E-scooters to be 'fast-tracked' (UK)

[Nic]

Here's an update on e-scooter legalisation for UK. A report on UK e-scooter trials is due in Spring 2022, so it will be some time after this before any decision is likely to be made. I've attached a response from DFT to this effect.

[Pengloong]

The Department of Transport is a Laugh !!!!! The so called "Fast Track" to legalise E-scooters announced by the Department of Transport  in June last year is really becoming  a "SLOW TRACK". The trial was supposed to last for 12 months and I believe it started in June 2020, why has the goal post been moved yet again? We have to wait a further 12 months.....Spring 2022 for the publication of the report.....Unbelievable !!!

[RockyTop]

I don’t know much about this proposal. I do know a bit about legal systems. Sometimes the best way to shut people up it to agree with them and then drag your feet. Eventually the proposal can be dismissed as old or inactive. If  it comes back up it can be dismissed on grounds of previous inactivity or lack of overall interest. 

[.....]

In the USA, the wheels of the government roll slowly and sometimes not at all. The only time things happen quickly, is when they may lose money, or when they want to imprison someone THEN wait for a reason for doing it.

[Nic]

This whole saga is much worse than expected. Its now looking like another 2 years before PEVs can be legalised...

 

Quote

 

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/decision-e-scooter-legality-take-year/

DECISION ON E-SCOOTER LEGALITY COULD TAKE UP TO A YEAR

Final determination may not take place until after delayed London trial

---

THE GOVERNMENT has been accused of failing to properly regulate the use of electric scooters after it was revealed that reaching a decision on their legality could take up to a year.

A decision on the use of the devices, which have been trialled in 50 cities across the UK since last summer, is reportedly unlikely to be made until they have been tested in London. The rollout of an e-scooter trial in the capital has faced delays since its announcement.

Trials were expected to finish this August, but ministers have now revealed that they will continue until March next year, meaning that a decision regarding whether or not to permit their use will not be made until next Spring. Legislation, therefore, may not come into effect until mid-2023.

Richard Adely, the CEO of e-scooter manufacturer Taur, told The Times that the government’s “dithering and delay has allowed more and more unregulated and out-of-control scooters to proliferate on streets, risking the life and limb of pedestrians and other road users”.

Meanwhile, the Department for Transport told the paper: “To ensure we get the most comprehensive evidence from trials, including those that have started more recently, the end date for trials has been extended to 31 March 2022.”

Last week, figures were published that revealed a number of crimes including robbery and assault are being committed with the aid of e-scooters. One e-scooter rider was filmed travelling at around 50mph on a dual carriageway, overtaking cars travelling at the 40mph speed limit.

The figures revealed that 70 people have been injured during the nationwide trials of e-scooters, with 11 of those injuries branded “serious”.

The sister of a six-year old boy who suffered a fractured skull after being hit by a 17-year old e-scooter rider has called for a ban on their use by those aged under 21, while safety campaigners in Birmingham have called for an end to the city’s trial due to the risk posed by discarded scooters to blind people.

At present, only e-scooters rented out by licenced operators in trial cities can be used on public roads. Their top speed must be limited to 15.5mph, and they can only be used by people over the age of 16, on roads that also allow cyclists. The use of private e-scooters remains illegal, though this rule is often flaunted.

E-scooters are widely and legally used in a number of other countries across the world, and the UK has often been seen as lagging behind when it comes to their legalisation. The Commons transport committee has called for their legalisation.

 

 

[GoGeorgeGo]

On 4/30/2021 at 12:06 PM, ShanesPlanet said:

In the USA, the wheels of the government roll slowly and sometimes not at all. The only time things happen quickly, is when they may lose money, or when they want to imprison someone THEN wait for a reason for doing it.

We are basically just trying to dodge any high profile incidents.  So long as no one kills a kid or dog, no one burns down a forest, and no gangs or thieves start commiting crimes on them we will be under the radar. Not enough of them around yet for any legislators to care about us. We are lucky that kids can't afford them. They will only make a move when it is profitable, be that financially or for political clout. We just need to make sure Karen doesn't start an anti-euc agenda and we can ride these bad boys unencumbered for another 5-10 years. Eventually we will run into our moment of visibility though , and knowing america the way i do, it will come with excise tax, registration, insurance, special liscensing, safety inspections. Whatever else they can get away with to tax you on it. Enjoy the free ride while it lasts 

[Nic]

Latest government report on UK e-scooter regulation

Regulating Electric Scooters - 01 September 2021 (UK Gov Report)

 

[Planemo]

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to tell us anything we don't already know!

