e-scooter trial, London

[Blackswanwood]

An alternative approach would be better design of our city and town centres to take motorised traffic out of them. That still leave the problem of collisions between cyclists/escooters and pedestrians but in my opinion would improve most city and town centres massively just by removing the noise and air pollution.

It would of course take a brave and coordinated approach from all levels of government to make this work as we are so used to being able to go wherever and whenever we want by car.

 

[thetyreman]

It's no difference, but this thread is about e-scooters.
Personally I think that cyclists too, should be required to take at least the theory test, require insurance, have bike mot's, and be required in law to wear hi visibility attire, helmets and other safety equipment, both for their safety and that of other.

In fact this should be a minimum requirement for anyone using any method of transport on our roads, even those that use skates on public roads.

as a cyclist I agree, I took my cycling proficiency test as a child, now it's called 'bikeability' they've tried to make it sound cooler, it taught me a lot about how to cycle on roads safely as did learning about the highway code. We don't want insurance or MOT's though, I always wear a helmet and hi viz isn't needed unless you are cycling in the dark, we don't want to be patronised, that'll never work. I also regularly check my bike tyres and breaks to make sure they are working well, most of it is just common sense.

 

[Rorschach]

What exactly is wrong with wanting road users to all be required to have at least a minimum of the theory test, highway code knowledge, personal safety equipment, insurance and even a licence.

Nothing wrong with that, but if you introduce you you lessen the appeal of cycling and increase the appeal of owning a car which is undoubtedly better.

 

[thetyreman]

Nothing wrong with that, but if you introduce you you lessen the appeal of cycling and increase the appeal of owning a car which is undoubtedly better.

everything is wrong with it, you'd have hundreds of thousands of angry cyclists protesting, we already get enough abuse on the roads.

 

[Rorschach]

everything is wrong with it, you'd have hundreds of thousands of angry cyclists protesting, we already get enough abuse on the roads.

Well at the moment you have angry motorists, congestion and masses of wasted road space.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

as a cyclist I agree, I took my cycling proficiency test as a child ...

Unforeseen consequences, maybe, but the children around where I used to live tended to ride quite carefully until they passed that after which they thought themselves invincible and rode like lunatics.

 

[Sachakins]

as a cyclist I agree, I took my cycling proficiency test as a child, now it's called 'bikeability' they've tried to make it sound cooler, it taught me a lot about how to cycle on roads safely as did learning about the highway code. We don't want insurance or MOT's though, I always wear a helmet and hi viz isn't needed unless you are cycling in the dark, we don't want to be patronised, that'll never work. I also regularly check my bike tyres and breaks to make sure they are working well, most of it is just common sense.

Ok maybe mot may be over the top, but I don't think insurance is over the top.
I had the entire side of my car severely damaged by a cyclist.
I was stationary in traffic. The cyclist came down the centre of the road and managed to slide his handle bar an pedal along my doors and wing and broke off the wing mirror.

He just shrugged it of and told me to claim on my insurance. By the time I got out to collar him he was off weaving in between the traffic.

And before you scream I didn't give him room, the inside lane to me was a cycle lane, he had no need to be in centre between me and incoming traffic.

If the bike was forced to display some form of visible registration I Could have pursued him through the registration system.
Then claim against his insurance.

I travelled that route a lot, but never saw him again.

If I had open my door in his path, he would be first to jump on wanting my insurance details.

Which I don't think I need to give him.
Since the law states you must exchange insurance details. But if he aint got any to exchange then ive no need to give him any.

Insurance should be a compulsory item for any mode of transport, engine or self propelled.

Hope we never criss paths again.

 

[Sachakins]

everything is wrong with it, you'd have hundreds of thousands of angry cyclists protesting, we already get enough abuse on the roads.

Just because it's unpopular, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

 

[Sachakins]

And one point I missed, it's about time they contrubuted by being forced to pay road tax also, why be given a free ride on the roads.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Regulating cyclists with insurance, tests, registration is never likely to be unenforced effectively, and thus pointless:

• the police will have far higher priority issues to attend to
• the young (below 14/16?) would be unable to cycle
• the law abiding will be deterred from even taking to a cycle
• those who don't care about legality will simply ignore it
• less bikes = more cars and congestion

If bike meets car in a collision the cyclist is usually at far greater risk.

If a cyclist damages a car or pedestrian and rides off, they have broken the law. Unless the damage is very serious (not just somewhat costly or temporarily painful) the police are unlikely to pursue it (first bullet above).

 

[Sachakins]

Regulating cyclists with insurance, tests, registration is never likely to be unenforced effectively, and thus pointless:

• the police will have far higher priority issues to attend to
• the young (below 14/16?) would be unable to cycle
• the law abiding will be deterred from even taking to a cycle
• those who don't care about legality will simply ignore it
• less bikes = more cars and congestion

If bike meets car in a collision the cyclist is usually at far greater risk.

If a cyclist damages a car or pedestrian and rides off, they have broken the law. Unless the damage is very serious (not just somewhat costly or temporarily painful) the police are unlikely to pursue it (first bullet above).

