Electric scooters.

[classic33]

Which would be unenforceable without a lot of extra funding

or private firms making a fortune!!

It might make the sale of them a lot harder, or less profitable for the shops selling them at present. Many of the same shops that sold hoverboards.

Private companies would have a field day, should they become legal.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

If they become legal but over regulated - I wonder how many LBS would see a major drop in their revenue??

 

[classic33]

If they become legal but over regulated - I wonder how many LBS would see a major drop in their revenue??

Assuming you mean e-scooters, they've been an item that's been easy sell, with little or no comeback on the seller.
Everything has been placed on the person operating it on the road.

On the other hand, they might see a rise in repairs, and spares.

 

[fossyant]

e-scooters can't do steep hills - got one (a hill) on my commute, and the riders are walking. It's bottom gear or two on a pannier loaded MTB though !

 

[KnittyNorah]

Sorry - maybe I was unclear
My point was that the counsels could be responsible IF the scooters were made legal
Nd this could be one of the things slowing down the possibility of making them legal

Ah yes - that makes sense! IF they were legal, then indeed the councils would have some responsibility. And I can perfectly understand their not wanting that responsibility when the things can travel at 20+mph with what look to me like six-inch wheels. An extra-large bit of gravel could have the rider under an HGV in a jiffy.

 

[classic33]

That happened recently. Reported in December https://www.standard.co.uk/video/ne...thole-crash-which-broke-her-leg-b1044253.html

A woman is suing Barnet council for failing to maintain a road after she hit a pothole while illegally riding her e-scooter.​

Giovanna Drago is asking for £30,000 in the October incident which broke her knee.​

Barnet council say she should get nothing as her actions were illegal with only “authorised hire scheme” scooters allowed on public highways.​

Her case is the first such to go to court and could set a precedent for future claims.​

I don't know what the outcome was (if any, yet)

Case ongoing

 

[captain nemo1701]

Most of what needs sort, regulation wise, has been covered in the ongoing trials. Some of which have been added as the trials went on.

The biggest difference between an e-assist bike and an e-scooter, is from the outset of the trials, they've been underwritten by someone other than the MIB. The MIB want to continue to have no involvement with e-scooters, should they become legal road vehicles.

They'd be classed as motor vehicles, not allowed into cycle lanes/facilities. Insurance would be mandatory, with the owner being responsible for sorting it all out before taking to the roads. Helmets and possibly indicators on the scooters, in addition to the front and rear lights would also be required. The same as any other motor vehicle.

'Before taking to the roads'....the majority of them here in Bristol are all over the pavements. The Voi ones do actually have built-in lights and indicators but are virtually silent and many riders swerve & swoop around pedestrians on the pavement. Undertaking?...no problem, its a gap so they go for it. If I tried that in road traffic I'd be dead by now.

Private escooterists (spell check thought that was 'ecotourist') seem to have a death wish. Some do have adapted bike lights but think that red is for the front and not rear. Some wear the pee-pot helmets. But there's a contingency that like to wear all-black on a black escooter with no lights...idiots. Almost got hit by one last week leaving the office, I push my bike up the short lane from our office since its one way, walk round the corner to the start of the riverside cycle lane. So there I am, lights flashing, full hi-viz just walking around the corner when I almost get totalled by captain ninja in full all-black gear shooting along the pavement, no lights.

 

[Alex321]

When the trials come to an end, I'd say a load of people will just get rid of their now illegal vehicles. Reason being that they will require taxing, MOT, insurance and driving licence. And not forgetting the minimum age of 16 for use.

It is rather unlikely that those will be the case.

There will most likely be legislation making them permanently legal, and not requiring any of those things. It may still be a requirement that they can only be used from approved hire schemes, rather than private ownership, but I would be surprised at even that level of restriction.

 

[Alex321]

Do you?

E-bikes are already subject to those.

No they aren't.

E-bikes do not require MOT, insurance, or driving licences.

E-assist bikes have had a minimum age limit since they were introduced.

And the possibility of e-assist bikes falling under the same rules, as e-scooters has been raised.

It is likely IMO there will be one set of umbrella rules governing the use of both, but those rules will not limit e-bikes any more than they already are.

 

[Alex321]

That happened recently. Reported in December https://www.standard.co.uk/video/ne...thole-crash-which-broke-her-leg-b1044253.html

A woman is suing Barnet council for failing to maintain a road after she hit a pothole while illegally riding her e-scooter.​

Giovanna Drago is asking for £30,000 in the October incident which broke her knee.​

Barnet council say she should get nothing as her actions were illegal with only “authorised hire scheme” scooters allowed on public highways.​

Her case is the first such to go to court and could set a precedent for future claims.​

I don't know what the outcome was (if any, yet)

And in spite of what the article says, the case will not set a precedent unless it gets appealed (whichever way the decision goes). In civil cases generally, precedent is only set at the appeal court level.

 

[captain nemo1701]

It is rather unlikely that those will be the case.

There will most likely be legislation making them permanently legal, and not requiring any of those things. It may still be a requirement that they can only be used from approved hire schemes, rather than private ownership, but I would be surprised at even that level of restriction.

The trials seem to have been imposed by BJ once the useless liar got into Govt because he loves fashionable and ultimately daft projects he dreams up eg: garden bridge to nowhere, new QE2 boat (quietly dropped).

People don't care about the law now so why would it bother them later?. Any restrictions would be, as now, just ignored. Unfortunately, we seem to live in a get-away-with-it-as-long-as-you-can culture.

 

[Dogtrousers]

And in spite of what the article says, the case will not set a precedent unless it gets appealed (whichever way the decision goes). In civil cases generally, precedent is only set at the appeal court level.

To be fair they say "could set a precedent". And it could ... if it goes to a higher court.

 

[classic33]

It is rather unlikely that those will be the case.

There will most likely be legislation making them permanently legal, and not requiring any of those things. It may still be a requirement that they can only be used from approved hire schemes, rather than private ownership, but I would be surprised at even that level of restriction.

Aside from the taxing, the rest is included in the current trials.

No they aren't.

E-bikes do not require MOT, insurance, or driving licences.


It is likely IMO there will be one set of umbrella rules governing the use of both, but those rules will not limit e-bikes any more than they already are.

E-assist bikes don't require them. Ebikes on the other hand do.
If you say they don't, why are police seizing them for being illegal to use on the roads?

 

[Alex321]

Aside from the taxing, the rest is included in the current trials.


E-assist bikes don't require them. Ebikes on the other hand do.
If you say they don't, why are police seizing them for being illegal to use on the roads?

If you want to split hairs, go ahead, but it is rather pointless.

What are normally called e-bikes by most normal people (and youtube channels) are what you insist on calling e-assist bikes - which may be technically the correct term, but we all (except you it seems) know what is meant when referring to them as just e-bikes. I hadn't read the rest of the thread when responding to your post, and just assumed you meant what the rest of us would have meant.

What you are calling ebikes are what most of us would call electric motorbikes or mopeds.

 

[captain nemo1701]

Are escooters with seats electric mopeds/motorbikes?. There's a lunatic in Bristol who rides around at speed on one, faster than a 'normal' escooter...and yeah, the fool dresses all in black, black scooter, no lights. Saw him shooting down the Railway Path on it last night.