With e-scooters set to become legal in the near future, what does that mean for car drivers (the lowest class citizen) on the roads?

[Essan]

Bikes, mobility scooters, now e-scooters.... What towns and cities really need is a designated, safe, lane for those of us capable of walking more than 100 yards without mechanical assistance!

We could call it a pavement.

And ban bikes (and e-scooters etc) from using it .....

Maybe fine those who do?

Oh, wait ....

 

[Wynd]

Very little point. I was in Chiswick the other day and found myself horrified at the state of the roads. Turning right onto the high street, expecting the lanes to be where they normally are, yet near-on a third of the entire road width was pure cycle lane. Worse, it was the sort that are protected by metal poles. In the middle of the road, barely enough space for two cars to pass. Something of a joke really, especially when cyclists don't pay road tax.

Poles to protect cyclists form the attitude that Cars own the road, and the pavements, and cycle lanes, because they pay "road tax", which of course does not exist.

 

[PeterC]

Poles to protect cyclists form the attitude that Cars own the road, and the pavements, and cycle lanes, because they pay "road tax", which of course does not exist.

It would be interesting to see a full evaluation of these policies. By limiting vehicle access it slows bus services. When the bus stops everything stops, not helped when passengers are expected to board and alight from a live cycle lane.

 

[SargeNpton]

It would be interesting to see a full evaluation of these policies. By limiting vehicle access it slows bus services. When the bus stops everything stops, not helped when passengers are expected to board and alight from a live cycle lane.

I've seen a couple of near misses in Euston Road, between Euston and St Pancras. Where bus passengers have to cross a cycle lane to get between the pavement and the bus stop. The bus passengers often don't realise that it's a cycle lane so don't look before crossing; and the cyclists rarely slow down in the vicinity of the bus stop.

 

[Ediswan]

It would be interesting to see a full evaluation of these policies. By limiting vehicle access it slows bus services. When the bus stops everything stops, not helped when passengers are expected to board and alight from a live cycle lane.

Looks like they did think of that one. Still have to cross the cycle lane of course (noting what @SargeNpton just posted).

 

[gabrielhj07]

Looks like they did think of that one. Still have to cross the cycle lane of course (noting what @SargeNpton just posted).
View attachment 114587

This has to be the worst infrastructure decision since the Berlin Wall. Completley messes up traffic behind it, and cyclists are no safer riding into this gap either.

 

[Wynd]

This has to be the worst infrastructure decision since the Berlin Wall. Completley messes up traffic behind it, and cyclists are no safer riding into this gap either.

Sorry to break it to you, but the Berlin wall wasn't an infrastructure decision.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Sorry to break it to you, but the Berlin wall wasn't an infrastructure decision.

A poor attempt at sarcasm. The bus stop remains terrible

 

[roversfan2001]

Very little point. I was in Chiswick the other day and found myself horrified at the state of the roads. Turning right onto the high street, expecting the lanes to be where they normally are, yet near-on a third of the entire road width was pure cycle lane. Worse, it was the sort that are protected by metal poles. In the middle of the road, barely enough space for two cars to pass. Something of a joke really, especially when cyclists don't pay road tax.

Nobody has paid road tax since 1937.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Nobody has paid road tax since 1937.

‘Vehicle tax’ if you must. My point is not that cyclists should be taxed, quite the opposite, but that it does seem a waste of resources.

 

[PeterC]

Looks like they did think of that one. Still have to cross the cycle lane of course (noting what @SargeNpton just posted).
View attachment 114587

There are others where you Step from the bus straight into the live lane.

 

[Wynd]

‘Vehicle tax’ if you must. My point is not that cyclists should be taxed, quite the opposite, but that it does seem a waste of resources.

Are horses taxed?

The car is one of the most gargantuan wastes of resources in human history. A personalized 1tonne lump of heavy metals that spends 95% of its life sitting still. One that requires billions of tonnes of smoothly paved road to be anything approaching usable or practical. Millions of kms of wire for signals, millions of miles of drains, car parks, service facilities, and thats before we even get to the 100m barrels of oil we burn daily as a species, 30% of which goes to transport.

