Electric Mopeds

[Andrew]

What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country but the ones that look
like a moped and are beloved of various food delivery companies, some of
them being branded in the company’s colours.

We were told by a rider that jumped a red light and rode straight into
the side of a car that they do not need a helmet, do not need a licence
and do not need insurance. They have a plate on the back, but it is not
a vehicle registration plate and judging by the number that overtake me
when I am cycling, they can go at quite a bit more than 25km/h.

Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

[TTman]

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country but the ones that look
like a moped and are beloved of various food delivery companies, some of
them being branded in the company’s colours.
We were told by a rider that jumped a red light and rode straight into
the side of a car that they do not need a helmet, do not need a licence
and do not need insurance. They have a plate on the back, but it is not
a vehicle registration plate and judging by the number that overtake me
when I am cycling, they can go at quite a bit more than 25km/h.
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...

[Martin Brown]

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country but the ones that look
like a moped and are beloved of various food delivery companies, some
of them being branded in the company’s colours.
We were told by a rider that jumped a red light and rode straight into
the side of a car that they do not need a helmet, do not need a
licence and do not need insurance. They have a plate on the back, but
it is not a vehicle registration plate and judging by the number that
overtake me when I am cycling, they can go at quite a bit more than
25km/h.
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

 Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...

They are typically tweaked electric bicycles with the requirement to
pedal and 12mph speed limiter disabled. They are not road legal in any
way shape or form. But police CBA to police it. Flat out they seem to do
around 25mph but it can't be good for the rechargeable battery.

However, the delivery companies will argue that these people are not
their employees and are self employed so they disown any and all
responsibility for their delivery "drivers" crimes and misdemeanors.

Probably the worst example of its kind is this one where some
unfortunate plumber had his finger bitten off! Wrecking his livelihood.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68558464

I expect there are plenty of RTCs involving these things but they
scarper through the traffic rather than exchange details with the driver
or pedestrian they hit (unless they are injured and even then they try
to run away). I'd hazard a guess that most are uninsured. eg.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/hit-run-crash-sees-man-9797421

[Davey]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:01:27 +0000

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on
type that are available in trials around the country but the ones
that look like a moped and are beloved of various food delivery
companies, some of them being branded in the company’s colours.
We were told by a rider that jumped a red light and rode straight
into the side of a car that they do not need a helmet, do not need
a licence and do not need insurance. They have a plate on the
back, but it is not a vehicle registration plate and judging by
the number that overtake me when I am cycling, they can go at
quite a bit more than 25km/h.
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would
any legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do
with them?

 Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The
rules for both are entirely different.They look different too...

They are typically tweaked electric bicycles with the requirement to
pedal and 12mph speed limiter disabled. They are not road legal in
any way shape or form. But police CBA to police it. Flat out they
seem to do around 25mph but it can't be good for the rechargeable
battery.
However, the delivery companies will argue that these people are not
their employees and are self employed so they disown any and all
responsibility for their delivery "drivers" crimes and misdemeanors.
Probably the worst example of its kind is this one where some
unfortunate plumber had his finger bitten off! Wrecking his
livelihood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68558464
I expect there are plenty of RTCs involving these things but they
scarper through the traffic rather than exchange details with the
driver or pedestrian they hit (unless they are injured and even then
they try to run away). I'd hazard a guess that most are uninsured. eg.
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/hit-run-crash-sees-man-9797421

Does any company even offer insurance for them, especially if they are
illegal?

[Peter Walker]

Post by Martin Brown
Probably the worst example of its kind is this one where some
unfortunate plumber had his finger bitten off! Wrecking his
livelihood.

Clearly a criminal act but I find it difficult to justify the victim's need
to:

" . . raise(d) his hand to Rocha's motorcycle helmet . . . "

clearly more to this than meets the eye as the report implies an
attempt/wish to obtain delivery without proof of order/identity.

Yes, a violent overreaction by the assailant but potentially with
mitigating factors.

As an aside, I choose not to support the use of patently unlawful delivery
riders/methods by not ordering from outlets supporting them but I am a home
food, cooked from scratch type person.

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Martin Brown
police CBA to police it

What does CBA mean?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Martin Brown
police CBA to police it

What does CBA mean?

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cba

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Ottavio Caruso

Post by Martin Brown
police CBA to police it

What does CBA mean?

"Can't Be Arsed"

[Andrew]

 Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...

I mean the ones that look like a moped. Something like this:

<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>

which they claim is legal in the UK.

At least one delivery company seems to have them painted in corporate
colours which suggests that they have at least something to do with
their purchase.

[Alan Lee]

Post by Andrew

  Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...

<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>
which they claim is legal in the UK.

It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

[Andrew]

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

[Peter Walker]

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .

That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

[Spike]

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.

The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.

Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.

It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.

One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.

(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.

Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?

Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing
safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I
dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise
regulating their behaviour.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?

Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing
safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I
dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise
regulating their behaviour.

The behaviour of cats is not a legal matter.

Did you think it was?

