''They are classified as Personal Light Electric Vehicles (PLEVs), so they are treated as motor vehicles. That
means they are subject to all the requirements a motor vehicle is
subject to - MOT, tax, licensing and construction requirements - such as
having visible rear red lights, number plates and signalling ability. Electric scooters do not have these, so they are not legal for roads".
Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Cyclists / electric scooter users
Comments
-
Don’t disagree with this. I did a 4 day public safety cycling course and it made a difference to how I cycle. I suspect it annoys motorists more though as I tend to take up a lot more of the road than I used to.cafcdave123 said:I do think Cyclists WORKING on bikes should have to take some form of Cycling proficiency that they need to work and can be revoked if they’re caught acting dangerously2 -
I own a car, it's fully taxed, and I also pay my income and council taxes. But I use my bike to commute to work because it's quicker and it gives me an hour of (much needed) exercise each day.Elthamaddick said:
I'd suggest that me, in my car (with paid for Road Tax), has more right to be on the road than a cyclist (but that's just my opinion)JollyRobin said:
This is probably the most sensible thing that's been posted on this thread - and there's a lot of stuff that has been suggested that isn't sensible.kigelia said:I work in central London on an ambulance and as a cycle responder. The law is broken all day every day by cyclists and car/van/any motorised vehicle. It is rarely enforced by police simply because there are too many offences and not enough police.
i have seen road users or all sorts (powered or otherwise) stopped by police for their actions but not as often as it should.
the big issue is that everyone thinks they are a better, more skilled, road user than others. They all cite example of others breaking the law of just being a bit of a dick. They neglect to mention the times they pulled out without looking or passed another road user a little too closely. Hit the curb when cornering. Jumped a light to save a few seconds or went a little too fast.
if we all reflect on what we are doing and try to do it better the roads will be much safer. As opposed to sitting in ivory towers bemoaning everyone else on the road.
No one group of people has any more right to the road than any other, and cyclists and motorists alike could do with being better educated in terms of what constitutes good behaviour on sharing the roads.
On a slightly separate note, the argument that often gets touted, and has been mentioned already on this thread, is that cyclists should "be insured, licensed and pay tax". But in this country we have an obesity problem and an environmental crisis. Putting up barriers to cycling will only mean less people on bikes and more people in cars, or cramming onto our already creaking public transport network. The benefits of having more people commuting or getting about on a bike far outweigh the negatives.
So who has more right to be on the road in that situation?
It's not a question that's designed to trip you up, but I suspect that these circumstances are the same for a lot of other cyclists on the road. Things get dangerous when one individual, be that a cyclists, car driver or other road user, thinks they have more of a claim to road than another.3 -
I do this everywhere - one way streets, closed streets, traffic lights etc. Lost count of the number of times I've had to take evasive action due to a cyclist who should never have been there in the first bloody place.Solidgone said:Tip: Never trust a Zebra crossing. Always continue to look left and right.
1 -
Always expect the unexpected when out and about.0
-
I don’t I don’t understand why traffic enforcement cops cannot be paid for by the fines handed out.
Stick a couple of decent officers on a few bad junctions for a few days, move them around. Bound to clear £5k a week each even if every fine is only £200.
soon stop people taking the piss.1 -
I don't disagree but I think you'll find the motorists caught will use their age old argument that it's just a revenue thing.Alwaysneil said:I don’t I don’t understand why traffic enforcement cops cannot be paid for by the fines handed out.
Stick a couple of decent officers on a few bad junctions for a few days, move them around. Bound to clear £5k a week each even if every fine is only £200.
soon stop people taking the piss.0 -
I don't see a problem with it being 'just a revenue thing' if you don't like it, don't break the law!iainment said:
I don't disagree but I think you'll find the motorists caught will use their age old argument that it's just a revenue thing.Alwaysneil said:I don’t I don’t understand why traffic enforcement cops cannot be paid for by the fines handed out.
