycle; try to file a claim with the cyclist's home owner's/renter's policy. Barring that there is supporting information to indicate that the incident was caused by someone else, and so hopefully would not be considered an at-fault.
 
OK, do to put this story to an end. State Farm made my buddy pay the deductable, no rise in his rates and SF is going after the scooter operator for the costs, and the world was at peace again :)
 
JonnyWyshbone said:
OK, do to put this story to an end. State Farm made my buddy pay the deductable, no rise in his rates and SF is going after the scooter operator for the costs, and the world was at peace again :)
Click to expand...

It will be at peace when they start requesting licenses and insurance for those electric scooters :cool:
 
JonnyWyshbone said:
OK, do to put this story to an end. State Farm made my buddy pay the deductable, no rise in his rates and SF is going after the scooter operator for the costs, and the world was at peace again :)
Click to expand...

it's too bad your buddy has to pay a deductible.
i'd try to recoup that from the e-cyclist in small claims court.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
It will be at peace when they start requesting licenses and insurance for those electric scooters :cool:
Click to expand...

I wonder if the various disabled associations would fight that? If they do, any politician that proposed the measures would be vilified. Some disabled lobby groups are as defensive about their rights as the NRA. State Farm could be on a hate list as well if they pursue this. All it takes is the right bleeding heart journalist to take up the cause and anyone opposing the movement is considered evil trash.

It wouldn't matter if the careless medi-scooter driver was crippled in a crash when he was DUI with a trunk full of crack and running from the cops. I can hear the "They've suffered enough" whines already.

At the minimum the operators should have some sort of competency test not only to protect others but to protect themselves. As far as insurance goes, if the medi-scoots are so safe insurance should be cheap. It could be included as part of a household liability policy not unlike small boats under a few horsepower. However the insurance industry is very specific when it come to defining motor vehicles and how liability is handled.
 
JonnyWyshbone said:
OK, do to put this story to an end. State Farm made my buddy pay the deductable, no rise in his rates and SF is going after the scooter operator for the costs, and the world was at peace again :)
Click to expand...

Good to hear, thats what i have been sayin the whole time but someone had to turn it into a pissing match so i had to leave it alone.Glad you buddy made the call and didn't try to eat the repairs and go after her himself.I still can't remember If I had to pay the deductible either but probably did.Been there done that and also got off scott free with insurance rates:)
 
Last edited:
matt123 said:
Good to hear, thats what i have been sayin the whole time but someone had to turn it into a pissing match so i had to leave it alone.Glad you buddy made the call and didn't try to eat the repairs and go after her himself.I still can't remember If I had to pay the deductible either but probably did.Been there done that and also got off scott free with insurance rates:)
Click to expand...

When it comes to collisions with uninsured vehicles you have to pay the deductible, so I imagine that you did too. The insurance company at least theoretically will pursue the operator of the other vehicle, then the deductible is supposed to come off the top of that recovery. In practise they figure that you can't get blood from a stone, so they don't pursue.
 
nobbie48 said:
I wonder if the various disabled associations would fight that? If they do, any politician that proposed the measures would be vilified.
Click to expand...

If they don't like that, they should get mobility scooters that are on 4 wheels and (at least should be) governed to 10km/h, restricted to the sidewalk. If they're able to operate a single track vehicle that at least theoretically requires some pedaling, they ain't all that disabled in my books.
 
Ok, So this is what I;ve learned from this thread, pls correct me if I'm wrong.

1. A scooter or bicycle does not own the whole lane they are in legally. Just the right hand portion.

2. When a vehicle is to pass a bicycle, the bicycle should move to the right closer to the curb and the motor vehicle should move to the left of the same lane. This is how the law suggest we avoid colliding.

3. You can be charged with careless driving while riding a bicycle.

This is why the scooter lady was charged, she does not own the whole lane!

PS. Who decides how much of the lane right side portion is allotted to the bicycle?
 
