Scooter tragedy lessons: Similar deaths can be avoided
In mid-January, following excessive negative feedback from citizens, the mayor of Paris announced a referendum that would give Parisians a vote and a voice on whether to continue allowing electric scooter rentals. Perhaps the City of Light, known worldwide for its fashion, cuisine and art, is not looking to add electric scooters to that list. A vote to ban e-scooters in Paris could speak loudly to other European cities and how they regulate these rentals. Meanwhile, a continent away in the Bay Area, e-scooters abound with the same issues as those found in Paris, but there's little uproar in San Jose, not even after a tragedy claimed the life of a young college student.
His name was Camdan McWright. On an October morning in an intersection just blocks from San Jose State University, this freshman with a promising future on the football team died while headed to work out. His mode of transportation was a rented e-scooter.
As a San Jose State University employee, I drive the bustling one-way streets to and from campus. For the past three months I've thought of McWright every single time I navigate those congested downtown arteries. While there are rules for riding e-scooters in San Jose, what is lacking is a spotlight on how to prevent micromobility vehicles from becoming deadly conveniences.
You would be hard-pressed to find many e-scooter riders wearing helmets. With speeds of up to 15 mph, it's easy to understand that a collision could result in major injuries or death. So, why aren't helmets required for all electric scooter riders in San Jose or even the state of California?
According to California Vehicle Code 21235, wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets required standards is only required for riders under 18, the minimum age to rent an electric scooter. Before Assembly Bill 2989 took effect in 2019, all riders were required to wear a helmet while riding an electric scooter. The AB 2989 legislation was supported by e-scooter company Bird, whose rival is Lime. The company argued at the time that “the helmet requirement has a `chilling effect' ” on alternative forms of transportation, calling it “inconvenient.”
In 2019, the Austin Public Health Department, with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, published a report saying almost half of the injured riders in Austin sustained head injuries and could have been preventable. Studies have shown that bicycle riders reduce the risk of head and brain injuries by wearing a helmet.
A helmet law does not mean all riders will use one. But much like safety belt laws, some may choose not to wear one while most drivers have adopted the use, resulting in countless lives being saved.
Recently, the Consumer Product and Safety Commission reported that e-scooters, e-bikes and hoverboard emergency room-treated injuries and deaths have trended upward. From 2017 to 2021, injuries spiked 127% to 77,200, and the number of deaths rose from five to 48. E-scooters had the highest percentage increase in injuries and accounted for 68 deaths in the same time period.
According to Lime's “Vision Zero,” the company's approach to safety, the company works with cities to encourage improved street design that prioritizes the most vulnerable road users and regulations that are proven to reduce the potential for car crashes. But why is there no mention of reinstating helmet laws for all riders? Is that because such laws would decrease their number of users and impact their bottom line? Similar to Lime, a quick scroll through Bird's website depicts scooter riders donning helmets, so clearly they advocate for the safety equipment in theory but not in the realm of legislation.
Preserving lives is worth more than corporate profits or political stances.
It pains me that there is nothing we can do to change the outcome of Camdan McWright's heartbreaking accident. But we can support safety measures that protect e-scooter riders like him.