Remember what you said when you are run over by a criminal chav on a
fairy-bike while you are walking along the footway or have stepped out
of your garden gate onto the footway.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?

Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing
safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I
dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise
regulating their behaviour.

The behaviour of cats is not a legal matter.
Did you think it was?
Remember what you said when you are run over by a criminal chav on a
fairy-bike while you are walking along the footway or have stepped out
of your garden gate onto the footway.

I will remember that being run over by a car in similar circumstances is much
more likely, and much more likely to cause injury if it happens. Ditto if I
trip over a cat.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect. An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

How about an entirely rational dislke of ILLEGAL two-wheeled vehicles
being ridden illegally?

Such a dislike is entirely rational. But prioritising it over increasing
safety from cars, such as by wider and well-enforced 20mph limits is not. I
dislike cats, but I wouldn't seriously expect the police to prioritise
regulating their behaviour.

The behaviour of cats is not a legal matter.
Did you think it was?
Remember what you said when you are run over by a criminal chav on a
fairy-bike while you are walking along the footway or have stepped out
of your garden gate onto the footway.

I will remember that being run over by a car in similar circumstances is much
more likely,

What... a car travelling along a footway in preference to the carriageway?

Really?

Post by Roger Hayter
and much more likely to cause injury if it happens. Ditto if I
trip over a cat.

We haven't kept a cat since the last one died of old age, c. 2009, but I
remember a former neighbour complaining that cats crossed his property
and didn't respect his ownership of the land. Cats are definitely thir
own people - and such outlaws, aren't they? ;-)

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect.

If that is the case, then the tens of millions being squandered on ‘cycling
infrastructure’ is a total waste of resources.

Post by Roger Hayter
An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

I’ll be sure to watch out for such.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

Why! It is a fundamental rule of road safety that you do the things likely to
have the greatest effect.

If that is the case, then the tens of millions being squandered on ‘cycling
infrastructure’ is a total waste of resources.

The general view is precisely that. Most of that is unusable, especially when
not cleaned and maintained like the roads. And that of it which is usable
doesn't go anywhere useful.

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter
An irrational dislike of two-wheeled vehicles is not
a useful guide to policy.

I’ll be sure to watch out for such.

[JNugent]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Peter Walker

Post by Andrew

Post by Alan Lee
It probably is legal when sold.
The ads go out of their way to not show the pedals, as it is a pedal
bike with motor assisitance. If it has been modified to run without
pedal input and/or has been modified to run the motor at more than
15mph, then it is classed the same as a motorbike/moped, and will thus
need tax/insurance/licence/helmet etc.
Police are aware of such shenanigans by the Owners of these bikes,and
there are occasional reports from local Police on Facebook that they
have seized a vehicle as it has been modified, but it is low down the
pecking order of crimes, so lots of people get away with it.

I would have thought that it would be an easy win for the police. A high
leear-up rate for the little effort of standing on a street corner and
pulling over anyone who rides by without pedelling.

You mean like, "Stop, stop, I say, STOP in the name of the law!", rider
laughter enuses . . .
That's pretty much how it was shown on this Monday's Panorama which had a
special on it. They had specialist teams in London where the problem is
greater but they had to grab them when they were stationary and it was
rather labour intensive. Low level crime, low level priority.

There was a part of the programme towards the end where it was reported
that the government had been made aware of the issue of pedestrian
casualties involving the use of illegally-modified e-bikes.
The government response appeared to be related to monitoring the use of
bike-hire schemes.
Talk about answering different question! Bike hire schemes don’t use
illegally-modified e-bikes.
It gives the impression that the government doesn’t want to know about the
issue, and couldn’t care less about the vulnerable victims of such
machines, namely the young and the elderly.
One wonders at the reason for such indifference. Perhaps in the current
climate the ‘Je ne regrette r i e n’ approach of the government to the
financial issues de jour is causing perturbations in those circles.
(Apologies for the use of r i e n which is entirely due to my
spellchecker insisting on correcting it to ‘turn’.)

It is, of course, a bad thing that illegally modified electric bikes are being
ridden around by careless people causing accidents. But since perfectly legal
cars driven by licensed drivers but driven carelessly (and therefore
illegally) cause hundreds of times more serious injuries and deaths it is hard
to see the illegal bikes as a major priority.
Even unpowered, but carelessly ridden, ordinary bicycles cause a comparable
number of accidents.

That is very similar to the argument put forward by the cycling media and
their fellow-travellers in their rush to prevent any restrictions being
placed on cycling, namely the appallingly disgraceful “it’s only a handful
of dead pedestrians, so why bother?”.
Although common in cycling discussion groups, I never expected to see such
a view put forward in this group.

You beat me to it.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Andrew

  Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...

<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>
which they claim is legal in the UK.

That is an eBike with pedals and motor power assist up to a limited
maximum speed of 15.5mph. It is road legal as manufactured and sold.

The problem arises because plenty of backstreet operators and YouTube
hackers will alter them to disable the *MUST* pedal to get motor assist
and the maximum speed limiter so they can do ~25mph with no pedalling.

