60.In countries where e-scooters can be ridden legally, governments have taken various steps to ensure the safety of riders and other road users, including imposing speed, power and weight limits, mandating certain safety features be fitted on to e-scooters (such as lights and reflectors), restricting e-scooters to roads and/or cycle lanes and making it a requirement to wear a helmet. In some cases, the specifications are similar to those that apply to e-bikes.
61.In several countries, safety rules around e-scooters have been tightened further following their legalisation. In Singapore, following an increase in the number of accidents involving e-scooters and other personal mobility devices, new laws were introduced to prevent e-scooters from being ridden on pavements (e-scooters had previously been allowed to share pavements with pedestrians). Similarly, the French Government introduced stricter rules on e-scooters following hundreds of safety incidents and several related deaths. The stricter safety rules came in to force in October 2019 and included a ban on using e-scooters on pavements and country roads and a ban on wearing headphones while using e-scooters.
62.Following its e-scooter trials consultation, the UK Government decided on a set of vehicle design criteria for rental e-scooters. These include the following requirements:
63.The Government is consulting on vehicle specifications for micro-mobility vehicles more broadly as part of its Future of Transport Regulatory Review. This consultation, along with the evidence collected during the trials, will inform the vehicle design specification for privately owned e-scooters if the Government decides to legalise those in the future.
64.Witnesses had a range of views about the preferred specifications for e-scooter design, including the speed limit, power limit, wheel size, braking and stability standards, and requirement for scooters to be fitted with a bell, lights and reflective strips. We examine some of these below.
65.In its initial consultation on e-scooter trials, the Government favoured a lower maximum speed of 12.5 mph but, after considering its consultation responses, it decided on a 15.5 mph limit. The speed limit for e-scooters varies between different countries, but most have set it between 12.5 mph (20 kph) (for example, Germany, Norway and Sweden) and 15.5 mph (25 kph) (for example, Spain, France and Italy). In some cases, individual cities or areas have their own local speed limits for e-scooters.
66.We heard mixed views on the most appropriate speed limit. Many witnesses felt that 15.5 mph was suitable as it matches that seen in a number of other European countries and is consistent with the speed at which the motor of an e-bike cuts out. Halfords told us that having a different speed limit for e-scooters and e-bikes may “cause unnecessary confusion between riders of these forms of electric transport, particularly given many riders of traditional bikes operate at a similar speed”. A speed differential could also cause “unnecessary safety problems in cycle lanes.” Bird shared this view, saying “it would be odd to introduce a big disparity between different types of vehicle, […] between scooters and bikes.”
67.Some witnesses favoured the lower speed limit of 12.5 mph. We were told that e-scooters are less stable than bikes and have a smaller wheel size, meaning they are at greater risk when driving over uneven road surfaces, potholes or drain covers. Cycling UK told us that setting e-scooters to a lower speed cut-off limit than for electric bikes would “maintain an advantage for e-bikes over e-scooters, thereby increasing the likelihood that e-scooters would attract people to switch from cars without this being at the expense of potential physical activity benefits of switching to walking or cycling, including e-bikes.” A similar view was shared by others including the Bicycle Association.
68.Some witnesses expressed surprise and concern that the Government had opted to set a higher speed limit than they had first anticipated. The RNIB said “we were hoping that speeds would be limited ideally to as close to walking as possible but, if not, to an absolute maximum of 12.5 mph. We are really shocked by the speed limit and very concerned about the vehicles being on pavements.”
69.E-scooter rental companies told us that it is possible for the speed of their e- scooters to be controlled via their apps, using ‘geofencing’ technology. Geofencing involves the creation of virtual boundaries that limit the scooter’s speed, or prevent the scooter from operating completely. An e-scooter’s in-built GPS connection (or other type of location tracker) triggers these restrictions when it detects that the scooter has entered a certain area. This may include areas that would be dangerous for an e-scooter, like motorways, or city centre locations with high numbers of pedestrians.
