E-scooters get green light in council survey
Hamiltonians appear to have happily accepted the arrival of Lime scooters in the city – as long as you haven’t tripped over one lying in the street, or been startled by a scooter rider sneaking up behind you.
A public survey conducted by the Hamilton City Council has resulted in a general thumbs-up for the now-ubiquitous motorised devices, albeit with a few misgivings.
The council’s infrastructure operations committee now seems likely tomorrow to adopt a staff recommendation to extend a sixmonth trial of Lime’s operations in the city for another 12 months, as well as allow the 600-strong fleet of machines to swell to 1000.
The online and paper-based survey – which will continue until March 27 – has so far resulted in 837 responses, 546 of whom had made use of the e-scooters at least once.
Eighy-four per cent of those surveyed reckoned the council should allow the scooters to continue operating in the city.
Feedback was also sought from the Hamilton Central Business Association; the Waikato District Health Board, which provided injury data; the ‘‘disability community’’, and Lime itself.
The health board revealed that between August, when the trial started, and mid-December, there were nine hospital admissions where the words ‘‘hired’’ or ‘‘Lime’’ were noted.
All of these were for ‘‘nonmajor’’ injuries: Ankle, wrist and collarbone fractures along with abrasions and lacerations, and one hip fracture. Alcohol was a factor in five of the nine incidents.
Poorly parked scooters were proving a hassle for the visually impaired. People using a white cane were often able to detect the ‘‘body’’ of the scooter, but often clipped the wide handlebars with their shoulders as they walked past. Scooters parked too close to disability car parks were also an unwelcome obstacle.
Some representatives for the disabled community suggested bells should be attached to each scooter, to let pedestrians know they were coming up behind them.
A low-pitched audible sound on the machines that could not be turned off was another suggestion.
The council’s City Safe department had dedicated one of its staff members to oversee and, if necessary, police the scooter riders. During the trial period the staffer had been involved in 17 ‘‘rider behaviour interventions’’ where dangerous or worrying behaviour had been seen, and a further 77 incidents or complaints such as scooters scooting where they shouldn’t, such as around Lake Rotoroa or through the Hamilton Gardens.
There were also 190 recorded instances of the scooters being dangerously or haphazardly parked.
Lime revealed the average duration of a trip on one of their scooters was 11 minutes, and covered an average distance of 1.51 kilometres.
As group business manager Tania Hermann pointed out in her report to the committee, the trip data the company had provided had gone a long way to help staff identify where deployment and drop-off zones could be based – and these in turn would go a long way to addressing concerns about scooters ‘‘littering’’ the city streets.
The business association was in favour and saw the machines as ‘‘a necessary transport option in a major city and the wide variety of users, from business people to tourists.’’
Hermann said extending the trial for another 12 months would allow the council to determine the optimum number and ‘‘mix’’ of devices for Hamilton, as well as what fees and charges Lime or any similar firm should incur.
It is currently proposed that a $300 annual permit fee, and an annual charge of $85 per device – to cover enforcement and management – be imposed.
Additionally, a $10,000 education fund and public liability insurance of $2 million per operator were deemed appropriate measures.
E-scooters are ‘‘a necessary transport option in a major city and the wide variety of users, from business people to tourists.’’ Hamilton Central Business Association