The pedals are clearly visible on the image you reference (although just
about every other shot is carefully taken to hide them).

Post by Andrew
At least one delivery company seems to have them painted in corporate
colours which suggests that they have at least something to do with
their purchase.

It would be simple enough to test for doctored ones but don't hold your
breath. It should be considered an aggravating factor in any collision
involving an eBike rider if their bike has been doctored to make it
faster and not road legal but you have to catch them first.

[Brian]

Post by Andrew

 Do you mean an electric bicycle OR an electric motorbike? The rules
for both are entirely different.They look different too...

<https://www.eskuta.com/products/sx-250-series-4-electric-bike>
which they claim is legal in the UK.
At least one delivery company seems to have them painted in corporate
colours which suggests that they have at least something to do with
their purchase.

If you read the article, they apparently meet the regs making them legal
without a licence, insurance etc for someone at least 14- essentially they
are E bikes. The fact they look like mopeds / scooters is irrelevant.

( I’m not defending them - I think cyclists should be required to have
insurance and display registration, let alone E bikes.)

Likewise, I’ve seen youngsters in them who must be under 14 or grossly
under nourished.

[Alan Lee]

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.

<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

[Spike]

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
Dalston, might be of interest:

<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.

The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

[TTman]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

Seems his council made a series of valid arguments.
AIUI, a modified electric bicycle is illegal to use on the roads, end
of.I guess the prosecution/police were not able to recover the e bike
hence jury had to aquit the charge of no licence/insurance as it could
not be proven that it was a modified e-bicycle.

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.

The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.

[Martin Brown]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike
The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.

He still killed some innocent individual with a dangerous weapon. That
weapon being the illegally modified eBike.

Post by Spike
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.

That sounds like a good reason to educate the judge. Electric motors are
every bit motors in fact more so than internal combustion *engines*. I
expect UK law now defines it differently though just to be awkward.

Motor vehicles in the original context of the law meant anything that
wasn't animal powered (human, horse, donkey, ox etc). There were
wood/coal powered steam vehicles back in those days (some still going).

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.

I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was
found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying
that. Do you have another reference?

[Spike]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.

I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was
found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying
that. Do you have another reference?

Regretfully I can’t find a comprehensive statement that includes all of the
judge’s summing-up. The newspaper reporting seems to be a copy of some
statement, as they are all very similar.

In the forum discussions that followed there was much discussion on this
point, these being typical: “I find the court's opinion that a bicycle
turned into a motorbike is still a bicycle is rather strange” and “the
court decided it was a pedal cycle and thus the cyclist was found innocent
of all charges”, but it isn’t the proof that you seek. I recall the issue
from some years ago but didn’t keep a record. Mea culpa.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.

I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was
found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying
that. Do you have another reference?

Regretfully I can’t find a comprehensive statement that includes all of the
judge’s summing-up. The newspaper reporting seems to be a copy of some
statement, as they are all very similar.
In the forum discussions that followed there was much discussion on this
point, these being typical: “I find the court's opinion that a bicycle
turned into a motorbike is still a bicycle is rather strange” and “the
court decided it was a pedal cycle and thus the cyclist was found innocent
of all charges”, but it isn’t the proof that you seek. I recall the issue
from some years ago but didn’t keep a record. Mea culpa.

Forum contributors write irrelevant nonsense, shock, horror!

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

I think you’re aiming at the wrong target.
The rider was charged with a motor-vehicle offence, but the judge ruled
that his illegal electric bicycle wasn’t a motor vehicle, so he walked
free.

I suppose that could happen, but the local newspaper link above says he was
found not guilty by the jury and gives no hint whatsoever of the judge saying
that. Do you have another reference?

Regretfully I can’t find a comprehensive statement that includes all of the
judge’s summing-up. The newspaper reporting seems to be a copy of some
statement, as they are all very similar.
In the forum discussions that followed there was much discussion on this
point, these being typical: “I find the court's opinion that a bicycle
turned into a motorbike is still a bicycle is rather strange” and “the
court decided it was a pedal cycle and thus the cyclist was found innocent
of all charges”, but it isn’t the proof that you seek. I recall the issue
from some years ago but didn’t keep a record. Mea culpa.

Forum contributors write irrelevant nonsense, shock, horror!

One possibility I've thought of is that since his vehicle was not a legal
motor vehicle he could not automatically be found guilty of exceeding the
speed limit. But I'm only guessing. His defence seems to have been that even
if he had been driving more slowly he could not have missed the pedestrian,
and it was her fault. Car drivers are regularly found not guilty of careless
driving on similar grounds and I think this is equally wrong. One should show
sensible anticipation of pedestrians' foolish actions. But this is what juries
regularly do.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

It doesn't say whether he was also charged with driving an illegal vehicle,
but of course these are separate issues.
The main take-away from this is that juries are much too sympathetic to
drivers (or riders) who kill people.

They can certainly be too lenient towards drivers and riders who are
committing offences during which road traffic fatalities occur (whether
that offence is the direct cause or not).

