Another One For The Bar Room Lawyers (Meant In The Nicest Poss. Way Btw)

[CommanderDave]

I think they may want to revise their advice on that. I think the only powered vehicles that are allowed on the paths are Mobility scooters with a top speed of up to 4mph.

 

 

 

This was the argument over the electric hover boards that are illegal on the pavement and roads last year.

 

 

 

Dave

[beejay]

I built a Toylander, a baby series one Land Rover. It is fully insured, and the grand children drive it up and down our close!

If they unfortunately hit something they are insured!

 

 

There may be insurance for the Toylander but is it really insured for use on the public highway be it footpath or carriageway?

 

This may be of interest. ....

 

In a High Court case (CC N Yorks v Saddington, Oct 2000), a Go-Ped petrol-driven micro-scooter was found to come within the definition of a motor vehicle under Section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This means that their use is governed by the same legislation that applies to motorcycles and mopeds, since there is no criteria for minimum power or speed output.

Since then, the Vehicle Certification Agency, responsible for approving new vehicles, has considered that electric micro-scooters are also covered by the ruling, since they are no less ‘mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads’.This was more recently confirmed in a subsequent High Court case (Letitia Water v DPP, July 2002) involving a City Bug electric model.

They are therefore deemed to be mopeds in the eyes of the law, since mopeds are the lowest powered two-wheel vehicles. However, this means they must meet the standards required for a moped to be used on the road. This will include the requirements for mirrors and lights, under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. It is therefore illegal to ride a typical fun electric micro-scooter on the road.

It is also illegal to use them on cycle paths and pavements, where mopeds are not permitted. This leads to the ridiculous situation that the only legal place to ride an electric scooter is on private property.

“…riders potentially face a £1,000 fine and 6-8 points on their driving licence…”..

 

or this. ...

 

Any vehicle outside the scope of The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 due to the motor power output, speed up to which power can be provided, weight, or that do not have pedals by means of which the machine can be propelled,

are considered to be motor vehicles. They will need to be registered, licensed and taxed, insured and the rider will need an appropriate driving licence and wear a motorcycle safety helmet.

 

Four wheeled vehicles and vehicles propelled by an internal combustion engine are also considered to be motor vehicles.

 

Machines resembling a child’s scooter but which are fitted with either an electric motor or an internal combustion engine, have been determined by two High Court judgements to be motor vehicles within the meaning of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

[Rolling Stone]

I may be going against the flow here but given the amount of damage to the car and caravan was the 14 old hurt in this incident?

 

David

I read this thread last night and had intended to post exactly the same question.

 

As a parent of 2 teenagers (one 14) it made me cringe and hope for the best. ..

[Lutz]

I don't see any need for compulsory insurance in a case like the one described as the claim is always against the third party that caused the accident. Whether or not they have an insurance to cover such a claim is purely incidental. Third party insurance for motor vehicles is only compulsory because they can potentially cause so much damage and injury that the person to blame may never be able to make a settlement out of his/her own financial resources. However, in the case of an electric scooter, this is less likely to be the case. It may be advisable to have insurance, but not compulsory.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Lutz

[Pheasant]

I think they may want to revise their advice on that. I think the only powered vehicles that are allowed on the paths are Mobility scooters with a top speed of up to 4mph.

That is correct,faster than 4mph only allowed on road. but I see many batting along at much faster speeds,even on pavements.

Our 4mph mobility buggy is fully insured,I think it should be compulsory.

[philspot]

 

 

There may be insurance for the Toylander but is it really insured for use on the public highway be it footpath or carriageway?

 

This may be of interest. ....

 

In a High Court case (CC N Yorks v Saddington, Oct 2000), a Go-Ped petrol-driven micro-scooter was found to come within the definition of a motor vehicle under Section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This means that their use is governed by the same legislation that applies to motorcycles and mopeds, since there is no criteria for minimum power or speed output.

Since then, the Vehicle Certification Agency, responsible for approving new vehicles, has considered that electric micro-scooters are also covered by the ruling, since they are no less ‘mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on roads’.This was more recently confirmed in a subsequent High Court case (Letitia Water v DPP, July 2002) involving a City Bug electric model.

They are therefore deemed to be mopeds in the eyes of the law, since mopeds are the lowest powered two-wheel vehicles. However, this means they must meet the standards required for a moped to be used on the road. This will include the requirements for mirrors and lights, under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. It is therefore illegal to ride a typical fun electric micro-scooter on the road.