Yet, a 15kg bicycle powered by human effort is the wasteful resource. Aye. Ok.

 

[JamesT]

This has to be the worst infrastructure decision since the Berlin Wall. Completley messes up traffic behind it, and cyclists are no safer riding into this gap either.

It's a type that's used successfully all over Europe. Though it seems that at least some of them have since been removed - https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2020/2898

The cyclists should be safer, you'll note that before and after the bus stop there are wands for segregation of the cycle lane from the rest of the traffic. The question is how would you handle the interaction between a cycle lane and a bus stop?

We have enough deaths and serious injuries each year to show that a bit of paint is no protection. Carving out a bit of the roadway is essential to make cycling safer.

 

[stuu]

Car drivers are the lowest class citizens on the road? Comedy gold

 

[Peter Sarf]

It would be interesting to see a full evaluation of these policies. By limiting vehicle access it slows bus services. When the bus stops everything stops, not helped when passengers are expected to board and alight from a live cycle lane.

We have new segregated cycle lanes in central Croydon that now mean the bus routes have been moved away from the centre. I now have to walk further to get to a bus stop not much fun with shopping. So it now gets tempting to drive my car to the out of town shopping area that is not so well served by public transport !.

Are horses taxed?

The car is one of the most gargantuan wastes of resources in human history. A personalized 1tonne lump of heavy metals that spends 95% of its life sitting still. One that requires billions of tonnes of smoothly paved road to be anything approaching usable or practical. Millions of kms of wire for signals, millions of miles of drains, car parks, service facilities, and thats before we even get to the 100m barrels of oil we burn daily as a species, 30% of which goes to transport.

Yet, a 15kg bicycle powered by human effort is the wasteful resource. Aye. Ok.

If, like my car, it spends 95% or more of its life doing nothing as I prefer to walk or use the bus/train how is that a waste of resources - as in the worlds' natural resources ?. Now, if we get rid of cars, who or what pays for the roads that cycles etc use ?.

And I really want to know why my council allows shops to be built out of town thus guaranteeing the need for a car. The same council that charges up to £200 for a residents car parking space with, obviously, no discount for avoiding use of said car as much as possible. It all looks like a way of screwing people.

We really do need to look at why people use cars and look at how to make life easier without needing a car rather than punishing so many people for using a car. Its a case of stick versus carrot.

 

[AlterEgo]

The premise of this thread needs a firm dose of reality.

If we look at spending on car related policies, versus that spent on active travel, and even rail, we can see the car continues to reign supreme.

E Scooters, along with a host of E-machines, should be given far more road space than exists at present.

Active travel is cheaper, more affordable and far better use of resources than everyone driving a car.

E-scooters are not active travel. E-scooters are powered by electricity.

In my experience e-scooters do not get people out of cars. Instead, they replace walking and bicycle journeys (which are active travel!) with a mode which is quicker but which has a bigger carbon imprint (by dint of using electricity) than if the user had walked or cycled. And that's before we get started on the carbon embedded in the battery making process.

 

[cactustwirly]

It would be better if people felt that there was not. Cars are a bad thing for cities.

If a decent and reliable public transport system was available then yes people would ditch cars. But that doesn't exist outside of London...

Even journeys avoiding Central London are not convenient

 

[Socanxdis]

No tax, insurance, mot or any rules for e scooters. I see them on the pavement when it suits them. Going through reds etc

 

[The Ham]

It would be interesting to see a full evaluation of these policies. By limiting vehicle access it slows bus services. When the bus stops everything stops, not helped when passengers are expected to board and alight from a live cycle lane.

20 years ago it was decided that bus lay-bys be removed, similar comments to the above were made. In reality the buses soon caught up with the traffic in front of them, so overall the impact was small.

We have new segregated cycle lanes in central Croydon that now mean the bus routes have been moved away from the centre. I now have to walk further to get to a bus stop not much fun with shopping. So it now gets tempting to drive my car to the out of town shopping area that is not so well served by public transport !.

