ECV Problem in another forum

[Beccabunny]

I agree, since we can assume that the woman on the scooter was not, in fact, also 2 years old and had the benefit of many years of good judgement to go by. Regardless of if this was an accessible ramp or not, the ADULT in this situation had no regard for a little child in her path. That she happened to also be on an ECV only makes it more dangerous. If an adult was running up that ramp and plowed over a kid we'd all be yelling "Wow, he should have looked out!" not "boy, that 2 year old was careless".

I think the 2 year old (and the parents) had EVERY right to allow their 2 year old to be running up a ramp in a child's play area. They were properly supervising her - with one parent at top, one at the bottom. The only time she was unattended was running up the ramp, which she was fully capable of handling. Just because the ECV also had the right to be on the ramp does not mean that her rights outweighed the fact that this IS a child's play area and that ANY adults in that area need to be watching out for kids running loose. That is what the kids are supposed to be doing in this spot. Getting their energy out, running around, being free of their stroller or free from holding hands with their parents as they must do the other 90% of the time when they're in Disney.

On the other hand, if the 2 year old was running up and down an accessible ramp in another area of the park, a ramp specifically designed to be of use to those in WC or ECV then the situation would be flipped. I would be saying that the parents should have not expected that an ECV rider would be anticipating that a small child would be in her path and that allowing a child to play on a ramp like that was not what it was intended for and that the responsibility was theirs to ensure that their child wasn't in the way of a vehicle.

For the love of Pete,I really can't see why this is an issue.

It's an issue because she is NOT fully capable of handling the ramp. She ran in front of the ECV. Small children do that and should have a parent with them.

As I said, even a slow-moving ECV would not be able to stop when a child suddenly runs in front of it. I never said the rights of the ECV owner outweighed the child's rights. I said it appears the ECV was going too fast. I THOUGHT I was clear on that.

Sure, kids are supposed to be running in a playground, but a two-year-old who is not able to navigate without running in front of others is a little different from a five-year-old. I still believe her father should have put down the camera. The reality is, the ramps are now being shared with mobility vehicles, and children who run in front of others can get hurt. It doesn't excuse the fast-moving ECV owner, but it's an unfortunate fact nonetheless.

My daughter uses a special needs stroller, which I have to push. It's a heavy stroller, and due to my own disability we move quite slowly. I have had young children suddenly dart in front of the stroller, and even at our snail's pace it's extremely difficult to stop. I've told parents they should be holding onto their young children instead of allowing them to run in front of us.

 

[Beccabunny]

Seems to me...the woman with the child improperly in her lap, would have used better judgement and SLOWED DOWN when appoaching a 2 year old on a ramp!


AKK

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Still, it wouldn't matter how slow she was moving, the child ran in front of her. The child is too young to be running on that ramp by herself, and her father had ample time to stop filming and get his child before the ECV approached.

 

[North of Mouse]

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Still, it wouldn't matter how slow she was moving, the child ran in front of her. The child is too young to be running on that ramp by herself, and her father had ample time to stop filming and get his child before the ECV approached.

Hello, it's a playground and the parents are just two people doing all they were supposed to do - one at the bottom, one at the top, watching her all the way. A machine always yields to those on foot, and especially a baby doing what babies do on a playground. The woman was wrong on two counts, and it's a good thing this happened to a easy going fellow's child, or she could have been in BIG trouble had she hit her. Filming his baby had nothing to do with it. She had every right to be running on the ramp by herself as she was quite agile.

 

[Beccabunny]

Hello, it's a playground and the parents are just two people doing all they were supposed to do - one at the bottom, one at the top, watching her all the way. A machine always yields to those on foot, and especially a baby doing what babies do on a playground. The woman was wrong on two counts, and it's a good thing this happened to a easy going fellow's child, or she could have been in BIG trouble had she hit her. Filming his baby had nothing to do with it. She had every right to be running on the ramp by herself as she was quite agile.