70.In its guidance for local areas and e-scooters operators, the Government said that in addition to the regulatory provisions it has outlined, local authorities have the power to specify their own additional requirements for the e-scooter trials. The Minister told us that this can include setting a speed limit lower than 15.5 mph if they wish to. The first e-scooter trials to launch in Tees Valley have a speed limit of 12.5 mph. The Minister also highlighted geofencing as a way to enforce a variety of speed limits, noting “some authorities may wish to have variable speed limits in different areas of their authority, depending on the nature of the road environment.”
71.In our view, the speed of e-scooters should be suitable for the local environment they are deployed in. A “one size fits all” approach will not work. Speed limits in the trials can be determined at the local level by local authorities and, in the case of rental e-scooters, via ‘geo-fencing’ technology installed by companies. Operators should work closely with local authorities to plan and implement the most appropriate speed limits for rental e-scooters in local areas.
72.In its Response to this Report, the Department should clarify what principles it expects local authorities to follow when determining e-scooter speed limits in certain areas.
73.The rental trials should also shed light on appropriate design standards for e-scooters. Some key issues raised with us related to power limits, weight limits, lighting, wheel size and the requirement for a bell or horn.
74.In addition to opting for a higher speed limit after its consultation on rental e-scooters, the Department increased the permitted vehicle power from 350W to 500W and the maximum weight from 35kg to 55kg. Generally, if an e-scooter has a higher power rating it will be able to climb hills more easily, carry heavier weight and accelerate more quickly.
75.Witnesses had varying views on the most suitable power limit for e-scooters, with suggestions ranging from 250W to 750W. 250W is the maximum permitted motor power for electric bikes in the UK. A few witnesses were concerned about a higher power threshold for e-scooters, with some saying they may pose a risk to riders and other road users. For example, the Bicycle Association told us “500W will give you formidable acceleration […] The acceleration of the vehicle accompanied by its speed potentially increase the risk to the rider, let alone anybody else”. Other witnesses told us that in some cases, higher power is often needed due to the topography of an area and to ensure an e-scooter can perform well when travelling uphill. Lime said that “the only consideration with power is the topography of cities. With somewhere like Bath, Bristol or Sheffield, for example, a higher power may be required because of the hills. With somewhere like London, which is flatter, the requirement is clearly much less.” Some commented that setting a power limit that is too low for such terrain could be dangerous for the rider.
76.Several witnesses highlighted that e-scooters’ small wheel size makes them less stable than other modes (such as bikes) and puts them at risk from uneven road surfaces and potholes. PACTS said ¨with wheel sizes typically 8–10 inches (often less but rarely more), they are incapable of safely negotiating the ruts, potholes, uneven surfaces of many urban streets”. Some witnesses suggested that specifying a minimum wheel size in the scooters’ design requirements could help reduce the likelihood of riders being affected by uneven road surfaces.
77.Other features that witnesses raised as important to include in e-scooter design requirements included reflectors, lights, and brakes which are independent of the scooter’s electrical system. We also received suggestions that e-scooters should meet certain design or testing standards, for example a test for how the scooter copes with potholes. The need for e-scooters to be fitted with a bell or horn in order to make an audible warning sound was also raised by several witnesses. RNIB and Guide Dogs highlighted the specific concerns of visually impaired people, who may not be able to see or hear the vehicles approaching, as they operate very quietly.
78.In September, the Department published its minimal technical requirements for e-scooters to enable operators to participate in the trials. The Minister told us ”we have set out vehicle standards around having two independent braking systems. They must have lights. They must have reflectors. They must pass some stability tests.” The Minister also said it would be mandatory for e-scooters to be fitted with a way to make an audible warning sound (either a horn or a bell).
79.The Department has also not specified a minimum wheel size in its guidance for rental e-scooters. However, Anthony Ferguson, Deputy Director of Traffic and Technology, told us that this will be considered as part of the stability tests:
The crucial point is the stability test. The key thing to say about that is that we have largely followed the German model, which we think is one of the best. It is probably the gold standard in European regulation. That is what we are relying on. Otherwise, we could specify a minimum wheel size and the vehicle might not meet the stability test. It is stability that matters. When someone is riding a vehicle on uneven terrain, we need to know that they will be able to stop, and stop safely.