[ally2410]

I found an interesting article on the e scooter law in the uk and coming changes

 

The current legality and coming changes for electric scooters in 2022

The government has extended the electric scooter trials until spring 2022 in the UK. Local councils have been running e-scooter rental trials in collaboration with large e scooter rental companies like VOI, DOTT, TIER & LIME. These trials began in summer and will supply important data, guidance and conclusions to the government in order for them to legislate them into UK law. While it is legal to buy or sell an e-scooter, riding them on public roads, pavements or cycle lanes is against the law until this new legislation is complete.

The reclassification

Whilst these trials are continuing the NMDA (National Motorcycle Dealers Association) and the DfT (Department for Transport), have been working together on a reclassified of e-scooters. They have been referred to as Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle’s or PLEV’s Personal Light Electric Vehicle’s. But as of Autumn 2021, as the first step to legislation will now be referred to legally as ‘Powered Transporters‘ this new terminology will classify e-scooters only and distinguish them from other electric transportation like electric bikes.

What to expect when legislation is passed.

Looking towards Europe for guidance on how the UK government may legislate them into law we find the following common requirements from various EU countries.

• Maximum speed cannot exceed 20/25 km/hour (12-16mph)
• Speed restrictions in pedestrian zones 8/10 km/hour (5-6mph)
• Maximum motor size of 500W
• Front lights and side reflectors must be fitted
• Two brakes that work independently are fitted
• A bell or a siren must be fitted.
• Minimum age of 14 years old
• Mandatory helmets for children
• CE Certification on Scooter/battery/charger
• A one-time registration fee and issuance of a license plate number
• An annual licence fee

Most of the above are sure to be part of the new UK laws coming in spring 2022 and raise many questions for current e scooter owns.

1. If my electric scooter has a bigger motor that 500w will it continue to be illegal?
2. If my e-scooter can exceed the 16mph speed limit, will it continue to be illegal?
3. If my e scooter doesn’t have the required lights, will it continue to be illegal?

At www.edinburghcooters.co.uk we think that the answer will be a clear ‘YES’ to all of the above, if you have a dual 1000W motor scooter, that can do 30mph we expect you will not get approval to use this legally. Again, if you have a home made scooter with no lights and/or CE mark we think you will not be able to get the required license plate to use it legally.
Exactly how this all unfolds in the coming year is anyone’s guess but we expect that most of the EU requirements on the list will also be UK requirements. The simple reason for this assumption is that most of these requirements are fair and sensible, which most people would agree with and be able to comply with, without breaking the bank. However, if the powers that be decide to go down a much stricter route and enforce insurance, road tax and MOT as per most other vehicles it could be the end of e-scooters before the micro transport revolution even begins…..

[Planemo]

We have to take on board thats all just a vendors guess though.

It seems rather odd that the suggestion of 500w is possible given ebikes are limited to 250w, especially when 500w isnt needed to do 12 to 16mph.

In any event I will bet my bottom dollar that legislation will effectively exclude/make EUC's unviable (500w), all I can hope is that if scooters are made legal it will take the heat off us a bit.

It will of course make it even more important that we dont ride like dicks, its not like an EUC is in any way similar to a scooter, even to the non-informed average bobby.

 

[DavidB]

8 weeks jail for riding and e-scooter!! He definitely needed a better lawyer... perhaps just a kid and a (useless) public defender. I've never had any desire to go to Birmingham, now I will actively avoid.