If, like my car, it spends 95% or more of its life doing nothing as I prefer to walk or use the bus/train how is that a waste of resources - as in the worlds' natural resources ?. Now, if we get rid of cars, who or what pays for the roads that cycles etc use ?.

And I really want to know why my council allows shops to be built out of town thus guaranteeing the need for a car. The same council that charges up to £200 for a residents car parking space with, obviously, no discount for avoiding use of said car as much as possible. It all looks like a way of screwing people.

We really do need to look at why people use cars and look at how to make life easier without needing a car rather than punishing so many people for using a car. Its a case of stick versus carrot.

The cost of roads is primarily down to catering for motor vehicles.

For example, when designing a road the lifespan of the structure (i.e. not the top 40mm) of the road is set by the number of HGV and buses which use it. Other than surface replacement a road with no HGV movements could (in theory) last indefinitely.

The reality would be that nature would reclaim the road over time.

However there point is that if there were no cars the cost to society wouldn't be an issue.

 

[AndrewE]

OP needs to read this: https://www.theguardian.com/society...f-low-traffic-schemes-boardman-tells-councils (

Promote safety benefits of low-traffic schemes, Boardman tells councils​

Boardman said “There’s a fear of change, and a lot of that is about the messaging. But what this is about, ultimately, is making nicer places to live. Everyone has lost sight of that and just thinks something is being taken away. But we’re giving something back.

“Also, the question that isn’t asked is: if you don’t do this then what happens when the roads are full up? We’ve got an extra 20bn miles being driven around homes just the last 10 years. If we don’t do these things you think are difficult, what’s your suggestion? When you do ask this, it stops people in their tracks.”
ATE’s ambitious remit is for 50% of all journeys in English towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030, with Boardman tying this to parallel government targets to reduce emissions.

“If you want to address climate change, and you’ve got eight years to do it, then buses, bikes and walking are the only tools you’ve practically got to make that happen,” he said. “That’s it. And buses don’t work unless you make space for them.”

 

[Yew]

Yes, the Queen's Speech said legislation will be brought forward in this Parliament. Interestingly they will be legalised not as bicycles/e-bikes (which is where I think they should sit) but as a special category of "low speed electric vehicle" for which presumably a driving licence will remain mandatory and children won't be allowed to ride them. Safety was also mentioned, so I'd expect speed limits by law and possibly mandatory helmet wearing, and possibly some sort of test, online perhaps? I suppose an advantage of a licence being required is that a ban could be given for misuse. It would be good if purchase required a licence to be produced.

I suppose it also provides for future regulation of other classes of low-speed electric vehicle which have not yet been invented.

I'm up for a special category, but on the other hand I'm anxious that we seem to see these are more analogous to a car, than a pushbike.

In nottingham we had our programme ran by a German company, Wind. The impression that I got is that they agreed with the Council to certain things (speed limits, geofencing) with the expectation of allowing pavement riding in return; and unfortunately the council was not forthcoming.

 

[Peter Sarf]

E-scooters are not active travel. E-scooters are powered by electricity.

In my experience e-scooters do not get people out of cars. Instead, they replace walking and bicycle journeys (which are active travel!) with a mode which is quicker but which has a bigger carbon imprint (by dint of using electricity) than if the user had walked or cycled. And that's before we get started on the carbon embedded in the battery making process.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

No tax, insurance, mot or any rules for e scooters. I see them on the pavement when it suits them. Going through reds etc

That is my experience too.

Cyclists can be a surprise as well. My latest surprise was as I walked across a zebra crossing when all of a sudden a bicycle came hurtling towards me. I tried to jump sideways. I think the cyclist had come off the pavement to cross the road in the opposite direction to me so was just too fast. But perhaps had turned right around the car waiting for me to cross. There are a proportion of cyclists and e-scooter riders who flit between road and pavement as it suits them. That is not a majority but is a growing umber. I would like to see them having a better understanding - training. Furthermore it would not hurt if car (and HGV etc) drivers had to take a more regular test.

