Seems like a very British solution to me (being a nation that cares little for liberty); if the police have had enough being constantly called to deal with another 10 being stolen today I'm not surprised they'd only permit company vehicles.
After all, there's no economic value to be gained in stealing them and the insurance premiums for destruction (including simply throwing them into the Thames) is distributed across the customer base. If there are thieves stealing them for parts they'll be easier to detect (since it's not plausibly deniable to claim a company scooter is yours).
Combine that with the fact that it'd be trivial to disable all transport in the case of civil unrest, and you seem to have a winning policy for Londoners.
That they have always been banned is an accident of the way a very old law on vehicles was written.
Making an exception to that law for rentals in limited areas was seen as more controlled than allowing everything, although looking at other cities allowing only non-rental usage first might be more sensible.
In the context of UK law, e-scooters are motorised vehicles which make them illegal to use on the sidewalk. However, they don't come close to meeting the legal requirements for use on the road (no turn signals, for example) making it illegal to use there. Personal e-scooters aren't technically banned (they are available to buy), but there is no where on public property where you can legally ride them (not that it stops people). Therefore, the only way an e-scooter can be used legally is if a special provision has been made for a trial with rental scooters in select locations (Oxford being the one that I am familiar with).
From personal experience even police don’t care. Just don’t do anything too dangerous,I guess. In a way it’s better to operate in a legal gray zone because you don’t need to worry about things like licenses and insurance and fines etc.
Except the streets are still littered with them. While cycling to work a while ago, i came across one parked in the middle of a segregated bike lane, in between a fence and a lane of heavy traffic. If this is the authority maximising control, i dread to think what uncontrolled use looks like.
qball|2 years ago
After all, there's no economic value to be gained in stealing them and the insurance premiums for destruction (including simply throwing them into the Thames) is distributed across the customer base. If there are thieves stealing them for parts they'll be easier to detect (since it's not plausibly deniable to claim a company scooter is yours).
Combine that with the fact that it'd be trivial to disable all transport in the case of civil unrest, and you seem to have a winning policy for Londoners.
Symbiote|2 years ago
Making an exception to that law for rentals in limited areas was seen as more controlled than allowing everything, although looking at other cities allowing only non-rental usage first might be more sensible.
goodcanadian|2 years ago
Vespasian|2 years ago
That means some required safety features, mandatory insurance, minimum driver age and rules about what part of the road you can use.
It seems to work quite well in practice, however, I question the economic viability of the business model.
In my ~80k inhabitants, touristy city I see them rarely used and the few times I took one they seemed quite expensive.
Bird already left the again.
FridayoLeary|2 years ago
muyuu|2 years ago
it makes sense in a way
twic|2 years ago
easytiger|2 years ago
Their USP is they can be left anywhere.
https://i.imgur.com/s59Bvf3.png
te_chris|2 years ago
You pic shows them towards a corner kerb with space behind.
renewiltord|2 years ago
petodo|2 years ago