Stick a couple of decent officers on a few bad junctions for a few days, move them around. Bound to clear £5k a week each even if every fine is only £200.
soon stop people taking the piss.1 -
I think it’s a case of over moddle cuddling and knee jerk reactions again. I don’t want anybody to die but living in London has its risk be it being a pedestrian, cyclist or driving a vehicle. The e-Scooter joins this list as a means of getting about a crowded city. If someone want to ride the e-scooter and the risk of being killed is no different than a Cyclist. If I was younger I would definitely be on one of these e-scooters. Next skiing, motor racing, boxing etc etc will be banned if this ideology continues.0
-
I agree.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I don't see a problem with it being 'just a revenue thing' if you don't like it, don't break the law!iainment said:
I don't disagree but I think you'll find the motorists caught will use their age old argument that it's just a revenue thing.Alwaysneil said:I don’t I don’t understand why traffic enforcement cops cannot be paid for by the fines handed out.
Stick a couple of decent officers on a few bad junctions for a few days, move them around. Bound to clear £5k a week each even if every fine is only £200.
soon stop people taking the piss.0 -
0
- Sponsored links:
-
OB doing important things
0 -
Are they, are they dogging?Baldybonce said:OB doing important things0 -
cafcdave123 said:
Are they, are they dogging?Baldybonce said:OB doing important things
Well it certainly looks like the black mini behind them is flashing it's headlights.0 -
Well, as it happens. No. They are protecting the innocent from the hordes of school kids.1
-
Fair play that's a newer article than the one i saw.TalBHAndreBA said:Dazzler21 said:
Illegal to use on footpaths & pavements... Perfectly legal OTR.Stu_of_Kunming said:Electric scooters are illegal? That seems like a ridiculous decision.They are not legal to use on the road. According to the BBC, they only place they can be ridden is on private land.1 -
Which is a good thing. The trouble is there should be adequate funding and personnel for all types of police work.Baldybonce said:Well, as it happens. No. They are protecting the innocent from the hordes of school kids.
Unfortunately our politicians think lower taxes and austerity are more important than providing public services.2 -
It would be nice to think the children could behave themselves without needing Police supervision.iainment said:
Which is a good thing. The trouble is there should be adequate funding and personnel for all types of police work.Baldybonce said:Well, as it happens. No. They are protecting the innocent from the hordes of school kids.
Unfortunately our politicians think lower taxes and austerity are more important than providing public services.
0 -
@CH4RLTON en route to the canal path. The man is in a hurry!foresthillred said:
Didn't you see them as you approached? Just cover your brakes at all times, slow down to walking pace as you approach anyone else on the path, ask them politely to move/ding your bell, then proceed safely past once they have moved. Have a think to yourself, are you seriously going to trust the movements of a dog as you cycle past, presumably at a fair clip? If you are going along a canal path (often narrow and a bit bumpy), just slow down and enjoy the scenery, that way you are more likely to end up at your destination dry, and much less likely to spook animals and their owners. Maybe try walking along the canal path and find out what it feels like to have a cyclist passing close at speed. I'm fairly sure that all canal paths are shared use, so us cyclist don't have priority.CH4RLTON said:I am a keen cyclist and have been for years, the whole argument about cyclists should stay of the pavement/ pathways is utter nonsense. What about when idiot pedestrians dordle along cycle paths with their head phones on paying no attention to anything around them. I know it sounds far fetched but in my mind pedestrians are the cause of loads of cycling accidents. The worst offenders being dog walkers, who seem to think they and their dogs have free reign over any pathway. Ended up in the canal on my bike twice in the last 3 years both due to idoits walking dogs.
I say all the above as a keen cyclist and a cycle instructor.
4 -
Of course but.....Baldybonce said:
It would be nice to think the children could behave themselves without needing Police supervision.iainment said:
Which is a good thing. The trouble is there should be adequate funding and personnel for all types of police work.Baldybonce said:Well, as it happens. No. They are protecting the innocent from the hordes of school kids.
Unfortunately our politicians think lower taxes and austerity are more important than providing public services.0 -
Dazzler21 said:
Illegal to use on footpaths & pavements... Perfectly legal OTR.Stu_of_Kunming said:Electric scooters are illegal? That seems like a ridiculous decision.
