A residents group in Glasgow has called for food delivery riders to wear jackets with identifiable numbers so they can be tracked down and have their insurance and registration checked, while claiming that many cyclists are “careful and courteous riders, but others are putting people’s lives at risk”.
Merchant City and Trongate Community Council (MCTCC), a residents’ forum and pressure group based in Glasgow said that the move is necessary because of the number of “collisions and near misses” that have occurred in the city centre over the past few years and they are calling on both parliaments and police to take action.
The news comes months after the police launched a crackdown on “dangerous” delivery cyclists in the city, following an incident in which a cyclist had been left “terrified” by a crash with a courier riding in the wrong direction in a cycle lane at high speed.
Glasgow Times reports that an MCTCC spokesperson said: “These e-bikers are predominantly food delivery drivers working on behalf of companies like Deliveroo and Just Eat.
“Their machines are often not fitted with a speed limiter, restricting them to the UK’s legal maximum level of 15.5 miles per hour. It’s common to see them riding on pavements and pedestrian walkways, often without lights after dusk.
“Many such cyclists are careful and courteous riders, but others are putting people’s lives at risk by driving far too fast in the wrong areas. Making them wear an identifiable jacket or bag would help track down an offender and allow their insurance policy and registration to be checked.
“We are demanding that measures are introduced quickly before more people get hurt – or worse.”
MTCC members said that they have discussed their concerns with senior Glasgow police, MSP Kaukab Stewart and Alison Thewliss, who was the MP for Glasgow Central, and were told meetings have been held with the management of the main food delivery companies.
Kaukab Stewart, MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, said: “After meeting with Merchant City and Trongate Community Council and constituents to hear their concerns, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to enquire what powers the Scottish Parliament and local authorities have on introducing any licensing or insurance requirements.
“I take the concerns raised with me very seriously and believe we need to share our travel routes responsibly. I will continue to liaise with Police Scotland regarding this matter, and have been reassured that they are continuing to take action where breaches of the highway code and other relevant legislation are being observed.”
Superintendent Steven Meikle, Greater Glasgow Division, said: “The issue of illegal e-bikes and dangerous riding in the city centre was identified as a top road safety concern, with police receiving complaints directly from the public and other sources.
“In response to complaints, officers have carried out proactive enforcement in the city. Officers have also been speaking to users as our focus is on educating riders on safety and legislative requirements, however, where necessary, we will use enforcement action.
“We all need to be responsible for each other’s safety, and that means cyclists, motorists and pedestrians, have to abide by the rules of the road.”
Meanwhile, a Just Eat spokesperson has said that the safety of couriers, road users and the public is a “key priority” for the company and all couriers delivering on their behalf “must ensure they follow all local laws and rules of the road”.
They said: “If we are ever made aware that a courier delivering on our behalf has acted in a way that does not uphold the standards we hope to deliver, we do not hesitate in taking action, which could include revoking the courier from our network.”
A spokesperson for Deliveroo added: “Road safety is of the utmost priority for Deliveroo. During the onboarding process, every rider completes a programme of road safety guidance and is required to meet minimum safety standards.
“As with all road users, riders must follow all local traffic laws and road regulations. We also hold regular rider roadshows which involve engagement with local councils and riders on road safety issues relevant to the area.
“If incidents are reported to us we investigate and work with the authorities to take appropriate action where necessary.”
In November, police in Glasgow responded to safety concerns from cyclists and a cycling charity about food delivery couriers riding illegal e-bikes dangerously in the city.
Police Scotland said it was “targeting those riding illegally modified electric bikes capable of going at high speeds”, the comments coming in the same week Cycling Scotland had called on food delivery companies to provide couriers “effective training around cycling safety” and check the bikes they ride “are legal and road-worthy”.
Cycling Scotland’s road safety manager said food delivery companies should be doing more to ensure riders’ bikes are legal and effective training on cycling safety is provided.
