Download this response in Word format

Download this response in pdf format

Proposals description (government introduction provided)

We plan to empower elected local leaders regulate On-Street Micromobility (OSM) schemes to maximise their benefits and limit their negative impacts. The proposed scope of the types of schemes to be regulated are those whose vehicles are parked on public land and/or are particularly impacting pedestrians in shared street space. Initially, this regulatory framework would cover shared cycles and e-cycles. It is designed to be expanded to cover other vehicle types and operations in the future as necessary, particularly those which similarly impact upon pedestrian space.

It is our view that there are problems with how these schemes currently operate, including insufficient local influence over schemes, an imbalance of access to information, market uncertainty, and geographic inequity.

In our view, there are potential benefits to shared micromobility, including reducing inactivity, greener transport, and better integrated transport systems. There are also potential disbenefits such as obstructive parking and antisocial behaviour. We are looking to strike a balance in its regulatory approach to allow local areas to maximise these potential benefits and minimise disbenefits, helping this emerging market to flourish in a way which works for whole communities.

The underlying principles for the proposed regulatory intervention to ensure its functionality and effectiveness are: consistency, adaptability, proportionality, enforceability, and accountability. In its assessment of how best to maximise benefits, minimise disbenefits, and align with these principles, we have settled upon licensing for OSM schemes as its preferred option.

The proposed licensing approach would require a licence to operate an OSM scheme, and to operate a scheme without a licence would be a criminal offence. Local authorities would be designated as ‘licensing authorities’ and be responsible for issuing licences in their area. As part of this proposed approach, the Secretary of State for Transport would set some minimum standard conditions common to all licences to ensure all schemes operate under a baseline level of safety and effectiveness. Licensing authorities could then add their own bespoke conditions to best align OSM schemes with local needs and priorities. An area in which we recognise a particular need to balance differing local interests is in the provision of parking for OSM schemes, especially where responsibilities belong to different tiers of local government. The proposed solution for ensuring adequate parking provision for licensed schemes is a legal duty for local highway authorities to cooperate with licensed schemes and licensing authorities.

We are also interested in views at this point on the necessity of a bespoke appeals process in relation to OSM licensing decisions.

At this stage, we are seeking to consult only on key aspects and broad principles of this overall approach. The finer detail, such as how a licensing framework would operate on a practical level, would be set out in secondary legislation following the provision of powers to do so by parliament in primary legislation. Further consultation on such details will be carried out before regulations are made to enact this regulatory framework.

Operations reasoning

6.     To what extent do you agree or disagree that the types of operations we expect to be covered by a new framework is appropriate?

Disagree

7.     Why?

Given the significant number of eScooter trials and the popularity of eScooters, we believe the framework should include eScooters

Micromobility

Initially, this framework would cover shared cycles and e-cycles. It is designed to be expanded to cover other vehicle types and operations in the future as necessary, particularly those which similarly impact upon pedestrian space.

Examples of schemes that are not envisaged to fall within the scope of this framework might include a group of residents wishing to share a cycle, a shop that rents out a small fleet of cycles stored on private property, or a business that leases vehicles on a longer-term basis to be used in a similar way to a private vehicle.

There is no intention to include motor vehicle hire in the scope of this policy. There are existing regulations around parking, insurance and fleet maintenance for motor vehicles.

8.     What, if any, additional micromobility scheme types do you think should be exempted from in the scope of this policy (limited to 75 words)?

Wording for these regulations must ensure that schemes which loan cycles and e-mobility to Disabled people, whether for short or long-term hire, are exempted provided that there is no significant evidence of negative impact on pedestrian space found to arise from the scheme in operation. Without this exemption being very clear, small schemes serving Disabled people may be forced to close due to expense, risk and administrative burden.

9.     What, if any, additional micromobility scheme types do you think should be included from in the scope of this policy (limited to 75 words)?

All hire cycle and micromobility schemes that are not intended largely or wholly for use by Disabled people should be included in this policy: Specifically, e-scooter schemes should be included.

10. What, if any, additional micromobility vehicle types do you think should be excluded from in the scope of this policy (limited to 75 words)?

Micromobility schemes largely or wholly designed to serve Disabled people, including assisting mobility for paid and unpaid carers, should be exempted. Again, these schemes are likely to be small: The cost burden of scheme licencing is likely to be disproportionate and likely to prevent schemes which support Disabled people’s mobility from being able to operate at all. This would not align with the letter or spirit of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

11. What, if any, additional micromobility vehicle types do you think should be included from in the scope of this policy (limited to 75 words)?

