On the streets and pavements of London we are continually buzzed by what are effectively electric motorbikes. They are of course bicycles fitted with electric motors, and are ridden around by low lifes - or Deliveroo deliverers.
Every time I see one (every few minutes) I think:
1. Uninsured - £300 plus 6 points
2. No MOT - £2000 plus points
3. No tax - £30 plus 1.5 times the outstanding tax
4. No appropriate helmet £500
5. Riding on the pavement - dangerous riding - up to 5 years in prison.
Why don't the police do something, these riders are putting pedestrians - and themselves - at risk. If you were to stop 100 poeple doing this and advertise it then word would soon get around.
I guess the Daily Mail would point out that they're catching Twitter offenders instead.
|
If they are electric bicycles there is no legal requirement for 1-4.
If they are electric mopeds, how can you tell that they don't have 1-3?
As for riding on the pavement deserving 5 years in prison? Killers get less. I suggest you go back to your Daily Mail...
|
If they are legal EAPC's (electrically assisted pedal cycles) they shouldn't in general be on pavements and certainly not if they are being ridden at speed.
If an electric moped was legal it would have a number plate.
Many are essentially pretending that something more powerful than 250W and/or providing propulsion at >25kph, possibly with no need to pedal, is an EAPC. I imagine coppers in general aren't very up on EAPC rules and how to identify illegal bikes, or interested in doing so. Similar applies to electric scooters.
|
Times may have changed but a traffic cop I knew was well trained in the detail of HGV braking systems and other mechanical aspects. Compared to that a working knowledge of electric bikes etc would be easy to train. If the will was there. Which it isn't.
For example my inlaws live on a main road outside Portsmouth with a shared cycle and pedestrian pathway. It's not one of the legalised trial areas. Sitting in the front garden we reckon a good dozen electric bikes and scooters pass each hour. There is a reasonable police presence but never once have they seen an illegal electric scooter rider spoken to.
|
Annoying as electric bikes are when ridden inconsiderately, the problem is trivial. An FOI request to the Met Police shows over the last 5 years 1 (one) fatality and 45 (average of 9 pa) serious injuries.
Contrast with our canine friends - deaths average 4 per year and about 8000 hospital admissions for injuries.
There is a far, far stronger case for banning dog ownership (probably never happen) and/or making owners criminally responsible for the actions of their "pets".
At the very least making the police far more active in identifying potentially dangerous dogs and breeds and ensuring they are appropriately muzzled etc.
Frothing at the mouth at the failure of plod to actively pursue abuses of electric bike law is utterly pointless - they have far more important things to do unless such abuse results in death or serious injury. A complete waste of effort.
|
>>Frothing at the mouth at the failure of plod to actively pursue abuses of electric bike law is utterly pointless
Can't disagree. More of an annoyance than anything.
It's one of those "respect for the law" things that winds up those of us that follow the rules. Having a dog of course is not illegal in itself, in contrast with using an untaxed, uninsured, unregistered vehicle on the footpath.
|
|
Can't disagree but if anything my problem is more with electric scooters. Riders are often young, completely unprotected, on the pavement and, reasonably frequently, two-up. Also see them a fair bit on the roads around this estate, also unprotected and often two-up, and often not really taking due care when exiting side streets or being that respectful of other road or pavement users. And this is a "quite nice" area.
|
"deaths average 4 per year"
Ten last year including four children. 21,918 attacks by out of control dogs causing injury
Don't worry he won't hurt you
|
I once had a mate who argued very well how alcohol caused much more pain death and problems in society and families than were caused by hard drugs, ergo alcohol should be banned.
He had a point.
|
>> Ten last year including four children. 21,918 attacks by out of control dogs causing injury
Oh Blimey we do have a bee in our flowery bonnet about our furry friends this week don't we.
11 Million dogs in the UK - 0.002 injuries per dog per year. 10 deaths.
33.2 million cars in the UK, 153,000, accidents 0.0046 injuries per car. 1500 deaths.
>>Don't worry he won't hurt you
My two dogs wont, My car might.
|
>> If they are electric mopeds, how can you tell that they don't have 1-3?
