# e-scooter trial, London



## pe2dave (19 May 2021)

Pocket lint article


----------



## Argus (19 May 2021)

..............and a bloke walking in front carrying a red flag!


----------



## Jake (19 May 2021)

Normally trials precede widespread use, but not in this instance.


----------



## Geoff_S (20 May 2021)

Where do these fit in the lorry, bus, van, car, motorbike, bicycle, pedestrian hierarchy?


----------



## pe2dave (20 May 2021)

Geoff_S said:


> Where do these fit in the lorry, bus, van, car, motorbike, bicycle, pedestrian hierarchy?


Law is quoted in the article.


----------



## Cabinetman (20 May 2021)

Geoff_S said:


> Where do these fit in the lorry, bus, van, car, motorbike, bicycle, pedestrian hierarchy?


 Probably literally underneath the first four when the idiots do something stupid. 
There was a typical bad lad breaking all the rules in town the other day riding an illegal one of these without a helmet at least 30 miles an hour dodging in and out of heavy traffic. Prime candidate for a Darwin award.


----------



## pils (20 May 2021)

Forgive me for being a bit dumb but what exactly is the distinction between 'privately owned' by 'individuals' and 'privately owned' by 'ltd company'?


----------



## gregmcateer (20 May 2021)

Pils,
Private individuals, e.g. you and me cannot ride around on them, but private limited companies can own them and RENT THEM OUT to private individuals. Does seem a bit mad, but I assume the logic is that the rental company will have to insure them and maintain them and they will be easier to hold liable in the event of the inevitable... watch this space. 
I'm only the messenger


----------



## Terry - Somerset (20 May 2021)

A typically daft piece of legislation in my view - we allow bikes but not scooters?

Two wheeled bikes are ubiquitous - some pedal power, some electrically assisted. Cyclists are fundamentally more vulnerable on 2 wheels compared to 4 surrounded by a steel exoskeleton (car). Most cyclists ride sensibly and defensively - but a few idiots put both themselves at greater risk and behave antisocially.

Why should scooters be any different - smaller wheels may make them less stable, but step off may be easier than fall off. 

Idiots will modify them to go faster, ride stupidly and/or anti-socially (on pavements) etc. Ultimately both fall foul of the Darwinian solution.


----------



## pils (21 May 2021)

gregmcateer said:


> Pils,
> Private individuals, e.g. you and me cannot ride around on them, but private limited companies can own them and RENT THEM OUT to private individuals. Does seem a bit mad, but I assume the logic is that the rental company will have to insure them and maintain them and they will be easier to hold liable in the event of the inevitable... watch this space.
> I'm only the messenger


yeah, the '_logic_'... :]


----------



## Droogs (21 May 2021)

i can't wait to see the first eejit on some illegally modified monstrosity tear down the main road popping a wheelie like the numpties with dirt bikes do


----------



## Blackswanwood (21 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> A typically daft piece of legislation in my view - we allow bikes but not scooters?
> 
> Two wheeled bikes are ubiquitous - some pedal power, some electrically assisted. Cyclists are fundamentally more vulnerable on 2 wheels compared to 4 surrounded by a steel exoskeleton (car). Most cyclists ride sensibly and defensively - but a few idiots put both themselves at greater risk and behave antisocially.
> 
> ...



In the good old days I found in European cities where they were in use that as a pedestrian the risk of being hit by someone on a scooter felt much greater than by a cyclist. A cyclist is high up, easier for them to see what is happening and be seen and tend to not ride on pavements (legally or illegally) as much.


----------



## Cabinetman (21 May 2021)

I have just remembered when I was 12 in 1967 a friend of mine at school arrived one day on an electric battery powered bicycle that his dad had acquired from somewhere, it was very old then so may have been built before the war? It had two big car batteries slung on a frame where the pedals would have been. Typical him he got stopped by the police on his way home and he got done properly for it. Probably an early prosecution of what’s about to happen now with these things.
Not quite so classy as another friend of mine who's dad in those days was into ex WD stuff and he arrived one day at school quite legally this time on an old but straight out of the box Matchless 350. I can’t remember exactly how much he said his dad had paid for it but it was peanuts. Ian


----------



## Spectric (21 May 2021)

I would have thought that under the road traffic act from who knows when, anything powered by a source of energy would be classed as a mechanically propelled vehicle and so why are electric scooters any different, if some muppet racing through a shopping centre at 25 mph collides with someone and leaves them disabled they have no insurance cover, same for any damage they cause to other peoples property.


----------



## pe2dave (22 May 2021)

Spectric said:


> I would have thought that under the road traffic act from who knows when, anything powered by a source of energy would be classed as a mechanically propelled vehicle and so why are electric scooters any different, if some muppet racing through a shopping centre at 25 mph collides with someone and leaves them disabled they have no insurance cover, same for any damage they cause to other peoples property.


They aren't 'different' Classification made clear in the article I posted.


----------



## Spectric (22 May 2021)

Have re read the article, do not see why some form of head protection is not required, suppose they are leaving it open like bicycles for the rider to decide in which case they should have insurance to cover hospital bills. Know a guy who litteraly fell off his bike as he came to a halt and was only wearing a bobble hat, three weeks in hospital so why not make helmets compulsory on scooters, bikes etc and save lives and NHS money.


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2021)

Seems a bit of waste of time as privately owned scooters are ubiquitous now, seen hundreds of them whizzing around, rozzers didn't even look twice.


----------



## TRITON (22 May 2021)

pe2dave said:


> Law is quoted in the article.


Are you telling us that given the chance, you'd have turned Robin Hood in to the authorities ?.


