E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to the House. It is worth making it clear that I am a huge fan of e-bikes. I rode my e-cargo bike to the station this morning, and in term time I would have dropped my two boys off at school using the bike. I have covered more than 18,000 km in the last six years.

Our discussion today should focus on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but we need to be clear that we support the contribution that e-bikes make to active travel, taking cars off our roads, and reducing emissions, congestion and road danger. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend, however, as I believe that e-scooters are far too dangerous to be considered for regulation and legislation. They do not in any way qualify as active travel. They should be banned or removed from our streets entirely.

I have spoken repeatedly about the need for tougher regulation of illegally modified e-bikes. These vehicles plague the high street in Sutton, and sadly deter many local residents from visiting the shops that my town centre has to offer. Delivery drivers on e-bikes treat the stretch of Sutton high street like a racetrack. They rampage along pavements at speed, with no consideration for pedestrians around them. The nights are getting darker, but many ride without lights, endangering pedestrians and the riders themselves. My constituents should not have to spend their weekly shop looking over their shoulder, worried they might be mown down by a vehicle that should never have been on the road or the pavement in the first place.

The dangers do not end when the bikes stop moving. E-bikes are causing fires across the capital. We saw that recently in Mitcham, where a fire ripped through homes, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned. The increase in illegal e-bike conversions, fires and accidents on our streets is driven by two main causes: the sale of high-powered e-bikes like Sur-Rons, and the multimillion-pound delivery companies that incentivise riders to use faster vehicles but take no responsibility for ensuring that they are legal and being ridden legally.

We Liberal Democrats want delivery platforms to be required to verify that bikes being used by riders are road legal. Regular checks should be made to ensure that illegally modified vehicles are not being used to complete food orders for pay. There must be clear consequences for companies that repeatedly fail to act to protect the public. Corporate giants of the gig economy world cannot continue to hide behind the self-employed status of their riders to seek impunity from responsibility. They already have the technology to track their drivers, identify them and verify that they are using the right accounts. They must be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that vehicles being used to make deliveries are legal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments.

It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences.

That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour.

At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them.

That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes.

I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear.

Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Neil Coyle]

rose—