If they're the sort of electric bikes that are becoming increasingly popular with deliveroo riders around here, they're illegal and 1-3 aren't possible. They're not pedal assist. I've been undertaken by one when doing 30(ish).
|
Visiting London the busy areas seem to be plagued with bikes run by 'Lime', they are everywhere just left on the pavement, usually in pairs, I guess you just use your card and ride off on one and then leave them wherever.
|
|
Did I see somewhere that the Boris bikes are now electric assist?
|
|
...yeah, but they only work if someone else pays for the hire...
|
>> Visiting London the busy areas seem to be plagued with bikes run by 'Lime', they
>> are everywhere just left on the pavement, usually in pairs, I guess you just use
>> your card and ride off on one and then leave them wherever.
That seems to be the way bike and scooter hire works now.
Northampton is one of the places where electric scooters are legal on an ever extending trial. They're left where the hirer's need for them ended. Usually that's on street around the town centre but I fairly regularly see one or two out by the M1. I think I read somewhere that they're still geo locked to the old Borough Council's area and switch off at that point. In the area I'm talking of the boundary was the eastern side of the Motorway.
|
In Norwich Beryl is the operator. Bikes/scooters left outside a designated parking bay are charged £10. If left outside the designated operating zone a £20 fee is charged. I haven't seen many left outside the parking bays.
There is a reporting system for misuse
docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeXs1QOiFGEdafpz2X7L8UccAbiS7XO4cy8FTqiuoRKmvNgwQ/viewform
|
>If they are electric mopeds, how can you tell that they don't have 1-3?
Because they don't have a number plate. And you can see the riders not using the pedals. It takes two seconds of training to be able to work this out. It's not like a car where you need ANPR and the MOT and MID databases; you can just see it with your Mk 1 eyeball.
Q1: Who wouldn't like to drive an electric motorbike with no requirement for tax/insurance/MOT etc. cost nothing to run, does 50mph, no need to worry about any sort of compliance?
The answer is... anybody who cares enough about life to worry about 6 points and thousands of pounds of fines.
Q2: Who *does* drive an electric motorbike without caring?
Low-lifes. And so they're happy to do their 30mph on the pavement too. They don't care.
It's not that I'm in the "all cars need a man in front of them with a red flag because they're new an frightening" camp. These people are all low-lifes with no respect for the law. If they're breaking this law, then they're likely delivering coke on these bikes.
If the police don't care, the law should be repealed and we can all get on with untaxed driving - maybe put two of them together and a cover over it, and you've a car with no requirement for tax/MOT/insurance it's only an e-bike. And if the law isn't repealed then such visibly flagrant abuse of the rule of law should be punished.
|
This week's events in Cardiff are a bit of an eye opener.
I'm reasonably au fait with EAPCs and the requirements for the rider to be pedalling together with speed and power/weight regs. AIUI much of that applies to bikes sold after a prescribed date in the last 10 years or so. If you go out on recreational rides with people owning small wheeled folding bikes there are plenty of 'homebrew' kits out there. Not just for Bromptons but Moultons and other more esoteric stuff. No idea whether they're strictly legal but most have been around long enough to pre date the current EAPC regs. Riders are invariably male, usually well over 60 and invariably single.
There are of course factory built EAPC Bromptons.
Scooters? We've dome them before. FAr too many, whether legal hire machines or not, are ridden on pavements by riders who should be on the road. As with pedal bikes helmets etc are, rightly, optional. If I used the hire jobbies in Northampton I'd not bother with a helmet; mabe hi-viz outside the town centre.
What I think Mapmaker is referring to are true Motorbikes but with electric power. Cycle sites say the boys killed in Cardiff were riding something from this range:
surron.co.uk/
IMHO if an electric m/c can provide performance in terms of speed and acceleration equal to or better than a petrol moped or trials etc bike we should be quickly sorting out type approvals so they can be ridden legitimately and having hit squads of Police etc to sort out the rest.
|
The vast majority of Deliveroo riders I see in Edinburgh ride obviously illegal eBike/Pedelecs.
I bet they deliver to the cop shops every evening too!
|
>> The vast majority of Deliveroo riders I see in Edinburgh ride obviously illegal eBike/Pedelecs.
>>
>> I bet they deliver to the cop shops every evening too!
It should be made crystal clear to Deliveroo that they are jointly liable in the event of an accident with an illegal bike. Never mind the employee's contract required a legal means of transport there are far too many of them out there for the employer not to know or to persuade a court the employee was on a frolic of his own.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 24 May 23 at 12:09
|
Reality - the police seem typically to do little or nothing to hold to account electric bikes and scooters modified or ridden without regard for others.