----------



## pe2dave (22 May 2021)

TRITON said:


> Are you telling us that given the chance, you'd have turned Robin Hood in to the authorities ?.


 If I'd been the one to be mown down on a pavement? Yep.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (22 May 2021)

The law is pointless unless it is enforced.

Reality - the police do not routinely enforce the law so far as either electric bikes or scooters are concerned. They may do in the event of a serious accident - otherwise infractions are ignored.

Police have lots of other pressures on them and need to prioritise. Failing to wear a helmet and riding on the pavement doesn't get high up the list.


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The law is pointless unless it is enforced.
> 
> Reality - the police do not routinely enforce the law so far as either electric bikes or scooters are concerned. They may do in the event of a serious accident - otherwise infractions are ignored.
> 
> Police have lots of other pressures on them and need to prioritise. Failing to wear a helmet and riding on the pavement doesn't get high up the list.



Yep, as I noted above, I personally witnessed dozens of scooters zip past the police just this week.


----------



## Jake (22 May 2021)

My favourites are these things, there's a guy who rides one of these at 30ish (edit must be 20ish if it is that brand) down the A2 (Old Kent Road)

Onewheel // Future Motion

Scooters are just everywhere. I did raise my eyebrows at some bloke doing the school-run on one (child standing in front, him behind) - again on the A2.


----------



## TRITON (22 May 2021)

pe2dave said:


> If I'd been the one to be mown down on a pavement? Yep.


Oh come now Dave, nobody was talking, especially you about anyone _mowing_ down anybody, your point was the legality of riding them in the first place. Were it about accidents you'd be out there shouting about how dangerous cars are, given they *kill or seriously maim* an average of 5 people a day.
And that's not hypothetical, that's a fact.
Why not leave it to the law to decide. If they want to start prosecuting scooter riders you can be sure as fate they will, the point that they don't suggests it's currently a grey area.

Dont read the Daily Mail do you ?.


----------



## Jake (22 May 2021)

It's not a grey area it's just that policing budgets are beyond the bone and this sort of illegality is (understandably) irrelevant in the priorities.


----------



## pe2dave (23 May 2021)

TRITON said:


> Oh come now Dave, nobody was talking, especially you about anyone _mowing_ down anybody, your point was the legality of riding them in the first place. Were it about accidents you'd be out there shouting about how dangerous cars are, given they *kill or seriously maim* an average of 5 people a day.


 What source are you quoting there please?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 May 2021)

Jake said:


> It's not a grey area it's just that policing budgets are beyond the bone and this sort of illegality is (understandably) irrelevant in the priorities.





https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2018/april_2018/information-rights-unit---mps-specialist-hate-crime-investigators



They seem to find money when it suits.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> The law is pointless unless it is enforced.
> 
> Reality - the police do not routinely enforce the law so far as either electric bikes or scooters are concerned. They may do in the event of a serious accident - otherwise infractions are ignored.



Some years I was turning right across a roundabout on a dual carriageway. Reasonable weather, but I'd come out of fog so still had headlights on. A young girl coming the other way was intent on having a laugh with her mate and forgot the roundabout existed - I was signalling, I saw her coming, realised she would hit me and tried to accelerate away, but didn't have the ponies. She T boned me, stoving the side of the car in 18". Someone called the police, and I asked the copper if she would be done for careless driving or driving without due care. Oh, we won't be taking any action, he said, because no one was hurt. By the bye, surely, I said - if I'd had a passenger they'd be lucky to walk again. Yeah, but you didn't, did you, he replied.


----------



## Jake (23 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/metropolitan-police/disclosure_2018/april_2018/information-rights-unit---mps-specialist-hate-crime-investigators
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to find money when it suits.



It is entirely unsurprising that hate crimes are higher priority than scooter riding.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Some years I was turning right across a roundabout on a dual carriageway. Reasonable weather, but I'd come out of fog so still had headlights on. A young girl coming the other way was intent on having a laugh with her mate and forgot the roundabout existed - I was signalling, I saw her coming, realised she would hit me and tried to accelerate away, but didn't have the ponies. She T boned me, stoving the side of the car in 18". Someone called the police, and I asked the copper if she would be done for careless driving or driving without due care. Oh, we won't be taking any action, he said, because no one was hurt. By the bye, surely, I said - if I'd had a passenger they'd be lucky to walk again. Yeah, but you didn't, did you, he replied.



See in a way that sounds rather sensible to me, prosecute on the outcome, not the potential outcome. It's the same with speeding or drink driving, if you don't have an accident, should you be punished?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 May 2021)

I had a similar incident - to add insult to injury the insurance companies judged me to be at fault - apparently the other driver simply reported that I had pulled out in front of her as I entered the roundabout.

That she was going far faster than she should have, and appeared to be racing another car was irrelevant - no way I could prove it!


----------



## thetyreman (23 May 2021)

must admit I want an e-scooter myself, it would be a lot better than a bike in many aspects, biking on roads is very unsafe, too many bad drivers on the roads.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> See in a way that sounds rather sensible to me, prosecute on the outcome, not the potential outcome. It's the same with speeding or drink driving, if you don't have an accident, should you be punished?


But you are.


----------



## TRITON (23 May 2021)

pe2dave said:


> What source are you quoting there please?



I find it odd youre now querying this, it is clear motor vehicles cause many deaths and injuries. Sounds like you're trying to split hairs. 
Suffice to say fatalities UK - 1800 average thanks to motor vehicles, 30,000 average serious injuries, and 125,000 slight injuries.
I expect scooters are in the 'slight' injuries somewhere in tiny numbers, more likely they are the victims.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> But you are.