Yes, it's a playground shared with disabled children, and disabled parents of children. We no longer segregate. The child's "agility" means nothing. If she can't look in all directions before changing directions, she's too young to be on the ramp unaccompanied. She's "agile" enough to run in the street, but would any responsible parent let their two-year-old child do that? Of course not, because as we all know the two-year-old would not know enough to look for oncoming cars. Even the driver of a car is not always held responsible if a child SUDDENLY runs in front of it. Same caution needs to apply when on a ramp with vehicles. The woman on the ECV needed to slow down, and the father should have been with his child, because as I have said before, the child running in front of even a slow-moving vehicle could get injured.

 

[buffettgirl]

Yes, it's a playground shared with disabled children, and disabled parents of children. We no longer segregate. The child's "agility" means nothing. If she can't look in all directions before changing directions, she's too young to be on the ramp unaccompanied. She's "agile" enough to run in the street, but would any responsible parent let their two-year-old child do that? Of course not, because as we all know the two-year-old would not know enough to look for oncoming cars. Even the driver of a car is not always held responsible if a child SUDDENLY runs in front of it. Same caution needs to apply when on a ramp with vehicles. The woman on the ECV needed to slow down, and the father should have been with his child, because as I have said before, the child running in front of even a slow-moving vehicle could get injured.

And as I've said repeatedly, if she was on a street it would be an entirely different situation. In a playground, she was perfectly capable of running up the ramp. ANY adult in that playground has the responsibility to look out for where they are walking and in this case riding because the EXPECTATION is that children using a playground for it's intended purpose WILL be running all over the place. In a playground a child should not have to worry that she's going to get hit by an ECV. The ECV should be worrying that she should not hit children.

this is not a street. It's a playground. Built for kids.

but using your logic the same could be said for the ECV driver.

If she can't look in all directions before changing directions, she's too young to be on the ramp unaccompanied."

You're holding a 2 year old child to a higher standard than a grown woman using a motorized vehicle. If the grown woman can't look around her or follow the rules of operating the vehicle she shouldnt' be operating it IN A PLAYGROUND.

 

[atp]

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Still, it wouldn't matter how slow she was moving, the child ran in front of her. The child is too young to be running on that ramp by herself, and her father had ample time to stop filming and get his child before the ECV approached.

But the child was in front of her the whole time. She should have either kept riding behind the child or waited until she could safely pass her.

I would agree with you if the child had come out of nowhere or was coming in the opposite direction. But the child started walking up the ramp first, and was in front of the ECV the whole time.

If the person in the ECV was driving a car somewhere, and there was a car driving erratically inf front of their car, would they try to pass them? No, they would wait because they could get hit by the car in front of them.

 

[Beccabunny]

And as I've said repeatedly, if she was on a street it would be an entirely different situation. In a playground, she was perfectly capable of running up the ramp. ANY adult in that playground has the responsibility to look out for where they are walking and in this case riding because the EXPECTATION is that children using a playground for it's intended purpose WILL be running all over the place. In a playground a child should not have to worry that she's going to get hit by an ECV. The ECV should be worrying that she should not hit children.

this is not a street. It's a playground. Built for kids.

but using your logic the same could be said for the ECV driver.
You're holding a 2 year old child to a higher standard than a grown woman using a motorized vehicle. If the grown woman can't look around her or follow the rules of operating the vehicle she shouldnt' be operating it IN A PLAYGROUND.

I'm not holding the child to a higher standard at all. It's her father that needs to be held to a higher standard. Quit filming and take care of the child. He admits he could have done things differently.

 

[Beccabunny]

But the child was in front of her the whole time. She should have either kept riding behind the child or waited until she could safely pass her.

I would agree with you if the child had come out of nowhere or was coming in the opposite direction. But the child started walking up the ramp first, and was in front of the ECV the whole time.