It does not really matter why - may be lack of resources, other higher priorities, a lack of interest, or a realisation that prosecution of offenders makes little or no difference to future behaviours.
Observance of the law is mainly by those who have something to lose. If the consequences are trivial or unenforceable why bother to waste time arresting offenders.
Work for Deliveroo, low income, poor education, limited prospects etc. If charged unable to pay even a small fine. Foolish to lock people away for minor offences like this. I am sure there would be objections to public flogging, blindfold and last wish etc.
I am not sure what the answer is - to my knowledge there are far higher priorities. Having a law at least articulates what is required is of questionable benefit - enforcement, (as with many bits of legislation) is unlikely except where there is death or serious injury arising from non-compliance
|
I see that from June, Thameslink are banning e-scooters, hover boards and electric skateboards from their trains, on the basis that there's been too many battery fires from cheap imports.
e-bikes and mobility scooters are are exempt, as it's assumed they meet certain safety standards
|
Completely stupid - the batteries used are fundamentally the same as in e-bikes, mobility vehicles, laptops and smartphones.
The assertion that e-bikes meet certain standards is laughable - some I am sure do, others are purchased on price with as dubious a pedigree as scooters.
I would be far better if there was evidence (number and frequency of conflagrations) - I suspect they have been pressurised to ban them as a means to enforce the law on scooters by denying folk the opportunity to use them.
Last edited by: Terry on Thu 25 May 23 at 02:12
|
>>Completely stupid - the batteries used are fundamentally the same as in e-bikes, mobility vehicles, laptops and smartphones.
Chemically similar but the quality of battery management (software and hardware) can be miles apart.
|
>> Completely stupid - the batteries used are fundamentally the same as in e-bikes, mobility vehicles,
>> laptops and smartphones.
Fundamentally MUCH more risk than laptops and mobile phones, How far would your e-scooter get with a mobile phone battery? Nowhere. There many more explosive joules in an e-scooter.
>> The assertion that e-bikes meet certain standards is laughable -
A lot more do, they are built nearer to home, because of the shipping cost.
|
A good article in the Grauniad from only 3 weeks ago:
www.theguardian.com/news/2023/may/02/e-bike-e-scooter-battery-fires-uk-data
They do make a distinction between batteries which meet decent standards and the many that don't. They do not differentiate between e-bikes and e-scooters.
It estimates 338 fires caused by e-bikes and scooters and notes 50 so far in London this year with 2 deaths. For the UK as a whole there were 38000 fires and 400 fatalities.
In summary - battery fires make up ~1% of domestic fires and fatalities. Better action from Trading Standards is the solution, not separating the risk between bikes and scooters.
|
|
The e-bike fires seem to be mainly connected with conversion kits bolted onto bikes. Not surprisingly, the quality is rather low.
|
As no-one else has dared to mention it.
What about the two lads that died in Bristol?
Were they excluded from school?
Who bought the e-bike, or was it stolen?
Are they any great loss to society?
|
The brief footage from the hosehold CCTV showing the bike 2 up followed very soon by a Police van in the first instance looks damning when the first statement declared that there was no pursuit/follow. However, at this stage. there are many questions that at this stage remain unanswered so the rumour machine is in overdrive.
I've not seen the news today so there may be some more information circulating.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 25 May 23 at 22:42
|
www.itv.com/news/wales/2023-05-25/ely-crash-cctv-emerges-of-moment-police-van-stopped-following-bike
Didn't look much of a chase to me watching the video. But there may be more information provided later on.
|
>> Didn't look much of a chase to me watching the video. But there may be
>> more information provided later on.
Seems that the police had seen them and were following at a distance. An actual pursuit would presumably have to have authorisation - based on what we see on Channel 5.
The van turned left because the road the bike carried on down becomes a no through road; there is metal barrier at the end. The bike was reportedly wiggled or manhandled around the barrier and whatever happened to cause the boy's deaths occurred immediately afterwards.
|
Forgot to add and too late to edit:
Has there been any report that clearly states what actually happened? Some reports refer to a 'collision' but others say no other vehicle. I suppose if you hit a brick wall that counts as a collision though.
|
I understand the bike hit a bus.
