Electric scooters and the railway

[al78]

Weird that my rather large, heavy, non folding electric bike is allowed, but a small electric scooter isn't.

An electric bike that is legal for use as a bicycle (i.e. can use cycle tracks, no helmet, license, tax or insurance required) has a very limited power supply, can only provide assistance when the rider pedals, and can only provide assistance up to 15 mph (a typical cruising speed for a non-assisted cyclist). These are the key features which allow electric assist bicycles to be put in the same vehicle category as standard bicycles. Anything that can move under its own onboard power source is classed as a motor vehicle.

 

[pdeaves]

Whether a TOC will carry any particular type of vehicle or not is not necessarily dependant on the legal definition of the vehicle. As CrispyUK states above, e-scooters are permitted in the railway's own rules.

Sure, in the event of an incident on the highways, the courts are compelled to take a certain view based on legal definitions. That is a different issue to whether a TOC will carry them.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Whether a TOC will carry any particular type of vehicle or not is not necessarily dependant on the legal definition of the vehicle. As CrispyUK states above, e-scooters are permitted in the railway's own rules.

Sure, in the event of an incident on the highways, the courts are compelled to take a certain view based on legal definitions. That is a different issue to whether a TOC will carry them.

Again, legally, there is no difference between a car and an e-scooter.

Can you take a car on the train, even if would fit?

It is a motor vehicle according to the law, and must be kept on the road only, fully insured, licensed and taxed, with an appropriate license held. Just because it is small enough to be conveyed on a train does not make it legal.

 

[pdeaves]

Again, legally, there is no difference between a car and an e-scooter.

Can you take a car on the train, even if would fit?

It is a motor vehicle according to the law, and must be kept on the road only, fully insured, licensed and taxed, with an appropriate license held. Just because it is small enough to be conveyed on a train does not make it legal.

That's a different issue. The railway's own rules quoted above allow carriage of e-scooters. The law applicable to driving them on the highway is of no consequence in this case where the railway itself says yes, we are prepared to carry them (and equally, we are not prepared to carry petrol-powered vehicles, as one example among many).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again, legally, there is no difference between a car and an e-scooter.

Can you take a car on the train, even if would fit?

It is a motor vehicle according to the law, and must be kept on the road only, fully insured, licensed and taxed, with an appropriate license held. Just because it is small enough to be conveyed on a train does not make it legal.

Road-legality is of no relevance. The railway could convey cars (and used to, and indeed still does if you count Eurotunnel), or motorcycles (and used to...) if it so chose. It seems, as has been repeatedly pointed out but you are choosing to ignore, that the page on nationalrail.co.uk linked to above states that e-scooters are carried, and thus that the railway (which essentially makes its own Byelaws) does not consider them in the same class as petrol Vespa type conveyances, but rather e-bicycles, which is where I think road law needs to put them (personal opinion) because the risks posed are basically identical. Or if we do want to consider them motorcycles, we should consider e-bikes motorcycles too.

Also, the bold part in itself is in its entirety false. You can keep and use a motor vehicle anywhere you like on private land, and it does not need to be insured, taxed or licenced when it is so kept (which is the whole purpose of the SORN - Statutory Off Road Notification - process). Surely as (I recall you are?) a legal professional, you would be fully aware of this fact? Indeed, that's the only place you are presently allowed to actually ride e-scooters which are not part of a hire scheme.

Or in short the railway says they are allowed so they are. End of.

That's all there is to it. Do you have a personal vendetta against e-scooters, perhaps, which is showing here?

 

[bengley]

They are perfectly permissible to be carried on trains. The conditions of travel were written at a time before e-scooters were prevalent.

 

[Factotum]

An electric bike that is legal for use as a bicycle (i.e. can use cycle tracks, no helmet, license, tax or insurance required) has a very limited power supply, can only provide assistance when the rider pedals, and can only provide assistance up to 15 mph (a typical cruising speed for a non-assisted cyclist). These are the key features which allow electric assist bicycles to be put in the same vehicle category as standard bicycles. Anything that can move under its own onboard power source is classed as a motor vehicle.

Well one could argue that any bicycle moves under it own onboard power: that power being provided by the onboard rider.
But, leaving that aside an electrically assisted bicycles needs minimal power from the rider to operate. Put it in low gear and pedal very leisurely and it will go ahead at 15mph. And many older e-bikes, such as mine, have a throttle button which enables full power without pedaling (useful for hill starts).I suspect the classification of e-bikes as bicycles rather than mopeds originated in EU law.