Illegal on footpaths, pavements, roads and bus lanes. I was driving home last night and overtook (slowly) a young chap on one of these stand up e-scooters. He was wearing headphones and toting a back pack completely oblivious to me - and other motorists. A woman was killed recently and a 14-year old boy is seriously ill in hospital. The police have a duty to enforce the law. At the minimum cyclists and these e-scooter riders should have insurance.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Those who use e-scooters see themselves as above the law which only applies to boring old cars and motorbikes.addick05 said:Dazzler21 said:
Illegal to use on footpaths & pavements... Perfectly legal OTR.Stu_of_Kunming said:Electric scooters are illegal? That seems like a ridiculous decision.
Illegal on footpaths, pavements, roads and bus lanes. I was driving home last night and overtook (slowly) a young chap on one of these stand up e-scooters. He was wearing headphones and toting a back pack completely oblivious to me - and other motorists. A woman was killed recently and a 14-year old boy is seriously ill in hospital. The police have a duty to enforce the law. At the minimum cyclists and these e-scooter riders should have insurance.
They're less dangerous than cars so that means they're okay. I'm sure all the riders have insurance were an accident to happen.1 -
all wheeled modes of transport that travel on the roads, or illegally on the pavement/paths, should be taxed and insured with exceptions for disabled vehicles1
-
Im not sure that the people that use e-scooters believe they are above the law and want to cause problems. I’m sure their real reason is that they want to travel from A-B as cheaply as possible and away from the Inefficiencies of LT (or whether area you live).
One of the flip sides of e-scooters is that they are unhealthy as you don’t have to do anything other than use the throttle and the break unlike the real scooter which requires effort.1 -
It's against the law to use e-scooters and ignorance of the law is not really a defence. If you use them you think you're above the law in this area.Solidgone said:Im not sure that the people that use e-scooters believe they are above the law and want to cause problems. I’m sure their real reason is that they want to travel from A-B as cheaply as possible and away from the Inefficiencies of LT (or whether area you live).
One of the flip sides of e-scooters is that they are unhealthy as you don’t have to do anything other than use the throttle and the break unlike the real scooter which requires effort.
If I ride a motorbike I can be identified and have to have insurance which protects myself and other road users/pedestrians. Users of e-scooters can go up to 30 mph and some will happily do this on the pavement - if you get hit by one it can do you serious damage(I don't care about the selfish twerps riding them).
There is no test for the proficiency of the e-scooter users many of whom have no road sense.3 -
I too am a daily cycle comuter on the canals , as well a keen road cyclist on my racer at the weekends.iainment said:
I used to enjoy cycling on canal towpaths but stopped some time ago. This was because the cyclists changed. They were more aggressive and treated walkers badly.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Pathways where there are pedestrians and dogs are not suitable for speeding along on a bicycle, which ending up in a canal tends to suggest is what you may have been doing at the time.CH4RLTON said:I am a keen cyclist and have been for years, the whole argument about cyclists should stay of the pavement/ pathways is utter nonsense. What about when idiot pedestrians dordle along cycle paths with their head phones on paying no attention to anything around them. I know it sounds far fetched but in my mind pedestrians are the cause of loads of cycling accidents. The worst offenders being dog walkers, who seem to think they and their dogs have free reign over any pathway. Ended up in the canal on my bike twice in the last 3 years both due to idoits walking dogs.
After a few arguments with other cyclists about their behaviour I just stopped using canals.
What wasn't realised was that cyclists needed a permit from the waterways board to cycle there and the rules were very clear. Pedestrians had priority over cyclists and should be cycling at a speed that reflected that.
If you went in the canal you must have been cycling irresponsibly whatever the dog walkers were doing.
I speak as a year round cycle commuter.