80.The Department must use the data gathered during the rental trials, in addition to qualitative and quantitative evidence from other countries, to determine which e-scooter design requirements are appropriate and necessary from a safety perspective. This exercise will help inform minimum standard specifications should privately owned e-scooters be legalised for use on UK roads.
81.It is important that riders of e-scooters take measures to protect themselves on the roads, including wearing protective equipment and ensuring they understand how to operate scooters safely and according to the Highway Code. Key considerations for rider safety include what type of training, if any, e-scooter riders should have before using a scooter and whether they should be required to wear a helmet.
82.For the trials the Government has not made it a mandatory requirement for users to receive training prior to using an e-scooter, although it has said that local authorities can specify training requirements in their agreements with operators. Several witnesses mentioned that training was important, for both rental and privately-owned e-scooters. For rental scooters, some witnesses said that operators should require users to undertake training or as a condition of hiring an e-scooter. Cycling UK said “we urge that the providers of e-scooters should at least be required to provide information, for example an instructional video, for users of e-scooter schemes at the point when they subscribe.”
83.Some operators told us they have a compulsory in-app training video that users must watch before they rent a scooter for the first time and others offered in-person public training events in certain places, including at the launch of local schemes. We asked the Minister whether training should be required for rental e-scooter users. She said “there is no compulsory training for the renters because these vehicles are designed with minimum safety standards in mind. They are incredibly easy to use. They are easier to use than even a cycle, so we did not think it was necessary to mandate training.”
84.The Government has recommended that users of rental e-scooters wear a helmet for their journeys, but it is not a mandatory requirement. This is consistent with the Government’s position on helmet use for bikes and e-bikes. Local authorities have discretion to require e-scooter rental operators to provide helmets. The Government previously considered whether helmets should be mandatory for cyclists in its 2018 ‘Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy: Safety Review’. That review concluded that, while there is evidence that helmet use can reduce head injuries, there is mixed evidence on mandating helmets, with some evidence suggesting that any apparent safety benefit could be a result of reduced participation in cycling. The International Transport Forum reported evidence that users of rental micro-mobility services are less likely to wear a helmet than people who privately own a micro-mobility vehicle and are also more likely to be deterred by a mandatory helmet requirement.
85.Elsewhere, there are varying rules on helmets: in many countries it is the choice of the rider, but in some jurisdictions a helmet is a legal requirement. It may also be requirement for people in certain age groups: France Italy and Sweden have made it mandatory for those under a certain age to wear a helmet on an e-scooter. Some Australian and US states mandate wearing a helmet for all e-scooter users.
86.While many witnesses emphasised the importance of wearing a helmet, there were mixed views on whether they should be mandatory. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents strongly recommended that e-scooter riders wear a helmet. TfL said that “there may be a case for making helmets mandatory or other protective headwear, due to the increased risk of head injuries”. Others, however, felt that rules around helmet use should be consistent with that for bikes and e-bikes, with some raising the concern that mandating helmets for e-scooters may discourage their use. Pure Electric said “where mandatory helmet use has been tested in relation to cycling, it has led to a fall in cycling activity. There is no reason to anticipate a different outcome in relation to e-scooters.”
87.E-scooter rental operators told us about some of the initiatives they have been carrying out to encourage helmet use, including promotional campaigns, giving out free helmets to users and offering discounts on helmets to their customers. Bird told us that it has given away over 70,000 helmets at global safety and rider education events and was exploring new innovations such as foldable helmets that can be attached to the vehicle.
88.Giving evidence, the Minister reaffirmed the Government’s position on helmets for e-scooters:
We strongly recommend that cycling and e-scooter users wear a helmet, but we have not made it mandatory in the same way that it is not mandatory for cycles. The reason for that is that we conducted a recent review in the Department, and we found that the evidence was inconclusive on whether mandating cycle helmets in and of itself improved safety.”
89.In addition to helmets, some witnesses suggested that riders should be encouraged to wear high visibility or reflective clothing when riding an e-scooter to ensure they can be seen clearly by other road and pavement users. In its e-scooter trials guidance for users, the Government advises that e-scooter uses “wear light-coloured or fluorescent clothing so that other road users can see you in daylight, poor light and in the dark.”