 

[al78]

Well one could argue that any bicycle moves under it own onboard power: that power being provided by the onboard rider.
But, leaving that aside an electrically assisted bicycles needs minimal power from the rider to operate. Put it in low gear and pedal very leisurely and it will go ahead at 15mph. And many older e-bikes, such as mine, have a throttle button which enables full power without pedaling (useful for hill starts).I suspect the classification of e-bikes as bicycles rather than mopeds originated in EU law.

Any e-bike that can move from the motor without any rider input is legally classified as a moped so the rider needs a license, pay tax and insurance. The legal definition of e-bikes that are classified as bicycles are the limit on motor power and the motor can only provide assistance up to 15 mph. The idea is that a proper legal e-bike with the restrictions stated is no more risk to others than a standard bike, and e-bikes might encourage the less fit/able to cycle for utility and/or leisure. I find it hard to believe an e-bike is as effortless as you claim, but I have never ridden one.

 

[Egg Centric]

I find it hard to believe an e-bike is as effortless as you claim, but I have never ridden one.

Depends how you ride it but it absolutely can be effortless - maybe not up to 15mph but up to 10mph; just pedal less hard than you want it to actually go. Otherwise I wouldn't be morbidly obese!

I use them all the time, including for my commute.

In some ways electric scooters require more effort because their tiny wheels require constant control from your cramped positioning. That said I've not anywhere near so much experience with them and perhaps that becomes easier in time.

Also you're wrong about the moving without rider input thing - older e-bikes were grandfathered in. Indeed mine has a throttle - it just doesn't work!

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

In practice I can't see e-scooter users having any trouble taking their scooter on the train. So long as they store it in the cycle area safely I don't think anyone will bother to check if it is road legal, or consult the subsections of the Town and Police Act of 1847 to decide whether it is road legal.

Being a lot smaller than a car, I don't think people will worry about any potential legal equivalence with a car.

 

[Stigy]

The railway clearly does not intend that meaning given the page linked to. A "motor scooter" in most understandings is the likes of a Vespa, not an oversized kids' toy. Indeed, even a 49cc Vespa-a-like isn't a "motor scooter", it's (legally) a moped despite the absence of pedals.

Agreed.

The term is intended to define motorcycles to all intents and purposes. It’s twisting the legislation to interpret e-scooters and motor scooters.

I would say though that a 49cc moped would be classed as a motor scooter because the defining point is that it has a combustion engine, which is why they’re prohibited.

 

[al78]

Depends how you ride it but it absolutely can be effortless - maybe not up to 15mph but up to 10mph; just pedal less hard than you want it to actually go. Otherwise I wouldn't be morbidly obese!

Yes I didn't think they would be effortless at 15 mph, since the motor isn't assisting at that speed. They may require little effort at very low speed but so do standard bicycles on the flat. The real benefit from e-bikes as I see it comes from hill climbing, especially if you have one where the motor is housed in the bottom bracket so can take advantage of the gears.

If you are struggling to lose weight, cycling is not a great cardio exercise because even without an e-bike, it is very energy efficient, it is the most energy efficient self powered way of moving about, so you'd have to do a lot of cycling to burn a significant number of calories. In any case, losing weight is primarily diet.

Bicycle performance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes I didn't think they would be effortless at 15 mph, since the motor isn't assisting at that speed. They may require little effort at very low speed but so do standard bicycles on the flat. The real benefit from e-bikes as I see it comes from hill climbing, especially if you have one where the motor is housed in the bottom bracket so can take advantage of the gears.

Indeed. The real use-case of the e-bike is to make typically hillier British towns suitable for Dutch levels of cycling by effectively flattening the hills.

If you are struggling to lose weight, cycling is not a great cardio exercise because even without an e-bike, it is very energy efficient, it is the most energy efficient self powered way of moving about, so you'd have to do a lot of cycling to burn a significant number of calories. In any case, losing weight is primarily diet.

That too. Per hour, walking burns far more calories than cycling (and the heavier you are, the bigger the difference is, because, unless you're going up a massive hill, cycling, like swimming, very close to removes the effect of weight at a constant speed). Cycling is designed to be less effort than walking!