The police will always have higher priorities,: Is no justification for not implementing it,
The young would be unable to cycle: Not true, just the legislation needs to account for them.
Deterent to law abiding: Not true, it is simply applying a level of accountability, which majority would respect.
Those that don't care ignore it. True, but when involved in incident then punishment would be enforceable.
Less bikes=more cars: Superstition, as ownership still cheaper than car for those that want them.

Bike v car cyclist at Greater risk: Exactly why safety equipment must become mandatory.
Unless the damage is very serious (not just somewhat costly or temporarily painful) the police are unlikely to pursue it.
So you advocate that they should not have any accountability, so the costs should just be acceptable to victim, again an irresponsible attitude to accountability for one's actions.

Sorry but I don't see any merit in your excuses.

 

[pe2dave]

Why is that any different to cyclists? They also require no test or insurance etc and are just as easily killed by a motorist.

Which is the current picture in France.
Any accident, car to bike / e-scooter, the car driver is blamed, almost without exception.

 

[Yorkieguy]

This is a topic which generates more heat than light - opinions are polarised and unlikely to change. Because children, pedestrians, cyclists, e-scooters mobility scooters, and horse rider are vulnerable road users and motorists are not, there is a far higher duty of can upon motorists than others. Attitudes to this differ from country to country. In Holland for example, if as child runs out onto the road to retrieve a ball and is hit by a motorist, the motorist will be held to be blameworthy. Why? Because in urban areas, that's the sort of thing which happens from timer to time and drivers should take special care. In the UK, the most likely attitude would be that it's the parent's fault for not controlling the child. It's why in many area (including most roads and street in the village in which I live) have 20 MPH speed limits as the stopping time is much shorter and the consequences if hitting someone are much less severe. Yet most drivers routinely ignore 20MPH limits, which in my view should be rigorously enforced by cameras. In saying that, many will retort that cameras are 'cash cows'. Not so - if people get caught on camera it isn't bad luck - it's because they're bad drivers with a bad attitude to road safety and poor observations.

I recently watched a Zoom talk by someone on the Transport panel considering e-scooters and the likely outcome. Q & As:

Will a licence be needed? No.
Insurance? No.
ID plates? No.
Helmets compulsory? No
Lower age limit? No.
Drive on pavements? No.
In cycle lanes? Yes.
On roads? Yes.
Maximum design speed and construction and use regulations? Yes.

This is pretty much in line with other counties where e-scooter use has taken root in large numbers.
Would I ride one? No - the wheels are only a few inches diameter and there are so many potholes I wouldn't feel safe, but when they do come - as they will - I'll be acutely aware of the vulnerability of those who ride them.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am a car driver, and until 2010 was a motorcyclist).

 

[Phil Pascoe]

... the wheels are only a few inches diameter and there are so many potholes ...

Maybe if these contraptions become common, councils will have to fix potholes? Wait for the first council to get sued.

 

[Jacob]

Personally I think that cyclists too, should be required to take at least the theory test, require insurance, have bike mot's, and be required in law to wear hi visibility attire, helmets and other safety equipment, both for their safety and that of other.
In fact this should be a minimum requirement for anyone using any method of transport on our roads, even those that use skates on public roads.

I completely disagree.
Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.
More cyclists makes it even safer as road users get accustomed to their presence.
Cycling is carbon zero, non polluting, silent, healthy, takes up less road space with less engineering, suits all ages.
Instead of cyclists having to adapt to suit motorists it should be the other way around with more provision and priorities for cyclists, stricter penalties for accidents caused to cyclists.
Motorist need more cycle training - maybe to be obliged to pass a cycle experience test themselves.
Cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, scooterers, mobility scooters, should reclaim the roads!
One thing long overdue in many built up areas is hugely reduced speed limits, 20 or lower as appropriate, plus pedestrianisation prioritisation of busy spots with wheeled vehicles allowed access at 10 or 5mph etc
PS as for paying vehicle tax - if it was roughly proportional to the effective cost of cycling on the road system it would be a few pennies. Not until we have cycle paths equivalent to motorways.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

In 1835 Parliament passed the Highway Act. This is the reference in the Road Traffic Act 1988 used as the basis for making electric bikes (other than assisted) illegal on the basis that they are "powered transport" and need to meet certain standards to use the roads legally.

Queen Victoria was not even queen in 1835 - we have William IV to thank far being so far sighted as to anticipate the invention of lithium batteries.

We do need some legislation but it should be realistic and relevant. If the reality is that it will not be enforced we are simply wasting valuable parliamentary effort on the trivial when there are far more pressing things to do.

A purely personal view - more legislation does not mean better legislation.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.

Good. So we don't need any more cycle lanes.

 

[thetyreman]

another point, if you are already paying council tax then you are contributing to the upkeep of roads, that's in fact where the money comes from to pay for roads and maintenance.

 

[Jacob]

Good. So we don't need any more cycle lanes.

No you have complete missed the point:
Cycling is very safe causing little risk either to cyclists themselves or to other road users.
EXCEPT cyclists are extremely vulnerable to motor vehicles.
https://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/common-causes-of-cycling-accidents/

 

[Sachakins]

another point, if you are already paying council tax then you are contributing to the upkeep of roads, that's in fact where the money comes from to pay for roads and maintenance.

So why do i need to pay twice? Council Tax, and road tax for car/motorbike.