It is also illegal to use them on cycle paths and pavements, where mopeds are not permitted. This leads to the ridiculous situation that the only legal place to ride an electric scooter is on private property.

“…riders potentially face a £1,000 fine and 6-8 points on their driving licence…”..

 

or this. ...

 

Any vehicle outside the scope of The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 due to the motor power output, speed up to which power can be provided, weight, or that do not have pedals by means of which the machine can be propelled,

are considered to be motor vehicles. They will need to be registered, licensed and taxed, insured and the rider will need an appropriate driving licence and wear a motorcycle safety helmet.

 

Four wheeled vehicles and vehicles propelled by an internal combustion engine are also considered to be motor vehicles.

 

Machines resembling a child’s scooter but which are fitted with either an electric motor or an internal combustion engine, have been determined by two High Court judgements to be motor vehicles within the meaning of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

Would anyone agree with the (large font,red, underlined) words in this context?

[sgthakeswell]

If the insurers won't go after the family for the damage i think i would be going after them myself in the small claims court - they obviously must have bought the scooter for the hooligan so they must accept resposiblity. Make them pay and maybe they will be more diligent in controlling their offspring.

[Towtug]

If the insurers won't go after the family for the damage i think i would be going after them myself in the small claims court - they obviously must have bought the scooter for the hooligan so they must accept resposiblity. Make them pay and maybe they will be more diligent in controlling their offspring.

Hooligan is a bit strong.

The kid was on his way home from school, the scooter was bought as a means of transport as the free school bus boundary was changed. Parents apparently never even considered the legality.

[sgthakeswell]

Hooligan is a bit strong.

The kid was on his way home from school, the scooter was bought as a means of transport as the free school bus boundary was changed. Parents apparently never even considered the legality.

Fair enough

[beejay]

Would anyone agree with the (large font,red, underlined) words in this context?

 

 

Not sure what your point is but if you think 'it' is ridulous you may have a different opinion if your property was seriously damaged or if a relative was seriously injured by such a means of transport.

[philspot]

 

 

Not sure what your point is but if you think 'it' is ridulous you may have a different opinion if your property was seriously damaged or if a relative was seriously injured by such a means of transport.

What I was hoping to suggest was that the attitude of whoever wrote the piece was itself ridiculous, as he/she seemed to think that those who have bought an electric scooter (or similar) can't be refused the right to ride them wherever they want simply because it's illegal. "Well, where do you expect me to ride it, then", to quote young persons riding their off-road scramblers on our local playing field. There seems to be a belief that if a vehicle exists, you have a right to ride it somewhere, and that "somewhere" can't be their back garden (it's too small), so you've got to provide an alternative, if necessary the pavement!!

(I think the police, having caught such persons riding illegally on their "bikes", should immediately take them to be crushed - but then they'd have to work out what to do with all those bikes. )

[Black Grouse]

They do have them crushed round our way, the problem like so much law enforcement is the lack of police on the ground.

 

Presumably the crushed bikes go to landfill?

[CommanderDave]

If you move your caravan on a public highway using the caravan movers does it then become a electric powered vehicle and require third party insurance to be legal ?

 

 

 

Dave

[Towtug]

If you move your caravan on a public highway using the caravan movers does it then become a electric powered vehicle and require third party insurance to be legal ?

 

 

 

Dave

In my opinin if a vehicle is used in any way that could injure, harm or financialy disadvantage another road user or pedestrian it should be covered for Third party risks, at least it is homologated as a vehicle which can be used on a highway, whereas electric scooters, segways etc are not. However, trailers are not homologated as self propelled vehicles and as such shouldn't be used in this way on the highway. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it though.

[Lutz]

Surely, if the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident is able to settle third party claims out his own pocket then why should he be required to take out an insurance? The whole object of insurance is to cover situations where this is not the case. Admittedly, third party claims in a traffic incident can be quite substantial and the therefore the risk of not being able to settle a claim is relatively high, so I can understand the need for compulsory insurance in such cases, but in the end the person causing the accident has to pay regardless of whether he does so out of his own pocket or through an insurance.

