Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Executive Councillor is recommended to:
a) Note the work undertaken thus far on this topic.
b) Support further engagement work with stakeholders.
The Officer’s report responded to the motion on
two-wheeled electric vehicle use considered at the Council’s Annual General
Meeting held on 25 May, and updates on the multi-stakeholder work continuing to
improve on difficulties experienced.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Community Wealth Building and Community Safety
i.
Noted the work undertaken thus far
on this topic.
ii.
Supported further engagement work
with stakeholders.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Public Realm Engineering &
Project Delivery Team Leader. He updated details in the report:
i.
New legislation may be coming forward from the
Department for Transport with a new vehicle category that may include mobility
vehicles. No time commitment was given for doing this.
ii.
Signs were being trialled from early October in
Midsummer Common to improve the behaviour of electric
scooter and moped users. Its impact would be monitored.
Councillor Levien spoke as the mover of the motion at Council:
i.
At the May 2023 Council Annual Meeting a motion
regarding E vehicles called for action to be taken by a number of bodies. This included a letter from the council chief
executive to be sent to the relevant minister.
This motion was passed unanimously.
ii.
Since then, he had studied reports from other
councils on the same subject.
iii.
He noticed that all the reports consider an
existing, licensed scheme, for example the Voi scheme
under trial by the Combined Authority.
These bikes were already identifiable with a registration plate and
because of a commercial contract the riders were identifiable. These weren't a
large problem.
iv.
In his view these licensed schemes were too
limiting.
v.
Was concerned about privately owned E mopeds. These were the heavy and fast vehicles which
had all the access rights of a pedal bike but the attributes of a light
motorbike.
vi.
These were becoming increasingly available on the
private market and increasing in number on the streets.
vii.
Omissions from various reports suggested that
because privately owned vehicles were illegal on public roads means that they
were not important enough for the City Council to consider because they were
committing an offence already and would be taken off the road by the police.
viii.
Sales of these were increasing, they were used on
the public streets, and they were not apprehended. Asked the local police to
properly enforce the law regarding these being used in public areas.
ix.
Injuries and even fatalities were inevitable with
these vehicles. After an accident,
provided it was not severely damaged, the rider could ride off and disappear
unidentified.
x.
Believed there was a need to sharpen the motion to prevent
this worrying, situation becoming increasingly common.
xi.
Believed a new category of vehicle needs to be
defined:
a.
Electrically powered two wheeled vehicles which
were capable of 15 mph or greater without rider input, on the level, with no
wind etc.
xii.
Asked trading standards to ensure that the points
of sale of privately owned E vehicles were inspected and checked to ensure that
purchasers were fully aware of the legal limitations of use.
xiii.
We should call for a national registration scheme
for these to be clearly identifiable, registered, and their keepers
registered. All in a similar way to
normal road vehicles.
xiv.
Would the Executive Councillor support this and
write to the relevant minister with the above request including a response
within one year?
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Sought reassurance the motion would not let people
avoid speeding fines and that owners would be required to use electric scooters
and mopeds responsibly.
ii.
Suggested rider be educated not to speed once they
have electric scooter and moped eg
providing Highway Code type information.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
A letter would be sent by the Chief Executive
reflecting discussion details from Committee today.
ii.
The City Council had limited powers to take action against electric
scooter and moped riders.
iii.
Signage on Midsummer Common was on
trial to see if it was clear and effective. Feedback was welcome.
iv.
The council motion would not encourage
people to speed. There were grey areas in the legislation that some (delivery
driver) companies encouraged employees to use when issuing electric scooters
and mopeds.
The Public Realm Engineering & Project Delivery Team Leader said the
following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The Officer’s report set out how the City Council
and partners could work together to address anti-social behaviour by electric scooters and mopeds.
ii.
Re-iterated signage on Midsummer Common
was on trial to see if it was clear and effective. Feedback was welcome.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 25/01/2024
Date of decision: 05/10/2023