“A simple thing would be are companies actually checking the bikes that the riders are using to make sure that they are legal?” he said. “If the riders are given effective training around cycling safety, if their bikes are checked to make sure that their bikes are legal and road worthy and if they’re given effective training and support and the right safety equipment then I’m sure that would make a difference.”
And in February this year, an SNP councillor from Glasgow urged delivery riders to learn and obey the Highway Code, after his peers brought up a proposal of licence plates of insurance for cyclists due to concerns about traffic offences committed by cyclists.
However, the council confirmed that it will not support such measures, citing a “significant detrimental impact” on active travel. Councillor Millar said: “A licencing system or insurance requirement for delivery riders would likely require legislative change, likely at UK Government level.
“It should be noted that it is unclear how any such legislation or regulations could be targeted at a specific user group as opposed to all people on bikes, and it is not known how it would be enforced.
“The council would not support any general move to introduce licencing requirements for cycling as this would have a significant detrimental impact on our agreed active travel behaviour change efforts.”
47 thoughts on “Residents call for delivery riders to wear numbered jackets to track down cyclists riding dangerously”
Apart from the fact that this
Apart from the fact that this would be registration through the back door, it’s approaching the problem (and living in inner-city London I agree it is a huge problem, both the use of illegal electric motorcycles and dangerous riding behaviour) from totally the wrong end. We need legislation that makes the delivery companies responsible for the legality of the machinery of their riders and their behaviour, i.e. that forces them to employ them in a proper manner rather than being able to say that they are self-employed and therefore liable for all transgressions themselves. If that adds an extra quid to having stuff delivered or, heaven forfend, makes people actually walk or cycle to the food outlet themselves*, so be it.
*There’s a Pret A Manger at the bottom of our road, I don’t use it myself because I like good food and decent coffee but it’s quite astonishing to see in the morning how many delivery riders are turning up to pick up a muffin and a coffee for clients, I would just find it embarrassing to face a delivery rider who knew that I was so self-important and lazy that I thought it was appropriate to pay somebody else to deliver my breakfast rather than walk half a mile to get it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Except that their entire business plans (uberdeliveroofood) is based on NOT treating these people as “real” employees. If they were forced to take them on as such, with holidays and minimum wage etc, they’d probably all go bust.
brooksby wrote:
Fine by me to be honest, maybe we would all start going out and supporting local restaurants and pubs again and talking to each other instead of eating takeaways in front of the TV!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Nope. They’d just drive to nearest drive-through.
I felt very smug and annoyed when I filtered past the 0.5 mile tailback to get into the local McD drive through when they re-opened it after the Covid lockdown. They were all there with their engines ticking over just blocking the roundabout and snaking along the bypass.
There’s no hope, almost nobody lived through lockdown and thought ‘wow – no cars is wonderful and how it should be all the time’.
Mr Hoopdriver]
Oh Lord, I remember riding up the South Circular towards Brixton Hill the day they reopened the Maccies drive-through after lockdown, the traffic was backed up to Clapham Common. It made me sad to see how much people had missed it.
A round of applause for you
A round of applause for you both!
I am still unclear why we let these companies exploit this. I guess the religion of the major parties most of my life has been “businessism” more or less. So there’s likely no desire for what – even if they were keen – would realistically be a difficult job of taking on those with “game the rules” schemes to maximise gains. Or indeed the even bigger “tax efficient” folks making no profit in the UK despite a vigorous trade, via schemes eventually based in places with less costly business taxes.
Of course, the last 3 PMs weren’t likely to help, having been Boris “self promotion and damn the truth”, a brief intermission from a “small government / just shake things up” ideologue with zero consistency, and the current “Mr. Freeports”.
I will be wrong of course – but I see this as much of the same thing as the lack of interest in doing more to regulate* some of the e-whotsits** delivery riders use.