Ally2410 is probably close to the mark. As I mentioned elsewhere Western Australia just legislated for what they call e-rideables. After having a legal vacuum (ie e-rideables were banned) for a few years whilst Queenslanders were legally zipping around on their EUCs they finally decided to put up some rules and they did not muck around. Asking for public consultations in Aug 2021 .  https://www.wa.gov.au/government/announcements/erideable-survey

And then introducing the new laws 3 months later. https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/road-safety-commission/erideables

As I said above, not too dissimilar to what Ally2410 posted with many rules which would alarm people on this forum. i.e. Max speed 25kmh, must be over 16 etc. but the Government appeared to keep the rules simple and stayed completely away from power restrictions (it seems) and you CAN ride on footpath, bike paths and dual use paths and minor (suburban) roads. I haven't seen any rules about insurance, licences or number plates so I think the locals will be OK as they are pretty laid back down there (the nice weather and no Covid). Technically the e-rideable is not allowed to be capable of more than 25kmh so I wonder if a governed MSP would pass.

Looking at that letter from the Dept of Transport I cant help but feel the UK laws will be long in coming and very restrictive.

As George says, enjoy your riding whilst you can and don't draw attention to yourself or piss off the locals.

 

[Nic]

Finally, some good news...

 

[The Brahan Seer]

8 minutes ago, Nic said:

Finally, some good news...

Yes and no...

Mr Shapps told the Commons Transport Select Committee that "in the future I want to crack down on the illegal use on roads of non-compliant e-scooters".

Being in the grey area has been more beneficial in some ways as the police have tended to let things slide as long as we behaved ourselves. It will be interesting exactly what will be implemented. Ultimately it is a good thing as it means we are heading in the right direction. Whether it is a good thing for EUC's we will have to wait and see.

 

[k.likhachova]

I think it would be good for everyone if the use of the scooter was accompanied by a minimum age and wearing protective gear. I would also impose fines on people who walk on cycle lanes and nothing stops them 

[atdlzpae]

20 minutes ago, k.likhachova said:

wearing protective gear

Government encouraging helmets - Nice, I absolutely agree.
Government fining people for not wearing a helmet - Are police bored? Is there no serious crime to prevent?

I'm staunchly opposed to overbearing mandates. Since helmet protects only you, it should absolutely be your choice to wear it or not.

I'm saying it as a person who wears a helmet 99% of the time. I like not to fear a fine during this 1% when I believe I don't need it.

Edited August 29, 2022 by atdlzpae

[Cerbera]

No, this isn't good news for us at all, unless our exclusion from that legislation continues to leave us in that grey area where we are mostly getting away with it !

But I worry that it doesn't leave us there; it actively rules us definitely illegal, because our machines would not be 'compliant' (I'll bet my right leg that 'compliant' involves 2 wheels !), and our wheels are necessarily and dramatically over the power limits they are proposing for scooters. Of course, unlike scooters, we have a perfectly legitimate reason for needing that power because we need the headroom to maintain balance safely at the range of legal speeds they are proposing. A modest little 300 watt Airwheel going at its max speed 15 kph is a lot more dangerous than a Begode Master doing the same. But the latter is 9 times over their proposed power limits !

People should be judged for the speed they are doing, in the context they are doing it, and never by how much speed the machine they are riding is capable of. There are cars and MCs on the road that can top 160 mph but these are not banned because they are too powerful - we should seek parity with all other road users, and we don't have it in the slightest if there are silly / unpractical power limits on what we are riding.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Cerbera

[k.likhachova]

58 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

Since helmet protects only you, it should absolutely be your choice to wear it or not.

Yeah, but motorcycle helmets are mandatory, and there’s nothing to it?

[Cerbera]

The more I think about this the more cross it makes me, so I'm coming back for an extended rant I'm afraid ! Please bear with me

The sheer injustice of it all - people are allowed to ride HORSES on the road for god's sake ! Huge, powerful animals that could go properly mental at any time to the serious detriment of themselves, their riders and other road users, and are utterly beyond the power of their rider to control if the horse is spooked or frightened or the rider ejected from their mount ! Sure, it doesn't happen very often, but nor do cut-outs on EUCs !

Cyclists are allowed to ride as fast as their little legs, battery power and gravity permits, and I often see cyclists doing well over 30 mph on all sorts of roads and long stretches of downhill, and they are not even required to have insurance !!  As I have said before, I would buy EUC Public liability insurance TODAY if it was available (compulsory or not), but it isn't, so I am actively prevented from doing the most responsible thing for my riding, which seems just... insane...

