<\/p>\n\n\n
In the past few years, e-scooter rideshare companies, like Bird<\/a> and Lime<\/a>, have popped up in major cities around the United States, including North Carolina cities Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham. The e-scooters are so popular in Charlotte<\/a> that riders have logged over one million miles. Users can simply download the company\u2019s app on their phone, enter credit card information, tap a button to unlock a nearby rental e-scooter, and start riding. The scooters typically have a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour, and users pay for the rental by the minute. The scooters are dockless, meaning there is no designated return area for the scooter, although the companies recommend avoiding public pathways. <\/p>\n\n\n E-scooter Liability\nIssues<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n Riders of e-scooters frequently suffer from lacerations, head injuries, and broken bones. E-scooters have been blamed for approximately 1,500 injuries in 2018, and eleven deaths, including the death of a popular YouTuber<\/a>. A limited study<\/a> of 249 Californians by JAMA Network revealed that even pedestrians aren\u2019t safe from the wrath of e-scooters, and they make up approximately eight percent of those injured. The study has been criticized by a Bird executive for \u201cfail[ing] to take into account the sheer number of trips taken,\u201d but, a proposed class-action suit<\/a> in California begs to differ. On behalf of eight plaintiffs, the lawsuit accuses e-scooter distributors, including Lime and Bird, of \u201cgross negligence\u201d and \u201caiding and abetting assault.\u201d The complaint goes on to criticize the defendants\u2019 \u201cguise of the commendable goals of furthering personal freedom and mobility and protecting the environment,\u201d and accuses each of them of \u201cendangering the health, safety and welfare of riders, pedestrians and the general public\u201d by negligently allowing the scooters to become a \u201cpublic nuisance\u201d due to the dockless model of allowing users to leave the scooters on public streets. <\/p>\n\n\n Importantly, the class action suit was filed by pedestrians, not e-scooter riders. When riders download these companies\u2019 apps, they also agree to the companies\u2019 terms and conditions<\/a>, which include liability waiver, arbitration, and class action waiver clauses. This has created issues for personal injury lawyers, whose clients often do not realize that they waived liability before they were seriously injured. \u201cI\u2019ve been practicing law for 25 years representing personal injury victims. . . I have never seen these kind of devastating injuries before scooters arrived,\u201d said Catherine Lerer, whose law firm filed the class-action complaint. The frequency and severity of injuries has baffled lawyers, and, despite low prospects of winning, many attorneys are willing to challenge the legality of the contracts to seek relief for their clients. Putting aside user fault, many people have been injured by technical malfunctions<\/a>, or \u201cscoot-and-run\u201d situations where the rider can\u2019t be identified. <\/p>\n\n\n Lawmakers Are Struggling\nto Keep Pace with a 15 MPH Scooter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n There has been endless controversy over how to regulate these electric devices. Some college campuses<\/a>, a popular audience for e-scooter companies, have banned or severely limited e-scooter use on campus. Arizona University justified its restrictions due to concerns about the \u201csafety of e-scooters and their potential to limit accessibility on campus, especially for those with disabilities[.]\u201d The University of Oregon banned the use of rental e-scooters entirely (but not individually owned scooters). Oklahoma State University initially banned e-scooters, but now allows them under limited conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n Cities and states are slowly figuring out how to regulate these devices, but not all of these regulations are well-received. Just last month, Atlanta banned nighttime use<\/a> of e-scooters and e-bikes on city streets. The curfew was imposed after four e-scooter riders were killed by drivers at night. The city plans to develop \u201cfurther long-term measures\u201d but decided to impose the curfew for the safety of \u201cscooter riders, motorists, cyclists, those in wheelchairs and pedestrians.\u201d Critics, however, accuse the curfew of being \u201cnonsensical<\/a>\u201d and \u201cpenaliz[ing] micro-mobility users while letting the operators of 3,000-pound killing machines off scot-free.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n Would these scooters be causing so much hassle if they weren\u2019t electric? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n It stands to reason that if the scooters weren\u2019t electrically powered, and made so easily accessible through rideshare companies, that maybe injuries, lawsuits, and regulator confusion wouldn\u2019t be so prevalent. The small component of this electric motor has befuddled lawmakers and users alike. Some cities (looking at you, Denver) still classify e-scooters as \u201ctoys<\/a>\u201d and allow them to be ridden on sidewalks, despite the known danger to pedestrians. Some cities that allow e-scooters classify them as \u201cvehicles\u201d (akin to an e-bike or moped) allowing e-scooter riders on public streets, but prohibiting e-scooter use on public sidewalks. Even though the sidewalk bans are in place, enforcement<\/a> seems few and far between. Some regulators worry that violators will be undeterred by the prospect of a receiving a fine.<\/p>\n\n\n Some argue that the federal government \u201cshould standardize electric scooter laws[,] and license requirements should be considered to decrease the risky behaviors associated with motorized scooter use.\u201d This concern for standardization mostly stems from differing helmet laws. In New Jersey and California, e-scooters are regulated like traditional bicycles, and helmets are only required for people under 17 years old. In the JAMA Network study discussed earlier, the mean age of e-scooter injured patients was about 38 years old, and less than eleven percent of riders were under the age of 18.<\/p>\n\n\n E-scooter Haters and\nEnthusiasts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n If you disagree with the implementation of e-scooter sharing systems in your city, or just have an unfounded hatred of e-scooters, you\u2019re not alone. The Instagram account Bird Graveyard (@birdgraveyard) was created by an e-scooter critic in 2018. The account\u2019s creator<\/a> believes the scooters are \u201cjust counterproductive to public transit, and they\u2019re not being used for the right reasons by the right people.\u201d The account<\/a> features images and videos of e-scooters on fire, in toilets, thrown into lakes, piled in streets, hit with bats, and even being pooped on. The page also includes an abundance of videos of e-scooter riders getting injured.<\/p>\n\n\n However, despite the setbacks, not everyone is an e-scooter critic. Enthusiasts laud the \u201cmicromobility\u201d of e-scooters. Micromobility<\/a> is the general term for transportation using rideshare services with small weight vehicles that can be operated in bike lanes (such as bicycles, e-bicycles, and e-scooters). The idea is that if people turn to e-scooters for short distance travelling, the use of cars would decrease, and this could alleviate traffic congestion, pollution concerns, and possibly prevent deadly car accidents. <\/p>\n\n\n There are pros and cons to e-scooter use. But, given how quickly e-scooters have spread throughout major U.S. cities, state legislatures need to act quickly to protect users and pedestrians, many of whom are unable to seek legal redress for their e-scooter woes. <\/p>\n\n\n Alessandra Carlton <\/p>\n\n\n September 10, 2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the past few years, e-scooter rideshare companies, like Bird and Lime, have popped up in major cities around the United States, including North Carolina cities Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham. The e-scooters are so popular in Charlotte that riders have logged over one million miles. Users can simply download the company\u2019s app on their phone, …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6353,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6352"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6352"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6809,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6352\/revisions\/6809"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6353"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}