It's an interesting debate to have really.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 May 2021)

Difficult question - what happens when two vehicles collide.

One weighs in at 1500kg with 4 wheels, seat belted occupants, protected by airbags, surrounded by a shell designed to absorb severe shocks to the structure.

The other weighs in at 100kg (with rider), two unstable wheels, no seatbelts (cos they are standing up), no airbags (nowhere to fix them), no crumple zones (just flesh and bone).

Rationally one would choose to put bikes and scooters on the pavement where collisions are likely to take place with similarly proportioned pedestrians. As on the road, all pavement users should take responsibility for their behaviour and carry insurance.

What we do need however is more cycle and scooter lanes. Probably won't happen!


----------



## pe2dave (23 May 2021)

TRITON said:


> I find it odd youre now querying this, it is clear motor vehicles cause many deaths and injuries.


Apologies, I re-read your earlier post and see you're talking about cars / motor vehicles.
I mis-read that as 5 deaths caused by e-scooters, hence the question.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> What we do need however is more cycle and scooter lanes. Probably won't happen!



Visit London recently? Cycle lanes everywhere, empty, roads next to them, packed.


----------



## TRITON (23 May 2021)

No probs.


----------



## thetyreman (23 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> What we do need however is more cycle and scooter lanes. Probably won't happen!



I agree, we'd need some serious money injected into it though to create an amsterdam style system, the reality is though they just do about 100 meters of bike lane then run out of money and think they are doing a great job, which in my opinion is worse than doing nothing, either do it properly or not at all.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> What we do need however is more cycle and scooter lanes. Probably won't happen!



Not around here, anyway. The existing ones are often dangerous and are rarely used.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I had a similar incident - to add insult to injury the insurance companies judged me to be at fault - apparently the other driver simply reported that I had pulled out in front of her as I entered the roundabout.



I had the same - I pulled out in front of her apparently .................. damaging my near side door and her off side wing. I did point out to them that unless she was going the wrong way around the roundabout that couldn't have happened and I heard no more.


----------



## TRITON (23 May 2021)




----------



## Stevekane (24 May 2021)

Personallly Im quite happy with the idea of exploreing all forms of personal transport, inc e-scooters and bikes and I suspect the govt are too and they dont want to stiffle it at birth, were at the begining of great and nessesary changes it seems and as with the motor car perhaps it will become or feel safer as we become familier with them being around us.
As to cycle lanes I recently read of a critical report into the provision of them, it said that most councils had taken cycle lane grant money and then just painted a few lines at the side of the road, that these were ineffective and offered little by way of protection to cyclsts. Trouble is that if they start to carve out sepsrate lanes the car drivers shout very loudly.
Steve


----------



## Rorschach (24 May 2021)

Stevekane said:


> Trouble is that if they start to carve out sepsrate lanes the car drivers shout very loudly.
> Steve



Yes and rightly so because they remove a huge part of road space that makes congestion worse and more dangerous for drivers for the benefit of a tiny number of cyclists.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 May 2021)

We have had a short cycle lane near us for about twenty years. It necessitates in the summer hundreds of cars every day taking a 200 or 300 yard detour around a roundabout and through traffic lights. I dread to think how much it has increased pollution, and in all those years I think I've seen one bike on it.


----------



## pils (24 May 2021)

50%+/yr of RAIN in the UK. once the 'fun' has gone, so will the business model.


----------



## Stevekane (24 May 2021)

Im no dxpert in this, far from it but I suspect that cycling will only flourish after building the cycle lanes and infrastructure that supports it, saying that there are just a few bikes therefore there is no need for cycle lanes is short sighted, I couldn't encourage anyone where I live to cycle, the danger of being hit by cars traveling at up to 60mph is just too real, we even have 40mph speed limits through the New Forest, large roundels painted on the roads with a 40 sign in them,,roads that most sane people would think ought to be 20mph, country lanes with free wandering ponies and cattle,,,often single lane, but sometimes with a painted cycle lane,,no far too dangerous. Create the cycle lanes and sod us motorists, if we dont like it then maybe we could get on our bikes,,at least we would be safe!
Steve.


----------



## Adam W. (24 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Yes and rightly so because they remove a huge part of road space that makes congestion worse and more dangerous for drivers for the benefit of a tiny number of cyclists.


Oh dear!

Take a look at the embankment, thousands of cyclists use that cycle path daily.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 May 2021)

A 500 mile round trip is a bit far just for me to see a busy cycle path.


----------



## Rorschach (24 May 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Oh dear!
> 
> Take a look at the embankment, thousands of cyclists use that cycle path daily.



Walked along it last week, thousands of vehicles going along it, just a handful of cyclists.


----------



## Adam W. (24 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Walked along it last week, thousands of vehicles going along it, just a handful of cyclists.




I don't believe you.

10000 cyclists used it daily in 2018. But as there's been a little pandemic a lot of people have been working from home lately. And when I'm studying in London, it's always full of cyclists.






Find an Answer | London City Hall







www.london.gov.uk


----------



## Rorschach (24 May 2021)

Adam W. said:


> I don't believe you.
> 
> 10000 cyclists used it daily in 2018. But as there's been a little pandemic a lot of people have been working from home lately. And when I'm studying in London, it's always full of cyclists.
> 
> ...



Ok don't believe me then. Not much I can do about that is there and rather a pointless thing to say.


----------



## Adam W. (24 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ok don't believe me then. Not much I can do about that is there and rather a pointless thing to say.




Not really, seeings the statistics prove you wrong, plus there isn't room on the Embankment for thousands of cars at any one time, as it's only one lane in each direction. 

So you're clearly making it up.