Some years ago, the law was amended with respect to such deaths in order
to expand the range of offences. It was already an offence to be over
the limit for alcohol or illegal drugs (though why anything in excess of
zero should be acceptable for illegal drugs is far from clear). But new
offences of causing death while driving and not holding a valid licence
or driving while being uninsured were created. Maybe others as well. One
might summarise those offences as "having no right to be on the road in
a motor vehicle in the first place" and therefore needing no further
proof as to fault.

As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?) but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety,
not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their
own.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)

A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.

Post by Roger Hayter
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety,
not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their
own.

If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.

Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)

A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.

Post by Roger Hayter
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety,
not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their
own.

If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.

Oh yes they could! A fairly narrow pavement and an imminent intersection
between a pedestrian with an abnormal gait and and elderly cyclist. I hope I
would have slowed down
and possibly moved away from the kerb if I thought I would reach them about
when they met. If it annoyed the people behind me, so be it.

Post by JNugent
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)

A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.

Post by Roger Hayter
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety,
not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their
own.

If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.

Oh yes they could! A fairly narrow pavement and an imminent intersection
between a pedestrian with an abnormal gait and and elderly cyclist. I hope I
would have slowed down
and possibly moved away from the kerb if I thought I would reach them about
when they met. If it annoyed the people behind me, so be it.

Well there you are.

You reckon that the pedestrian was being threatened by the cyclist.

Many would not have gone that far.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)

A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.

Post by Roger Hayter
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety,
not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their
own.

If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them that the
greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But, really, what kind of
warped mentality could label the risk to a cyclist as less important than a
risk to a pedestrian? They are both almost certainly unprotected people.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
As for lawful behaviour by a driver who has the misfortune to have a
pedestrian run out in front of him (or in one notable usenet case, jump
off a bridge in front of him), it hard to see why a jury should be
anything but sympathetic to him. It could literally have happened to anyone.

In some cases I agree (were you especially exercised about the bridge jumper
because he was also a cyclist in his spare time?)

A good example of something the relevant lorry driver, driving along a
grade separated dual-carriageway, could not possibly have anticipated.

Post by Roger Hayter
but in a lot the cases of
pedestrians "jumping out" more cautious and considerate (of others' safety,
not just their own) driving could avoid these collisions. For instance, if the
motorist in the Elona Grey case had been driving cautiously past the
altercation on the pavement the death would probably not have happened;
juries set an abysmally low standard of driving, presumably to match their
own.

If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them that the
greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But, really, what kind of
warped mentality could label the risk to a cyclist as less important than a
risk to a pedestrian? They are both almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all pedestrians!),
but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the other was breaking
the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly that it was not
possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to react to it. Perhaps
we should reintroduce the red flag law?

And it's not as though the sight of a cyclist on a footway is in any way
unusual, is it?

It certainly *ought* to be.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all pedestrians!),
but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the other was breaking
the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly that it was not
possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to react to it. Perhaps
we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

 Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the  greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of  warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a  risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".

Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".

If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

Post by JNugent
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?

It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a
narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.

Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

I don't think you can have read that properly.

I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly
behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the
motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.

It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..

Do you still give the same answer?

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?

It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a
narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.

Oddly, no-one has suggested that gap or anything like it for pedestrians.

If it were the law, it would put footway fairy-cyclists well beyond the law.

Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.

Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

I don't think you can have read that properly.
I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly
behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the
motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?

Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?

It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a
narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.

Oddly, no-one has suggested that gap or anything like it for pedestrians
If it were the law, it would put footway fairy-cyclists well beyond the law.

Unless it is a shared use path then they are already "well beyond the law".

If it is a shared use path I think some rules are required. But especially
that cyclists achieving a decent speed should use the road rather than a
shared use path. This would be difficult to enforce, but that does not mean a
rule should not be devised.

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.

Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

I don't think you can have read that properly.
I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly
behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the
motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?

Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?

So is there no point at all in painting the carriageway in separate
lames for traffic?

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?

It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a
narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.

Oddly, no-one has suggested that gap or anything like it for pedestrians
If it were the law, it would put footway fairy-cyclists well beyond the law.

Unless it is a shared use path then they are already "well beyond the law".

Either the 1.64 yards applies, or it doesn't apply.

Which is it?

Post by Roger Hayter
If it is a shared use path I think some rules are required. But especially
that cyclists achieving a decent speed should use the road rather than a
shared use path. This would be difficult to enforce, but that does not mean a
rule should not be devised.

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.

Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?

Apparently not...

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

I don't think you can have read that properly.
I was describing a situation where the motor vehicle was *not* directly
behind the person on the fairy-cycle and where the fairy-cycle and the
motor-vehicle had separate parallel lanes from each other.
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?

Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?

So is there no point at all in painting the carriageway in separate
lames for traffic?

They might I suppose slightly reduce the chance of a driver not looking where
they're going hitting a cyclist, but no, not unless they are wide enough to
cycle safely within and there is a mechanical barrier of some sort. Or
enforcement cameras like bus lanes. They just give car drivers a false sense
of entitlement.



snip

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?

Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?

All the difference. If your vehicle is wholly within your lane, and a
different vehicle is wholly within an adjacent lane, with neither vehicle
overlapping the line at all, then it is by definition acceptable to pass
that other vehicle (or be passed by that other vehicle) without either
vehicle needing to deviate from its course. That's the whole point of
dividing a carriageway into lanes.

It is, of course, good practice for all vehicular road users to remain
centred in their lane as far as possible other than when explicitly changing
lanes or making a turning manoeuvre[1], and failing to do so is not only
inconsiderate but potentially dangerous (because it makes you vulnerable to
a vehicle straying out of an adjacent lane). And if you are about to pass a
vehicle which is not exhibiting good lane discipline (eg by getting very
close to the divider with your lane, or clearly weaving within its own lane)
then it can be sensible to move over a bit yourself, just in case they do
actually cross the line. But there's no general requirement to disregard
normal lane discipline under normal circumstances just because the vehicle
in the adjacent lane is a bicycle.

Where a carriageway is not divided into separate lanes, and you wish to
overtake a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle) ahead of you, then the
recommendation is to give at least 1.5m spacing because that's the spacing
that separate lanes will typically give. And yes, that does mean that if you
can't give that much spacing without entering the oncoming carriageway, but
are unable to do so because of oncoming traffic, then it isn't, at that
point, safe to overtake - you need to wait until the oncoming carriageway is
clear for you to move into, just as you would when overtaking a wider
vehicle such as a car or tractor. But you only have to make that estimation
when it isn't already marked out for you. If it is marked out as lanes, you
have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give
sufficient separation for normal road users.

[1] Other than vehicles carrying abnormal loads, obviously, but those are a
special case for all sorts of highway regulations, not just lane discipline.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 12 Jan 2025 at 21:47:30 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?

Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?

All the difference. If your vehicle is wholly within your lane, and a
different vehicle is wholly within an adjacent lane, with neither vehicle
overlapping the line at all, then it is by definition acceptable to pass
that other vehicle (or be passed by that other vehicle) without either
vehicle needing to deviate from its course. That's the whole point of
dividing a carriageway into lanes.
It is, of course, good practice for all vehicular road users to remain
centred in their lane as far as possible other than when explicitly changing
lanes or making a turning manoeuvre[1], and failing to do so is not only
inconsiderate but potentially dangerous (because it makes you vulnerable to
a vehicle straying out of an adjacent lane). And if you are about to pass a
vehicle which is not exhibiting good lane discipline (eg by getting very
close to the divider with your lane, or clearly weaving within its own lane)
then it can be sensible to move over a bit yourself, just in case they do
actually cross the line. But there's no general requirement to disregard
normal lane discipline under normal circumstances just because the vehicle
in the adjacent lane is a bicycle.
Where a carriageway is not divided into separate lanes, and you wish to
overtake a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle) ahead of you, then the
recommendation is to give at least 1.5m spacing because that's the spacing
that separate lanes will typically give. And yes, that does mean that if you
can't give that much spacing without entering the oncoming carriageway, but
are unable to do so because of oncoming traffic, then it isn't, at that
point, safe to overtake - you need to wait until the oncoming carriageway is
clear for you to move into, just as you would when overtaking a wider
vehicle such as a car or tractor. But you only have to make that estimation
when it isn't already marked out for you. If it is marked out as lanes, you
have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give
sufficient separation for normal road users.
[1] Other than vehicles carrying abnormal loads, obviously, but those are a
special case for all sorts of highway regulations, not just lane discipline.
Mark

Well if that is your interpretation of the rules then it is an unmitigated
disaster in the case of cyle lanes for three reasons:

1. Many cycle lanes are only usable for the outer foot or so because the road
is potholed, ridged or full of gullies for the inner part of the lane;

2. Many cycle lanes would still be much too narrow for safe clearance even if
the cyclist could ride in the middle of them;

3. Car drivers do not treat the white line delineating a cycle lane as they
would a lane marking for motor vehicles, they treat the white line as they
would a carriageway side line and drive close to the left of their lane rather
than in the middle of it.

So I really hope your advice is not followed or people will be consistently
passing cyclists at less than half the recommended distance.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 12 Jan 2025 at 21:47:30 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
It was posited because of the assertion that nearly two yards "must" be
left laterally between vehicles..
Do you still give the same answer?

Of course. What difference do you think white paint on the road would make?