If the person in the ECV was driving a car somewhere, and there was a car driving erratically inf front of their car, would they try to pass them? No, they would wait because they could get hit by the car in front of them.

Yes, the child was ahead of her, but at the end of the ramp she was off to the side, then suddenly moved in the direction of the ECV. This woman on the ECV was not acting responsibly, and I've said that, but my point has been that children DO run quickly and change directions and even a very careful driver cannot always predict that. That's where parents need to step in and protect their children.

 

[North of Mouse]

And as I've said repeatedly, if she was on a street it would be an entirely different situation. In a playground, she was perfectly capable of running up the ramp. ANY adult in that playground has the responsibility to look out for where they are walking and in this case riding because the EXPECTATION is that children using a playground for it's intended purpose WILL be running all over the place. In a playground a child should not have to worry that she's going to get hit by an ECV. The ECV should be worrying that she should not hit children.

this is not a street. It's a playground. Built for kids.

but using your logic the same could be said for the ECV driver.
You're holding a 2 year old child to a higher standard than a grown woman using a motorized vehicle. If the grown woman can't look around her or follow the rules of operating the vehicle she shouldnt' be operating it IN A PLAYGROUND.

I was about to say the exact same thing!

 

[buffettgirl]

Yes, the child was ahead of her, but at the end of the ramp she was off to the side, then suddenly moved in the direction of the ECV. This woman on the ECV was not acting responsibly, and I've said that, but my point has been that children DO run quickly and change directions and even a very careful driver cannot always predict that. That's where parents need to step in and protect their children.

The child is 2. Using a playground. that's what 2 year olds do. if the child was in road then all bets are off but the driver should have anticipated that a 2 year old would act EXACTLY like a 2 year old. Defensive driving -

The standard Safe Practices for Motor Vehicle Operations, ANSI/ASSE Z15.1, defines defensive driving as "driving to save lives, time, and money, in spite of the conditions around you and the actions of others."[1] This definition is taken from the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course. It is a form of training for motor vehicle drivers that goes beyond mastery of the rules of the road and the basic mechanics of driving. Its aim is to reduce the risk of driving by anticipating dangerous situations, despite adverse conditions or the mistakes of others. This can be achieved through adherence to a variety of general rules, as well as the practice of specific driving techniques."

The parents were acting far more responsibly then a lot of parents I've seen. They were actively supervising their child at play. A child does not need a hand holding IN the playground when said child is confined between two parents, who always have said child in their view. Dad was videotaping..and well, that's what parents do. It seemed to me that it was one of those situations where he simply did not expect the ecv rider to edge up so quickly on the child and then try to pass her. And that's precisely what he's indicated. The ecv driver did not even see the child and then if she did, there was absolutely no reason to pass her. She was a two year old. This is the point I think you are missing here. A toddler. Doing what a toddler does in a place designed for CHILDREN.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

It's an issue because she is NOT fully capable of handling the ramp. She ran in front of the ECV. Small children do that and should have a parent with them.

As I said, even a slow-moving ECV would not be able to stop when a child suddenly runs in front of it. I never said the rights of the ECV owner outweighed the child's rights. I said it appears the ECV was going too fast. I THOUGHT I was clear on that.

Sure, kids are supposed to be running in a playground, but a two-year-old who is not able to navigate without running in front of others is a little different from a five-year-old. I still believe her father should have put down the camera. The reality is, the ramps are now being shared with mobility vehicles, and children who run in front of others can get hurt. It doesn't excuse the fast-moving ECV owner, but it's an unfortunate fact nonetheless.

My daughter uses a special needs stroller, which I have to push. It's a heavy stroller, and due to my own disability we move quite slowly. I have had young children suddenly dart in front of the stroller, and even at our snail's pace it's extremely difficult to stop. I've told parents they should be holding onto their young children instead of allowing them to run in front of us.