 

[geoffk]

Well one could argue that any bicycle moves under it own onboard power: that power being provided by the onboard rider.
But, leaving that aside an electrically assisted bicycles needs minimal power from the rider to operate. Put it in low gear and pedal very leisurely and it will go ahead at 15mph. And many older e-bikes, such as mine, have a throttle button which enables full power without pedaling (useful for hill starts).I suspect the classification of e-bikes as bicycles rather than mopeds originated in EU law.

The comments here show how out of date and inconsistent the law is around electric bicycles and e-scooters (and we could add segways and mobility scooters). I'm not a lawyer but the decision as to whether an e-scooter can be carried on a train should surely be based on its size rather than its legal status on the highway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The comments here show how out of date and inconsistent the law is around electric bicycles and e-scooters (and we could add segways and mobility scooters). I'm not a lawyer but the decision as to whether an e-scooter can be carried on a train should surely be based on its size rather than its legal status on the highway.

The decision is based on the railway's policy (which is what drives the Byelaws), nothing else. And that policy appears to be that they are permitted.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Can you take a moped or small motorbike on a train...?

Only if the fuel tank is empty

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The decision is based on the railway's policy (which is what drives the Byelaws), nothing else. And that policy appears to be that they are permitted.

Presumably though someone has to make that policy?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably though someone has to make that policy?

RDG I guess. But it has been made, and it is that they are permitted, as per the nationalrail.co.uk link above.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

They are perfectly permissible to be carried on trains. The conditions of travel were written at a time before e-scooters were prevalen

I think relying on a non contractual or non legally binding (criminally) website is a dangerous move personally.

I have nothing against the legal use of e-scooters, but the laws and regulations involved go beyond simple contract law or Byelaws.

In any event, a condition of travel or Byelaw cannot override or alter primary legislation like the Road Traffic Act.

I think some also forget that Railways, for the main, are private enterprises, and would be free to refuse carriage to anyone and any item, as they deem fit, so long as a refund is given (if a fare has been paid), and subject to the Equality Act of course.

The second an e-scooter wheel touches the platform surface, you have a myriad of legal requirements (insurance, license etc), as well as the fact a platform isn't a road, so would probably be an offence anyway in most cases. It doesn't matter whether it's folded up or not.

The laws are actually very clear in my opinion, but they are not fit for purpose and need modernising, but there is substantial opposition to these legal scooter schemes as it is.

I personally would support a ban on these being conveyed, because they are not legal to use on roads outside of the trial areas anyway, (except on private land, with specific consent obtained), and I doubt the hire agreements of the legal ones allow them to be taken out of the area anyway. It surely also defeats the point of these anyway that they are for the final mile etc of the journey, you get off the train and jump on one from the docking station at the other end.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The second an e-scooter wheel touches the platform surface, you have a myriad of legal requirements (insurance, license etc), as well as the fact a platform isn't a road, so would probably be an offence anyway in most cases. It doesn't matter whether it's folded up or not.

This is absolute rubbish. On private land, which the railway is, you can do whatever the owner/controller of that land wishes with regard to road vehicles. Road traffic law is relevant only to the public highway. You can drive or ride anything you like on private land provided the owner is happy for you to do so.

How on earth do you think go-kart tracks, "let your kids learn to drive before they are 17" sessions, stock-car races, and even untaxed forklifts in warehouses and the likes would work otherwise? Or farmers using vehicles on red diesel. Etc.

Therefore the only thing that matters is that the railway is happy for them to be on their land. That's all.

I suppose technically at the point you exit the station you'd have to fold it and carry it, though de minimis non curat lex* and so no Police Officer is going to care a jot unless you actually ride it, they will not care if you simply wheel it to your car and put it in the boot to take it home for use in your garden or whatever.

I'm astonished that someone who seems to profess to be a legal professional (do I have that right?) and seems to speak with the authority of one is so misinformed on this matter.

The laws are actually very clear in my opinion, but they are not fit for purpose and need modernising, but there is substantial opposition to these legal scooter schemes as it is.

Ah, now we see it - you have an agenda, which you are using your professional status to push by wilfully misinterpreting the law. That's rather unprofessional, if I may say so.

