# Ban cyclists and e-scooter riders using phones, Tory peer urges.



## night cycler (7 Apr 2022)

A Tory politician is calling for a ban on using mobiles while on a bicycle or e-scooter, after a concerning incident with a cyclist near Parliament.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering wants a law change so cyclists are prosecuted for the offence of using a phone, in the same way that car drivers are.

There is no specific offence for a cyclist using a phone, but a minister pointed out cyclists can be prosecuted for careless or dangerous cycling.
That comes with fines of up to £2,500.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61018584


----------



## fossyant (7 Apr 2022)

I agree. Blooming well stop. Expensive dropping a modern phone.


----------



## HobbesOnTour (7 Apr 2022)

It's been done in the Netherlands


----------



## Sixmile (7 Apr 2022)

Banning motorists from using phones doesn't seem to stop the use. I actually think I see more than ever using the phone at the wheel.

You can sit in a car with the engine off using a phone, what way would the bike one work? Could you sit on a bike and use a phone or have to dismount to stop strava?


----------



## vickster (7 Apr 2022)

99% of e scooter riders (allowance for legitimate hire scheme pilots) shouldn't be riding on roads, paths and pavements anyhow


----------



## DCLane (7 Apr 2022)

Agreed - but as others have put it doesn't stop it happening.


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Apr 2022)

I'm not about to join the barricades to fight for our right to use our phones while riding - it seems like a stupid thing to do to me. But it would be nice to see a bit of evidence that such a change would be worthwhile in reducing accident rates. 

Or is it just a case of "We're not allowed to use our phones while driving several tons of lethal weapon, but there's nothing to stop _them_ from using _their_ phones. Waaaah, it's not fair"


----------



## Jody (7 Apr 2022)

Imagine having enough power that you can call for laws being changed due to one concerning incident.

The amount of shoot that goes on in this country every day and were going after a non issue again. Almost like another distraction, getting people frothing at those bloody cyclists again.


----------



## Sixmile (7 Apr 2022)

I'd two concerning incidents on consecutive mornings recently. A driver of a local bread company driving his 6.5tn at the morning drop off past the schools, glued to his phone between his legs. So much so when I waved at his windscreen and side window, he still didn't notice me or my bike. I'd reported to the company but situations like that and thousands of other similar one's each and every day up and down the country will not make the main BBC site but one bloke riding a bike will. Neither are right but I sure to heck know which one of the two I'd rather be hit by if I'd a choice.


----------



## classic33 (7 Apr 2022)

What about those that use them for navigation, a bit like some car drivers.


----------



## Poacher (7 Apr 2022)

Oh dear lord, some of the HYS comments! Why did the BBC open this up for discussion?


----------



## mjr (7 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm not about to join the barricades to fight for our right to use our phones while riding - it seems like a stupid thing to do to me. But it would be nice to see a bit of evidence that such a change would be worthwhile in reducing accident rates.
> 
> Or is it just a case of "We're not allowed to use our phones while driving several tons of lethal weapon, but there's nothing to stop _them_ from using _their_ phones. Waaaah, it's not fair"


Also, we know what would happen based on other offences: cyclists would be penalised for the offence far more than motorists because cyclists are obvious, exposed and can usually be stopped by a PCSO, while motorists hide inside their metal boxes with the phone on their lap, in the centre console or tucked in the dash by the speedo.

As others point out, this batch of old fart in limos would probably botch the legislative definition of "while riding" too so you'd be required by law to dismount to dismiss a call or alert, or look at a map on your phone. And, as you say, for what gain? I bet most years that cyclist mobile phone use is not a contributory factor for a single recorded road casualty other than the phoney cyclist. We already have a bigger incentive not to futz with phones too much: crashing bloody hurts pretty much every time, unlike for motorists with their bumpers and airbags and crumple zones.

If the Baroness would like to improve road safety, she could do much more good by challenging the crazy situation of parking on pavements (outside London) or most cycleways not being in itself an offence and not generally being accepted as evidence of pavement driving (which is an offence) or highway obstruction, and only roads policing unit officers usually being allowed to stop motorists. That shoot puts walkers and cyclists on the carriageway unnecessarily every day, including bits that are so farking dodgy that even our sluggish councils built protected refuges in the highway (pavements, cycleways) for non-motorists.


----------



## mjr (7 Apr 2022)

Jody said:


> Imagine having enough power that you can call for laws being changed due to one concerning incident.
> 
> The amount of shoot that goes on in this country every day and were going after a non issue again. Almost like another distraction, getting people frothing at those bloody cyclists again.


Debates where over 99% of participants don't understand what they're talking about, spouting off under assumed names without risk to themselves of being held accountable? Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the House of Lords: The Facebook of Legislatures.


----------



## Peter Salt (7 Apr 2022)

100% agree. You shouldn't be driving/riding anything and using your phone really. Enforcing it is another matter though.


----------



## mjr (7 Apr 2022)

Peter Salt said:


> 100% agree. You shouldn't be driving/riding anything and using your phone really. Enforcing it is another matter though.


Would you like to reconsider that 100% or do you really agree with her entire rant? I think cyclist phone use is covered adequately under current laws and enforced appropriately.


----------



## mjr (7 Apr 2022)

Bravo to thirdcrank on the Cycling UK forum for reminding us of this phone-using cyclist:





So I'm not sure how far the Baroness's push will go... (although Boris has allegedly outlawed some other things he's done).


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I'm not about to join the barricades to fight for our right to use our phones while riding - it seems like a stupid thing to do to me. But it would be nice to see a bit of evidence that such a change would be worthwhile in reducing accident rates.
> 
> Or is it just a case of "We're not allowed to use our phones while driving several tons of lethal weapon, but there's nothing to stop _them_ from using _their_ phones. Waaaah, it's not fair"



It is not just about reducing accident rates. I have, on numerous occasions as a pedestrian, had to delay crossing the road at a local crossing as the approaching cyclist was busy looking at his/her phone.

Just as with cyclists on pavements - it is not just the accidents that happen that matter.


----------



## newfhouse (7 Apr 2022)

Be careful glancing at your Garmin or Wahoo.


----------



## Sixmile (7 Apr 2022)

Plenty of drivers seem to be glancing at their wahoo while driving


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> you'd be required by law to dismount to dismiss a call or alert, or look at a map on your phone.


And what about those who use a phone mounted on their bars as a navigation/stats device. Does that count as "using" a mobile phone.

And many GPSs, Garmins and Wahoos are bluetoothed to mobiles so are they an extension of the phone? (as in your "dismiss a call alert" example)

It's utter bollocks.

Caveat - not, of course that I think actually using the phone for comms - texting or talking - is actually a good idea. On the contrary. But is it a real nationwide problem in need of addressing? Of course it isn't this is just someone looking around for pointless regulations to throw at cyclists.


----------



## Bollo (7 Apr 2022)




----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> *And what about those who use a phone mounted on their bars as a navigation/stats device. Does that count as "using" a mobile phone.*
> 
> And many GPSs, Garmins and Wahoos are bluetoothed to mobiles so are they an extension of the phone? (as in your "dismiss a call alert" example)
> 
> ...



Same rules as a car driver using a phone as sat nav in a dashboard cradle


----------



## Solocle (7 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> And what about those who use a phone mounted on their bars as a navigation/stats device. Does that count as "using" a mobile phone.
> 
> And many GPSs, Garmins and Wahoos are bluetoothed to mobiles so are they an extension of the phone? (as in your "dismiss a call alert" example)
> 
> ...


Quiet road, I might very occasionally whip out the phone for a photo without stopping for it.




It's even illegal to stop on the carriageway here - the A82, as it's a clearway:




So the only legal way for me to get that photo was to take it while moving!

Whereas this one on the A9 I just didn't want to have to push off again while climbing Helmsdale.




In all instances, there was nobody else around. This risk to other people was demonstrably zero. And I'm comfortable enough in my bike handling to be riding one handed for a couple of seconds (I don't even have to _look _at the phone to take a photo).

On the other hand, riding no handed down a pavement while texting, as I do see happen occasionally, is obviously stupid and dangerous. But that's already an offence - careless/dangerous.


----------



## icowden (7 Apr 2022)

night cycler said:


> Baroness McIntosh of Pickering wants a law change so cyclists are prosecuted for the offence of using a phone, in the same way that car drivers are.


This is presumably because cyclists using a phone when cycling are just as dangerous as motorists using a phone when driving. 
That tonne of cycling metal can really do some damage when it crashes into a car. I've lost count of the number of innocent motorists run over by marauding cyclists...


----------



## vickster (7 Apr 2022)

icowden said:


> This is presumably because cyclists using a phone when cycling are just as dangerous as motorists using a phone when driving.
> That tonne of cycling metal can really do some damage when it crashes into a car. I've lost count of the number of innocent motorists run over by marauding cyclists...


What about pedestrians however? The complainant wasn’t driving at the time 🤷‍♀️


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2022)

It would seem to me, given the revised HWC and Hierarchy of roar users, that all those in control of a vehicle of any form - 2 wheeled or 4 wheeled - should be subject to the same rules wrt hand-held phones and other devices.

Currently, only cyclists (conventional and e- ) are given a free pass to ignore the road and other road users while they concentrate on their phone.


----------



## newfhouse (7 Apr 2022)

Let’s hear it for the unicyclists.


----------



## Tenkaykev (7 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> Would you like to reconsider that 100% or do you really agree with her entire rant? I think cyclist phone use is covered adequately under current laws and enforced appropriately.


Exactly This ^^^^^^^^^
These offences are already covered by existing legislation should the police choose to enforce it.


----------



## Phaeton (7 Apr 2022)

Tenkaykev said:


> Exactly This ^^^^^^^^^
> These offences are already covered by existing legislation should the police choose to enforce it.


Who are these mythical beasts you speak of?


----------



## iluvmybike (7 Apr 2022)

Hmm 'whatabout-ery' seems to be becoming a modern disease!


----------



## mjr (7 Apr 2022)

vickster said:


> What about pedestrians however? The complainant wasn’t driving at the time 🤷‍♀️


And how severe were the complainant's injuries? Mild uncertainty, wasn't it?

I also note that the not-at-all-made-up-for-an-anecdote cyclist was also "on the wrong side of the road" which is a pretty clear-cut offence under the Highways Act 1835 section 78 (as in, it applies to all vehicles and predates the bicycle by a few decades). What point new laws when the old ones aren't enforced?


----------



## fossyant (7 Apr 2022)

Jody said:


> Almost like another distraction, getting people frothing at those bloody cyclists again.



Shaddupa ya face, you two wheeled lycra hooligan !


----------



## Jody (7 Apr 2022)

fossyant said:


> Shaddupa ya face, you two wheeled lycra hooligan !



Oi. Less of the Lycra!


----------



## Tenkaykev (7 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> If the Baroness would like to improve road safety, she could do much more good by challenging the crazy situation of parking on pavements (outside London) or most cycleways not being in itself an offence and not generally being accepted as evidence of pavement driving (which is an offence) or highway obstruction, and only roads policing unit officers usually being allowed to stop motorists. That shoot puts walkers and cyclists on the carriageway unnecessarily every day, including bits that are so farking dodgy that even our sluggish councils built protected refuges in the highway (pavements, cycleways) for non-motorists.


I became more aware of the curse of pavement parking when our granddaughter came along and I'd take her for walks in her buggy. I'd often have to squeeze through a space or go out on the carriageway due the inconsiderate attitude of the vehicle owners. I was pondering the solutions ( and as pointed out in other messages in this thread, the legislation already exists, it is just not being enforced ) and I came up with what I considered a workable and equitable solution.
My solution ( only partially tongue in cheek ) was a smartphone app which i was going to call " Dobber " which word work as follows. The user would download the App and go through a series of identity and location checks and once approved become a " Dobber ". Once verified this would link to their local council and the DVLA. The user would go out and about their business as usual. If they saw a vehicle parked on the pavement / double yellow lines without a Blue Badge etc, they would open the App and take a photo which would automatically be uploaded to the DVLA with date, time and location. The owner of the vehicle would be issued with a fixed penalty charge, A percentage of which would go to the reporting persons local council to be offset against their personal council tax. Should the amount build up to exceed the amount of Council Tax owed, any excess would go into the local councils infrastructure improvements fund.
There would be a strong competitive element to the app, with local and regional awards to the top " Dobbers" and an annual presentation dinner for the prestigious " Dobber of the Year " award. While there may well be some " pushback " from vested interests, the oft repeated saying of one particular politician " If you can't do the time, don't do the crime " could be quoted.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (7 Apr 2022)

What's good for the goose...


----------



## Aravis (7 Apr 2022)

Solocle said:


> It's even illegal to stop on the carriageway here - the A82, as it's a clearway:
> View attachment 638936
> 
> So the only legal way for me to get that photo was to take it while moving!



Completely OT, but I hadn't realised how lucky I was to get this striking (and legal) image:







Less fortunately I was soon heading back and round via Connel Ferry.


----------



## mjr (7 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> What's good for the goose...


Spiced red cabbage and hasselback potatoes, but what's that got to do with mobile phones or this idiot Baroness?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (7 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> Spiced red cabbage and hasselback potatoes, but what's that got to do with mobile phones or this idiot Baroness?



I will de-obtuse it for you and also thank you for the gastronomic tips - very enlightening. 🙂

If one set of road users should not use mobile phones then that should apply to other sets of road users too. 

Irrespective of the scale of potential harm by different road user groups eg car drivers and cyclists, all are capable of causing some harm. 

For sure two tons of metal can wield a lot of havoc when piloted by a distracted driver but so can the far less massive cyclist/bike combo with eg an inadvertent swerve into the path of another road user with possible knock-on effects. 

In my book, cyclists have a duty to be as vigilant as possible re their potential to cause accidents and, therefore, should concentrate fully on cycling safely instead of being distracted by yabbering to their mates etc or scrolling through their Insta feed via a mobile phone.


----------



## Dogtrousers (7 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> I will de-obtuse it for you and also thank you for the gastronomic tips - very enlightening. 🙂
> 
> If one set of road users should not use mobile phones then that should apply to other sets of road users too.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here is putting the case that talkingon the phone/texting while cycling is in any way a good idea. 

Just that this would be a waste of legislators' time, especially when it's already covered by existing legislation. The justification for a change in the law, with all that that entails, without any substantiating evidence is rather weak. Oh, I'm sorry, there is evidence - the substantiating evidence is a story that the Baroness McIntosh made up off the top of her head. Where no harm was caused.

I personally wouldn't care a jot if it were made illegal as it wouldn't affect me. I'm way too clumsy to handle a phone while riding. But surely they have better things to do with their time.


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Irrespective of the scale of potential harm by different road user groups eg car drivers and cyclists, all are capable of causing some harm.



Well said Spokey!

I have:
Ruptured shoulder tendons, another dislocation would most likely precipitate a shoulder joint replacement
A troublesome ACL knee.
Daily anticoagulant - wounds or head trauma are serious threats

An inattentive cyclist using his or her phone could cause me VERY serious harm in a collision that might seem innocuous.

There is nothing special about me.
The same applies to many other pedestrians who are Vulnerable for a variety of reasons.

So to those cyclists bleating the usual cyclist bleat "Cars are more dangerous than bikes". 

*Just STFU!*


----------



## SpokeyDokey (7 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I don't think anyone here is putting the case that talkingon the phone/texting while cycling is in any way a good idea.
> 
> Just that this would be a waste of legislators' time, especially when it's already covered by existing legislation. The justification for a change in the law, with all that that entails, without any substantiating evidence is rather weak. Oh, I'm sorry, there is evidence - the substantiating evidence is a story that the Baroness McIntosh made up off the top of her head. Where no harm was caused.
> 
> I personally wouldn't care a jot if it were made illegal as it wouldn't affect me. I'm way too clumsy to handle a phone while riding. But surely they have better things to do with their time.




Road users as a collective should, imo, be subject to the same juristiction.

How can it not be illegal for a cyclist to use a phone whilst cycling and the reverse being applicable to motorists?

As I understand the current two separate sets of legislation it appears that a motorist using a mobile phone may be deemed as carrying out an illegal activity even if they are not causing, or being likely to cause, any harm; whereas it is not illegal for a cyclist to use a phone until they are in a situation where they are likely to cause some harm.

I am all for parity for all road users in all aspects of road use and that should apply to prevailing laws too.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (7 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Road users as a collective should, imo, be subject to the same juristiction.



Disagree, I would not expect to be subject to the same jurisdictions when walking along a road as when I’m driving or cycling etc. jurisdiction needs to be proportionate.

Just as I would not expect the same jurisdiction when swimming in the sea as a captain managing a ferry.

The legislation quite rightly recognises this.


----------



## newfhouse (7 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> So to those cyclists bleating the usual cyclist bleat "Cars are more dangerous than bikes".
> 
> *Just STFU!*


Your medical vulnerability doesn’t alter the fact that cars drivers are more dangerous to you than bikes cyclists. It should go without saying that nobody should ride in such a way that they knock you or anyone else flying, but if they are already speeding past you on the pavement I’m not convinced that a new law about phones will modify their behaviour one iota.


----------



## mustang1 (7 Apr 2022)

CyclingMikey vs DrivingMikey


----------



## Cycleops (7 Apr 2022)

So what's the penalty going to be? It's a pretty serious matter for your wallet and driving license in a car but what will it be on a bike? Fixed penalty I should think. How much? £50? £75 £100? Maybe a lot more if it's going to be a deterrent.


----------



## newfhouse (7 Apr 2022)

Cycleops said:


> if it's going to be a deterrent.


It isn’t. They don’t enforce existing rules that already prohibit far more dangerous behaviour by road users.


----------



## PK99 (7 Apr 2022)

newfhouse said:


> Your medical vulnerability doesn’t alter the fact that cars drivers are more dangerous to you than bikes cyclists. It should go without saying that nobody should ride in such a way that they knock you or anyone else flying, but if they are already speeding past you on the pavement I’m not convinced that a new law about phones will modify their behaviour one iota.



If hit by a car/bike you are correct.

But my experience as a pedestrian is that I am put at risk and have to take avoiding action FAR more times by cyclists than motor vehicle drivers

That avoiding action is most often necessary on pavements and on crossings where I have priority - often by cyclists riding one-handed with a mobile.

As I said above, and you chose to ignore:

So to those cyclists bleating the usual cyclist bleat "Cars are more dangerous than bikes".

_Please_ don't !


----------



## newfhouse (8 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> That avoiding action is most often necessary on pavements and on crossings where I have priority - often by cyclists riding one-handed with a mobile


So the problem is dangerous and discourteous cycling, which I think we all agree should be discouraged. Sometimes mobile use will be a factor, sometimes it won’t.

I nearly fell off while peeling a banana once. Should fruit consumption have its own prohibition? Or cycling with fewer than a prescribed number of hands on the steering mechanism? (Won’t somebody think of the unidexters?)



PK99 said:


> you chose to ignore:


I did. This is a discussion forum.

*End of.*


----------



## Andy in Germany (8 Apr 2022)

Jody said:


> Imagine having enough power that you can call for laws being changed due to one concerning incident.
> 
> The amount of shoot that goes on in this country every day and were going after a non issue again. Almost like another distraction, getting people frothing at those bloody cyclists again.



I supose they figure scapegoating and "othering" has worked pretty well as distraction so far, why stop now?


----------



## Solocle (8 Apr 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Disagree, I would not expect to be subject to the same jurisdictions when walking along a road as when I’m driving or cycling etc. jurisdiction needs to be proportionate.
> 
> Just as I would not expect the same jurisdiction when swimming in the sea as a captain managing a ferry.
> 
> The legislation quite rightly recognises this.


I mean, it's sure going to be interesting to find somewhere to fit my all new bike tachograph...





And as for pedestrians?


----------



## matticus (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Road users as a collective should, imo, be subject to the same juristiction.


Nonsense.
Would you make speed limits for all vehicle classes the same?
Would you support licencing for pedestrians?


----------



## Oldhippy (8 Apr 2022)

There are t*ats everywhere you cannot possibly legislate for everything. It is just another politician making a noise to justify their existence by looking like they give a crap and distraction from issues that affect society in much more serious ways.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Apr 2022)

Oldhippy said:


> There are t*ats everywhere* you cannot possibly legislate for everything*. It is just another politician making a noise to justify their existence by lookinglike they give a crap and distraction from issues that affect society in much more serious ways.


Well, you don't really need to. You don't need to rush through legislation to stop this, that and the other. Here's a thought, you could make "careless or dangerous" cycling an offence and it would cover the various eventualities. Provided the police have the resources and inclination to enforce it.

Where something is a genuine specific problem - like lorry drivers playing pacman* on their phones while driving down the motorway, or parents frantically checking the whatsapp school run group while on the school run - _*then*_ you need to address that specific problem.

* Sorry I'm a bit out of date. Maybe this should be FIFA 22 or some other game.


----------



## matticus (8 Apr 2022)

Oldhippy said:


> There are t*ats everywhere you cannot possibly legislate for everything. It is just another politician making a noise to justify their existence by lookinglike they give a crap and distraction from issues that affect society in much more serious ways.


Yes.
And it's a form of populism: back some measure that will constrain "those sort" whilst looking after the common man.


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

matticus said:


> Yes.
> And it's a form of populism: back some measure that will constrain "those sort" whilst looking after the common man.


And the best solution is to get a majority, or at least a blocking minority, cycling. So helping and encouraging others onto bikes should be our response.

(With another cycling PM, we may actually have a blocking minority but it's rather fragile.)


----------



## cougie uk (8 Apr 2022)

Sixmile said:


> Banning motorists from using phones doesn't seem to stop the use. I actually think I see more than ever using the phone at the wheel.
> 
> You can sit in a car with the engine off using a phone, what way would the bike one work? Could you sit on a bike and use a phone or have to dismount to stop strava?


I think you will see a drop off in this soon. Report any you have any proof of and it's 6 points on their licence.


----------



## Jody (8 Apr 2022)

cougie uk said:


> I think you will see a drop off in this soon. Report any you have any proof of and it's 6 points on their licence.



I don't tend to see as many making calls but there seems to be a suspiciously large amount of people driving round constantly glancing at the thighs or the pocket of the door card. 

No idea what's in their right hand but it seems to capture their attention.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> If hit by a car/bike you are correct.
> 
> But my experience as a pedestrian is that I am put at risk and have to take avoiding action FAR more times by cyclists than motor vehicle drivers
> 
> ...


The stats really don't support your argument at all. Whilst I am not discounting your personal experiences the real danger is the motor vehicles. I would love to be in a situation where mobile use by cyclists is a real problem that requires separate legislation over and above what we have now, as it means we have probably experienced a cycling revolution where cycling is so normalised and safe that a large percentage of cyclists feel that they can ride and call without being hit by a tipper. It means we have approached Netherland's levels of cycling a safety where mobile phone use has actually been banned.


----------



## Sixmile (8 Apr 2022)

cougie uk said:


> I think you will see a drop off in this soon. Report any you have any proof of and it's 6 points on their licence.


I ride with a fly6 on the rear and occasionally a fly12 on the front and they wouldn't pick up most phone use. Reporting anything to police without footage is a waste of time from experience.


----------



## All uphill (8 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> If hit by a car/bike you are correct.
> 
> But my experience as a pedestrian is that I am put at risk and have to take avoiding action FAR more times by cyclists than motor vehicle drivers
> 
> ...


STFU = Stupendous Thanks For Upknowledging?


----------



## SpokeyDokey (8 Apr 2022)

Usual defensiveness and deflection from some members of the cycling community.

Based on reading various CC threads over the years I come to the following conclusions.

As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating, it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover, it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever and it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black without any lights on a bike.

And some cyclists wonder why many motorists take a dim view of them. ☹️


----------



## matticus (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Usual defensiveness and deflection from some members of the cycling community.
> 
> Based on reading various CC threads over the years I come to the following conclusions.
> 
> As I understand it; *it's okay* to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling ... <SNIP> ...


Bollox. Should I bother reading the rest?


----------



## icowden (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating, it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover, it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever and it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black without any lights on a bike.


Then, as was pointed out before, you misunderstand completely.

Nobody has said that any of those issue should be acceptable. What they *have* said, is that legislation to criminalise these behaviours is pointless and over the top. There are perfectly good offences available for extreme cases, and in the vast majority of situations the only person likely to be injured is the cyclist themselves. We encourage people to cycle sensibly as do the Police. If you cycle illegally the police will charge you based on the situation.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (8 Apr 2022)

matticus said:


> Bollox. Should I bother reading the rest?



Grow up. 👍


----------



## SpokeyDokey (8 Apr 2022)

icowden said:


> Then, as was pointed out before, you misunderstand completely.
> 
> Nobody has said that any of those issue should be acceptable. What they *have* said, is that legislation to criminalise these behaviours is pointless and over the top. There are perfectly good offences available for extreme cases, and in the vast majority of situations the only person likely to be injured is the cyclist themselves. We encourage people to cycle sensibly as do the Police. If you cycle illegally the police will charge you based on the situation.



Trawl the relevant CC threads over at least the past decade or so for opinions on the aforementioned matters.


----------



## newfhouse (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As I understand it


I respectfully suggest that your understanding may be in error. Here’s why:



SpokeyDokey said:


> it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating,


It’s not something that requires specific legislation. All road users have a duty to take care of themselves and others.



SpokeyDokey said:


> it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover


Yes it is. It’s just not necessary, any more than it would be for pedestrians. How could children contract for such insurance?



SpokeyDokey said:


> it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever


Yes it is, although it is easier to be a courteous road user if you understand the Highway Code.



SpokeyDokey said:


> it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black


Not only possible, but incredibly stylish too. Black is cool.



SpokeyDokey said:


> without any lights on a bike


Inadvisable in many circumstances and already an offence.


----------



## Jody (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating, it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover, it's okay for cyclists to use public roads without any knowledge of the Highway Code or having demonstrated any road craft ability whatsoever and it's okay to cycle at night dressed in full ninja black without any lights on a bike.
> 
> And some cyclists wonder why many motorists take a dim view of them. ☹️



So much wow in one post.


----------



## matticus (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Grow up. 👍


I guess that's a No!


----------



## Arrowfoot (8 Apr 2022)

No sure why we turning this into motorists vs cyclists. We should ping them both. Arguments stating law exist that is rather wide and can be interpreted or misinterpreted in many ways is not going to help. Both should have same legalese. Arguments like one is a tank and the other is rather plastic as in carbon fibre are also shallow. Some entitled Baroness or a grave digger that raised it is besides the point. 

Even if cyclists hurts himself, one penny of mine will be wasted via the NHS.


----------



## matticus (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> it's okay for cyclists not to have at least third party insurance cover,


Correct. Well done - perhaps your post _wasn't _entirely bolllox!


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

Arrowfoot said:


> No sure why we turning this into motorists vs cyclists.


We're not. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering did. Full transcript at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-04-06b.2146.0&s=speaker:10389#g2146.2 includes "equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles". The noble lady appears ignorant that cyclists, e-bikes and legal trial e-scooters are not motor vehicles in law.



> We should ping them both. Arguments stating law exist that is rather wide and can be interpreted or misinterpreted in many ways is not going to help. Both should have same legalese.


They have never had the same legalese and there is no good argument for it. Cycles have been regarded legally as basically horseless horses almost since their invention, whereas motor vehicles were regarded as a type of locomotive machine propelling a carriage. In general, this has worked well and we should oppose attacks on this fine tradition.



> Arguments like one is a tank and the other is rather plastic as in carbon fibre are also shallow.


Shallow but entirely correct?



> Some entitled Baroness or a grave digger that raised it is besides the point.


Not really because the grave digger cannot fark the law up as easily.



> Even if cyclists hurts himself, one penny of mine will be wasted via the NHS.


Better that than for each person deterred or fined out of cycling, many pounds of yours will be wasted via the NHS!


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> As I understand it; it's okay to have a phone clamped to your ear when cycling; ergo cycling without fully concentrating,


Show me one post that has said, or even implied that. Just one. Just one that is even in the same ballpark.


----------



## All uphill (8 Apr 2022)

It seems to me that two arguments are being offered in favour of regulating cyclists in the same way as users of motorised vehicles:

1 Consistency, all road users " should" be held to the same standards.

2 Safety. That increasing the regulation on cyclists will increase the safety of the general public.

Both of these arguments are worth testing.

1 Should the cars be limited to the same speeds as the tractor and trailer I met on a NSL lane this morning?
Should HGVs be allowed to drive at 70mph in lane 3 of the motorway?
Should cars be taxed at the same level as HGVs?
I think the answer is "No" but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who says "Yes".

2 As many others have said I'd be interested in the evidence that demonstrates cyclists on the phone are a top safety risk that could not be tackled using existing laws.

My final observation is that deregulation has been a priority in the UK for more than ten years. How do the proposed new laws fit with that agenda?


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> We're not. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering did. Full transcript at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-04-06b.2146.0&s=speaker:10389#g2146.2 includes *"equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles"*. The noble lady appears ignorant that cyclists, e-bikes and legal trial e-scooters are not motor vehicles in law.



May I congratulate you on an exemplary piece of selective and out of context quoting:

The full paragraph is:

_I pay tribute to Matt Briggs, who lost his wife in February 2016. She was mown down while crossing the road, completely innocently, by a cyclist who caused injury by means of wanton or furious driving, which is the case the prosecution brought. It was an illegally-used bicycle—it had no brakes. As of yet, this issue of *equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles has not been addressed*._


----------



## newfhouse (8 Apr 2022)

All uphill said:


> My final observation is that deregulation has been a priority in the UK for more than ten years. How do the proposed new laws fit with that agenda?


They want to deregulate themselves, not the likes of us.


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> May I congratulate you on an exemplary piece of selective and out of context quoting:
> 
> The full paragraph is:
> 
> _I pay tribute to Matt Briggs, who lost his wife in February 2016. She was mown down while crossing the road, completely innocently, by a cyclist who caused injury by means of wanton or furious driving, which is the case the prosecution brought. It was an illegally-used bicycle—it had no brakes. As of yet, this issue of *equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles has not been addressed*._


Come on, how did that selection and loss of context change the sense? She believes the difference in law is an issue that should be addressed.

And I linked it, unlike certain other people above. I hid nothing and the implied accusation is an attempt to distract from the point: we did not make this cyclists versus motorists - it was from the outset.


----------



## Jody (8 Apr 2022)

Shall we have some more selective copying?

Baroness Jones seems to agree with the majority of people in this thread

"I agree with a lot of what she says, but obviously not always. Personally, I do not have any bad feeling about e-scooters and e-bikes as, so far, touch wood, I have not actually been run over or come close to being run over by them—but I have been run over twice by cars. If we look at those killed or seriously injured, it is cars that are the biggest threat. During lockdown, those killed or seriously injured fell massively, and cyclist casualty rates decreased by a third. So it is cars on our roads that are really the biggest problem."


----------



## Jody (8 Apr 2022)

This snippet gives you a glimpse in to the baronesses thought pattern.

"I was taken by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, about how cycling injuries had gone down. One of the reasons for that—and I do not know whether it was through the Highway Code—was that, because of Covid, *thankfully* cyclists were not allowed to cycle in clumps on country roads. I think that has prevented a lot of accidents."

That's right. We keep getting killed because of the need to ride in clumps. Nothing to do with the fact the roads were deserted. Definitely not. 

"We have had a passionate cyclist and a number, myself included, who feel more vulnerable to cyclists, e-scooters and other road users."

Her over there -------> Bloody cyclist. She's not agreeing with me.

"I *look forward* to seeing how automated vehicles will respond to reckless and furious cyclists, e-bicyclists and e-scooters,* "*

Death/injury serves them right I suppose? 

If you can't see the prejudice flowing here there's something wrong.


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> If hit by a car/bike you are correct.
> 
> But my experience as a pedestrian is that I am put at risk and have to take avoiding action FAR more times by cyclists than motor vehicle drivers


That's not really true, is it? Literally every step keeping to a kerbed ghetto at the edge of the highway, usually called a pavement, is an action taken to avoid motor vehicle drivers. This is especially true when one's destination could be reached more directly in a straight line but we walk an L-shaped (or worse) route to use pavements and crossings. It's just that people don't realise that they are taking avoiding action because it's now institutionalised and so entrenched into street design.

Such avoiding action is, of course, quite understandable on an individual level, but we ought to recognise it as such and ask street designers and planners why they still prioritise motorists almost everywhere.


> That avoiding action is most often necessary on pavements and on crossings where I have priority - often by cyclists riding one-handed with a mobile.


Walkers have priority on carriageways, too! (In theory, at least.) The implication that you do not is another sign of how taking motorist-avoiding action is normalised.



> As I said above, and you chose to ignore:
> 
> So to those cyclists bleating the usual cyclist bleat "Cars are more dangerous than bikes".
> 
> *Just STFU!*


I'd love to simply ignore it because I think it's rude, unhelpful and unwarranted, but I hope you agree that the above is more of a "bleat" that you are taking far more avoiding actions due to cars.


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> We're not. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering did. Full transcript at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-04-06b.2146.0&s=speaker:10389#g2146.2 includes "equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles". The noble lady appears ignorant that cyclists, e-bikes and *legal trial e-scooters are not motor vehicles in law.*


Not quite
The Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a motor vehicle as “any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”. This covers a variety of personal transport devices which are mechanically propelled:
_"In the case of Winter v DPP – [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin) the High Court considered the use of a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter, and whether its user was bound by the compulsory insurance requirements. It found that it was, and that the appellant had been properly convicted of the offence of driving a vehicle without insurance."_



​


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> Not quite
> The Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a motor vehicle as “any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”. This covers a variety of personal transport devices which are mechanically propelled:
> _"In the case of Winter v DPP – [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin) the High Court considered the use of a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter, and whether its user was bound by the compulsory insurance requirements. It found that it was, and that the appellant had been properly convicted of the offence of driving a vehicle without insurance."_


I don't know what you're selectively quoting there and I'm unaware of any e-scooter trials that operated in or before 2002, nor any using a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter.


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> We're not. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering did. Full transcript at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2022-04-06b.2146.0&s=speaker:10389#g2146.2 includes "equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles". The noble lady appears ignorant that cyclists, e-bikes and *legal trial e-scooters are not motor vehicles in law*.





classic33 said:


> Not quite
> The Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a motor vehicle as “any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”. This covers a variety of personal transport devices which are mechanically propelled:
> _"In the case of Winter v DPP – [2002] EWHC 1524 (Admin) the High Court considered the use of a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter, and whether its user was bound by the compulsory insurance requirements. It found that it was, and that the appellant had been properly convicted of the offence of driving a vehicle without insurance._



*It is very clear that ALL e-scooters ARE motor vehicles*
eg
https://www.bromley.gov.uk/info/200...ground,vehicles apply to powered transporters.

_E-scooters background
An e-scooter comes under the terms of a “powered transporter”, a personal transport device which is powered by a motor and fall within the legal definition of a “motor vehicle”. Therefore, the laws that apply to motor vehicles apply to powered transporters._


In more detail;


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powered-transporters

_Powered transporters include devices such as:_

_electric scooters_
_hoverboards_
_U-wheels_
_powered mini scooters (go-peds)_
_powered unicycles_
_3. What law applies to the use of powered transporters?_​_There is no specially-designed legal regime for powered transporters. This means that they are covered by the same laws and regulations that apply to all motor vehicles.

The definition of “motor vehicle” as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988 is “any mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads”. There is case law confirming that powered transporters fall within this definition (see section 8 of this information sheet).

The law aims to ensure safety, consistency, and environmental sustainability in the manufacture and use of motor vehicles. Failures to comply with these rules are criminal offences for which users can be arrested and prosecuted._


>>>>
*Particularly interesting that Powered Uniycles fall under the motor vehicle rules*


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> I don't know what you're selectively quoting there and I'm unaware of any e-scooter trials that operated in or before 2002, nor any using a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter.


Under current UK law, e-scooters are classed as ‘powered transporters’ and as such are treated in the same way as motor vehicles, so pavements and cycle paths are strictly off limits. In turn, for road use, they would have to meet the same requirements as cars and motorbikes and have the correct MOT, tax, insurance, licence and construction techniques, which currently is virtually impossible technically and financially.


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> Under current UK law, e-scooters are classed as ‘powered transporters’ and as such are treated in the same way as motor vehicles, so pavements and cycle paths are strictly off limits. In turn, for road use, they would have to meet the same requirements as cars and motorbikes and have the correct MOT, tax, insurance, licence and construction techniques, which currently is virtually impossible technically and financially.


Even if they were (and I have my doubts because I'm sure your claims about the trial e-scooters have been wrong before), that doesn't make cycles and e-bikes into motor vehicles and so Anne McIntosh is still wrong.


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> Even if they were (and I have my doubts because I'm sure your claims about the trial e-scooters have been wrong before), that doesn't make cycles and e-bikes into motor vehicles and so Anne McIntosh is still wrong.


Worded better in the post before mine, but
https://www.moveelectric.com/e-scoo...l includes a number of restrictions and rules.


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> I don't know what you're selectively quoting there and I'm unaware of any e-scooter trials that operated in or before 2002, nor any using a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter.



the case law in question established that powered transporters, as a class, come under the rule applying to motor vehicles.

an e-scooter is a new form of powered transporter, ergo the motor vehicle rules apply


----------



## PK99 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> Even if they were (and I have my doubts because I'm sure your claims about the trial e-scooters have been wrong before), that doesn't make cycles and e-bikes into motor vehicles and so Anne McIntosh is still wrong.



You are on the hook and wriggling: The rules are written such that e-assist bikes (EPACs) (within certain limitations) fall under the laws pertaining to bicycles

https://www.drivingelectric.com/you... fall under the,go-peds and powered unicycles.


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> You are on the hook and wriggling: The rules are written such that e-assist bikes (EPACs) (within certain limitations) fall under the laws pertaining to bicycles
> 
> https://www.drivingelectric.com/you... fall under the,go-peds and powered unicycles.


No hook (cycles and e-bikes are not classed as motor vehicles) and so, no wriggling. You say the rules are written such but link some magazine website instead of the rules? You're wriggling, which I feel is probably a misguided attempt to hit me back for pointing out how we take far more actions to avoid motorists every time we walk than a few isolated confrontations with silly pavement riders.


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> No hook (cycles and e-bikes are not classed as motor vehicles) and so, no wriggling. You say the rules are written such but link some magazine website instead of the rules? You're wriggling, which I feel is probably a misguided attempt to hit me back for pointing out how we take far more actions to avoid motorists every time we walk than a few isolated confrontations with silly pavement riders.


One e-bike manufacturer disagrees with you.

They put* some of their bikes* through the Motorcycle Single Vehicle Approval(MSVA).


----------



## mjr (8 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> One e-bike manufacturer disagrees with you.
> 
> They put* some of their bikes* through the Motorcycle Single Vehicle Approval(MSVA).


That link takes me to a post about an electric Low-Powered Moped?  🤷‍


----------



## classic33 (8 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> That link takes me to a post about an electric Low-Powered Moped?  🤷‍


No, you need to read what the poster* has put.


*Poster is an e-bike manufacturer.


----------



## Solocle (11 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> Under current UK law, e-scooters are classed as ‘powered transporters’ and as such are treated in the same way as motor vehicles, so pavements and cycle paths are strictly off limits. In turn, for road use, they would have to meet the same requirements as cars and motorbikes and have the correct MOT, tax, insurance, licence and construction techniques, which currently is virtually impossible technically and financially.


But you're allowed to ride hire e-scooters wherever you may ride a bicycle.

That includes areas like this:





"No motor vehicles".

I suspect any change in the law in the future will treat e-scooters the same way as EAPCs, ergo, they won't be motor vehicles. Currently they are motor vehicles, but not subject to *all *the rules thereof.


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Apr 2022)

I think the idea that all wheeled road vehicles, from wheelbarrows to articulated lorries, should be subject to the same regulations is a flawed one. But I also think it's true that it would be a good idea if the regulations weren't a total confusing mess - as they are with scooters, ebikes etc.


----------



## classic33 (11 Apr 2022)

Solocle said:


> But you're allowed to ride hire e-scooters wherever you may ride a bicycle.
> 
> That includes areas like this:
> View attachment 639458
> ...


Currently, those scooters in use in the trials must not be used on pavements.
Their use is currently limited to cycle lanes and the roads.

Trial has been extended to November this year. During which time they may have to be fitted with registration plates.

Bicycles/cycles require no driving licence to use, nor insurance to use on the roads. Electric scooters do.


----------



## Profpointy (11 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Road users as a collective should, imo, be subject to the same juristiction.
> 
> How can it not be illegal for a cyclist to use a phone whilst cycling and the reverse being applicable to motorists?
> 
> ...



Whilst that sounds logical and equitable on examination I don't think it is. The degree of strictness, certification, insurance etc for various activities should be proportionate to the potential harm in my view

Airline pilot: loads of training, testing/certification, zero alcohol limits, health checks etc etc

Lorry driver / bus driver quite a lot of training and certification, compliance stuff on hours of work, etc but quite sensibly rather less than an airline pilot

Car driver / motorcyclists: a more or less strict driving test, compulsory insurance, alcohol limit of such and such % as an absolute offence etc

cyclist, horse rider, no driving test, expected to obey the rules of the road (mostly the same as a car), mustn't be "drunk in charge" but still need to be actually drunk rather than "over the limit", no need for insurance or cycling / riding tests as the risk of serious harm to others, whilst still there is far lower than operating a ton and a half motor vehicle at up to 70mph (and a good bit more for many people)

Pedestrian - very few restrictions or rules. Again there is still some risk of harm to others. A friend of a friend accidentally barged into a frail old gentleman in a cafe and the chap fell over and died a few days later. A freak accident certainly but it did happen, but you'd really have to be crazy to want "pedestrian insurance"

Anyhow, on balance, I'd see bad cycling, and even illegal cycling, as mostly being at the nuisance end of things compared to the thousands killed annually by bad car driving, so let's legislate and enforce in proportion to the likelihood of harm


----------



## Profpointy (11 Apr 2022)

PK99 said:


> May I congratulate you on an exemplary piece of selective and out of context quoting:
> 
> The full paragraph is:
> 
> _I pay tribute to Matt Briggs, who lost his wife in February 2016. She was mown down while crossing the road, completely innocently, by a cyclist who caused injury by means of wanton or furious driving, which is the case the prosecution brought. It was an illegally-used bicycle—it had no brakes. As of yet, this issue of *equating road offences caused by cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters with those caused by other motor vehicles has not been addressed*._



You know the guy was sent to prison ?


----------



## matticus (11 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> I think the idea that all wheeled road vehicles, from wheelbarrows to articulated lorries, should be subject to the same regulations is a flawed one.


When you put it like, it seems obvious doesn't it: i mean a wheelbarrow isn't an artic, is it???

But I think the problem comes when you label the PEOPLE involved: should "a motorist" and "a cyclist" be bound by the same rules? That's a very emotive angle.

The sensible angle is: I'll follow the wheelbarrow rules with my wheelbarrow, and the HGV rules if I ever drive an HGV. Simples! Shirley?


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Apr 2022)

Bloody wheelbarrowists. We drivers and cyclists should unite against them.


----------



## icowden (11 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> How can it not be illegal for a cyclist to use a phone whilst cycling and the reverse being applicable to motorists?


How can all cows have 4 legs, and yet all things with 4 legs not be cows?

This is a false correlation.

It is illegal for motorists to use a phone (unless hands free) due to the dangers involved to other people.
It is not illegal for cyclists to use a phone specifically as the key danger is to the cyclist and existing laws allow for prosecution if they are cycling in an unsafe manner.


----------



## classic33 (11 Apr 2022)

icowden said:


> *How can all cows have 4 legs, and yet all things with 4 legs not be cows?*
> 
> This is a false correlation.
> 
> ...


Cow or what?




I've seen more being born(the above isn't one of them).


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Well, you don't really need to. You don't need to rush through legislation to stop this, that and the other. Here's a thought, you could make "careless or dangerous" cycling an offence and it would cover the various eventualities. Provided the police have the resources and inclination to enforce it.


This argument was equally valid (or not) when they brought in legislation prohibiting handheld mobile usage for drivers. The law already had provisions for careless driving which would have covered that usage.


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Usual defensiveness and deflection from some members of the cycling community.
> 
> Based on reading various CC threads over the years I come to the following conclusions.
> 
> ...


You don't "understand" very well at all then.

I challenge you to find a single post where any member of CC has said any of those things are "OK".


----------



## Dogtrousers (11 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> This argument was equally valid (or not) when they brought in legislation prohibiting handheld mobile usage for drivers. The law already had provisions for careless driving which would have covered that usage.


Indeed. I've no idea why special legislation was needed. 

Maybe because there were loopholes that miscreants could exploit, or clarification needed around handhelds.
Maybe it was because there was clear evidence that use of phones was leading to fatalities, so it had to be made extra-clear with separate sentencing guidelines or something like that.

I really don't know


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> I don't know what you're selectively quoting there and I'm unaware of any e-scooter trials that operated in or before 2002, nor any using a ‘City Bug’ electric scooter.


This is full detail of the case he was referring to:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1524.html

With some explanation around it here.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5b46f2212c94e0775e7f273f#

Given he quoted the case reference, it was rather you being deliberately unaware rather than hem posting anything misleading or in any way wrong.


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

Solocle said:


> But you're allowed to ride hire e-scooters wherever you may ride a bicycle.


No you aren't.

You aren't actually allowed to ride e-scooters *anywhere* on public property except in the areas where trials are being conducted. And as far as I am aware, in all of those trials areas, you are ONLY allowed to ride them on the roads, not on any pavements where cycles are allowed.


----------



## icowden (11 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Indeed. I've no idea why special legislation was needed.
> Maybe because there were loopholes that miscreants could exploit, or clarification needed around handhelds.
> Maybe it was because there was clear evidence that use of phones was leading to fatalities, so it had to be made extra-clear with separate sentencing guidelines or something like that.


All of the above.

There is a useful potted history here:-
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/mobile-phones-use-while-driving/


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (11 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> You aren't actually allowed to ride e-scooters *anywhere* on public property except in the areas where trials are being conducted. And as far as I am aware, in all of those trials areas, you are *ONLY allowed to ride them on the roads, not on any pavements where cycles are allowed*.


My first thought was RUBBISH - but I like to check these things out

First I checked the Liverpool system - no mention of only roads - but also no mention of them being allowed in cycle lanes or shared paths
which I would assume they would say if they were allowed

Also checked the manufacturers site - also no mention of the above
Then checked another area's regulation - still no mention

and also no mention of them being able to be used in any place that bikes (and legal ebikes) can go

which I found rather strange

Then I found this
Quote
Where you can use a trial e-scooter​
You may use a trial e-scooter on the road (except motorways) and *in cycle lanes*.


You must not use an e-scooter on the pavement.


Traffic signs with the following cycle symbol apply to e-scooters (unless a sign is displayed prohibiting e-scooters from that particular cycle way):
End Quote
from here
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users#where-you-can-use-a-trial-e-scooter

But if the regulation set in place by the city (etc) then I'm not sure what the rules would be


BUT

as a lot of people are moaning about them being used 2-up, on pavement and recklessly but naff all is being done about it as trying to do so would be very manpower heavy and probably unsuccessful - the point is rather moot
probably


----------



## mjr (11 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> This is full detail of the case he was referring to:
> https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/1524.html
> 
> With some explanation around it here.
> ...


And yet, it remains irrelevant to the point made, as usual.


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> My first thought was RUBBISH - but I like to check these things out
> 
> First I checked the Liverpool system - no mention of only roads - but also no mention of them being allowed in cycle lanes or shared paths
> which I would assume they would say if they were allowed
> ...



Yeah, having checked a bit more, use in cycle lanes does normally seem to be allowed, but not use on pavements.





ebikeerwidnes said:


> BUT
> 
> as a lot of people are moaning about them being used 2-up, on pavement and recklessly but naff all is being done about it as trying to do so would be very manpower heavy and probably unsuccessful - the point is rather moot
> probably


Indeed.

I see them quite often in Cardiff, and there is no trial scheme there yet, so they are ALL illegal on the road, cycle lanes or pavements (or any other public place).


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

mjr said:


> And yet, it remains irrelevant to the point made, as usual.


True, since it was not referring to a "legal trial e-scooter".


----------



## Solocle (11 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Yeah, having checked a bit more, use in cycle lanes does normally seem to be allowed, but not use on pavements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You'll find more info here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...guidance-for-local-areas-and-rental-operators



> We have allowed e-scooters to use the same road space as cycles and EAPCs. This means e-scooters are allowed on the road (except motorways) and in cycle lanes and tracks where possible.
> 
> The controls over where e-scooters can be used are split between central government and local authorities. We have made the necessary regulatory changes to allow e-scooters to be used in cycle lanes. But, to have full effect, local authorities hosting trials need to ensure that their traffic regulation orders (TROs) – either temporary, experimental or permanent – are updated and allow e-scooter use.


Since the regulatory signage hasn't changed, a failure to update TROs accordingly is questionably enforceable.

Certainly they can be used on shared use facilities where I am, according to the council:
https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/...irst-Month-of-the-Beryl-E-Scooters-Trial.aspx


> The rental scooters can be ridden on public roads in Bournemouth and Poole as well as on the expanding network of signed cycle lanes and cycle/shared-use facilities
> They are not allowed to be ridden on pavements, pedestrianised areas, nor outside of the trial zone.


And I don't see that there's anything in particular stopping you from riding an e-scooter *outside *of a trial area. In fact, I've done just that. The trial area here is Bournemouth and Poole, but I rode one of the hire scooters out of the Dorset Council area and back into BCP.

The actual law is here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/663/regulation/5/made


----------



## PK99 (11 Apr 2022)

Dogtrousers said:


> Indeed. I've no idea why special legislation was needed.
> 
> Maybe because there were loopholes that miscreants could exploit, or clarification needed around handhelds.
> Maybe it was because there was clear evidence that use of phones was leading to fatalities, so it had to be made extra-clear with separate sentencing guidelines or something like that.
> ...



The legislation created an absolute offence with no need to prove intent (mens rea) or actual hazard.


----------



## Alex321 (11 Apr 2022)

Solocle said:


> You'll find more info here - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...guidance-for-local-areas-and-rental-operators
> 
> 
> Since the regulatory signage hasn't changed, a failure to update TROs accordingly is questionably enforceable.
> ...



So either they don't think shared use pavements are actually pavements, or they are contradicting themselves 



Solocle said:


> And I don't see that there's anything in particular stopping you from riding an e-scooter *outside *of a trial area. In fact, I've done just that. The trial area here is Bournemouth and Poole, but I rode one of the hire scooters out of the Dorset Council area and back into BCP.


There is nothing stopping you apart from the law.

The law makes it illegal to ride them on public property outside of the trials, and each trial specifies the area which is covered.

In some cases, they actually stop the motors working if you go outside the allowed areas.





Solocle said:


> The actual law is here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/663/regulation/5/made


----------



## Solocle (11 Apr 2022)

Alex321 said:


> So either they don't think shared use pavements are actually pavements, or they are contradicting themselves
> 
> 
> There is nothing stopping you apart from the law.
> ...


The gov site lists:


> Non-regulatory e-scooter trial controls​
> In addition to the regulatory provisions above, local authorities may wish to specify their own additional requirements for trials, such as:
> ...
> the use of geo-fencing, either to limit the trial area within a local authority or to prevent e-scooters being used in other local authorities not participating in trials, except with their agreement – this could also include ensuring e-scooters serve particular areas or address specific local transport needs


So it doesn't look like a legal requirement to me.

The border between the two local authorities isn't exactly obvious unless you know what to look for, and I actually *unlocked *the scooter outside of the trial area and took it back in.









Technically you could only ride your escooter on one side of the road here (the wrong one!), if it were the case that they can only be ridden in trial areas.


----------



## classic33 (11 Apr 2022)

Solocle said:


> The gov site lists:
> 
> So it doesn't look like a legal requirement to me.
> 
> ...


The underwriters wouldn't cover any accident outside of the trial areas. And, the MIB don't cover any of the scooters used in the trial. 

The piece I'm supposed to have got wrong, despite the piece linked to, (by the person saying it was wrong), saying who was covering the trials, insurance wise.


----------



## Solocle (12 Apr 2022)

classic33 said:


> The underwriters wouldn't cover any accident outside of the trial areas. And, the MIB don't cover any of the scooters used in the trial.
> 
> The piece I'm supposed to have got wrong, despite the piece linked to, (by the person saying it was wrong), saying who was covering the trials, insurance wise.


I live in BCP. I work in BCP. But to get to my workplace by road, you have to travel through Dorset. The road is effectively an enclave. There is the pictured bridleway above, but the only access is probably a footpath.

And in a lot of places the only way to tell where the authority boundary is, is when the bins are out!

I don't think it would be at all a reasonable clause to only insure users in trial areas. There is no requisite signage for crossing authority boundaries - this isn't exactly international travel.

And the terms and conditions of the local scheme say absolutely nothing about it, they provide the insurance, and they let you hire the scooter outside of the trial area.


----------



## Alex321 (12 Apr 2022)

Solocle said:


> I live in BCP. I work in BCP. But to get to my workplace by road, you have to travel through Dorset. The road is effectively an enclave. There is the pictured bridleway above, but the only access is probably a footpath.
> 
> And in a lot of places the only way to tell where the authority boundary is, is when the bins are out!
> 
> I don't think it would be at all a reasonable clause to only insure users in trial areas. There is no requisite signage for crossing authority boundaries - this isn't exactly international travel.


It is perfectly reasonable to not insure you for illegal use.

If the trial has defined boundaries (and most if not all do), then it is illegal to use the scooters outside those boundaries, and reasonable to not insure you if you choose to do so.

With some of the trials, you can't use them outside the defined boundaries anyhow, because the motors are simply disabled unless their GPS says they are within the boundaries. And with some schemes (e.g. Bristol) there are areas inside the normal boundaries where they are not permitted to be used.



Solocle said:


> And the terms and conditions of the local scheme say absolutely nothing about it, they provide the insurance, and they let you hire the scooter outside of the trial area.


Yours is unusual in allowing such usage.

Though having just looked it up, it is likely that the road you mention is covered by the scheme as it covers all of Bournemouth and Poole. I notice it does say that if you take them into an area where they are not permitted (the promenade in August, or anywhere in Christchurch), then they will gradually reduce speed (presumably the "gradually" is to prevent claims from people being thrown off by a sudden stop).

So even yours, anywhere you can actually use them with the motor is somewhere covered by the scheme.
[EDIT]
Looking at the map here, the Roman Road is clearly inside the boundaries of the trial area (just).


----------