90.We understand that it may not always be practical or feasible for users of rental e-scooters to obtain and wear a helmet. It is important, however, that e-scooter operators involved with the trials encourage users to wear helmets, and where possible, operators should provide them. Should privately owned e-scooters be legalised for use on roads, the Department should likewise encourage helmet use.
91.Whether e-scooters will prove to be a successful addition to the UK’s transport mix depends on their safe integration with other road and pavement users. Many witnesses suggested that e-scooters should be treated in a similar way to bikes and e-bikes and be permitted on low speed roads and cycle lanes. Some suggested that they should be permitted on roads with speed limits of up to 30 mph. Plans for the first e-scooter rental trial in the Tees Valley were modified after local residents raised complaints that e-scooters had illegally been ridden by underage users on an A-road with a 70mph speed limit.
92.Most witnesses agreed that e-scooters should be banned from pavements due to concerns around the safety of pedestrians. The AA told us that a survey it carried out in May 2020 found that 90% of respondents reported that the safety of pedestrians would be a concern should e-scooters be permitted on pavements. The AA said it was of paramount importance to keep the pavement a “safe haven” for pedestrians. Some witnesses, including the AA, Living Streets, and Guide Dogs also suggested that e-scooters should not be permitted on mixed pedestrian and cycle pathways (often referred to as “shared-use” areas). The RNIB told us that shared-use areas are already “well documented as being really difficult areas for blind and partially sighted people, as well as lots of other people.” The London Assembly Transport Committee noted:
Pavements already designated for shared use with cycle facilities need careful consideration. Some of these shared use pavements are designed as a safety measure to avoid dangerous junctions. The importance of improving the quality of cycle infrastructure as a whole and considering the safety of all road and pavement users, is further highlighted if e-scooters are to be introduced.
93.Some witnesses noted concerns that e-scooters can be a particular risk for visually impaired people, and those with disabilities or limited mobility. TfL noted that pavements are “essential to the active travel of disabled people”, and said that any docking station areas for e-scooters should be clearly separated from the pavement. The RNIB commented that e-scooters pose a “real and genuine threat to the ability of blind and partially sighted people to move around independently and safely.” Guide Dogs, a charity for blind and partially sighted people, told us it had held focus groups with people with visual impairments. A key concern raised was the difficulty detecting e-scooters and knowing they were coming because they operated very quietly. One person said:
It is scary, you don’t know what’s coming, and how fast it’s coming, and what kind of vehicle it is.
94.Both the RNIB and Guide Dogs noted that people with visual impairments already experience issues with cyclists riding on the pavement illegally. We heard that this is likely to be exacerbated by the introduction of rental e-scooters, and that even prior to the Government’s trials there were problems with people using privately owned e-scooters illegally on the pavements. In its written evidence, the RNIB said:
Unfortunately, it seems that police and local authorities do not see cycling on pavements as a serious issue, and the offence is often not enforced. If more small vehicles like e-scooters become widely available for use, this problem is likely to be further exacerbated.
95.In September, one of the new rental trials in Coventry was “paused” after only five days of operation after users were seen illegally mounting the pavement and riding in shopping areas.
96.Several witnesses highlighted that robust enforcement will be needed to prevent users riding e-scooters on pavements. However, there were concerns about how successful this would be in practice, and whether authorities and police would have the capacity to enforce pavement use effectively. The Bicycle Association noted that there was a lack of clarity on the offences that apply to illegal use of e-scooters, and the AA questioned how strictly the e-scooter trials would be enforced. The Local Government Association told us that councils will require additional funding to enforce e-scooter safety restrictions. The RNIB wanted a Government publicity campaign on e-scooters, with clear messaging not to use them on pavements.
97.E-scooter operators told us about some of the technical tools available to identify whether a user has ridden on the pavement. Lime told us that they can retrospectively identify if a user has ridden on the pavement by comparing the data from users’ journeys. It is then possible to penalize a user retrospectively. Voi said “where people try to break the law, there are ways in which we can stop them. If we know that someone is reported with GPS, we will know who that person was and when they did it. We can enforce that later.” Voi also said that over time, with improvements in technology, it may be possible to more proactively identify e-scooter users riding illegally on pavements. There remain wider concerns about enforcing the use of privately owned e-scooters, which are not part of the trials, as they are not subject to restrictions and penalties by an operator in the same way rental ones are.
