Is Lime's easy ride lubricated by laissez-faire?

PHOTO: ODT FILES
PHOTO: ODT FILES
OPINION: The decision to allow a Lime scooter trial on city streets was vote in favour of breaching the Human Rights Act, Lynley Hood writes.

The "illusionary truth effect'' is the age-old rhetorical device of repeating a statement so often that, without evidence or argument, people believe it's true.

Dunedin City Council chief executive Sue Bidrose uses the illusionary truth effect whenever she gives bewildered, outraged and disbelieving citizens and city councillors the same emphatic message: we are not able to regulate Lime scooters. It seems to be working.

Nonetheless, questions remain. Why is Lime, having arrived uninvited, enjoying free, unlimited, commercial use of our footpaths for parking and renting out hundreds of unwarranted and unregistered motor vehicles? Why is Lime paying no ACC levies on its vehicles? Why do riders need no licences, no training, no helmets? Why are riders allowed to drive fast, drive recklessly and drive drunk? Why are riders allowed to block our footpaths with dumped e-scooters?

For city councillors, the nothing-we-can-do mantra took a while to sink in. At their March 26 meeting, when staff advised that "current mechanisms do not allow for the management or control of e-scooters,'' the council asked staff to "report back urgently on further mechanisms to restrict or control e-scooter use on footpaths in busy pedestrian areas''.

If staff had approached that task with open minds, all the published information on Lime's faulty scooters, misleading claims, and questionable business practices would have set off alarm bells.

If staff had not been mesmerised by the nothing-we-can-do mantra, they would have followed up comments from Buddle Findlay partner Tony Dellow - reported in The New Zealand Herald and the Otago Daily Times, and in interviews with Newstalk ZB - that the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has the power to order a compulsory product recall of Lime scooters under the Fair Trading Act.

If staff had their wits about them, they would have grasped the implications of district court cases in which the accused pleads not guilty to a driving offence on the grounds that ride-on lawn mowers, golf carts, electric scooters, or motorised chilly bins are not motor vehicles. In all such cases, judges have ruled that, if the motor is the vehicle's primary means of propulsion, it's a motor vehicle.

If staff had realised that the NZTA's decision to reclassify e-scooters as not motor vehicles is open to challenge, they could have asked Parliament's Regulations Review Committee to check the validity of the NZTA's Gazette notice.

And if they'd looked at the committee's website, they would have learnt that the validity of the Gazette notice is already under review. Furthermore, if the committee finds that the NZTA has misused its delegated power, it can recommend that Parliament disallow the Gazette notice, and by doing so confirm that e-scooters are motor vehicles, and therefore not allowed on footpaths.

But DCC staff did none of those things. Instead, they asked the council to approve a 12-month trial of a "voluntary footpath courtesy zone'' in the busiest part of Dunedin's CBD. The zone would have an unenforceable 15kmh speed limit for users of e-scooters, skateboards and mobile scooters on footpaths, and no legal or regulatory penalties for non-compliance.

Our mayor and councillors - uneasy, but mesmerised by the nothing-we can-do mantra - voted for the trial, but cut it to six months.

Because the trial will make our footpaths less safe for people with disabilities, the council's vote in favour of the trial, was a vote in favour of breaching the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Commissioner could take the DCC to court for unlawful discrimination.

Here's a better idea. The DCC should call on the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to order a compulsory product recall of Lime scooters, to be lifted only when legislation has been passed to ensure that:

  • Footpaths are built and maintained for the exclusive use of pedestrians and people who cannot walk.
  • Footpath safety rules are made and enforced.
  • Technical standards and rules of use are developed for all new vehicles before they can be rented or sold.
  • Space for the movement and parking of new vehicles is created by the reallocation of space used by existing vehicles.
  • Pedestrians are recognised as key stakeholders in all transport planning decisions.

 - Dr Lynley Hood is co-convener of the Dunedin Pedestrian Action Network and trustee of Visual Impairment Charitable Trust Aotearoa.

Comments

View all

Right on, Dr Hood. The way in which the various local authorities around New Zealand, and central government also, have effectively dropped the ball on this issue is scandalous in the extreme.

"Why is Lime paying no ACC levies on its vehicles? Why do riders need no licences, no training, no helmets? Why are riders allowed to drive fast, drive recklessly and drive drunk? Why are riders allowed to block our footpaths with dumped e-scooters?"
Indeed
Why are cyclists paying no ACC levies on their vehicles? Why do riders need no licences, no training. Why are riders allowed to ride fast, ride recklessly and ride drunk? Why are riders allowed to block our footpaths with the bicycle stands?.
Seems the writer would much prefer the populace to be indoors with their faces stuck to screens growing ever more obese than to ride those "scooters".
"if the motor is the vehicle's primary means of propulsion, it's a motor vehicle", so it stands for a bicycle, a human is it's primary means of propulsion so it too must be classed as a motor vehicle.

There is a huge difference between a cycle and a commercial scooter. Riding a bicycle drunk will get you a ticket, as will riding without a helmet and riding on a footpath. Failing to correctly classify scooters as motor vehicles doesn't give carte blanche to your anti bicycle sentiments!

Nor does it give you carte blanche to your anti scooter sentiments!

The Human Rights Act; the pinnacle of the human species and an accumulation of blood, sacrifice, and history. The Magna Carta 1215AD... I think you need a cup of tea and a biscuit if you think this extends to a bit of pavement in Dunedin. Before blaming everyone in a public posititon i would like to know what the Dunedin Pedestrian Action Network actually debates? pigeon trespass? All this airtime, point towards a social good and stop the waffle.

Good if you take your own advice. You do understand the issues raised, or are they too reasoned?

reasoned? Am i missing something? I can't see any reasoning, I think the good doctor would agree, this is a one dimensional opinion piece. Here's some counter points... Lime Scooters > reduce car usage in the CBD, lower climate emissions, enhance tourist distance traveled, and increases potential spend outside of the octagon, lowers road congestion, and frees parking spaces, increases bus capacity through lower occupancy, promotes public health (directly and indirectly) matches the scooter usage in vibrant international cities (melbourne, SA) - Reduces drink driving, as promotes an alternative, adds an alternative mode of transport to minor disabled individuals who cannot afford a mobility scooter.

I can only agree with Dr. Hood. Lime's tactics in taking liberties with public safety are plain for all to see. That such a company is allowed to continue operations on our streets after the rise in accidents, reliability issues with their fleet and refusal to enforce even basic safety standards such as speed limits and helmets shows the council in a very bad light with regards to the safety of Dunedin's pedestrians. Lime themselves are charlatans who are only interested in their shareholders margins.

View all

july_carousel_header.jpg

july_carousel_footer.jpg