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

[classic33]

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]

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]

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]

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

That includes areas like this:
View attachment 639458
"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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[icowden]

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]

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.

Cow or what?

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

 

[Alex321]

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]

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. ☹️

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]

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]

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]

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.