* Either by allowing but classifying and actually policing them, or by being more clear we’re not having them. That’d be my preference because what we (the people) need isn’t actually these things at all – it’s places to ride existing legal EAPCs and cycles. In that though it seems I’m at least as firmly on the losing side of history as those decrying “that noisy electric music”… With a possible question mark over (lower power) e-scooters, simply because of their easy of storage and portability.
** Repeating myself but at least in Edinburgh the worst of the “illegal mopeds” don’t seem to be with the food delivery folks. I suspect they’re a bit expensive for them (and according to posters they’re certainly a target for thieves). They seem to be favoured by a younger crowd who seem a bit shy (hiding faces) – perhaps delivering things for an even darker market?
I’m optimistically telling
I’m optimistically telling myself that these will continue to be unregulated, in the interest of corporations, and will eventually be considered defacto legal.
The average person will adopt them more and more as the quickest way around the city (as proven by delivery riders) and ‘cyclists’, as they will be considered by the public, will gain political mass.
With a sizeable voting bloc and the interests of several large multinational corporations behind it the ‘cyclist lobby’ could start to hold its own against the motorist lobby.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
Very optimistic there. I think you could be partly right though – a “we couldn’t be bothered to change things much” future is more likely than “we made the effort to attack cycling” in my view. I think this could even lead to a bit more “cycle infra”…
… but it’s a gloomy morning today so…
…I suspect if so it’ll be like how it was when cars appeared. There’s a dream of a future of unfettered mobility but once you get to the new promised land of separate cycle infra with your pedal cycle and your child you’ll find it’s full of electric motorbikes hooning it and micro-delivery vehicles (now “only slightly bigger” than an *old* mini) run by big concerns. But mostly it’ll be people “pedestrianising” on upright scooters who’ll still be unhappy to see you on your bike… and actually there’d still be plenty of cars and vans, some invading the cycle infra, as usual.
Actually, my less dystopian thoughts are … well, basically same as above, but it turns out that state of affairs is on balance slightly better overall than now. So when you get run over by an electric motorbike you’re a bit less injured / not so often dead and the police are slightly more sympathetic. (Still doesn’t go to court though).
Harm minimisation.
May I point out that there is
May I point out that there is no 15.5mph speed limit for ebikes in this country, much as there is no speed limit on non electric assist bicycles, that is merely the speed at which the electric assist should stop.
Now I’m not saying that a lot of these bikes and riders are not illegal, the lack of pedaling often gives it away, but these protesters should really get their facts right.
These guys that are riding
These guys that are riding mopeds … they should already be insured, displaying a registration mark, have an MOT and return the required VED.
They are not cyclists.
If anything, they make it difficult and dangerous for cyclists.
Yes … Good old collective responsibility. Just because *you* don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean others agree with you.
Oldfatgit wrote:
yes, but the look like cyclists to everyone else. the manufacture, importing or sale of ilegal e-bikes should be ilegal. No “oh it’s for use on private land” excuses because we know they will be used on the public highway, and it’s too hard to tell at a glance whether it ios an e-bike or an electric motorbike.
I saw a video clip last week
I saw a video clip last week on social media of a Met (or City of London) traffic officer TPAC-ing a mobile phone thief. The suspect and an accomplice both fled on Sur-Ron electric motorbikes…yet the police social media text still referred to them as e-bikes, not electric motorbikes.
I’m amazed how many different
I’m amazed how many different groups get the legal wording incorrect, including Police Scotland.
The correct term for these vehicles with throttles, no 15.5mph assist limit and generally powers over 250w is a moped.
The law is clear on this, mopeds should have number plates, they should have insurance and they should have MOTs. They also should definitely not be on the pavement and also not use cycle lanes.
I would love the media and Police to start using the correct term, especially a site like road.cc and stop saying these people are cyclists.
Yeah, feet not pedalling,
Yeah, feet not pedalling, grip throttle, speeding around at 30, sometimes 40+ km/h: It’s a fucking moped.
Doesn’t matter they’ve bolted stuff onto a cheap, shitty, super-market MTB. The thing is now a moped. “Motorised Pedalbike”. Moped. Legally, descriptively, and etymologically the correct term.