As legislation comes into force in due course to legalise LZEVs, any LZEV that is rented in a way similar to existing eScooter and cycle/eCycle hire schemes should be included.

The opportunity for on-street micromobility

Shared micromobility is a relatively new transport mode, offering people a quick and convenient way of travelling and we have identified key opportunities of the mode if managed effectively.

We consider that this form of transport can offer three key opportunities:

Reducing inactivity – shared micromobility allows users to access public transport more conveniently and potentially replace short distance car journeys. These micromobility journeys can be more active than car journeys.

Greener transport – micromobility vehicles have zero emissions at the point of use, offering a more environmentally friendly transport option than private cars.

Creating an integrated transport system – shared micromobility schemes can make public transport offerings more accessible to users if located to serve less well-connected areas.

Any regulatory intervention should, where possible, seek to encourage usage that maximises these opportunities.

12. To what extent do you agree or disagree that:

Shared cycles present an opportunity to: strongly agree

1. Reduce inactivity: Strongly agree
2. Create an integrated transport system: Agree
3. Create a greener transport network: Agree

Shared e-cycles present an opportunity to:

1. Reduce inactivity: Strongly agree
2. Create an integrated transport system: Agree
3. Create a greener transport network: Strongly agree

Shared e-scooters present an opportunity to:

1. Reduce inactivity: Neither agree nor disagree
2. Create an integrated transport system: Agree
3. Create a greener transport network: Agree

The risks of on-street micromobility schemes

Safety is the government’s priority. Any proposed regulations must also account for the potential risks from on-street micromobility (OSM) schemes and aim to mitigate them to the greatest extent while promoting the opportunities. We consider that the two main risks are:

1. Obstructive (and potentially dangerous) parking.
2. Anti-social behaviour.

13. To what extent do you agree or disagree that:

Shared cycles present a risk of:

1. Obstructive parking: Strongly agree
2. Anti-social use: Neither agree nor disagree

Shared e-cycles present a risk of:

1. Obstructive parking: Strongly agree
2. Anti-social use: Agree

Shared e-scooters present a risk of:

1. Obstructive parking: Strongly agree
2. Anti-social use: Strongly agree

We set vehicle standards in distinct separate regulations following a robust process of evidence gathering, vehicle testing, and consultation. The inherent safety aspects of any future vehicles will be considered fully separately from the proposed intervention to manage OSM schemes. Therefore, we are seeking views here on the risks of shared micromobility operations as a model, rather than risks of specific vehicle types.

14. What, if any, other significant risks do you believe are presented by on-street micromobility schemes (limited to 75 words)?

The greatest risk is scheme design and regulation that excludes Disabled people from micromobility schemes.

Other smaller risks:

Use of hires in commission of crime similar to risk with cars, motorcycles, etc

Congestion of cycle tracks/footway, especially if on-footway parking is permitted. This is a smaller problem than parking by motor vehicles on footways and cycle provision.

While often exaggerated, some risks to pedestrians of collision including disabled pedestrians.

Licensing: the preferred approach

Currently, there is no legal requirement to seek permission from local authorities to operate an OSM scheme.

The proposed approach of licensing would provide the legal mechanism needed to ensure local authorities have the power to shape shared micromobility schemes and ensure they work for local people, and also to intervene promptly and decisively to tackle any issues which arise.

Under this approach, the Secretary of State for Transport would set minimum standards to be included in all licences which are largely expected to relate to the objective of ensuring the safe and effective operation of all schemes. These minimum standards would ensure that less experienced and/or smaller licensing authorities can be confident when issuing licences that the schemes will be operating safely and effectively.

Licensing authorities would be able to add further bespoke conditions to allow them the flexibility to ensure shared micromobility schemes work as well as possible for local communities and help them to meet their local transport objectives and priorities. Schemes would need to comply with the conditions set out in their licence or risk having that licence revoked. Operating a scheme without a licence would be a criminal offence.

15. To what extent do you agree or disagree that a licensing framework is an essential part of effectively controlling OSMR schemes?

Strongly agree

Per current proposals, the highest tier of devolved local government would grant licences for their jurisdiction. This would be for the purpose of allowing on-street micromobility schemes to be able to operate on a more region-wide basis to create a consistent, integrated transport system which reflects the nature of user journeys. Where one exists, this will be the Strategic Authority (such as Transport for London or Liverpool City Region Authority) and in other cases where there is no Strategic Authority, this might be the city council (for example Leicester City Council).

16. Assuming a licensing framework is implemented, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the ‘licensing authority’ should sit at the highest level of local government?