The police now have this stupid idea that there are no 'accidents', there are only 'collisions'.
Hence the constant reference to RTC, not RTA.
|
www.itv.com/news/2023-05-25/car-crashes-into-downing-street-gate
I wonder if this was classed as a collision, more like a bump. Might have scratched some paint mind.
|
|
Is that Braverman returning after her Speed Awareness Course? :)
|
|
Why is that a stupid idea? “Accident” implies that the incident was somehow unavoidable. No one was to blame. The word “collision” is factual and neutral and is a better description of an incident still to be investigated.
|
>> Why is that a stupid idea? “Accident” implies that the incident was somehow unavoidable. No
>> one was to blame. The word “collision” is factual and neutral and is a better
>> description of an incident still to be investigated.
The bolded bit.
Exactly.
That at any rate is the official rationale. You can argue about the choice of words but stupid it is
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 26 May 23 at 09:16
|
>> “Accident” implies that the incident was somehow unavoidable.
>>
It implies nothing of the sort.
I suggest that 99% of accidents are/were avoidable.
|
“I suggest that 99% of accidents are/were avoidable.
Indeed the majority of so called “accidents” are not accidents at all but are the result of negligence on someone’s part.
|
>>
>> “I suggest that 99% of accidents are/were avoidable.
>>
>> Indeed the majority of so called “accidents” are not accidents at all but are the
>> result of negligence on someone’s part.
Surely it's an accident by dint of not being intended, even if there is negligence? Weren't they RTA's before they were RTC's?
Not that I disagree with using "collision" which merely states an admitted fact and leaves the rest open.
|
|
NegligenceIsUs LLP would love you on a jury CGN.
|
SWMBO, a retired teacher, translated the schools 'tributes' in the link for me.
www.itv.com/news/wales/2023-05-25/ely-crash-cctv-emerges-of-moment-police-van-stopped-following-bike
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Fri 26 May 23 at 15:21
|
|
If that video was normal speed, it wasn't what I would call an e-bike either. More what I'd call an accident waiting to happen.
|
...I suspect it will be best to wait for any further information, but I think it's come to a pretty pass that an incident involving an illegal vehicle being ridden in oh so many illegal ways leads almost immediately to blame of the Police for the resulting fallout.
I have every sympathy with those close to the victims (as I do with most such cases, regardless of cause), but frankly I'd rather the Police "pursued" (pardon the pun) such matters on a much more regular basis.
Whilst (as above) it doesn't pay to jump to conclusions, on current undisputed "facts" it would appear to me that the far greater portion of the blame lies with the miscreants.
|
Definition of accident usually includes concepts of "unexpected", "unintentional", "unforeseen".
The boys should, and the police do know that riding a bike inappropriately is risky and may cause an incident resulting in injury or death. It was not an accident.
It would not be acceptable if the police were unable to pursue miscreants for fear there may be an "incident".
The question therefore is whether the police were over zealous in their pursuit (if they were actually in pursuit) and unreasonably contributed to the incident.
That the boys failed to stop and may have been breaking the law makes it likely they are substantially responsible, although we need to await the outcome of the investigation to form a balanced conclusion.
|
The first clip that circulated in the first instance looked damning.
If I heard correctly the owner of the property where the clip was recorded from handed it to the BBC who then put it infront of their 'Verify' panel to check its authenticity. Has the clip been edited to remove some time from the middle? Nothing would surprise me these days.
The second clip and map indicates that the incident occurred some distance away from the initial clip.
The second clip digitally indicates a 16/17 second gap between the bike and the Police van which mostly exonerates the Police.
However was the Police van 'following'? Was the driver of the Police van trying to cut off the bike further on knowing that the road was restricted width? In which case technically the driver still has a connection with the incident.
IOPC will be all over it I'm sure. Radio transmissions will give an indication as to exactly what occurred.
At least the Police van was of sufficient distance not to be accused of pursuing and pushing the bike into the final situation.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 26 May 23 at 16:52
|
Didn't I see a video yesterday of the police van doing the left return from much closer? I remember forming the impression that he was cornering at some speed (but not overly excessive).
Yet on today's video he seems to be miles behind...
|
>> ...I suspect it will be best to wait for any further information, but I think
>> it's come to a pretty pass that an incident involving an illegal vehicle being ridden
>> in oh so many illegal ways leads almost immediately to blame of the Police for
>> the resulting fallout.