Correct on all 3 except to add that the scooter not moving over didn't cause the careless as there's a more applicable charge for that, she darted the wrong way further obstructing the lane which upped it to a careless move. As for how much of the lane, I think it comes down to reasonableness; a bicycle is to stay to the right but there is no set distance.

krrakt said:
Ok, So this is what I;ve learned from this thread, pls correct me if I'm wrong.

1. A scooter or bicycle does not own the whole lane they are in legally. Just the right hand portion.

2. When a vehicle is to pass a bicycle, the bicycle should move to the right closer to the curb and the motor vehicle should move to the left of the same lane. This is how the law suggest we avoid colliding.

3. You can be charged with careless driving while riding a bicycle.

This is why the scooter lady was charged, she does not own the whole lane!

PS. Who decides how much of the lane right side portion is allotted to the bicycle?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The motorcycle safety site also says laying a bike down unless something is about to take your head off is pointless and adds nothing but damage and stopping distance.As far as it being the e bikes entire lane I thought the same until one of my kids friends had the same type the situation go exactly like this one did.Apparently they have to get over and let faster traffic pass as his mother fought it and ended up having to pay it back anyway.Maybe there was a bike lane not sure?
The officer must for some reason believe there was a marked departure from reasonable operation on the part of the e-biker that made the accident unavoidable for the motorcyclist.
When I had my accident I asked the cop what would happen as i only had liability and his exact words were"I'm leaving a clear cut signal to insurance and the court by giving her a major instead of a minor offense notice".
This is why I gave the O/P a couple HTA web sites and told him to ask the cops and paralegals in their forum and find out for himself.The HTA and the insurance act are little more than framework as in the end it comes down to case law in the court and past practice with insurance if you fight it.75% of careless charges can be plead down to a lesser offense but by then insurance has already processed any claims and the deal is done is how it was explained to me.I'm absolutely no expert but I have had personal experience with this situation more than once.Just happy the guy didn't get screwed and checked into it.My insurer actuality told me they would pay it out as it is an industry wide agreement and the other driver she had insurance i think but maybe not.That I don't understand.
 
Last edited:
matt123 said:
Good to hear, thats what i have been sayin the whole time but someone had to turn it into a pissing match so i had to leave it alone.Glad you buddy made the call and didn't try to eat the repairs and go after her himself.I still can't remember If I had to pay the deductible either but probably did.Been there done that and also got off scott free with insurance rates:)
Click to expand...

To clarify; I never spoke to what the insurance company would do, I had no idea other to say that they look at things differently than the HTA. I simply corrected points you made about the HTA, no pissing match; just trying to provide accurate information for readers.
 
The back and forth is good, its how good ideas are created. The fact that you guys could disagree without a flame war and with evidence to support both views is evidence of healthy debate :)
 
matt123 said:
The motorcycle safety site also says laying a bike down unless something is about to take your head off is pointless and adds nothing but damage and stopping distance.As far as it being the e bikes entire lane I thought the same until one of my kids friends had the same type the situation go exactly like this one did.Apparently they have to get over and let faster traffic pass as his mother fought it and ended up having to pay it back anyway.Maybe there was a bike lane not sure?
The officer must for some reason believe there was a marked departure from reasonable operation on the part of the e-biker that made the accident unavoidable for the motorcyclist.
When I had my accident I asked the cop what would happen as i only had liability and his exact words were"I'm leaving a clear cut signal to insurance and the court by giving her a major instead of a minor offense notice".
This is why I gave the O/P a couple HTA web sites and told him to ask the cops and paralegals in their forum and find out for himself.The HTA and the insurance act are little more than framework as in the end it comes down to case law in the court and past practice with insurance if you fight it.75% of careless charges can be plead down to a lesser offense but by then insurance has already processed any claims and the deal is done is how it was explained to me.I'm absolutely no expert but I have had personal experience with this situation more than once.Just happy the guy didn't get screwed and checked into it.My insurer actuality told me they would pay it out as it is an industry wide agreement and the other driver she had insurance i think but maybe not.That I don't understand.
Click to expand...