This is bullshit, people, and we might have to shout a bit louder about this if we are ever going to make this the excellent fully legal and sensibly regulated activity it so obviously deserves to be. I know, I know; we haven't got the numbers to make anyone listen yet...

But we have got thousands of hours of footage of people doing it safely and well and amongst pedestrians and other road and walkway users. Surely we can leverage this somehow to at least get ourselves properly assessed and considered for imminent legality, or at least to be differentiated from hoverboards, or to get parity with other PEVs, in all places that cycles are permitted, and ideally on pavements / sidewalks as well. Unlike bicycles, we are capable of going along at walking speed, are considerably more manoeuvrable and take up no more room on a pavement than pedestrians do. We should definitely be allowed there if we are riding considerately, and I do worry that nobody has yet presented the case for this adequately to the authorities in question. I would be very happy to accept a general limit of say 15 mph on cycle paths, or 5 mph on sidewalks, or whatever the speed limit is on the road in question, but it should be legal to use them when we can evidently do it so demonstrably safely. I wouldn't even mind taking a damn test to verify my skills like we have to with UAVs (drones) now, but it really pisses me off that our wonderful hobby doesn't even seem to be on the radar for consideration for ANY of this in the UK, whilst other vehicles (scooters etc) in our class are fast-tracked to (over) regulation.

Anybody got any stellar ideas for what we can actually practically DO about improving this situation ? 

Right, I'm off to watch some calming cats.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Cerbera

[The Brahan Seer]

1 hour ago, Cerbera said:

I worry that it doesn't leave us there; it actively rules us definitely illegal

The UK government has potentially kicked this legislation into the long grass (May 2024*) so we may have a little more time to see what pans out.

Positively councils are more actively putting in infrastructure throughout the UK to help with pedestrians, bicycles and scooters mix with cars. The word 'wheeling' is being banded about a lot lately which could encompass or mean many forms of our e transport types... or not.

 

*https://www.moveelectric.com/e-scooters/rental-e-scooter-trials-be-extended-until-may-2024

[atdlzpae]

4 hours ago, k.likhachova said:

Yeah, but motorcycle helmets are mandatory, and there’s nothing to it?

A lot of US states don't require motorcycle helmets.

I disagree with mandating motorcycle/bicycle helmets. Let people die in peace if they are stupid enough not to wear one when they ride quickly. Not my problem.
Helmets don't affect safety of others. Let people do stupid stuff if they don't endanger other people.

We already have way too much regulations in every part of our lives.

Edited August 29, 2022 by atdlzpae

[Tawpie]

7 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

stupid enough not to wear one

"You don't need a helmet if you have concrete for brains"
              (a billboard promoting introduction of a motorcycle helmet law way way way back in the day)

 

Interestingly, in my true blue coastal ivory tower locale, the city recently removed the bicycle helmet requirement when riding a bike on bike paths. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯… we like to say that we "follow the science" around here, seems unexpected that the science wouldn't support mandatory helmets for bikers.

[Kurtosis]

15 minutes ago, atdlzpae said:

A lot of US states don't require motorcycle helmets.

I disagree with mandating motorcycle/bicycle helmets. Let people die in peace if they are stupid enough not to wear one when they ride quickly. Not my problem.
Helmets don't affect safety of others. Let people do stupid stuff if they don't endanger other people.

We already have way too much regulations in every part of our lives.

I don't think the issue is personal freedom here or trying to nanny people. I think the issue is that when a person becomes incapacitated by an accident where they were not wearing a helmet that actually can affect a lot of other people, for instance:

1. The person's family, who may not have the ability to support themselves any more
2. The medical system that has to rush to help/save this person, possibly at the expense of helping others
3. The society that has one fewer productive worker and one more place where the social support network needs to sustain someone (or possibly a whole family)
4. The other person(s) in the incident, if any, who may experience severe emotional trauma from having hurt someone so badly

There are arguments to be made that helmet laws, e.g. decrease cycling because of the overhead and thus increase obesity, diabetes, etc. and that on par they are detrimental to society. You could even make the argument that if someone drives because they didn't want to put on their helmet, that they are increasing vehicle congestion, carbon emissions, likelihood of a car accident, etc. and that may outweigh the expected downsides of not wearing a helmet. But I don't think it is as simple as "if people want to be stupid, let them be stupid", because nobody really lives in isolation here, and some of these decisions can have profound effects on others.