----------



## Rorschach (24 May 2021)

Adam W. said:


> Not really, seeings the statistics prove you wrong, plus there isn't room on the Embankment for thousands of cars at any one time, as it's only one lane in each direction.
> 
> So you're clearly making it up.



Well clearly they weren't all there at once! I saw a steady stream of vehicles in both direction while I was walking. I was unable to cross the road without using the pedestrian crossings as the traffic was dense enough that I couldn't slip between. The cycle lane on the other hand was barely used and I could cross that no problem at all at any time. Make of that what you will, unfortunately I didn't have the foresight to make a 2 hour video of my walk along the embankment in case at some point in the future someone on a forum didn't believe my anecdote about the traffic comparisons.

Like I say, believe me or don't believe me but the cycle lanes are way under utilised compared to the potential road space that they take up.


----------



## Stevekane (24 May 2021)

On a very slightly different tack I think it was Chris Boardman the olimpic cyclist whos mother was killed riding her bike, please correct me if Ive mis remembered that,,anyway I seem to recall that he had launched a guerrilla campaign of just painting simple Zebra Crossing white stripes across roads where people wanted to cross, and surprisingly these worked really well, people walked up to them and cars stopped,,simple,,,but too simple perhaps for the council and roadbuilding lobby who insist on complex and extremely costly pelican crossings,,,which they often cannot afford to provide. There is a lot of money riding on roads,,


----------



## Sachakins (24 May 2021)

The missing point in all the various opinions here is the impact to a driver who, maybe through no fault of their own, has an impact with an silly person on an e-scooter, ends up killing the rider. 
Forget the lack of insurance (not required?), lack of need for licence (not required), no requirement for highway code knowledge! Not even a theory test required and if its privately owned is illegal.
Also on top of that, will be calls for incarceration of driver, even if it is no fault, the aftermath and fall out are far reaching, will always be on insurance record, with financial penalties on cost for years do to no claims discount losses.

But, the living the rest of your life knowing you have killed someone, even if you know you have done nothing wrong and they are totally at fault, is a burden you will carry to your grave.

Maybe the law should step back, halt trials, clamp down on the illegal ones, review the need for training, licensing, insurance, sort out the loopholes and complexity surrounding it to protect not only the users, but the other legal, licensed and insured and pedestrians.

This headlong rush to trials is not helping the situation, it is only fueling aggravation towards them, and what could actually be a viable transportation solution is going to become seen as a pariah on our roads.


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> The missing point in all the various opinions here is the impact to a driver who, maybe through no fault of their own, has an impact with an silly person on an e-scooter, ends up killing the rider.
> Forget the lack of insurance (not required?), lack of need for licence (not required), no requirement for highway code knowledge! Not even a theory test required and if its privately owned is illegal.
> Also on top of that, will be calls for incarceration of driver, even if it is no fault, the aftermath and fall out are far reaching, will always be on insurance record, with financial penalties on cost for years do to no claims discount losses.
> 
> ...



Why is that any different to cyclists? They also require no test or insurance etc and are just as easily killed by a motorist.


----------



## Sachakins (25 May 2021)

It's no difference, but this thread is about e-scooters.
Personally I think that cyclists too, should be required to take at least the theory test, require insurance, have bike mot's, and be required in law to wear hi visibility attire, helmets and other safety equipment, both for their safety and that of other.

In fact this should be a minimum requirement for anyone using any method of transport on our roads, even those that use skates on public roads.


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> It's no difference, but this thread is about e-scooters.
> Personally I think that cyclists too, should be required to take at least the theory test, require insurance, have bike mot's, and be required in law to wear hi visibility attire, helmets and other safety equipment, both for their safety and that of other.
> 
> In fact this should be a minimum requirement for anyone using any method of transport on our roads, even those that use skates on public roads.



So then they might as well use cars.


----------



## Sachakins (25 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> So then they might as well use cars.


What exactly is wrong with wanting road users to all be required to have at least a minimum of the theory test, highway code knowledge, personal safety equipment, insurance and even a licence.


----------



## Blackswanwood (25 May 2021)

An alternative approach would be better design of our city and town centres to take motorised traffic out of them. That still leave the problem of collisions between cyclists/escooters and pedestrians but in my opinion would improve most city and town centres massively just by removing the noise and air pollution.

It would of course take a brave and coordinated approach from all levels of government to make this work as we are so used to being able to go wherever and whenever we want by car.


----------



## thetyreman (25 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> It's no difference, but this thread is about e-scooters.
> Personally I think that cyclists too, should be required to take at least the theory test, require insurance, have bike mot's, and be required in law to wear hi visibility attire, helmets and other safety equipment, both for their safety and that of other.
> 
> In fact this should be a minimum requirement for anyone using any method of transport on our roads, even those that use skates on public roads.



as a cyclist I agree, I took my cycling proficiency test as a child, now it's called 'bikeability' they've tried to make it sound cooler, it taught me a lot about how to cycle on roads safely as did learning about the highway code. We don't want insurance or MOT's though, I always wear a helmet and hi viz isn't needed unless you are cycling in the dark, we don't want to be patronised, that'll never work. I also regularly check my bike tyres and breaks to make sure they are working well, most of it is just common sense.


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> What exactly is wrong with wanting road users to all be required to have at least a minimum of the theory test, highway code knowledge, personal safety equipment, insurance and even a licence.



Nothing wrong with that, but if you introduce you you lessen the appeal of cycling and increase the appeal of owning a car which is undoubtedly better.


----------



## thetyreman (25 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Nothing wrong with that, but if you introduce you you lessen the appeal of cycling and increase the appeal of owning a car which is undoubtedly better.



everything is wrong with it, you'd have hundreds of thousands of angry cyclists protesting, we already get enough abuse on the roads.