98.In its guidance for e-scooter operators and local authorities, the Department said that prior to approving a trial scheme, the operator and local authority must demonstrate that they have considered enforcement issues with the relevant authorities, and that the e-scooter vehicles they plan to deploy can be made visible and distinct from privately owned e-scooters. The Minister told us “we would not authorise any trial to go ahead unless it had evidence that it had engaged with the law enforcement agencies in its local area and had constructed a robust and realistic enforcement plan.” The Minister clarified the offences for illegal e-scooter use: “users can be fined up to £300. They can have six points put on their driving licence, and the e-scooter can be impounded. There are also offences under the Road Traffic Act related to drunk driving and careless driving. They would also apply to e-scooter users.”
99.An e-scooter travelling on a pavement at a speed of up to 15.5 mph is a serious hazard both for the user and pedestrians. Local authorities need plans in place to monitor and discourage pavement use during rental trials in their local areas. Rental e-scooter operators must use the technology available to vigorously discourage pavement use. Local authorities and e-scooter operators must be able to demonstrate that measures to tackle such dangerous and antisocial behaviour are effective.
100.In responding to this Report, the Department should clarify how it intends to monitor whether e-scooters during the rental trials are being ridden on pavements and the number of users penalised for this offence and that it has evaluated and identified effective measures to eliminate such antisocial behaviour.
101.Should privately-owned e-scooters be legalised, the Government should ensure that the law clearly prohibits the pavement use of e-scooters, that there are robust enforcement measures are in place and that such measures are effective in eliminating this behaviour.
102.When parked on pavements, e-scooters can increase the amount of ‘street clutter’ (poorly placed or redundant street furniture), which may present obstacles to pedestrians. This can be particularly dangerous for disabled people or those with visual or mobility impairments. Since introducing rental schemes, several cities in other countries have experienced problems with e-scooters being littered on the pavements and causing obstructions. For example, in Paris, a large influx of e-scooters caused street clutter issues and led to a ban on them being left on pavements or in pedestrian zones. We previously heard evidence around the negative impacts of street clutter in our inquiry into pavement parking.
103.The Department has said that during the e-scooter rental trials, local authorities will be able to specify the total number of vehicles permitted in a certain region, and which areas rental e-scooters can be used and parked. It also noted that “for trials to be effective, there will need to be sufficient parking provision in trial areas; where a dockless operating model is being used, local authorities should ensure that e-scooters do not become obstructive to other road users and pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities.”
104.Many witnesses raised concerns about the potential for street clutter with rental schemes, with some noting its potentially negative impact on older people, disabled people, those with visual impairments, and people with child buggies. Living Streets said that “dockless e-scooters (and bikes) can be unlocked with a phone app and left anywhere when a ride is finished. As rental scheme operators jockey into position to grab the largest market share there is a risk that e-scooters will inundate footways and cause an obstruction to pedestrians”. The RNIB raised concerns that e-scooters would exacerbate problems already seen with dockless bike hire schemes:
Rental dockless bike schemes have caused significant problems for disabled pedestrians because they are often left partly or entirely obstructing pavements. This has caused injury when people with sight loss walk into the bikes and has also forced people out into the road with other fast-moving traffic.
105.Several witnesses were supportive of designated parking areas, or specific ‘no parking zones’, for e-scooters. The London Assembly Transport Committee said it is “vital that shared micromobility schemes, including e-scooters, are provided with adequate parking space and users are incentivised to leave these vehicles in places that do not obstruct pavements or roads.” The RNIB emphasised that they wanted to see physical separation between e-scooter parking areas and the pavements. The operator Dott told us that elsewhere in Europe, “using parking hubs has been very successful and we see 95% of trips ending in the correct locations—helped by cities providing on street signage.”
