- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Thames Path at Hammersmith (copyright Simon MacMichael)E-bikes and e-scooters to be banned from part of Thames Path
Riders of e-bikes and e-scooters will soon face a £100 fixed-penalty notice if caught riding along parts of the Thames Path in London, after the local council approved a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to ban their use on the route.
While the council is keen to stress the PSPO is not yet active, it is expected to be soon and was approved on 28 June, and will be brought in for three years "to reduce anti-social behaviour related to certain behaviours along the Thames Path". It sees e-bikes banned alongside "other motorised vehicles" such as quad bikes and segways.
Hammersmith & Fulham council opted against implementing a further proposed PSPO for 'reckless cycling', citing public consultation concerns that the borough should not place any additional restrictions on cycling, with the mode of transport needed to be promoted as there may be a "negative impact on the environment and current climate crisis by restricting the use of pedal cycles".
The PSPO for e-bikes and e-scooters also includes exemptions, with the report stressing "nothing in this order shall affect a disabled person or anyone with restricted mobility who uses any electric powered vehicle as a mobility aid".
Furthermore, parents or carers transporting children, for example using an electric cargo bike, will also be exempt.
An H&F spokesperson told road.cc: "We've introduced the prohibitions using our powers under the ASB, Crime and Policing Act to reduce the risk of harm to pedestrians – particularly elderly and very young residents – along the Thames Path.
"Backed by nearly 70 per cent of respondents, the order has been introduced following a public consultation. We've also worked with Transport for London to upgrade Cycleway 34, a nearby cycle and scooter route running from Hammersmith Town Centre to Fulham as an alternative, keeping the often narrow and crowded Thames Path a safe and enjoyable space free from motorised transport."
In the council report it is estimated the cost of implementing signage notifying the public of the order will be £2,000 and "will be enforced by the council's Law Enforcement Officers as part of their regular duties".
At the consultation stage, 68.2 per cent of 1,233 respondents were in favour of the proposed prohibition of the use of e-scooters and e-bikes, with 27.3 per cent voting 'no', 3.8 per cent 'maybe' and 0.7 per cent 'unsure'.
Addressing the proposed PSPO for 'reckless cycling' H&F ultimately decided to listen to concerns about "discouraging the use of pedal cycles as a healthy means of transport to and from work"
"Comments were also received in relation to the difficulties surrounding the enforcement of this prohibition and how 'reckless riding' could be interpreted. Allowing the safe use of pedal cycles also further supports Hammersmith & Fulham's commitment to tackle the climate emergency and our commitment to become net carbon zero by 2030," the council report stated.
"We will continue to monitor reports of dangerous or anti-social cycling along the Thames Path during the period of this order, and will continue to explore alternative options for promoting the responsible and safe cycling of pedal cycles along the Thames Path."
Despite the dates published on H&F's own website, suggesting the PSPO is in effect from 5 July 2023, the council was keen to stress it is not yet active.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- Aussie Rider 33 sec ago
According to the article It's £200 in England and the equivalent of £600 in Queensland, this would apply to motorists and cyclists
- . . 2 min 11 sec ago
The other day I captured a black Audi (what else?), reg EN16VEY, not breaking any specific law but driving erratically enough to make me suspicious...
- Sam3 3 hours 18 min ago
Asked for comment, a representative of the biker community said: "We are realigning our expenditure better reflect our strategic priorities and...
- Sam3 3 hours 23 min ago
So highly overpriced items such as "premium bike clothing" and overpriced "premium" bikes that no one NEEDS....suffer a disproportionate...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 34 min ago
Well good for Yate! Looking on Street view the 2021 pictures suggest nothing less than a genuinely "massive" amount of cash * will help. That...
- Blackthorne 6 hours 43 min ago
Well Paddy Murray seems to have been nicely rewarded for his efforts to drive Stages into the ground.
- Rizzo27 9 hours 31 min ago
I’ve found Specialized to be well put together and refined but not necessarily budget. I had a RadWagon before my Specialized Vado 4 and the level...
- stonojnr 10 hours 31 min ago
but I thought that was the Avanti process, your bike doesnt get in the special cycle storage carriage without a printed reservation, that you then...
Add new comment
32 comments
I'm looking forward to all the funny stories incoming from those spectacular enforcement attempts.
Cue, Benny Hill music.