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> everything is wrong with it, you'd have hundreds of thousands of angry cyclists protesting, we already get enough abuse on the roads.



Well at the moment you have angry motorists, congestion and masses of wasted road space.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> as a cyclist I agree, I took my cycling proficiency test as a child ...



Unforeseen consequences, maybe, but the children around where I used to live tended to ride quite carefully until they passed that after which they thought themselves invincible and rode like lunatics.


----------



## Sachakins (25 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> as a cyclist I agree, I took my cycling proficiency test as a child, now it's called 'bikeability' they've tried to make it sound cooler, it taught me a lot about how to cycle on roads safely as did learning about the highway code. We don't want insurance or MOT's though, I always wear a helmet and hi viz isn't needed unless you are cycling in the dark, we don't want to be patronised, that'll never work. I also regularly check my bike tyres and breaks to make sure they are working well, most of it is just common sense.


Ok maybe mot may be over the top, but I don't think insurance is over the top.
I had the entire side of my car severely damaged by a cyclist.
I was stationary in traffic. The cyclist came down the centre of the road and managed to slide his handle bar an pedal along my doors and wing and broke off the wing mirror.

He just shrugged it of and told me to claim on my insurance. By the time I got out to collar him he was off weaving in between the traffic.

And before you scream I didn't give him room, the inside lane to me was a cycle lane, he had no need to be in centre between me and incoming traffic.

If the bike was forced to display some form of visible registration I Could have pursued him through the registration system.
Then claim against his insurance.

I travelled that route a lot, but never saw him again.

If I had open my door in his path, he would be first to jump on wanting my insurance details.

Which I don't think I need to give him.
Since the law states you must exchange insurance details. But if he aint got any to exchange then ive no need to give him any.

Insurance should be a compulsory item for any mode of transport, engine or self propelled.

Hope we never criss paths again.


----------



## Sachakins (25 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> everything is wrong with it, you'd have hundreds of thousands of angry cyclists protesting, we already get enough abuse on the roads.


Just because it's unpopular, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.


----------



## Sachakins (25 May 2021)

And one point I missed, it's about time they contrubuted by being forced to pay road tax also, why be given a free ride on the roads.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (26 May 2021)

Regulating cyclists with insurance, tests, registration is never likely to be unenforced effectively, and thus pointless:

the police will have far higher priority issues to attend to
the young (below 14/16?) would be unable to cycle
the law abiding will be deterred from even taking to a cycle
those who don't care about legality will simply ignore it
less bikes = more cars and congestion
If bike meets car in a collision the cyclist is usually at far greater risk. 

If a cyclist damages a car or pedestrian and rides off, they have broken the law. Unless the damage is very serious (not just somewhat costly or temporarily painful) the police are unlikely to pursue it (first bullet above).


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Regulating cyclists with insurance, tests, registration is never likely to be unenforced effectively, and thus pointless:
> 
> the police will have far higher priority issues to attend to
> the young (below 14/16?) would be unable to cycle
> ...


The police will always have higher priorities,: Is no justification for not implementing it,
The young would be unable to cycle: Not true, just the legislation needs to account for them.
Deterent to law abiding: Not true, it is simply applying a level of accountability, which majority would respect.
Those that don't care ignore it. True, but when involved in incident then punishment would be enforceable.
Less bikes=more cars: Superstition, as ownership still cheaper than car for those that want them.

Bike v car cyclist at Greater risk: Exactly why safety equipment must become mandatory.
Unless the damage is very serious (not just somewhat costly or temporarily painful) the police are unlikely to pursue it.
So you advocate that they should not have any accountability, so the costs should just be acceptable to victim, again an irresponsible attitude to accountability for one's actions.

Sorry but I don't see any merit in your excuses.


----------



## pe2dave (26 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Why is that any different to cyclists? They also require no test or insurance etc and are just as easily killed by a motorist.


 Which is the current picture in France.
Any accident, car to bike / e-scooter, the car driver is blamed, almost without exception.


----------



## Yorkieguy (26 May 2021)

This is a topic which generates more heat than light - opinions are polarised and unlikely to change. Because children, pedestrians, cyclists, e-scooters mobility scooters, and horse rider are vulnerable road users and motorists are not, there is a far higher duty of can upon motorists than others. Attitudes to this differ from country to country. In Holland for example, if as child runs out onto the road to retrieve a ball and is hit by a motorist, the motorist will be held to be blameworthy. Why? Because in urban areas, that's the sort of thing which happens from timer to time and drivers should take special care. In the UK, the most likely attitude would be that it's the parent's fault for not controlling the child. It's why in many area (including most roads and street in the village in which I live) have 20 MPH speed limits as the stopping time is much shorter and the consequences if hitting someone are much less severe. Yet most drivers routinely ignore 20MPH limits, which in my view should be rigorously enforced by cameras. In saying that, many will retort that cameras are 'cash cows'. Not so - if people get caught on camera it isn't bad luck - it's because they're bad drivers with a bad attitude to road safety and poor observations.

I recently watched a Zoom talk by someone on the Transport panel considering e-scooters and the likely outcome. Q & As:

Will a licence be needed? No.
Insurance? No.
ID plates? No.
Helmets compulsory? No
Lower age limit? No.
Drive on pavements? No.
In cycle lanes? Yes.
On roads? Yes.
Maximum design speed and construction and use regulations? Yes.

This is pretty much in line with other counties where e-scooter use has taken root in large numbers.
Would I ride one? No - the wheels are only a few inches diameter and there are so many potholes I wouldn't feel safe, but when they do come - as they will - I'll be acutely aware of the vulnerability of those who ride them.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am a car driver, and until 2010 was a motorcyclist).