106.E-scooter providers highlighted other measures taken to minimise street clutter, including using “geofencing”, which creates virtual parking areas that a user can view on a smartphone app. Users are required or encouraged to park their e-scooter in these designated zones at the end of their journey. E-scooter companies also emphasised that they educate users via their apps on how and where to park e-scooters. In some cases e-scooter companies may enforce improper parking of e-scooters via their apps. Riders may be subject to escalating warnings, resulting in a user being banned or fined for repeated breaches of the rules.
107.We asked the Minister how the Government intends to ensure street clutter is kept to a minimum throughout the trials, noting problems that had been experienced elsewhere in Europe. She emphasised that e-scooter trials will require close co-operation between the local authorities and operators. She told us that the Department has made a small amount of funding available to local authorities as part of the trials and that “some of the funding that we have introduced will enable the local authorities to, for example, set up parking bays and docking stations in their local area. We have required them to engage very closely with operators to make sure that they are taking into account those issues.”
108.Rental e-scooters left on pavements as ‘street clutter’ can cause a hazard for pedestrians, particularly people with visual impairments and those with limited mobility. We do not want to see British towns and cities develop the dangerous and unsightly street clutter problems with e-scooters, experienced in some other European cities. We are encouraged that e-scooter companies are increasingly using technological solutions to prevent dockless e-scooters being left in a haphazard fashion on pavements.
109.The Department, working with local authorities, should closely monitor the trials to determine whether any problems are developing with scooters being left on pavements as ‘street clutter’. If so, the Department will need to trial and evaluate whether stronger regulation to specify where users must deposit rental e-scooters after their journey is effective in eliminating these problems. This ought to be done before making a decision on whether to legalise rental e-scooters on a more permanent basis.
99 “”, South China Morning Post, 4 November 2019
100 “ ’’, BBC, 25 October 2019
101 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020
102 For example, Transport for London (ESC0049), Bicycle Association (ESC0055), Bolt (ESC0064), TIER (ESC0067), Guide Dogs (ESC0074), Yawboard (ESC0006), Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ESC0022), Pure Electric (ESC0031), Xiaomi (ESC0039), Sustrans (ESC0044).
104 Q75 [Bird]
105 For example, Pure Electric (ESC0031), Xiaomi (ESC0039), Dott (ESC0060), Bolt (ESC0064), TIER (ESC0067), Weightmans (ESC0054), Paul Turner (ESC0019), Helbiz (ESC0016) Taur (ESC0010), Voi (Q73)
106 Halfords (ESC0030)
108 For example, ROSPA (ESC0022), Sustrans (ESC0044), Transport for London (ESC0049), British Insurance Brokers’ Association (ESC0059), Urban Transport Group (ESC0068), Transport for Greater Manchester (ESC0071),
109 Cycling UK (ESC0086)
110 Bicycle Association (ESC0055), Guide Dogs (ESC0074)
111 For example, Bicycle Association (Q26), Living Streets (Q28)
113 For example, Bolt (ESC0064), Voi (Q119), Lime (Q74)
114 “Cities use invisible geofencing to control use of e-scooters”, Government Technology, 18 September 2019
115 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020; Q119
116 Q119 [Department for Transport]
117 Q 119
118 Electric Scooter Guide, ‘ , accessed 28 September 2020
119 For example, Taur Technologies (ESC0010), British Insurance Brokers’ Association (ESC0059).
120 For example, Cycling UK (ESC0086), Guide Dogs (ESC0074).
122 For example, Voi (Q84), Bird (Qq 74, 84), Superpedestrian (ESC0075).
123 Q 84
124 For example, Taur Technologies (ESC0010), Pure Electric (ESC0031).
125 For example, Motorcycle Industry Association (ESC0035), Taur Technologies (ESC0010), Motor Insurers’ Bureau (ESC0037), Transport for London (ESC0049), Swifty Scooters (ESC0063).
126 Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (ESC0051)
127 For example, Transport for London (ESC0049), Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ESC0022), Urban Transport Group (ESC0068), Dott (ESC0060), Taur (ESC0010).
128 For example, Pure Electric (ESC0031), Weightmans (ESC0054), Swifty Scooters (ESC0063).
129 For example, Yawboard (ESC0006), Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (ESC0056), Guide Dogs (ESC0074), British Insurance Brokers’ Association (ESC0059), Road Safety Support (ESC0052).