All the difference. If your vehicle is wholly within your lane, and a
different vehicle is wholly within an adjacent lane, with neither vehicle
overlapping the line at all, then it is by definition acceptable to pass
that other vehicle (or be passed by that other vehicle) without either
vehicle needing to deviate from its course. That's the whole point of
dividing a carriageway into lanes.
It is, of course, good practice for all vehicular road users to remain
centred in their lane as far as possible other than when explicitly changing
lanes or making a turning manoeuvre[1], and failing to do so is not only
inconsiderate but potentially dangerous (because it makes you vulnerable to
a vehicle straying out of an adjacent lane). And if you are about to pass a
vehicle which is not exhibiting good lane discipline (eg by getting very
close to the divider with your lane, or clearly weaving within its own lane)
then it can be sensible to move over a bit yourself, just in case they do
actually cross the line. But there's no general requirement to disregard
normal lane discipline under normal circumstances just because the vehicle
in the adjacent lane is a bicycle.
Where a carriageway is not divided into separate lanes, and you wish to
overtake a narrow vehicle (such as a bicycle) ahead of you, then the
recommendation is to give at least 1.5m spacing because that's the spacing
that separate lanes will typically give. And yes, that does mean that if you
can't give that much spacing without entering the oncoming carriageway, but
are unable to do so because of oncoming traffic, then it isn't, at that
point, safe to overtake - you need to wait until the oncoming carriageway is
clear for you to move into, just as you would when overtaking a wider
vehicle such as a car or tractor. But you only have to make that estimation
when it isn't already marked out for you. If it is marked out as lanes, you
have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give
sufficient separation for normal road users.
[1] Other than vehicles carrying abnormal loads, obviously, but those are a
special case for all sorts of highway regulations, not just lane discipline.
Mark

Well if that is your interpretation of the rules then it is an unmitigated
1. Many cycle lanes are only usable for the outer foot or so because the road
is potholed, ridged or full of gullies for the inner part of the lane;
2. Many cycle lanes would still be much too narrow for safe clearance even if
the cyclist could ride in the middle of them;
3. Car drivers do not treat the white line delineating a cycle lane as they
would a lane marking for motor vehicles, they treat the white line as they
would a carriageway side line and drive close to the left of their lane rather
than in the middle of it.
So I really hope your advice is not followed or people will be consistently
passing cyclists at less than half the recommended distance.

PS I am sure you're right about recently built roads to modern standards with
carriageway markings well into the usable part of the road, and well
maintained, and with decent width cycle lanes, but there is no such road
within 20 miles of where I am!

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 12 Jan 2025 at 21:47:30 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge
If it is marked out as lanes, you
have a reasonable presumption that the lanes can be relied on to give
sufficient separation for normal road users.

Well if that is your interpretation of the rules then it is an unmitigated
1. Many cycle lanes are only usable for the outer foot or so because the road
is potholed, ridged or full of gullies for the inner part of the lane;
2. Many cycle lanes would still be much too narrow for safe clearance even if
the cyclist could ride in the middle of them;

I don't disagree that there are too many instances of cycle lanes being
poorly marked. But the solution to that is to fix the markings, not to
disregard them.

Road markings are there for a reason. Even a highly skilled driver can
struggle to accurately and reliably assess lateral distances and safe travel
lines on a busy unmarked road. So we paint lines on the road surface to
provide guidance - and, in some cases, indicate legal requirements - which
drivers can follow.

For that to work, though, road users have to have a reasonable expectation
that the lines will be correct, at least most of the time, and a reasonable
expectation that if they drive according to the lines then they will be both
safe and legal.

If you're issuing guidance which contradicts that, and tells road users to
routinely disregard road markings and, instead, employ their own judgment,
then in the long run that's going to make things less safe overall, not more
safe.

I'm not saying that road users should never disregard road markings. There
will, occasionally, be times where it's obvious that they are incorrect.
And, if so, then disregarding them can be necessary. But, for most drivers,
this will be a very rare occurrance.

Under normal circumstances, it's bad - and potentially dangerous - driving
to disregard road markings, and it's bad - and potentially dangerous -
advice to tell drivers to disregard them. Even if that advice is given with
good motives, it's still bad and potentially dangerous.

Post by Roger Hayter
3. Car drivers do not treat the white line delineating a cycle lane as they
would a lane marking for motor vehicles, they treat the white line as they
would a carriageway side line and drive close to the left of their lane rather
than in the middle of it.

I haven't observed that in practice. But, if it is an issue, that's
something which can usefully be addressed by teaching drivers good lane
discipline. Not by telling them to ignore the lines.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

snip

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.

Does the "1.5m" (they mean 1.64 yards) apply to everyone being passed, then?

It is probably inadequate for passing poorly trained horses, unless combined
with a recommendation to slow to near the horse's pace.

(By the way, the numerate Imperial version of roughly 1.5m to a relevant
degree of precision is 1yd 2ft, or more sensibly 5ft.)

[Adam Funk]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

The function of gutter lanes (also known as murder strips) is to let
councils tick boxes. They make the road more dangerous than it would
be with no bike lane. The standards say that a dashed-line cycle lane
should be at least 2 metres wide, but unfortunately they are not
enforced.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roger Hayter
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

The function of gutter lanes (also known as murder strips) is to let
councils tick boxes. They make the road more dangerous than it would
be with no bike lane. The standards say that a dashed-line cycle lane
should be at least 2 metres wide, but unfortunately they are not
enforced.