 

I have had minor accidents where it has been advantageous to settle privately without involving my insurance at all and losing no-claims discount.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Lutz

[Towtug]

Surely, if the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident is able to settle third party claims out his own pocket then why should he be required to take out an insurance? The whole object of insurance is to cover situations where this is not the case. Admittedly, third party claims in a traffic incident can be quite substantial and the therefore the risk of not being able to settle a claim is relatively high, so I can understand the need for compulsory insurance in such cases, but in the end the person causing the accident has to pay regardless of whether he does so out of his own pocket or through an insurance.

 

I have had minor accidents where it has been advantageous to settle privately without involving my insurance at all and losing no-claims discount.

There in lies the problem Lutz, even minor scrapes involving motor vehicles (especially through insurance) attract huge bills, and it's all too easy for someone without cover to claim they can't pay. The cost of legal action to recover costs is generally prohibitive and unhelpful if the "guilty" party doesn't have the money.

 

I also think the insurance industry in the UK needs investigating, I recently had a quote for my son's car to fix the rear bumper after someone ran into him. Using the main dealer they quoted about £800, when the other party insisted on going through insurance the sane dealer requoted and the total cost to the insurers was nearly £2300.

[Lutz]

But even £2300 may be worth paying out of one's own pocket if one has accrued a substantial no-claims bonus.

[Towtug]

But even £2300 may be worth paying out of one's own pocket if one has accrued a substantial no-claims bonus.

That may be the case, but it does seem wrong to me that as in this case the person who bears no fault and who has insurance is the one who has to bear the cost. EG Two excesses and loss of no claims bonus.

To add salt to the wound, the scooter rider now has an no win no fee lawyer firm taking up an injury claim on their behalf. That just adds more costs to the eventual insurance bill.

[philspot]

Surely, if the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident is able to settle third party claims out his own pocket then why should he be required to take out an insurance? The whole object of insurance is to cover situations where this is not the case. Admittedly, third party claims in a traffic incident can be quite substantial and the therefore the risk of not being able to settle a claim is relatively high, so I can understand the need for compulsory insurance in such cases, but in the end the person causing the accident has to pay regardless of whether he does so out of his own pocket or through an insurance.

 

I have had minor accidents where it has been advantageous to settle privately without involving my insurance at all and losing no-claims discount.

There certainly was (in the past) the facility for individuals to simply deposit a sum of money with (not sure who) instead of taking out insurance. Even in the 1950's, however, the sum was, I believe, over 1 million pounds.

I'm sure there must be some on this Forum who might wish to avail themselves of this handy feature, if it still exists. ...after all, with interest rates so low, what is there to lose??

[Black Grouse]

There certainly was (in the past) the facility for individuals to simply deposit a sum of money with (not sure who) instead of taking out insurance. Even in the 1950's, however, the sum was, I believe, over 1 million pounds.

I'm sure there must be some on this Forum who might wish to avail themselves of this handy feature, if it still exists. ...after all, with interest rates so low, what is there to lose??

In 1988, it was £500,000 deposited with the "Accountant General of the Senior Courts" - the £1,000,000 was the maximum payable, then, under RTA compulsory insurance.

 

I don't know if that facility is still in place.

[Lutz]

That may be the case, but it does seem wrong to me that as in this case the person who bears no fault and who has insurance is the one who has to bear the cost. EG Two excesses and loss of no claims bonus.

To add salt to the wound, the scooter rider now has an no win no fee lawyer firm taking up an injury claim on their behalf. That just adds more costs to the eventual insurance bill.

 

Why does the person who bears no fault have to bear the cost? Surely all costs can be passed on to the third party even he doesn't have an insurance, if necessary by civil action?

[Towtug]

 

Why does the person who bears no fault have to bear the cost? Surely all costs can be passed on to the third party even he doesn't have an insurance, if necessary by civil action?

The insurance covers the repair costs but the insured still has to cover the excesses.

[Lutz]

The insurance covers the repair costs but the insured still has to cover the excesses.

 

I was assuming that one would not be involving one's own insurance at all but claiming directly from the third party, so there would be no excesses.

[Towtug]

 

I was assuming that one would not be involving one's own insurance at all but claiming directly from the third party, so there would be no excesses.

That's the point. The "guilty" party is uninsured and effectively can avoid any responsibility.

[KNARF]

The insurance covers the repair costs but the insured still has to cover the excesses.

A large proportion of motorists take out legal cover who take on the case of recovering uninsured losses from a third party.

knarf