130 Guide Dogs (ESC0074), Royal National Institute of Blind People (ESC0065)
131 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020, Annex
135 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020
136 For example, Transport for London (ESC0049), Cycling UK (ESC0086), Road Haulage Association (ESC0032).
137 For example, King’s Cross Brunswick Neighbourhood Association (ESC0082).
138 Cycling UK (ESC0086)
139 For example, Lime (Q77), Bird (Q79).
140 For example, Helbiz Inc. (ESC0016), Bird (Q79), Voi (Q80), TIER Mobility GmbH (ESC0067).
142 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020
143 Department for Transport, , November 2018
145 Taur, ‘?’, accessed 28 September 2020
146 Regulating electric scooters (e-scooters), , House of Commons Library, August 2020
147 Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ESC0022)
148 Transport for London (ESC0049). For other examples, see Brewery Logistics Group (ESC0013), James Darroch (ESC0017), Go-Ahead (ESC0043), Road Safety Support (ESC0052), Association of British Insurers (ESC0053).
149 For example, Westminster City Council (ESC0041), Dott (ESC0060), Drive Tech (ESC0062), TIER (ESC0067), Superpedestrian (ESC0075).
150 For example, Taur Technoliges (ESC0010).
151 Pure Electric (ESC0031)
152 For example, Helbiz Inc. (ESC0016), Voi (Q80), Lime (Q77).
153 Q78. See also TIER (ESC0067).
155 For example, Halfords (ESC0030), Go-Ahead (ESC0043), Road Safety Support (ESC0052), Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ESC0022).
156 Department for Transport, ‘, accessed 28 September 2020
157 For example, Yawboard (ESC0006), Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ESC0022), Taur Technologies (ESC0010), Helbiz Inc. (ESC0016), Zain Hussain and Stiofan Folan-Hasici (ESC0018), Halfords (ESC0030), Pure Electric (ESC0031), Sustrans (ESC0044), Weightmans (ESC0054).
158 “”, The Independent, 1 August 2020
159 For example, Brewery Logistics Group (ESC0013), Westminster City Council (ESC0041), TIER (ESC0067), Yawboard (ESC0006), Living Streets (ESC0044), Bicycle Assocation (Q34), Guide Dogs (ESC0074), Royal National Institute of Blind People (ESC0065).
162 London Assembly Transport Committee (ESC0033)
163 For example, London Assembly Transport Committee (ESC0033), Guide Dogs (ESC0074), Motorcycle Industry Association (ESC0035), Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (ESC0056).
164 Transport for London (ESC0049)
166 Guide Dogs (ESC0074)
167 Royal National Institute of Blind People (ESC0065)
168 “”, The Times, 15 September 2020
169 For example, Royal National Institute of Blind People (ESC0065), Motor Insurers’ Bureau (ESC0037), Dott (ESC0060), TIER (ESC0067), Urban Transport Group (ESC0068).
170 For example, Royal National Institute of Blind People (Q27), Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (ESC0051).
171 Qq 29, Q34
172 Local Government Association (ESC0027)
176 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020
178 “”, The Connexion, 31 July 2019
179 Transport Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2017–19, , HC 1982
180 Department for Transport, E-scooter trials: guidance for local areas and rental operators, June 2020
181 For example, Brewery Logistics Group (ESC0013), Road Haulage Association (ESC0032), London Assembly Transport Committee (ESC0033), Sustrans (ESC0044), Helbiz (ESC0016), Guide Dogs (EC0074).
182 Living Streets (ESC0047)
183 Royal National Institute for Blind People (ESC0065)
184 For example, Dott (ESC0060), Bolt (ESC0064), TIER (ESC0067), Lime (ESC0070), Guide Dogs (ESC0074).
185 London Assembly Transport Committee (ESC0033)
187 Dott (ESC0060)
188 For example, TIER (ESC0067), Dott (ESC0060), Lime (ESC0070).
189 For example, Bird (Q92), Helbiz Inc. (ESC0016), TIER (ESC0067).
190 For example, Helbiz Inc (ESC0016).
191 Qq 111, 128
Published: 2 October 2020