[Kurtosis]

9 minutes ago, Tawpie said:

"You don't need a helmet if you have concrete for brains"
              (a billboard promoting introduction of a motorcycle helmet law way way way back in the day)

 

Interestingly, in my true blue coastal ivory tower locale, the city recently removed the bicycle helmet requirement when riding a bike on bike paths. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯… we like to say that we "follow the science" around here, seems unexpected that the science wouldn't support mandatory helmets for bikers.

It's not unexpected, because studies show that while wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet, requiring helmets actually depresses cycling, and the societal effects of that are worse, on balance. See, e.g. https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safety/

[VikB]

1 minute ago, Tawpie said:

"You don't need a helmet if you have concrete for brains"
              (a billboard promoting introduction of a motorcycle helmet law way way way back in the day)

 

Interestingly, in my true blue coastal ivory tower locale, the city recently removed the bicycle helmet requirement when riding a bike on bike paths. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯… we like to say that we "follow the science" around here, seems unexpected that the science wouldn't support mandatory helmets for bikers.

The science is that the overall health benefits of not having mandatory bicycle helmet laws are significant over the specific benefits of having it.  It also seems like jurisdictions with mandatory helmet laws don't have reduced rates of brain injuries vs. places without them. Keeping in mind not having a mandatory helmet law doesn't mean everyone will not wear a bicycle helmet.

For cycling there are far more important considerations for safety and overall population health than helmets. But #1 you have to buy a helmet so business like that and #2 it's easy to focus on that vs. the real issues.

[atdlzpae]

46 minutes ago, Tawpie said:

Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯… we like to say that we "follow the science" around here, seems unexpected that the science wouldn't support mandatory helmets for bikers.

Last 3 years exposed "follow the science" to be 0% about science and 100% about politics.
Basically every good decision I see from politicians is a result of an accident, not planning.

We recently (2020) had public consultations about PEV laws in Poland. Basically all suggestions were ignored.
And thus we're stuck with stupid stuff like a limit of 25kg for an electric scooter. Or EUC's aren't legal on bicycle lanes (not a typo).

 

37 minutes ago, Kurtosis said:

The person's family, who may not have the ability to support themselves any more

Is it the role of a government to "care" about my family relations?
If this is the argument... Will the law allow not wearing helmets when a person has no family?

37 minutes ago, Kurtosis said:

The medical system that has to rush to help/save this person, possibly at the expense of helping others

This leap of logic is totalitarian. Why are cigarettes legal? Lung cancer is expensive.
Banning alcohol would reduce the amount of drunken car accidents to zero.
Why are fat people allowed to buy food? You should weight yourself before you're allowed to buy pizza.

All of those would help our medical system. And yet nobody is doing it. And thank god.

37 minutes ago, Kurtosis said:

The society that has one fewer productive worker and one more place where the social support network needs to sustain someone (or possibly a whole family)

"Let's keep people safe because we need productive workers" is something any communist dictator would love.
This logic is very similar to the medical system one. It implies banning any kind of extreme sport (no more bungee jumping, skydiving, paragliding, rock climbing) because we may lose a productive worker.

37 minutes ago, Kurtosis said:

The other person(s) in the incident, if any, who may experience severe emotional trauma from having hurt someone so badly

It's already being done. In Poland we have blasphemy laws. Twitter and Facebook ban for even accidental misgendering.
"Emotional trauma" is now a political argument. George Orwell would be proud.

37 minutes ago, Kurtosis said:

But I don't think it is as simple as "if people want to be stupid, let them be stupid", because nobody really lives in isolation here, and some of these decisions can have profound effects on others.

I agree that nobody lives in isolation. And thus it's up an individual to estimate risk/reward, not to a politician.

If it was a role of politicians to estimate risk/reward... EUC's would be banned.

Edited August 29, 2022 by atdlzpae