This is absolutely glorious, there's an exception for E-Bikes or E-Cargobikes (or E-Golf Carts? or a Tesla?), as long as you have a child on board:
"2) Nothing in this order shall affect any parent or carer using electric powered vehicles to transport children."
The child as an asset for aggrandisement!
A similar tactic occurred in some climbing club huts some years ago, and it may still work for all I know: find a hut with separate bedrooms, take along a 'child' under 18, and bingo! you get the whole room for your family- because, obviously, the people who abuse children are usually strangers who do the abusing while the rest of the child's family is in the same room.
Having said that, I am in favour of this exemption from this banning order for ebikes (even though I really have never ridden one) for legal ebikes being ridden sensibly, whether a child is involved or not
Which on Scottish Bridges they did with sheep.
Looking a little further, their definition of disabilities that entitle people to an exception looks like a blatant violation of the Equalities Act 2010.
This could be fun, from a Great Collapsing Regulation Drafted by Fools viewpoint, wrt law and commonsense.
I'm blind so I can ride an E-Bike, but if my Leukemia is out of remission for a few months whilst the next treatment cycle is organised, and I struggle walking upstairs, I probably am not allowed.
It also points up how will they identify a disabled person - 60% plus of people using a cycle as a mobility aid in surveys have reported harrassment by 'officials'.
Will they be asking 'cyclists' to prove they are disabled?
Schedule 2 - the statutory disabilities where an exemption to the order would apply are as used by London Councils (in accordance with the Transport Act 2000) in respect to transportation and eligibility for Freedom Passes.
1. People who are blind or partially sighted
2. People who are profoundly or severely deaf
3. People without speech
4. People who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which has left them with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to walk
5. People who do not have arms/legs or have a long-term loss of the use of both arms/legs
6. People who have a learning disability that is defined as 'a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning'
7. People who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their application refused pursuant to section 92 of the Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol
I'll give them credit if they have done a decent job on the alternative route.
If they have not sorted out the previous dog's breakfast of categories, they are cruising for a bruising.
More interesting that I have run across recently: I wonder why E-Mountain Trikes as often used by people with a disability tend to be 84cm wide or a little less?
I haven't ever ridden an e-bike (actually not, I did once almost 15 years ago) but I believe propely regulated e-bikes could be the holy grail of urban transport. An horizontal ban sends a wrong message.
I recommend you have another go - I was the same in that I tried as far back as you or more and many modern ones are vastly better. Don't use one myself but I can see the point now.
I think you're right but a) nothing changes unless people have somewhere that feels safe, social and convenient to cycle (applies almost nowhere in the UK). b) actually few people "need" e-Bikes. However they may be necessary to attract interest from users, businesses and therefore politicians.
On the latter human psychology says people always want something new. Companies know this and will also compare with other transport products e.g. cars. They'll want to see bikes which don't last too long (batteries help!) or ways to keep adding features (ABS!) to offer something different from competitors to drive new sales. AND/OR each unit needs to be expensive (thousands, not hundreds) as "volume" is already covered by the large number of existing cheap functional bikes (which rarely get ridden now!) in the UK.
I have seriously considered it as my commute back home has a 100m elevation gain and I am definitely not the fittest rider. But primarily cost, complexity of conversion and external battery aesthetics (I love my bike, so not willing to change it), weight for stairs and having to charge one extra big battery (I have difficulty charging my lights), puts me off for the time being.
If there was a rear wheel plug and play with a huge hub with integrated battery, no cabling and under 250£ I would consider it.
But for people looking for a fresh start it is definitely worth it taking a look.
Just ban the illegal ones surely? It's self evident which ones are illegal. Amazingly illegal scooters and eBikes are everywhere (in London) Deal with the law as it is and enforce it. Rather than blanket ban all eBikes. Following a recent fire caused, according to the Fire Brigade, by an eBike battery charging in a local authority flat, Camden Council have banned eBIkes from all their corporate property. That inludes staff and visitors. That's just totally knee jerk and hysterical . EBike batteries are safe - if correctly manufactured, just as phone and lap top and car batteries are safe . It's the dodgy ones, that are cheaply manufactured, are not water proof, do not have protocols to shut down if faulty. Also the power pack chargers are not often compatible with the battery, let alone the mains supply
Absolutely agree with all you say, but Camden haven't (as far as I can see) banned ebikes, they've just reminded people that they should not leave them charging in communal areas (very sensible, never leave them charging unattended), shouldn't leave them charging when they are asleep and should only buy from reputable sources. Latest statement here: https://news.camden.gov.uk/camden-council-and-london-fire-brigade-urge-s...