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

... the wheels are only a few inches diameter and there are so many potholes ...

Maybe if these contraptions become common, councils will have to fix potholes? Wait for the first council to get sued.


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Personally I think that cyclists too, should be required to take at least the theory test, require insurance, have bike mot's, and be required in law to wear hi visibility attire, helmets and other safety equipment, both for their safety and that of other.
> In fact this should be a minimum requirement for anyone using any method of transport on our roads, even those that use skates on public roads.


I completely disagree.
Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.
More cyclists makes it even safer as road users get accustomed to their presence.
Cycling is carbon zero, non polluting, silent, healthy, takes up less road space with less engineering, suits all ages.
Instead of cyclists having to adapt to suit motorists it should be the other way around with more provision and priorities for cyclists, stricter penalties for accidents caused to cyclists.
Motorist need more cycle training - maybe to be obliged to pass a cycle experience test themselves.
Cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, scooterers, mobility scooters, should reclaim the roads!
One thing long overdue in many built up areas is hugely reduced speed limits, 20 or lower as appropriate, plus pedestrianisation prioritisation of busy spots with wheeled vehicles allowed access at 10 or 5mph etc
PS as for paying vehicle tax - if it was roughly proportional to the effective cost of cycling on the road system it would be a few pennies. Not until we have cycle paths equivalent to motorways.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (26 May 2021)

In 1835 Parliament passed the Highway Act. This is the reference in the Road Traffic Act 1988 used as the basis for making electric bikes (other than assisted) illegal on the basis that they are "powered transport" and need to meet certain standards to use the roads legally. 

Queen Victoria was not even queen in 1835 - we have William IV to thank far being so far sighted as to anticipate the invention of lithium batteries.

We do need some legislation but it should be realistic and relevant. If the reality is that it will not be enforced we are simply wasting valuable parliamentary effort on the trivial when there are far more pressing things to do.

A purely personal view - more legislation does not mean better legislation.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Jacob said:


> Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.



Good. So we don't need any more cycle lanes.


----------



## thetyreman (26 May 2021)

another point, if you are already paying council tax then you are contributing to the upkeep of roads, that's in fact where the money comes from to pay for roads and maintenance.


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Good. So we don't need any more cycle lanes.


No you have complete missed the point:
Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.
EXCEPT cyclists are extremely vulnerable to motor vehicles.








Common Causes Of Cycling Accidents - Accident Claims Advice


Lack of road awareness, failure to judge the speed or distance of the cyclist, the inability of drivers to see cyclists properly and general rash or negligent behaviour, are some of the major reasons why cycling accidents happen.




www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> another point, if you are already paying council tax then you are contributing to the upkeep of roads, that's in fact where the money comes from to pay for roads and maintenance.


So why do i need to pay twice? Council Tax, and road tax for car/motorbike.


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Jacob said:


> No you have complete missed the point:
> Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.
> EXCEPT cyclists are extremely vulnerable to motor vehicles.
> 
> ...


Except that in trying to evade a wayward cyclist another accident happens.
So the accident statistic is vehicular, were in reality it was cyclist who initiated it and then legged it (pedaled it?)


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> So why do i need to pay twice? Council Tax, and road tax for car/motorbike.


Because you live in a house AND run a vehicle. If you ran two vehicles you'd have to pay three times.


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Except that in trying to evade a wayward cyclist another accident happens.
> So the accident statistic is vehicular, were in reality it was cyclist who initiated it and then legged it (pedaled it?)


 Yes that happens all the time! I go out on my bike and I hear great pile-ups behind me. I just pedal off as fast as I can.


----------



## thetyreman (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> So why do i need to pay twice? Council Tax, and road tax for car/motorbike.



it's just the way the system is, who said life was fair?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

If it were fair the money raised from motorists would be spent on the roads, which would then be perfect.


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Jacob said:


> Because you live in a house AND run a vehicle. If you ran two vehicles you'd have to pay three times.


So, given your logic that I run a vehicle, then it must follow tgat e-scooters,e-bikes and any assistive technology, which includes cycles by the way, should also pay road tax.

Also why if I have more than one vehicle, why should I pay tax on each of them, after all I can only use one at a time. As if have 3, I don't contribute 3 times the congestion, nor 3 times the emmision nor 3 times the polution, so why should i have to contribute 3 times.


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> it's just the way the system is, who said life was fair?


Exactly, so why do cyclist scream unfair if they are asked to pay. As you say who said life was fair.....


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Also why if I have more than one vehicle, why should I pay tax on each of them, after all I can only use one at a time. As if have 3, I don't contribute 3 times the congestion, nor 3 times the emission nor 3 times the pollution, so why should I have to contribute 3 times.



My argument as well. I for years I used to run a motorbike, a Volvo estate and a flat bed Transit. I used the bike by choice, the other two from necessity. Had I had to get rid of one, it would have been the one that caused the least pollution and congestion. It should have been me that was taxed, not the vehicles.


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2021)

Basically vehicle tax isn't "hypothecated" i.e. collected to finance a particular project. It's just tax which goes to the treasury.
It's also a form of social engineering in that there are different rates according to size, emissions and so on.
Bikes are considered highly desirable in terms of society, health, road management costs, etc so unless this changes dramatically they are unlikely to be taxed, not least because it would be a disincentive, but also because the next obvious step would be to tax pedestrians too.
Cyclists don't "scream unfair if they are asked to pay" - they've never been asked! It's only a few motorists who are screaming unfair!
Unused multiple vehicles don't have to pay fuel tax while not being used, if that's any consolation!.


