A councillor has failed to see the London Borough of Sutton mandate registration plates for dockless electric hire bikes, following a confusing speech that made little distinction between licenced e-bike providers and private illegal bikes, and was criticism of the proposal by fellow councillors as “unworkable and performative”.
Cllr Nick Mattey, an independent councillor for Beddington, put forward a motion at a meeting of the whole council last week, calling for “all dockless hire e-bikes operating in the Borough under a council-approved scheme to carry a clearly legible, unique
identification plate or marker on both the front and rear of the bike, large enough to be read and photographed from a reasonable distance”.
Mattey also proposed stronger systems of reporting “dangerous” or “abandoned” bikes, and mandating hire bike companies to operate a refundable deposit scheme with all users. However, his proposal was voted down by the Liberal Democrat-controlled council following a bizarre speech in which Mattey began with an anecdote about illegal bikes and their use by suspected criminals.
“The subject [of the motion] is e-bikes, and if anyone was in Wallington at about 4 o’clock they would have seen three e-bikes moving up Manor Road at about 60mph, and then dismounting while people came off the bikes, sprayed some substance into the eyes of a man that was on the side, and then chased him with their motorbikes onto the pavement as they brought out a zombie knife while he hid inside Costa Coffee”, Mattey began.
“The point about the Sur-Ron e-bike is that they are predominantly used by criminals because they’re fast and they can evade the police. But the problem with e-bikes is that the police are very, very busy and if we continue with the way we let e-bikes be left anywhere – on the pavement, parked irresponsibly – we are creating a problem.
“Because the police cannot, although there are hefty fines for driving e-bikes on the pavement, we’ve got to realise a lot of people, in their own self-interest, want to ride these bikes on the pavement. And unless we can come up with some formula of penalties for parking bikes irresponsibly, we are going to have some serious accidents and possibly deaths because we… in the area that I live in Beddington, it’s total anarchy.
“We have a family with a record number, nine bikes parked outside their house. I’ve got people partially sighted, registered blind, and they cannot negotiate the pavement safely. We’ve got to do something about it.”
Mattey went on to describe how e-bikes on the pavement was deterring a local litter picker who feared being hit by an e-bike. He also called for the council to adopt a similar approach to Ealing Council, which has begun seizing badly parked or unlicenced e-bikes.
He then returned to the topic of illegally modified bikes, which did not relate to the content of the council motion he was proposing, before he was cut off.
Opposing the motion, Liberal Democrat Christopher Woolmer said Mattey’s motion contained “inaccuracies” and that Mattey had declined to engage in the council’s focus group set-up to better scrutinise dockless e-bikes. He also noted that the borough’s hire bike provider, Forest, had recently begun providing third-party insurance for riders.
“This motion has been presented seemingly oblivious of the fact we have a working focus group. This motion is superfluous and in fact a hindrance to the timeline of our future e-bike contract specification. Without working on any solutions, Councillor Mattey pre-emptively wrote [to the focus group] that “these e-bikes should be banned”.
“Banning these bikes is no solution to the issues at all, just a recipe for chaos. I urge you to vote against this negative and superfluous motion when the proposer’s intention is to ban e-bikes from the borough altogether.”
Fellow councillors criticised the motion, with one councillor, Rob Leah, describing the proposal as “unworkable and performative”. An independent councillor first elected as a Liberal Democrat in 2014, Mattey’s motion was seconded by the council’s only elected Labour representative Dave Tchil. He later said he was “one of the biggest cyclists you can see”, and that a number of residents have complained about obstructive e-bike parking and “trampled on” flower beds.
“I’m very positive about e-bikes, very positive about cycling, and I will work with the council, as I always do, to get the right thing for everyone.”
But Mattey struck a different tone in his closing remarks, stressing “the reason I couldn’t be part of a party that could approve this system is because, whatever you do, you cannot stop people being irresponsible. We know of one London junction in a day where you could have 240 people on average jumping a red light. That seems to be acceptable in inner London, in outer London it appears to be cycling on the pavement.
“When you hire a car, you have to sign a document, you have to provide a driving licence and you have to put up a substantial deposit. The problem we have with the system at the moment is people don’t have to commit. They can just get on a bike and leave it wherever they want. A dockless system just leaves the door open for people being irresponsible.
“The only way you can sort this out is by introducing some responsibility to it. I just think the council is so obsessed with the idea that this is green transport that it’s ignoring the fact pedestrians are one of our priorities. We cannot say to people they should walk their children to school when they run the risk they could be flattened by a council-approved e-bike.”
Despite their speeches, Mattey and Tchil’s motion failed. Whilst Forest currently operates exclusively in the borough, the Local Democracy Reporter writes that a new contractor is expected by next summer, with the council saying “it is clear that the market has moved on significantly – particularly in respect of how E-bike services are delivered, as well as the management and enforcement of bike parking standards.”