While one can argue over the blame is shared between governments London and Cardiff I share Mark Drakeford's concern about the level of social disengagement and attitudes to the police that might have contributed to the riot:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/26/cardiff-riots-uk-conservative-government-created-poor-conditions-mark-drakeford-welsh-first-minister
It's not just Cardiff, I fear a repeat of the early eighties in others of our big Cities....
|
>> Who bought the e-bike, or was it stolen?
Early birthday present for one of the lads according to the news this morning.
|
|
Tragically it appears to be a Darwin C scenario.
|
Telegraph article today says that Kent's chief constable has said that all e-scooters in his county should be seized and crushed, with the riders being 'dealt with' as the scooters are not permittted on any public land in Kent.
Same article says that the Met have confiscated 3,600 of them.
I'd say they have reduced in popularity in London. The rental ones are seldom used, and the privately-owned ones don't seem to be used at all either.
In Oxford last weekend, though, the hire scooters were being widely ridden by students in white tie, two up, with the girl in a ball gown clutching the waist of the boy in white tie. Stylish! (But probably riding drunk, and two-up not permitted.)
The e-bikes, however, are a different story.
I have mixed views on the hire e-bikes. They need to be corralled in spaces when not being used so they're not blocking up the pavements/dumped blocking my (and others') gates etc.. However I'm quite a fan of them for my own use when not near my own bike. They're a bit irritating; they're *very* heavy and awkward to get off the pavement onto the road; and they won't go above 23 kph. But the acceleration away from lights is phenomenal! And they're perfect for journeys that are 10 minutes but would be 30 by tube/bus.
My favourite ones are the Human Forest as they're far and away the cheapest. You get 10 minutes free - but pay £1 to park it. I've got a free referral code for Human Forest which is AoKYSBy7 - it gets you (and me) £10 of free rides.
|
The rental ones in Northampton don't seem as busy as they were either but that may be seasonal due to students moving around and schools still in session.
I believe that there's now an electric option with the Santander bikes in London. I've still got a key from when they started but it must be long expired.
The ordinary pedal bikes were OK in their own 'Stately as a Galleon' riding style and speed. Good for days when, for whatever reason the Brompton wasn't an option. Much preferred its speed and manoeuvrability though particularly around places like Trafalgar Square where owning your lane is important.
|
The Boris bikes are just too hateful. The geometry is all wrong. And they're very heavy. (Did get me into cycling in London, mind, so not all bad.) So you arrive sweaty.
The e-Bikes are a real time saver, and you don't arrive sweaty, and they're really nippy for places like Trafalgar Square.
|
>> In Oxford last weekend, though, the hire scooters were being widely ridden by students in
>> white tie, two up, with the girl in a ball gown clutching the waist of
>> the boy in white tie. Stylish! (But probably riding drunk, and two-up not permitted.)
Also seen them scootering around Oxford while using mobile phones## or eating takeaways. Not seen anyone talented enough to do both at the same time yet though.
##Presumably the same phone offences apply to scooter users as it does car/van drivers?
|
>> ##Presumably the same phone offences apply to scooter users as it does car/van drivers?
Apparently not:
www.moveelectric.com/e-scooters/ban-mobile-phone-use-bike-and-e-scooter-users-says-baroness
The hire ones here have a handlebar clip so hands free via bluetooth should be a cinch.
|
|
I confess to upsetting an e-scooter rider last night. We're not part of any trial around here, so any e-scooters are illegal. I came up behind one and was giving it plenty of space, when it suddenly veered right. I braked and sounded my horn. The rider did a 'rapid dismount'.
|
>> The rider did a 'rapid dismount'.
OK but what if, upon the rapid dismount, they'd fallen under a lorry?
Or cracked their skull on a kerb?
|
>> OK but what if, upon the rapid dismount, they'd fallen under a lorry?
>> Or cracked their skull on a kerb?
Exactly the same as if they'd been riding a bicycle. I moved over to give them a wide berth. I braked and used my horn as a warning of my approach. A copper could've done them for:
1. Driving without a licence for the vehicle.
2. Driving an uninsured vehicle.
3. Driving an untaxed vehicle.
4. Failing to display a registration plate..........................................................etc
|
Electric motorbikes (i.e. illegal electric bikes) - Boxsterboy