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 May 2021)

I don’t think it is possible to create a taxation system that everyone will feel is fair. The tobacco industry has produced data that shows the tax on cigarettes amounts to more than the cost of the health problems smoking creates. I’ve no idea if they were right.

On the topic of Road Tax (isn’t it now VED?) I thought it was now based on emission. As cycles and escooters don’t create any they are exempt as are electric cars?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 May 2021)

On the subject of e-scooters.

This is not to make a point either pro or anti, just to point something out. E-scooters have already been a factor in one fatality, sadly.

Emily Hartridge: Deflated tyre 'caused YouTuber's e-scooter crash' - BBC News


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I don’t think it is possible to create a taxation system that everyone will feel is fair. The tobacco industry has produced data that shows the tax on cigarettes amounts to more than the cost of the health problems smoking creates. I’ve no idea if they were right.
> 
> On the topic of Road Tax (isn’t it now VED?) I thought it was now based on emission. As cycles and escooters don’t create any they are exempt as are electric cars?


The money raised by tobacco taxes and the money saved because of smokers dying younger way outweighs the the cost to the NHS.
If the whole population reverted to bicycles tomorrow, next month they'd be taxed. The money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> So why do i need to pay twice? Council Tax, and road tax for car/motorbike.


You don't. When you pay the vehicle excise duty, you are paying for the privelage of being allowed to have your car sit on a public road and for nothing else whether it is in a condition to be used or not. No part of the tax is officially meant to be used for the upkeep or roadways that is covered by 2 other methods. The first is by an allocation of budge percentage given by central government to your local council and from taxes raised by them directly from you as they are legally responsible for the upkeep of roadways except for motorways which are the responsibility of central government through the highways agency.
Therefore it is entirely reasonable that other people who place a vehicle of any type on the road pay for the privilege as well regardless of its type. When i lived in Zurich I had to pay road tax to be able to use my bike and this included a 3rd party insurance coverage element to it and you got a sticker for your bike like a tax disc.


----------



## Jake (26 May 2021)

All non-Londoners should obviously be banned from our streets here because they are paid for by our council tax (and rates) and not by central government. Even more reason for me to cry about my VED.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Droogs said:


> Therefore it is entirely reasonable that other people who place a vehicle of any type on the road pay for the privilege as well regardless of its type.



If it's your second vehicle it's not on the road when your first one is - that's the point.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

doesn't matter, you are paying to use that particular vehicle not all the vehicles you own just the same if you have 2 cars you still pay 2 sets of tax.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Jake said:


> All non-Londoners should obviously be banned from our streets here because they are paid for by our council tax (and rates) and not by central government. Even more reason for me to cry about my VED.



I'm sure the rest of the Country's motorists would be delighted.


----------



## Jacob (26 May 2021)

I first saw e-scooters in Las Palmas (Canaries) and was really impressed. One, sometimes two on one scooter, floating past silently like something from a futuristic comic.
Obviously a really good idea and should be supported in every way.


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> If it's your second vehicle it's not on the road when your first one is - that's the point.


It could be though. One could be parked on the road while the other is being driven. A family member may be driving one while you drive the other.


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Droogs said:


> You don't. When you pay the vehicle excise duty, you are paying for the privelage of being allowed to have your car sit on a public road and for nothing else whether it is in a condition to be used or not. No part of the tax is officially meant to be used for the upkeep or roadways that is covered by 2 other methods. The first is by an allocation of budge percentage given by central government to your local council and from taxes raised by them directly from you as they are legally responsible for the upkeep of roadways except for motorways which are the responsibility of central government through the highways agency.
> Therefore it is entirely reasonable that other people who place a vehicle of any type on the road pay for the privilege as well regardless of its type. When i lived in Zurich I had to pay road tax to be able to use my bike and this included a 3rd party insurance coverage element to it and you got a sticker for your bike like a tax disc.


Mine does not sit on the public road, it sits on my drive, which is not public.
Anyhow the law does not distinguish where it is. The only two options are 1: Tax it or 2: SORN declaration. It has nothing to do with the public highway as you wrongly claim!


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> It could be though. One could be parked on the road while the other is being driven. A family member may be driving one while you drive the other.


Unlikely, single household.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

You tax it so it can then be put on the public highway, doesn't matter if it just sits there or if it is moving, it is physically touching the road and the is the privelage you pay for. Just as it can not be left in the street even if you have a SORN otherwise it can cost you 6 points and a large fine, been there and done that.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Droogs said:


> You don't. When you pay the vehicle excise duty, you are paying for the privilege of being allowed to have your car sit on a public road and for nothing else whether it is in a condition to be used or not.



No, they're making you pay twice (or three, four, however many times) because they can. Why do dogs lick their balls? Because they can. Rights, wrongs, usage, whatever has f all to do with it.


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Droogs said:


> You tax it so it can then be put on the public highway, doesn't matter if it just sits there or if it is moving, it is physically touching the road and the is the privelage you pay for. Just as it can not be left in the street even if you have a SORN otherwise it can cost you 6 points and a large fine, been there and done that.


That's the point, it's not touching the road. It's on private land.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

No and they never have. This is a common mistake made by people Vehicle Excise Duty is not a road tax it is a fee applied to each vehicle you own to allow you to have it physically touch the roadway and for nothing else and you have to pay that fee for each one you own. The money raised goes into the general pot raised by all taxes. So yes people who use or park a bicycle or an e-scooter should pay too


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> It could be though. One could be parked on the road while the other is being driven. A family member may be driving one while you drive the other.