The insurance industry pushed for no-fault, because they hoped it would reduce their costs. They also billed it as reducing premiums, but that part hasn't really come to pass. A momentary blip, at most. One problem is that it creates an almost ideal situation for fraud.

What it did accomplish, was to divorce fault for insurance purposes from legal fault. I was involved in a collision in which police told me they would charge the other driver with 'operation without due care and attention', but where the insurer hit me with 50% fault.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The insurance industry pushed for no-fault, because they hoped it would reduce their costs. They also billed it as reducing premiums, but that part hasn't really come to pass. A momentary blip, at most. One problem is that it creates an almost ideal situation for fraud.

What it did accomplish, was to divorce fault for insurance purposes from legal fault. I was involved in a collision in which police told me they would charge the other driver with 'operation without due care and attention', but where the insurer hit me with 50% fault.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the glaring separation between the HTA and the insurance industry other than a friend's explanation (he's in the industry) that many of their determinations of fault spread the fault around and that reason, coupled with the fault matrix I've spoken of before, allows all the companies determine agreed upon fault without the cost and time of going to court over it, which of course furthers profits.
 
coyo said:
To clarify; I never spoke to what the insurance company would do, I had no idea other to say that they look at things differently than the HTA. I simply corrected points you made about the HTA, no pissing match; just trying to provide accurate information for readers.
Click to expand...


I'm no expert and don't know either the HTA or Insurance act In any detail.I was just trying to say that I believed the police were making there determination known by way of the charge as I had been told in the past.I didn't think I made any particular points about the HTA and never meant to if I did.
Maybe insurance would try and find him partially at fault if he made a claim based on what he said about having to drop the bike.But since he wasn't charged notifying them and exploring the option wouldn't hurt either which I thought he might not do out of fear of increased rates.
I think the way the entire system works is too hard for most including myself to understand.I generally go drop situations like this here and at the site I mentioned in my first post and let them hash out the possibilities,options and details.With a pile of kids in the process of getting there licenses and becoming new drivers it's been a great help.
Anyway It's possible I wasn't properly articulating what I was trying to say so lets just leave it at that since it ended well for him anyway.
 
Last edited:
A harley is no motorcycle it's more like getting hit by a truck in regards to an e-bike. Though I've seen some police demonstations on Harley's they can be agile if you put lots of parking lot practice into them. I think this guy should be considered a hero and the lady should be thankful she's still living.

If you lost your driver's license to DUI or too many tickets you shouldn't be on the road at all even on a bicycle.

matt123 said:
The motorcycle safety site also says laying a bike down unless something is about to take your head off is pointless and adds nothing but damage and stopping distance.As far as it being the e bikes entire lane I thought the same until one of my kids friends had the same type the situation go exactly like this one did.Apparently they have to get over and let faster traffic pass as his mother fought it and ended up having to pay it back anyway.Maybe there was a bike lane not sure?
The officer must for some reason believe there was a marked departure from reasonable operation on the part of the e-biker that made the accident unavoidable for the motorcyclist.
When I had my accident I asked the cop what would happen as i only had liability and his exact words were"I'm leaving a clear cut signal to insurance and the court by giving her a major instead of a minor offense notice".
This is why I gave the O/P a couple HTA web sites and told him to ask the cops and paralegals in their forum and find out for himself.The HTA and the insurance act are little more than framework as in the end it comes down to case law in the court and past practice with insurance if you fight it.75% of careless charges can be plead down to a lesser offense but by then insurance has already processed any claims and the deal is done is how it was explained to me.I'm absolutely no expert but I have had personal experience with this situation more than once.Just happy the guy didn't get screwed and checked into it.My insurer actuality told me they would pay it out as it is an industry wide agreement and the other driver she had insurance i think but maybe not.That I don't understand.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom