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

[mjr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? 🤷‍