I personally would support a ban on these being conveyed, because they are not legal to use on roads outside of the trial areas anyway, (except on private land, with specific consent obtained), and I doubt the hire agreements of the legal ones allow them to be taken out of the area anyway. It surely also defeats the point of these anyway that they are for the final mile etc of the journey, you get off the train and jump on one from the docking station at the other end.

There don't seem to be many use-cases for them being conveyed in a rideable state, but you may well want to take one home from the shop where you purchased it so as to use it on your own private land, and some of the hire schemes might support carriage (I don't know).

* "The law does not concern itself with trifles" - a common legal term which essentially means "stop being so picky about stuff that really doesn't matter".

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This is absolute rubbish. On private land, you can do whatever the owner/controller of that land wishes with regard to road vehicles. Road traffic law is relevant only to the public highway. You can drive or ride anything you like on private land provided the owner is happy for you to do so.

How on earth do you think go-kart tracks, "let your kids learn to drive before they are 17" sessions, stock-car races, and even untaxed forklifts in warehouses and the likes would work otherwise? Or farmers using vehicles on red diesel. Etc.

Therefore the only thing that matters is that the railway is happy for them to be on their land. That's all.

I suppose technically at the point you exit the station you'd have to fold it and carry it, though de minimis non curat lex* and so no Police Officer is going to care a jot unless you actually ride it, they will not care if you simply wheel it to your car and put it in the boot to take it home for use in your garden or whatever.

I'm astonished that someone who seems to profess to be a legal professional (do I have that right?) and seems to speak with the authority of one is so misinformed on this matter.



Ah, now we see it - you have an agenda, which you are using your professional status to push by wilfully misinterpreting the law. That's rather unprofessional, if I may say so.



There don't seem to be many use-cases for them being conveyed in a rideable state, but you may well want to take one home from the shop where you purchased it so as to use it on your own private land, and some of the hire schemes might support carriage (I don't know).

* "The law does not concern itself with trifles" - a common legal term which essentially means "stop being so picky about stuff that really doesn't matter".

That is simply not true.

You are required to have insurance etc even on private land if the public has access too! Just having landowners consent (implied or otherwise) is not sufficient.

Otherwise you could drive around in a supermarket car park all you like with no insurance.

I am afraid you are vastly over simplifying matters, to support your own agenda.

With police forces increasingly taking action in this area, and convictions rocketing - you'd have to be stupid to own a private scooter at the moment.

I can assure you that a defence of "I was driving (or in charge of) a motor vehicle (however briefly) along the platform on an e-scooter " because a website I found online said scooters were permitted is not going to end well with a Magistrate.

There are increasing numbers of complaints about e-scooters, and the police are having to be seen to act. It is a simple fact! It's also an extremely easy way for officers to boost their offence detection rate. So why take the risk? It's like anything, you can speed 99% of the time and nothing will happen, but the one day you're doing 35 in a 30, there's a copper with a camera and you're done! If you take a look on social media, if you follow police accounts, you'll see that certain forces rather enjoy catching e-scooters! Recovery lorries with a single e-scooter on the back pictures etc.

 

[Stigy]

This is absolute rubbish. On private land, which the railway is, you can do whatever the owner/controller of that land wishes with regard to road vehicles. Road traffic law is relevant only to the public highway. You can drive or ride anything you like on private land provided the owner is happy for you to do so.

How on earth do you think go-kart tracks, "let your kids learn to drive before they are 17" sessions, stock-car races, and even untaxed forklifts in warehouses and the likes would work otherwise? Or farmers using vehicles on red diesel. Etc.

Therefore the only thing that matters is that the railway is happy for them to be on their land. That's all.

The RTA would still apply to parts of the railway that the public have access to, including car parks and approach roads. Vehicles can and have been seized for such offences as driving without insurance on railway property.

It’s often easier to utilise Railway Byelaws though, which would also apply. It’s private property in all but name, the same as shopping centres etc are.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is worth saying that some of the trial ones are allowed for use in fairly wide areas and actually provide a monthly rental model where taking one on a train makes much more sense. So I think the legal argument is a bit of a red herring as there are already now legitimate use cases for this that do not break the law.