E-bikes and e-scooters to be banned from part of Thames Path
Hammersmith and Fulham Council says the PSPO will be in effect soon
Great. Could they please pass another PSPO to ban muggers? I'm sure that would work.
"We aren't anti-cycling, but........."
So I can ride with my mates on our pedal bikes but the one guy who needs an E-bike would have to walk? I understand the reasoning behind this, but it's not right.They should just ban illegal E-bikes, but then, the clue is in the title and they shouldn't be there by default... Enforce the rules that already exist, don't make more up that won't also be enforced (but, of course, this one probably will because it makes instant money).
I assumed they meant only illegal e-bikes because legal ones are classed the same as any other pedal cycle.
https://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s124758/Appendix%202-%20Draft%20...
Schedule 1- Prohibited motor vehicles
E-bikes
E-scooters
Segways
Quad bikes
Hoverboards
Can't be applicable to pedal assisted bikes as they are not motor vehicles.
I wonder where schedule 1 is.
It can't refer to pedal assisted bikes as they don't match the description/definition of
"No person shall ride/cycle/use an E-scooter or E-bike, or use other
motorised vehicles"
Cue overzealous, payment by results, enforcement.
I don't think "e-bike" has a legal definition in the UK. UK law recognises EAPCs (classed and regulated as bicycles), mopeds and motorbikes.
https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules
Yep, you're right, an EAPC is not classed as a motorised vehicle. It's a pedal cycle and can legally use all infrastructure open to pedal cycles.
Recently in the news when they've been referring to e-bikes, it's been an electric motorbike, such as a Sur-Ron. I think this is what the PSPO is targeting.
Yes, but Sur-Rons and so on are already illegal unless taxed and registered.
I suspect the PCSOs who have to enforce this won't know the difference between those and EPACs and it'll all end up in court eventually.
PSPO's can be enforced by the councils own staff. You'd need a police officer to enforce illegal vehicle use, lack of insurance etc. I'm not sure even PCSO's can deal with that.
So, for a council wanting to tackle a specific problem, a PSPO keeps enforcement within their domain, with no need to involve any other agencies. Whether they do get a bit enthusiastic with what constitues an 'e-bike' remains to be seen, but I can't see it standing up in court if someone was using a bona fide EAPC.
I think PCSOs with Chief Constable authorisation would be able to collect evidence which could be charged (or NIPped) by a PC.
IIRC that's how Operation Park Safe works.
Won't this depend on the status of the path? If it's a legal right of way for cycling, then it's a legal right of way on an EAPC. But if it's only a permissive path, then they probably can ban "e-bikes" in whatever definition they choose.
Some parts of the path are, I think, bridleways (obvs cycles allowed).
And some pedestrians with a disability use cyles as a mobility aid, and remain pedestrians, some models of which cycles (eg some e-trikes) are actually registered as mobility aids (ie mobility scooters).
So lots of potential category confusion, and potential legal liabilities opened up for the Clowncil if their officers get it wrong.
I would argue there are several definitions.
EAPC's which I suspect one could go to court and argue whether they fall into the ban.
the L1e, L3e definitions + rules for road legal electric motorbikes (fall into it, but already illegal...).
If you are trying to deal with l1e/l3e violations, then why on earth would you restrict it to electric motorbikes? I can go get a petrol moped or dirt bike with very similar restrictions...
And presumably thinking it would be a complete and utter waste of time and money?
IIRC, "reckless cycling" is already covered by a number of laws and doesn't require a PSPO to make it "illegal".
This is crackers - someone riding an electric Brompton would be liable to be fined whereas the same adult riding an electric cargo bike would not.
Plus somebody riding a legal ebike at 10 mph is liable to be fined while someone on a standard bicycle riding at 20 mph isn't.
I am surprised that what the Law has joined together ("e-bikes" and bicycles) a PSPO can put asunder.
But presumably only if the cargo bike rider is transporting children. So they can ride to nursery along the Thames Path to drop off a child, but they'll need to find a different way home.
Guess if I ever use this route, I'd better ensure my walking stick is strapped to the bike, as according to the above, e bikes for mobility use are not affected.
Still, might be interesting to test.
Pages