20 years ago it was decided that bus lay-bys be removed, similar comments to the above were made. In reality the buses soon caught up with the traffic in front of them, so overall the impact was small.



The cost of roads is primarily down to catering for motor vehicles.

For example, when designing a road the lifespan of the structure (i.e. not the top 40mm) of the road is set by the number of HGV and buses which use it. Other than surface replacement a road with no HGV movements could (in theory) last indefinitely.

The reality would be that nature would reclaim the road over time.

However there point is that if there were no cars the cost to society wouldn't be an issue.

There is a bus lay-by near me that has been removed. Now all the other traffic has to wait behind the bus. It must be a bit more polluted there than it used to be.

Most of the road damage must be done by HGVs and buses. I have been puzzling the state of the road surface at bus stops where there are huge ruts and bulges. Maybe the axle-load of buses is enormous when buses start and stop. Granted I have noticed that buses along with other vehicles are driven a lot less aggressively outside London.

The surface damage in the form of pot holes is mainly done by freezing weather. That damage would not reduce much with less cars BUT the means to pay for the repairs would reduce with less cars. Having encountered poor road surfaces whilst riding a bike I would be very keen for the surface to be repaired regardless of how many cars use the road.

There is an argument that repairs to roads in cities generally comes from council budgets so not central government. But the road fund licence / "road tax" still indirectly pays for those roads. If the income from "road tax" is reduced then some other way to pay for things has to be found.

I'm up for a special category, but on the other hand I'm anxious that we seem to see these are more analogous to a car, than a pushbike.

In nottingham we had our programme ran by a German company, Wind. The impression that I got is that they agreed with the Council to certain things (speed limits, geofencing) with the expectation of allowing pavement riding in return; and unfortunately the council was not forthcoming.

My view over the years is that although riding a bike on the pavement is frowned upon a cyclist may feel safer doing that. But I would only ask that they ride at a slower speed thus not intimidating the pedestrians. Ideally cyclists should feel safe on the roads (excepting motorways and similar). Since e-scooters are generally faster I think there have to be more rules for them and I do find them rather surprising when I encounter one on pavements.

At the end of the day this should not be seen as car drivers vs e-scooters vs cyclists vs pedestrians. The problem is human beings and the proportion of them that are not considerate or are ignorant. The other problem is how we are ruining the planet - again lack of consideration and/or ignorance. Training for the users is one thing BUT this ignorance extends to planning out of town shopping and other activities (like gyms !) which really only encourages car use.

How many gym users drive to their gym ?. I walk instead and then do not feel the need to actually pay for a gym. Simple solution.

 

[Ken H]

I hope there are specific clauses in the legislation to ban their use on pavements, and to ban undertaking of buses at stops. And the nonsense where there is a cycle lane between a bus shelter and the road must stop too. I would hope there was a mandatory speed limit for the things too.

 

[DelW]

Most of the road damage must be done by HGVs and buses. I have been puzzling the state of the road surface at bus stops where there are huge ruts and bulges. Maybe the axle-load of buses is enormous when buses start and stop. Granted I have noticed that buses along with other vehicles are driven a lot less aggressively outside London.

This is going a bit off-topic, but the causes of big ruts at bus stops are not just buses stopping in more or less the same place each time, but more the softening of the road material caused by drips of engine oil and diesel fuel dissolving the bitumen binder.
Years ago bus stops (and lorry parks) were the last locations surfaced using actual tarmac, i.e. using a binder of coal tar not bitumen derived from oil, since the tar wasn't dissolved by spilt oil. With the advent of North Sea gas, the gasworks that made coal tar as a by-product of town gas production closed, and it became unavailable.
The answer should be to build bus laybys with concrete slabs or block paving, but this isn't always done.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hope there are specific clauses in the legislation to ban their use on pavements, and to ban undertaking of buses at stops. And the nonsense where there is a cycle lane between a bus shelter and the road must stop too. I would hope there was a mandatory speed limit for the things too.

It should not be possible to "undertake" a bus if it has correctly pulled into the stop. Unfortunately a lot of drivers are a bit lazy and don't.

