Mobility scooters do more than move people around — they make a huge difference in quality of life to people whose age or physical condition does not allow them to walk long distances or drive cars. Any regulation of these devices should be done compassionately and with a light hand.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities has endorsed a call by Sidney town council for regulation, training and testing of people who use motorized personal mobility devices. Motivated by complaints of people driving too fast and not knowing the rules of the road, Sidney’s resolution states that “the safety of all motorists, businesses and pedestrians [is] at risk” without regulation.
Though the machines are often called scooters, they are not to be confused with two-wheeled motor scooters, which are, in effect, small motorcycles that fall under the regulations for motor vehicles.
Mobility scooters are three- or four-wheeled, electrically powered devices that usually don’t travel much more than eight kilometres an hour, although some are capable of going faster. People driving them are considered pedestrians, sharing the sidewalks with people and travelling facing traffic when using a road. No jurisdiction in Canada requires mobility scooters to be be insured or registered, and no restrictions are placed on those who use them.
Not everyone is in a hurry to bring in regulations for mobility scooters. Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin says he believes there are better options than regulation to accommodate the rising number of people using the devices, such as infrastructure improvements. Saanich Mayor Frank Leonard thinks similarly, saying he’s “not convinced we’re at the point to regulate.”
If the Sidney resolution is passed by the UBCM, it would put pressure on the province to require operators of mobility scooters to have licences.
That would be wrong. It is difficult and distressing enough for seniors who have to give up their driver’s licences. For many seniors, as well as people with physical disabilities, mobility scooters are a good replacement for standard motor vehicles, enabling them to be active and independent without endangering themselves and others. People able to get out to enjoy fresh air and to do their errands tend to be healthier and happier than shut-ins.
But there are drawbacks. Calling a motorized mobility device a pedestrian does not make it one — it is still a machine, capable of inflicting painful injuries.
Comparisons have been made with bicycles and skateboards, but cyclists are required to follow the same traffic laws as drivers of motor vehicles, and most municipalities restrict where skateboards can be used. At least you can hear a skateboard coming — a scooter, with its quiet electric motor and rubber tires, can easily sneak up from behind and surprise a pedestrian.
Critics of the Sidney resolution say regulations are not the answer, that the issue can be resolved with common sense, consideration and patience. Perhaps, but the universal application of those virtues would do away with the need for most laws. The people who drive scooters are like everyone else — they include the courteous and the obnoxious, the alert and the oblivious. Regulations are needed to keep a society functioning in spite of human failings.
With the growing number of mobility scooters, regulations will likely become necessary, but they don’t need to be draconian restrictions. The could be as minor as speed limits, using alert sounds and not taking up the middle of the sidewalk. No licences, please.
And rather than being imposed, they should be worked out by all those involved, particularly those whose health and happiness are enhanced by having a set of wheels.
When part of your freedom has been taken away, what you have left becomes doubly precious.
