[dcolkitt]

The problem is lack of helmet. If the injured party wasn't wearing a helmet, and the scooter clearly stated that a helmet should be warn, the case will get thrown out.

Everybody knows that nobody wears a helmet while riding scooter company. The manufacturers know, the ride-sharing services know, and the riders know. But if a helmet warning is clearly displayed, that gives the scooter company virtual legal immunity from injury lawsuits.

Even if the scooter's unsafe with a helmet, the situation prevents any serious legal damages. Only a small minority of riders will actually wear the helmet, and the company can just settle with on an individual basis. This pool is too tiny to attract high-powered class action attorneys.

The vast majority of riders, and therefore injuries, will be helmet wearing riders. Proving the counterfactual that they would have sustained the same injuries even with a helmet is very difficult. Head injuries by far are the highest damages, so again the pool of non-head injuries is too small to attract serious class-action attorneys.

[henryfjordan]

Bird puts out a lot of promotional material without people wearing helmets. They lobbied the CA government to change the law so that helmets are not required. They tried the lobby Oregon to change the same law there but were basically laughed out of the state.

A good lawyer could argue that riders do not know they need to wear helmets on the scooters.

[alistairSH]

No, the problem is scooters with small wheels that are easy to crash.

The Dutch do fine riding bicycles without helmets.

If scooters are in fact more dangerous than bicycles, we should probably just reevaluate their use in the first place.