A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - meetings

Micro-mobility Management

Meeting: 05/10/2023 - Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee (Item 24)

24 Micro-Mobility Management pdf icon PDF 326 KB


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.

  1. 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.