I requested feedback on a
I requested feedback on a headcam submission of a close pass at speed. 3 weeks after the event. The response was that they are still trying to identify the owner. So numberplate are really effective then.
You couldn’t make this up,
You couldn’t make this up, either false plates or a friend of a police officer.
dubwise wrote:
So If we assume the police letter was sent out at 7 days, they still have another two weeks to identify the driver.
Then if the registered keeper identifies a different driver, they will have a period to accept liability as well. not sure if this is also 28 days.
so not having identified a driver at 3 weeks does not mean that number plates are useless or that the police are sheltering someone. It’s well within time for the process.
Not strictly true. NIP is to
Not strictly true. NIP is to identify the driver not the owner. Owner or at least the registered keeper should be easy to identify via the number plate. But, it’s the driver who needs identifying not the owner so you are right that it is within time and I am just exercising my inner pedant.
LeadenSkies wrote:
that’s what I said, the police have two weeks to notify the registered keeper, and the registered keeper then has 4 weeks to identify the driver. I never said anything about identifying an owner. But I see AndreBanshees original post talked about identifying an owner. I wonder if this was a slip by him or the police, that they meant driver when they said owner, or if he has writtern owner rather than driver. since the owner is irrelevant. only the keeper and the driver.
The police already have
The police already have powers to stop and seize all illegal bikes. But they don’t bother.
making riders wear numbered vests would be more of the same – the police continuing to not be bothered.
Don’t need numbered vests,
Don’t need numbered vests, just number plates on their mopeds.
Mopeds already have number
Mopeds already have number plates.
If you track their comments,
If you track their comments, they are saying the converted pushbikes meet the definition of a moped so are mopeds. However, such converted bikes do not have the required certificates or plates that a moped requires.
I’m a professional bike
I’m a professional bike mechanic and your wrong, sorry.
If the electric bikes have
If the electric bikes have been converted with throttles instead of power assitance when pedalling and don’t have a cut-out above 15mph, then they are mopeds legally. A lot of delivery riders use electric bikes that have been modified illegally this way.
Indeed. Although I’m
Indeed. Although I’m cautious on the numbers here. I suspect most food delivery folks – at least in Edinburgh – are on roughly legal ones (most hire from one or two firms) – just because of cheaper hire cost / local cornering of the market. Yes:
– AFAIKS there’s no pressure to stick to the rules from police or the delivery firms. It may be that the non-legal ones are more pricey / you actually have to find cash to buy rather than (most common in Edinburgh) hiring. And they may be more likely to get nicked.
– Even if technically legal they’re not necessarily terribly safe. Certainly likely to be run very hard and at best indifferently maintained. However the “back-alley modification” types seem to be in a minority around where I am.
– Of course it’s hard to say legally from a distance unless you’re sure they’re going way over 15.5mph AND they couldn’t be doing that because on a hill / their rider is just coasting after a heroic effort… Equally the really illegal ones stand out, flying past me uphill at about car-speed with no pedalling.
Anyway, enough rambling – for those interested / nerdy I think the current rules are here (please post if there is a better summary / these are out of date):
Electrically Assistent Pedal Cycle (EAPC – legal e-bike): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs-in-great-britain-information-sheet
I’m less sure on what legal mopeds are (of course some new things will be neither!) but here? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62ed0f0e8fa8f5033275fcde/annex-b-l-category-vehicle-classification.pdf
The definition relates to
The definition relates to power output and speed – any other vehicle of the L1e category that cannot be classified according to the criteria (9) to (12) of a L1e-A vehicle. Where (9) to (12) relate to assisted pedal bikes .
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2013/168
Instead of saying you are wrong, perhaps you could explain what your definition is.
Geordiepeddeler wrote:
legal mopeds do, what about the backstreet conversion of a bicycle?
an e-bike complying with the rules is an ebike, but once the motor exceeds 250/15mph or works on a throttle with no peddling is it not a moped?