So becuase if the ECV was going slow it MAY still hit the child......that gives the person imporperly riding it the ok to go fast.................geessh..........This is the type of situation thats makes problems for EV riders who are carefull.......the person apparently thinks she can do whatever she wants.including puting 2 children's lives in danger............the one in her lap and the one on the ground.

This person was running a MOTOR VEHICLE and the kids have the right of way........period........


NO I am sorry...but this is so far over the top , it is plain wrong!

AKK

 

[Beccabunny]

So becuase if the ECV was going slow it MAY still hit the child......that gives the person imporperly riding it the ok to go fast.................geessh..........This is the type of situation thats makes problems for EV riders who are carefull.......the person apparently thinks she can do whatever she wants.including puting 2 children's lives in danger............the one in her lap and the one on the ground.


NO I am sorry...but this is so far over the top there is no way to twist this around.


AKK

Where did I ever say the person on the ECV gets the OK to go fast? Selective reading there. Fine. Let's just say all ECV riders are always to blame, because I was making the point (and it has been repeatedly ignored) that this child could have run in front of a slow-moving ECV. But let's just say it's always the ECV driver's fault. Dad can go on fliming. Will it be any comfort to him knowing he's "right" when his child is badly hurt, knowing he could've prevented it by staying with her when she's not able to safely navigate her surroundings?

 

[buffettgirl]

Where did I ever say the person on the ECV gets the OK to go fast? Selective reading there. Fine. Let's just say all ECV riders are always to blame, because I was making the point (and it has been repeatedly ignored) that this child could have run in front of a slow-moving ECV. But let's just say it's always the ECV driver's fault. Dad can go on fliming. Will it be any comfort to him knowing he's "right" when his child is badly hurt, knowing he could've prevented it by staying with her when she's not able to safely navigate her surroundings?

the child seemed perfectly able to navigate her surroundings - a playground. Seems to me she was having no difficulty. The only person in this situation who was having trouble was the driver of the ECV who was operating her ecv in an unsafe manner and was not aware of her surroundings. She is an adult, using a machine. We hold her to a much higher standard than a 2 year old child, behaving like a 2 year old child. We do NOT expect that a toddler will do anything differently than what she did.

Who's got selective reading? No one said all ECV riders are always to blame. However if the driver always has a child on her lap then she will always be to blame for failing to operate her vehicle in a safe manner. period.

 

[Beccabunny]

The child is 2. Using a playground. that's what 2 year olds do. if the child was in road then all bets are off but the driver should have anticipated that a 2 year old would act EXACTLY like a 2 year old. Defensive driving -

The parents were acting far more responsibly then a lot of parents I've seen. They were actively supervising their child at play. A child does not need a hand holding IN the playground when said child is confined between two parents, who always have said child in their view. Dad was videotaping..and well, that's what parents do. It seemed to me that it was one of those situations where he simply did not expect the ecv rider to edge up so quickly on the child and then try to pass her. And that's precisely what he's indicated. The ecv driver did not even see the child and then if she did, there was absolutely no reason to pass her. She was a two year old. This is the point I think you are missing here. A toddler. Doing what a toddler does in a place designed for CHILDREN.

It's silly to equate an ECV with an automobile and post defensive driving laws. It's a personal mobility device. It doesn't even have a brake. It is no more an automobile than an able-bodied person's legs are. And it is absolutely impossible to predict all situations, which is exactly why ALL adults in the situation, including the parent, need to be more cautious. I don't care if filming the child is "what parents do." That doesn't mean it's wise.

 

[buffettgirl]

It's silly to equate an ECV with an automobile and post defensive driving laws. It's a personal mobility device. It doesn't even have a brake. It is no more an automobile than an able-bodied person's legs are. And it is absolutely impossible to predict all situations, which is exactly why ALL adults in the situation, including the parent, need to be more cautious. I don't care if filming the child is "what parents do." That doesn't mean it's wise.

well, saying that ECV drivers need to be defensive drivers is a term others (using ECVs) have said in this very forum, elsewhere on Dis and in other places on the Web.