Don’t know

Licences would contain a number of minimum standard conditions that would be non-negotiable and common to all licences.

This is designed to ensure minimum acceptable standards of safety and operability are met in all schemes, regardless of the experience or capability of the licensing authority, whilst also providing consistency to operators.

The nature of minimum standards set by the Secretary of State have yet to be decided but could include enforcement measures as well as safety and accountability mechanisms.

17. To what extent do you agree or disagree that it would be beneficial to have minimum standard conditions that would be common to all licences for a given vehicle type (for example e-cycles)?

Strongly agree

Licensing authorities would also have the ability to add in bespoke conditions to suit local needs and priorities. For example, the number of vehicles allowed may need to vary across cities and areas of different sizes.

These conditions could include caps on:

vehicle fleet size

precise operating area

limiting operations at certain times of day

18. To what extent do you agree or disagree that licensing authorities should be able to set their own bespoke conditions in addition to minimum requirements set centrally?

Strongly agree

19. To what extent do you agree or disagree that licensing authorities ability to add bespoke local conditions should be limited to specific aspects of shared scheme operation?

Strongly agree

Bespoke local condition reasoning

20. Why (limited to 75 words)?

While responsiveness to local conditions is important, bespoke conditions must only be created where these do not discriminate against Disabled people and others with protected characteristics.

For example, many recent PSPOs prohibiting cycling don’t have adequate provisions to allow Disabled people to cycle considerately through the scheme area – even though many Disabled people cannot walk with their cycle. Comparable problems are likely to arise with bespoke local conditions applied with insufficient care to micromobility schemes.

Appeals

We are considering whether a dedicated appeals process is needed for licensing decisions. This would mean some decisions could be appealed without resorting to the courts, which could be more accessible and less costly than court proceedings. This could reduce the burden on the judicial system but could also mean appeals of licensing decisions would be more readily made. More appeals could increase the process burden on licensing authorities.

The detail of how an appeals process could work would be decided at the secondary legislative stage if we decide such a process is necessary. At this stage, we are only seeking views on whether such an appeals process is necessary in principle.

21. To what extent do you agree or disagree that a dedicated appeals process for on-street micromobility schemes is necessary?

Agree

Managing and allocating parking for OSM schemes

One area in which we recognise a particular need to balance differing local interests is in the provision of parking for OSM schemes, especially where responsibilities for licensing and managing street space respectively would belong to different tiers of local government.

The proposed solution to ensuring adequate parking provision for licensed schemes is a duty for local highway authorities to cooperate with licensed schemes and licensing authorities to provide adequate parking.

22. To what extent do you agree or disagree that a legal duty on local highway authorities with parking powers, would be sufficient to ensure adequate parking for on-street micromobility schemes?

Disagree

23. What in your view, if any, are the current barriers to providing adequate parking for on-street micromobility schemes (limited to 150 words)?

Lack of political willingness to take carriageway space for micromobility parking, even though increased micromobility uptake could reduce the need for carriageway space for motor vehicles by a greater extent.

Lack of willingness on the part of operators for adequate regulation of parking of micromobility equipment, and lack of willingness to pay for corrals or cycle stands.

Inadequate, slow and costly mechanisms to reallocate carriageway, as opposed to footway, space. This incentivises local authorities to place micromobility corrals, as well as EV charging points, signage, street trees, sustainable drainage features etc into footways, harming accessibility, rather than improving the streetscape and reducing vehicle speeds and dominance by installing such infrastructure into excess carriageway space.

24. What, if any, other essential aspects do you think we will need to consider at the primary legislation stage to ensure a licensing framework will function effectively (limited to 150 words)?

It is not acceptable to us to make long-term provision for micromobility hire schemes without regularising some eScooters.

Sorting out the broader issues of LZEVs and related issues for Disabled people must not be postponed as a result of this change in the law.

Protections for Disabled people must include 1) an end to requirements to have driving licences, 2) requirement that each provider makes provision for carriage of a passenger (including child seats on a proportion of cycles) and cargo, 3) suitable options for disabled people who cannot use the hire cycles, 4) requirements for interfaces to be accessible 5) Obligations on LAs to enable public to accessibly report problems (and not require reporting to operators) 6) requiring all hire scheme parking to be placed on carriageway, unless corrals can be fitted into large pedestrian spaces without negative impact on pedestrian accessibility.

LTAs should include stringent requirements for docking stations/corrals at bus stops in hire micromobility and cycle franchising.

To promote road safety, micromobility hire vehicles should be fitted with front and rear cameras and recording so that riders can report incidents to the police with video evidence.