As an example, the West Of England trial zone covers a fairly large area (basically the whole of the WoE combined authority area which includes all of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol and South Gloucestershire) and whilst the pay as you go rentals are limited to a smaller sections within that area (as in I don't think you can use the pay as you go rentals to go from Bristol to Bath), the longer term monthly rentals allow you do go anywhere in that wider area. So I could very much see someone who lives in the Bristol suburbs using an escooter to get to Temple Meads, getting the train from there to Bath Spa with the escooter and then using the same escooter to get to their office in Bath - certainly seems easier to me than relying on a bus or an infrequent train to get you to Temple Meads in the first place!

 

[Stigy]

That is simply not true.

You are required to have insurance etc even on private land if the public has access too! Just having landowners consent (implied or otherwise) is not sufficient.

Otherwise you could drive around in a supermarket car park all you like with no insurance.

I am afraid you are vastly over simplifying matters, to support your own agenda.

With police forces increasingly taking action in this area, and convictions rocketing - you'd have to be stupid to own a private scooter at the moment.

I can assure you that a defence of "I was driving (or in charge of) a motor vehicle (however briefly) along the platform on an e-scooter " because a website I found online said scooters were permitted is not going to end well with a Magistrate.

Must have been typing at the same time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can assure you that a defence of "I was driving (or in charge of) a motor vehicle (however briefly) along the platform on an e-scooter " because a website I found online said scooters were permitted is not going to end well with a Magistrate.

Not "a website I found online", but rather the definitive, authoritative website of the RDG, which represents all the TOCs in doing so.

Are you alleging that RDG is inciting people to break the law? Or that the railway is advising people to do something that the BTP would then charge them for?

Your agenda is clearly against e-scooters. Mine is simply that if the railway says they are permitted on their land, they are permitted. You can't ride them anyway, as riding any wheeled vehicle on railway property (other than places designated for that purpose) is banned anyway.

The practical scenario is that if someone was wheeling a private e-scooter on a station platform (not riding it), BTP might just ask what you were going to do with it. If you said "I just bought it and I'm wheeling it to the car to take it home", and you actually did that, nothing would come about. As I said, de minimis non curat lex.

I will concede I was wrong about insurance being required on a private road or similar, but this is really not in practice relevant to pushing an e-scooter along a platform.

 

[Horizon22]

This whole thread and its arguments is just good evidence on how grey and vague the whole legislation around e-scooters has got. They're clearly out and about across roads and towns, but they've fallen into this weird area whereby the law and the public perception are so far mis-aligned. It needs some clear legislation or guidance from central government (either way, I'm not too fussed) about how they form a sensible part of the transportation system in this country and what freedoms they give and to what sensible regulations users must abide.

Many local councils are now trialing usage under a more regulated manner so steps are being made in the right direction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This whole thread and its arguments is just good evidence on how grey and vague the whole legislation around e-scooters has got. They're clearly out and about across roads and towns, but they've fallen into this weird area whereby the law and the public perception are so far mis-aligned. It needs some clear legislation or guidance from central government (either way, I'm not too fussed) about how they form a sensible part of the transportation system in this country and what freedoms they give and to what sensible regulations users must abide.

Many local councils are now trialing usage under a more regulated manner so steps are being made in the right direction.

Indeed, I think that's what the trials are for. Personally I see them (in speed-restricted form) as posing basically the same risk as e-bikes, and thus that the two should be covered by the same legislation, whether that be by tightening the law on e-bikes or loosening it on scooters. I can see no case for mandatory insurance or helmets etc for one and not the other.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

The second an e-scooter wheel touches the platform surface, you have a myriad of legal requirements (insurance, license etc), as well as the fact a platform isn't a road, so would probably be an offence anyway in most cases.

Which then opens up a risky situation such as if the e-scooter is being ridden on the platform, the rider loses control and falls onto the track or under a train. What then?

 

[CentralTrainer]

Which then opens up a risky situation such as if the e-scooter is being ridden on the platform, the rider loses control and falls onto the track or under a train. What then?

Can also say the same for skateboards, bicycles, drunken passengers, dogs not under control, etc.

I‘m all for making sure that drunks have a licence, insurance and should be made to wear a helmet after the 4th pint of Monk’s Dong

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which then opens up a risky situation such as if the e-scooter is being ridden on the platform, the rider loses control and falls onto the track or under a train. What then?

Riding of wheeled vehicles of any kind (other than assistance buggies operated by a railway employee) is not permitted on platforms. So whether it's an e-scooter, a skateboard or a bicycle is moot.