All you need to do is hit google for "defensive driving and the ECV" and you'll see many instances where that is what ecv users say about their driving/riding.

I was using that text as an example of what is meant by defensive driving, not as "this is the law" citation. Simply what it means by defensive driving - regardless of if you're in a car or a ECV. But in all cases, the onus is on the driver.

 

[Beccabunny]

the child seemed perfectly able to navigate her surroundings - a playground. Seems to me she was having no difficulty. The only person in this situation who was having trouble was the driver of the ECV who was operating her ecv in an unsafe manner and was not aware of her surroundings. She is an adult, using a machine. We hold her to a much higher standard than a 2 year old child, behaving like a 2 year old child. We do NOT expect that a toddler will do anything differently than what she did.

Who's got selective reading? No one said all ECV riders are always to blame. However if the driver always has a child on her lap then she will always be to blame for failing to operate her vehicle in a safe manner. period.

I never said that YOU said any such thing. Where did you get that? Perhaps I should've been more clear. Let's just FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE assume all ECV drivers are to blame. That's what I was saying. So, IF we assume all ECV drivers are to blame and that they should always be able to predict that a toddler will VERY SUDDENLY run in front of them, then OK, they're in the wrong. Dad is not to blame. Except one problem. We could have a seriously injured child, and it could've been prevented by Dad. Not his responsibility, but he could've prevented it. Bet any parent would feel great aobut that.

 

[buffettgirl]

I don't know if you're deliberately not seeing what people are saying or what, but I never implied nor did I ever think that you accused me of saying it, and further, no one but you ever brought up the scenario that all ECV drivers are to blame, in all situations. No one else has said it but you.

At this point this conversation seems pointless as we're both going to go round and round. You do not think the ECV driver is to blame because the child or her parents should have expected that an ECV would come up from behind her while in a playground, and I think that a parent has an expectation that a playground is meant to allow your child to run around as long as you are properly supervising them without fear that an ECV is going to come up behind and cut them off.

So I think the conversation not need continue , or else continue on without me.

 

[North of Mouse]

Sorry, buffettgirl, some people's minds are made up regardless of the facts - maybe she never had a toddler at a playground for children, but you're right about one thing - it is going in circles

 

[A Mickeyfan]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. From the video it appears the scooter driver was following the toddler up the ramp then at the top the little girl veered off to the side and the scooter driver continued straight.

I've never been in the Boneyard Playground myself as I figured it was a no wheelie zone. (I'm not in the habit of driving around playgrounds either.) But I've followed toddlers up similar ramps before. Only egregious thing I can see is the driver having a child in her lap. Was the dad just freaked out because he didn't expect to see a wheelie in there or is there more to the geography of the place I don't get?

There seemed to be plenty of following distance for the child. I've been given far less just driving down Main Street and I'm still able to stop and avoid collisions.

Don't see the fuss? She didn't just "follow" the toddler, but gained speed and passed her at the slide. The toddler was going on the slide where she was meeting her dad. Go to the original post on the other board and read the story. Look carefully at how fast this chair is going, look carefully at the child she has on there with her.. then ask what all the fuss is about... this woman could have seriously hurt that toddler. The parents did what they were supposed to in a play ground. They had one parent at each end of the slide for their child.. never expecting an electric wheelchair speeding up the ramp at their daughter then cutting her off just as she approaches the top where the slide is. Most parents aren't expecting something like that. That is a major safety issue. That is the fuss here.. and as Cheshire has pointed out, having a minor (under 18) at the controls of this chair is basically illegal!

 

[Mama Who]

It's silly to equate an ECV with an automobile and post defensive driving laws. It's a personal mobility device. It doesn't even have a brake. It is no more an automobile than an able-bodied person's legs are.

But when I'm roaming around on my legs on a playground it is absolutely MY responsibility to not step on toddlers. Whatever form of mobility we're using, small children on a playground ought to be safe from us.