That's all the more reason the driver should be taxed not the vehicle.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> That's the point, it's not touching the road. It's on private land.


So you have a gate guard for your house then as it is never used, it never leaves your driveway? Or is it really a helicopter that never lands on anything other than private land?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Droogs said:


> This is a common mistake made by people Vehicle Excise Duty is not a road tax ...



Can you tell me of someone who pays it without owning a motor vehicle? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Unlikely, single household.


No need for two cars then! However the taxation system is set up it will feel unfair to someone.


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> Can you tell me of someone who pays it without owning a motor vehicle? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...


No but there are cars that use the road that it doesn’t apply to.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> No but there are cars that use the road that it doesn’t apply to.


Which is by the bye.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

Yes, my wife, she can't drive at all and pays VED for a vehicle she does not own, to enable her mother to have transport and she lives in a different city. Yes, her choice to do so but it is also your choice to own and operate more than 1 vehicle


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> No need for two cars then! However the taxation system is set up it will feel unfair to someone.


Supposition, who said 2 cars, I mentioned 3 vehicles, only one is a car.


----------



## Jake (26 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> I'm sure the rest of the Country's motorists would be delighted.



We would be too, win-win.


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

Jacob said:


> I first saw e-scooters in Las Palmas (Canaries) and was really impressed. One, sometimes two on one scooter, floating past silently like something from a futuristic comic.
> Obviously a really good idea and should be supported in every way.


Yes, but should pay insurance like any other vehicle propelled by assistive power.


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2021)

@Phil Pascoe, why should it be the driver that is taxed and not each vehicle. After all each vehicle causes a different amount of damage/harm to infrastructure and the environment, that's why there are different levels of VED. If it's just the driver that is taxed and therefore we will all pay the same then i'm buying a FV510 warrior when the army gets rid of them in 4 years time


----------



## Sachakins (26 May 2021)

No need to worry or fret in the future, when the system changes to pay per mile, as is likely given the massive number of ANPR cameras being installed, then you will only have to pay for your use, so having multiple vehicles won't matter, as you'll only pay for the one your in.

Hence why I prefer that VED/Road fund licence/car tax, call it what ever you want, be abolished completely.
Transfer the tax onto fuel, so guzzling high emissions cars pay more, the economical car pays less, those that do only 5000 miles a year don't pay as much as the 20000 miles a year user using the same type of vehicle.

Much fairer, much more equality of taxation by usage.

Just need to find a way of capturing non petrol or diesel cars, say electric vehicles. . Which would be quite easy via national charging network, bit more difficult to capture at home charging, unless they legislate that you must have an in home charging system, that's measures and sends you a bill.
It would have to be separate from general household bills though.


----------



## Jester129 (27 May 2021)

Since when did RFL (clue is in the wording for the upkeep of roads) become VED? Just askin'?


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2021)

Droogs said:


> doesn't matter, you are paying to use that particular vehicle not all the vehicles you own just the same if you have 2 cars you still pay 2 sets of tax.



Is that fair though? If I own two houses I don't have to pay two full sets of council tax.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2021)

Jester129 said:


> Since when did RFL (clue is in the wording for the upkeep of roads) become VED? Just askin'?


Churchill appropriated the income after WW2.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Transfer the tax onto fuel, so guzzling high emissions cars pay more, the economical car pays less, those that do only 5000 miles a year don't pay as much as the 20000 miles a year user using the same type of vehicle.


This was mooted in the '70s and by some weird reasoning was thought to be unfair to pensioners because the price of fuel would increase. Because most of them use so little it would of course have benefitted them greatly of course.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Is that fair though? If I own two houses I don't have to pay two full sets of council tax.


You should do.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> You should do.



You pay some, but it's not full rate.


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 May 2021)

Sachakins said:


> Supposition, who said 2 cars, I mentioned 3 vehicles, only one is a car.


Okay - I apologise for not recognising the distinction. I mistook this for a discussion in a woodworking internet forum and didn't think it was the Oxford Union debate. 

I should have said no need for more than one vehicle then.

I'll leave you to it if you want the last word as to how the taxation system should be structured to reflect your personal circumstances


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 May 2021)

Rorschach said:


> You pay some, but it's not full rate.


Sorry that's not necessarily the case. Each council decides.

second-homes-and-empty-properties


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> Sorry that's not necessarily the case. Each council decides.
> 
> second-homes-and-empty-properties



Hmmm yes I see it's a bit more complicated. It does seem you are likely to get some sort of discount. Ah well, another unfair tax then.


----------



## stuart little (27 May 2021)

thetyreman said:


> another point, if you are already paying council tax then you are contributing to the upkeep of roads, that's in fact where the money comes from to pay for roads and maintenance.


There's no such thing as 'Road Tax' - it's 'Car Tax' , or rather 'rip-off' tax; environment tax or whatever, since some new cars are zero rated & older ones, as in the case of my 20 year old Saab, an extortionate £360 whether I drive 1mile or 10k / year (it's clocked 30k in 20 years). It's been on a SORN for 12 months.


----------



## stuart little (27 May 2021)

Phil Pascoe said:


> If it were fair the money raised from motorists would be spent on the roads, which would then be perfect.


I've heard from a reliable source that so-called road tax was never spent on roads, but used for benefits etc.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2021)

It ceased to be hypothecated after WW2 iirc.


----------



## Droogs (27 May 2021)

It has never been Road Fund License tax it has been Vehicle Excise Duty since it's introduction in 1920, it was, initially , ring-fenced to provide a road fund for new road construction, this ended in 1936. since then it has gone into the main taxation pot raised by central government. There is none alive who has ever paid a "Road Tax" that is exclusively for the road


----------