 

[Peter Sarf]

This is going a bit off-topic, but the causes of big ruts at bus stops are not just buses stopping in more or less the same place each time, but more the softening of the road material caused by drips of engine oil and diesel fuel dissolving the bitumen binder.
Years ago bus stops (and lorry parks) were the last locations surfaced using actual tarmac, i.e. using a binder of coal tar not bitumen derived from oil, since the tar wasn't dissolved by spilt oil. With the advent of North Sea gas, the gasworks that made coal tar as a by-product of town gas production closed, and it became unavailable.
The answer should be to build bus laybys with concrete slabs or block paving, but this isn't always done.

Thanks for that. It explains why I have seen block paving at a bus station.

It should not be possible to "undertake" a bus if it has correctly pulled into the stop. Unfortunately a lot of drivers are a bit lazy and don't.

Cyclists have been known to continue forwards via the pavement !. Though the real problem for bus drivers must be pulling over to the curb without hitting the curb but whilst also checking in the mirrors they are not trapping a cycle/e-scooter that is overtaking the bus on its left side. Simple solution is to never overtake on the let side and particularly if the vehicle to your right is indicating left - something I had TRAINED into me back in the late 1960s !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cyclists have been known to continue forwards via the pavement !. Though the real problem for bus drivers must be pulling over to the curb without hitting the curb but whilst also checking in the mirrors they are not trapping a cycle/e-scooter that is overtaking the bus on its left side. Simple solution is to never overtake on the let side and particularly if the vehicle to your right is indicating left - something I had TRAINED into me back in the late 1960s !.

Much as I agree that passing on the left when there is no marked cycle lane is extremely ill-advised (i.e. defensive cycling precludes it), if you can't look in your mirrors before changing the position of your vehicle on the road you shouldn't be driving anything, let alone a bus. Buses should always pull right into the kerb unless other parked vehicles prevent it - the "Kassel kerbs" in most places are designed to provide best accessibility when that is done, they even sometimes have the "bumps" so the driver can feel that they have done it correctly. Unfortunately many (most?) UK drivers are too bone-idle to do it, particularly in London. Germany is, unsurprisingly, a very different story.

 

[zwk500]

I hope there are specific clauses in the legislation to ban their use on pavements, and to ban undertaking of buses at stops.

Agreed

And the nonsense where there is a cycle lane between a bus shelter and the road must stop too. I would hope there was a mandatory speed limit for the things too.

Agreed. I have recently take a couple of trips to the netherlands and their cycle lanes on main roads are very clearly demarcated from car and bus infrastructure. They do have the benefit of generally wider roads though.

The UK needs to stop building Cycle lanes where there isn't pace to do it properly, and to educate EVERYBODY (including Cyclists) that the road is a communal resource, and they have a responsibility to ALL other road users to not put them in danger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The UK needs to stop building Cycle lanes where there isn't pace to do it properly, and to educate EVERYBODY (including Cyclists) that the road is a communal resource, and they have a responsibility to ALL other road users to not put them in danger.

Disagree. Places for people should take priority over places for motor vehicles, and as such things like one-way systems should be used in urban areas to make space for safe pedestrian and cycle (and scooter) facilities in our cities. This thread bemoans car drivers being at the bottom of the hierarchy - but in urban areas specifically that's exactly where they should be.

 

[zwk500]

Disagree. Places for people should take priority over places for motor vehicles, and as such things like one-way systems should be used in urban areas to make space for safe pedestrian and cycle (and scooter) facilities in our cities. This thread bemoans car drivers being at the bottom of the hierarchy - but in urban areas specifically that's exactly where they should be.

Totally agree with this. My point was that we don't do the prep work you allude to - far too often Cycle lanes are just painted on an existing road and that's that. You can't have a cycle lane just swerve round a bus stop on the level, or along the driver's side of parked cars. Yet because of political priorities, that's exactly what the UK does. 1m-wide cycle lanes with drain covers and leaf mulch are potentially deadly. I'm 100% behind reducing the space given to 4-wheeled vehicle in favour of building a proper cycleway.