But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take
evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On
the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround
then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.
Mark

[Adam Funk]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Roger Hayter
Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

The function of gutter lanes (also known as murder strips) is to let
councils tick boxes. They make the road more dangerous than it would
be with no bike lane. The standards say that a dashed-line cycle lane
should be at least 2 metres wide, but unfortunately they are not
enforced.

But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take
evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On
the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround
then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.

Of course councils should be forced to make all cycle lanes comply
with the standards. But at the same time motorists should be forced to
comply with overtaking standards --- for safety --- regardless of the
paint.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take
evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On
the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround
then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.

Of course councils should be forced to make all cycle lanes comply
with the standards. But at the same time motorists should be forced to
comply with overtaking standards --- for safety --- regardless of the
paint.

My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 15 Jan 2025 at 21:19:33 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Mark Goodge
But you're not going to fix that problem by encouraging motorists to take
evading action whenever they encounter a cyclist in a too-narrow lane. On
the contrary, if road users get used to just finding a tolerable workaround
then that merely encourages councils to install yet more sub-standard lanes.

Of course councils should be forced to make all cycle lanes comply
with the standards. But at the same time motorists should be forced to
comply with overtaking standards --- for safety --- regardless of the
paint.

My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.
Mark

We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail
to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly, despite the
admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the
distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble
attempts to draw lanes on older roads. Thirdly, we aren't inviting drivers to
drive in cycle lanes, just to actually watch for bicycles and be ready to give
them more clearance than the lane affords; after all, we all watch out for car
drivers arbitrarily leaving their lanes, it just happens somewhat less often.

[Spike]

[…]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Mark Goodge
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.

We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail
to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly,
despite the admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the
distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble
attempts to draw lanes on older roads. Thirdly, we aren't inviting drivers to
drive in cycle lanes, just to actually watch for bicycles and be ready to give
them more clearance than the lane affords; after all, we all watch out for car
drivers arbitrarily leaving their lanes, it just happens somewhat less often.

In your rush to condemn car drivers, the unsupported phrase you used being
“…the admittedly low standards of most drivers…”, you appear to have
reversed that view when you later say in another unsupported claim “…. we
all watch out for car drivers arbitrarily leaving their lanes, it just
happens somewhat less often”.

Introducing some facts here, the point is that with some ~20 times as many
drivers as cyclists, driving something like 150 times the annual mileage of
cyclists, to say that cars arbitrarily leave their lanes ‘less often’ is
surely a testament to either how well trained drivers are, or how poorly
trained cyclists are.

But perhaps both of these are true. Certainly, cyclists strongly resist any
attempts at enforcing improved cycling safety, laying the blame for the
levels of cycling casualties everywhere else but at their own feet, mainly
blaming things like ‘poor driving standards’.

For example, recalling the official statistics which I am fairly sure are
correct, some 1 in 6 of cyclist deaths are due to single vehicle
collisions. Perhaps they wobble about more than they are willing to admit,
or simply don’t look where they are going.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Mark Goodge
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.

We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail
to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly, despite the
admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the
distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble
attempts to draw lanes on older roads.

Somewhere like this, the lanes are stupidly narrow anyway, and when a
bus hangs around at the stop on the right, chaos ensues.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/C1HdvwXYNv6FD9XP8

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Mark Goodge
My point is that encouraging road users to disregard road markings won't
improve safety overall.

We shall have to disagree. Firstly because it would be too dangerous to fail
to give cyclists in inadequate lanes specific clearance; secondly, despite the
admittedly low standards of most drivers I think most can easily draw the
distinction between modern roads with adequate cycle lanes and the feeble
attempts to draw lanes on older roads.

Somewhere like this, the lanes are stupidly narrow anyway, and when a
bus hangs around at the stop on the right, chaos ensues.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/C1HdvwXYNv6FD9XP8

People are entitled to move out of their lane to overtake a stationary
vehicle, so a bus at the stop isn't really an issue. But the cycle lane on
the other side of the road is completely stupid; it's impossible for
anything wider than a small car to travel in that direction without
overlapping into it. But, on the other hand, the presence of the lane will
encourage motorists to try to squeeze past a cyclist on the entirely
reasonable assumption that if they are able to out of the cycle lane,
they're fine. It would be much safer to not have the lane at all and,
instead, encourage drivers to overtake properly.

Mark

[Brian]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
If you are talking of the quite disgraceful prosecution of a pedestrian
trying to protect herself from a law-breaking cyclist, that incident,
which you term an altercation, happened within a couple of seconds.
No-one driving past could have anticipated it.
Note that the "risk", such as it was, was not to a pedestrian.

[RH had said:]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
Actually, I don't think I could have told when driving towards them
that the greater risk was to the pedestrian or the cyclist. But,
really, what kind of warped mentality could label the risk to a
cyclist as less important than a risk to a pedestrian? They are both
almost certainly unprotected people.

I'm not the slightest bit against road safety (we're all
pedestrians!), but one of the two was proceeding lawfully while the
other was breaking the law. But in any case, it happened so quickly
that it was not possible for a driver, behaving quite lawfully, to
react to it. Perhaps we should reintroduce the red flag law?

Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance,

Please cite the legal provision which created those "rules".
Act, Statutory Instrument, regulation number, please.

Post by Roland Perry
and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway. Indeed, if
clearly sharing the pavement with pedestrians, I think I'd give them
even more, due to the unpredictability of their trajectory, and the fact
they've already proven they have no road sense.

Imagine a highway consisting of one of those two foot "cycle lanes", a
ten foot carriageway lane, the centre line and then the opposite
carriageway lane and another kerbside "cycle lane".
If someone is riding a fairy-cycle along the centre of the so-called
"cycle lane", may the driver of a motor vehicle (a bus, for instance, or
a large delvery van), using the adjacent carriageway lane and staying in
the centre of that lane, lawfully overtake the person on the fairy-bike,
even if the gap is, perforce, less than the 1.74 yards you mentioned
above? Does the motor vehicle have to hang back and wait for an
opportunity to use the RH (often termed the "wrong") side of the road?

Yes, obviously! The function of two foot cycle lanes seems largely to be to
make life more rather than less dangerous for cyclists. Especially as they are
largely occupied by potholes and gullies. On most of the A roads round here it
is generally impossible to pass cyclists safely without waiting for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. I suppose if amor propre or an excess of testosterone
makes it impossible for a car driver to wait behind a cyclist they could slow
to a few mph faster than the cyclist and inch past; this does not reduce the
risk of collision much, but perhaps reduces the risk of death or serious
injury.

Post by JNugent
If there is no "cycle lane" at all, does that mean that no motor vehicle
on the carriageway may overtake the fairy-cyclist on the footway?

It would seem reasonable to apply the same 1.5m, some of which may be footway.
It is pretty offensive to drive much nearer than that to pedestrians on a
narrow footway on a fast road, for that matter.
Don't forget everyone has a right to use the public highway, even pedestrians
and horsedrawn carts.

If 1.5 m is deemed to be the minimum safe distance a car driver must give a
cyclist, surely this indicates no cyclist should get closer than 1.5 m to a
car.

No more squeezing between lines of cars. No more squeezing between the kerb
and a car. No more hanging onto the rear of vehicles to get pulled along.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Brian
If 1.5 m is deemed to be the minimum safe distance a car driver must give a
cyclist, surely this indicates no cyclist should get closer than 1.5 m to a
car.
No more squeezing between lines of cars. No more squeezing between the kerb
and a car. No more hanging onto the rear of vehicles to get pulled along.

Yes and no. Generally speaking cars don't wobble from side to
side unpredictably like cyclists do. But cyclists do themselves
(collectively) nothing but harm by the persistent antisocial
behaviour they exhibit on the roads.

[Spike]

Post by Roland Perry
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway.

And, of course, let’s not forget the unfortunate footway pedestrians and
island bus-stoppers who would also like 1.5 metres of clearance from
cyclists.

Auriol Grey would have been happy with half of that, but she effectively
got time in pokey just for asking, in her fashion, before the Appeal Court
ruled in her favour about her shambolic trial.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Spike

Post by Roland Perry
Recently introduced rules say you should give cyclists being overtaken
1.5 metres clearance, and I don't see why that shouldn't apply just as
much if they are on the pavement as in on the carriageway.

And, of course, let’s not forget the unfortunate footway pedestrians and
island bus-stoppers who would also like 1.5 metres of clearance from
cyclists.
Auriol Grey would have been happy with half of that, but she effectively
got time in pokey just for asking, in her fashion, before the Appeal Court
ruled in her favour about her shambolic trial.

Which trial might have turned out very differently if the prosecution and the
judge had explained the elements of common assault to the jury, and asked them
to decide whether Ms Gray's actions met those elements.

[TTman]

Post by Spike

Post by Alan Lee

Post by Andrew
What is the legal status of Electric Scooters? Not the stand on type
that are available in trials around the country....
Are these things legal in any shape or form? And if not, why would any
legitimate and self-respecting company want anything to do with them?

They are basically electric cycles, but, without pedals. There are some
basic rules that must be adhered to to use them legally. Rather than
speculating, the .gov article is linked below.
The ones you've seen are probably illegally used, in that they exceed
15mph without pedal assistance. If they have no pedals, then they should
be classed as a moped/motorcycle, so must have
tax/mot/insurance/appropriate licence etc to be used legally.
<https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules>

The non-case of Sakine Cihan, killed by a collision involving an
illegally-modified electric bicycle ridden at more than the 20mph limit in
<https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/crime/21147425.dalston-e-bike-death-cyclist-acquitted-careless-driving-death-sakine-cihan/>

We had an incident recently... a modified electric bicycle ( not
motorbike) that collided with an elderly pedestrian knocking her to the
ground. It seenms the bike was damaged as the rider hurridly ran off,
pushing the bike- you can clearly see in the video the front wheel was
buckled... His passenged briefly attended the elderly woman before
running off. Speed was estimated at 30mph++ by analysing the video clip.
Police are looking for the rider... fat chance :(