None of the incidents were due to me riding aggressively or too fast, in fact one of the occasion I was coming head on to walker who I assumed had seen me as he via too the left , then right at the last minute decided jink across ( more interested in his dog and looking ) leaving me with either hitting him or trying to avoid the water)
0 -
There are plenty of aggressive cyclists on the towpaths who cycle far too fast given how narrow the path is.CH4RLTON said:
I too am a daily cycle comuter on the canals , as well a keen road cyclist on my racer at the weekends.iainment said:
I used to enjoy cycling on canal towpaths but stopped some time ago. This was because the cyclists changed. They were more aggressive and treated walkers badly.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Pathways where there are pedestrians and dogs are not suitable for speeding along on a bicycle, which ending up in a canal tends to suggest is what you may have been doing at the time.CH4RLTON said:I am a keen cyclist and have been for years, the whole argument about cyclists should stay of the pavement/ pathways is utter nonsense. What about when idiot pedestrians dordle along cycle paths with their head phones on paying no attention to anything around them. I know it sounds far fetched but in my mind pedestrians are the cause of loads of cycling accidents. The worst offenders being dog walkers, who seem to think they and their dogs have free reign over any pathway. Ended up in the canal on my bike twice in the last 3 years both due to idoits walking dogs.
After a few arguments with other cyclists about their behaviour I just stopped using canals.
What wasn't realised was that cyclists needed a permit from the waterways board to cycle there and the rules were very clear. Pedestrians had priority over cyclists and should be cycling at a speed that reflected that.
If you went in the canal you must have been cycling irresponsibly whatever the dog walkers were doing.
I speak as a year round cycle commuter.
None of the incidents were due to me riding aggressively or too fast, in fact one of the occasion I was coming head on to walker who I assumed had seen me as he via too the left , then right at the last minute decided jink across ( more interested in his dog and looking ) leaving me with either hitting him or trying to avoid the water)0 -
So you were going too fast to stop safely.CH4RLTON said:
I too am a daily cycle comuter on the canals , as well a keen road cyclist on my racer at the weekends.iainment said:
I used to enjoy cycling on canal towpaths but stopped some time ago. This was because the cyclists changed. They were more aggressive and treated walkers badly.letthegoodtimesroll said:
Pathways where there are pedestrians and dogs are not suitable for speeding along on a bicycle, which ending up in a canal tends to suggest is what you may have been doing at the time.CH4RLTON said:I am a keen cyclist and have been for years, the whole argument about cyclists should stay of the pavement/ pathways is utter nonsense. What about when idiot pedestrians dordle along cycle paths with their head phones on paying no attention to anything around them. I know it sounds far fetched but in my mind pedestrians are the cause of loads of cycling accidents. The worst offenders being dog walkers, who seem to think they and their dogs have free reign over any pathway. Ended up in the canal on my bike twice in the last 3 years both due to idoits walking dogs.
After a few arguments with other cyclists about their behaviour I just stopped using canals.
What wasn't realised was that cyclists needed a permit from the waterways board to cycle there and the rules were very clear. Pedestrians had priority over cyclists and should be cycling at a speed that reflected that.
If you went in the canal you must have been cycling irresponsibly whatever the dog walkers were doing.
I speak as a year round cycle commuter.
None of the incidents were due to me riding aggressively or too fast, in fact one of the occasion I was coming head on to walker who I assumed had seen me as he via too the left , then right at the last minute decided jink across ( more interested in his dog and looking ) leaving me with either hitting him or trying to avoid the water)
Even 1mph can be too fast in some situations.1 -
Me either but I remember the massive tabloid press campaign and outcry by motorists about speed cameras in hidden spots which ended with them being painted yellow so that anyone breaking the law could spot them and avoid being caught.Stu_of_Kunming said:
I don't see a problem with it being 'just a revenue thing' if you don't like it, don't break the law!iainment said:
I don't disagree but I think you'll find the motorists caught will use their age old argument that it's just a revenue thing.Alwaysneil said:I don’t I don’t understand why traffic enforcement cops cannot be paid for by the fines handed out.
Stick a couple of decent officers on a few bad junctions for a few days, move them around. Bound to clear £5k a week each even if every fine is only £200.
soon stop people taking the piss.0 -
I’m With Priti Patel on this one.0
-
What’s she got to say for herself?ShootersHillGuru said:I’m With Priti Patel on this one.0