What if someone fits a petrol motor such as this https://www.amazon.co.uk/OUNUO-Bicycle-Motorized-Black-upgraded-version/dp/B0937673K1/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.u7b_ONDb1JPCbX7cRj37voPMsd1KilA4-6zoukJOhnERY_7Cgz-5CZ2nNgZxQ02Xw0H8jYpt3O245x9KrdUXQABqkk42bY3yo53qTExhVDzZtGSkqE3MDBdfkvR9EYdj4TP8DKaoquvDk6uSoaHMDon8Zc6FcwrZkNitcKHiRwnh2wld7hMIhWdme1QLG0Dl-zfNGEGbHYYVHQbLtAobXU8V2zmqxZ9yxZa7Wqhs89aCdaS5IlO9jxwpv8c_jM-xmHpGv6XWjwmJHWAM77vRBJfOHeg1AQ8RZf78lTXdLWw.oqejyDcoSqvmfuYKr_A_s-3apAhuUHP7AM8uXGXiD40&dib_tag=se&keywords=Bike+Engine+Kit&qid=1718100094&sr=8-5 ? is that still not a moped?
Pretty sure the people doing these illegal conversions are not registering these for use on the roads and complying with motor vehicle regulations. so they will not be fitting plates.
I’m not sure that it’s
I’m not sure that it’s entirely the fault of the police. If we still had VOSA then I think we could have had joint operations. It’s now the DVSA, and I’m not sure what they do.
As others have said, we need political will that wants to regulate and to police those regulations.
It’s now the DVSA, and I’m
It’s now the DVSA, and I’m not sure what they do
DVSA, at least for my purposes, seems pretty good and efficient. It’s DVLA that seems to be the dumping ground for hopeless, idle duffers. They’re the people who are so determined to not find out about VED evasion that they don’t provide a facility to upload GPS timed photos of very long term evaders, and the online form they provide is designed for them to be able to whimper ‘but we couldn’t find the vehicle’. I have reported this one to the police and DVLA several times, all to no avail. It had no MOT for 6 years as well, ran around for many months with a failed MOT (serious safety defects) and then got an MOT (I suspect this was for insurance reasons related to use of the vehicle for his ‘groundworks’ business)- so the DVLA’s own database would quickly list all the vehicles with recent MOT but no VED/ SORN. Yet they still continue doing nothing
While I have no doubt that
While I have no doubt that you could accurately locate most of the unMOT/VEDd cars in Lancashire for them, I can understand why it might be impractical for DVLA to respond to individual reports. I have however seen evidence of DVLA targeting particular areas and clamping all the wrong-uns en masse – but I guess this is far easier / only practicable in urban areas where there is greater density of parked cars.
I can understand why it
I can understand why it might be impractical for DVLA to respond to individual reports
They could sub-contract to The Filth! That one is often parked 150 yards from Garstang Police Station, and there is a Facebook page as well as the phone numbers. However, police wouldn’t act even when it was over 5 years without MOT and several months after failed MOT.
I, for one, am against this.
I, for one, am against this. If they force this on those guys, then we will be next.
Tabards. For when you have
Numbered tabards. For when nothing else can tackle thorny issues like the consequences of not-employees-honest* being incentivised to get jobs done however, sometimes already using illegal vehicles, and the police/CPS/courts/DVLA etc. don’t have resources and/or motivation to do same even with “licenced, insured drivers” of “MOT’d, taxed and registered” motor vehicles.
* Some of whom may be in the grey economy / have dubious rights to be doing the job anyway. Or indeed be transporting less-than-legal takeaways… I’m going to bet that tabards aren’t going to be an impediment to business as usual any more than cars needing numberplates are to those drivers engaged in illicit business.
It’s about time, though as
It’s about time, though as this is Scotland, England will lag behind. The behaviour of many delivery drivers is appalling. Often they wear gear from multiple providers, i.e. Deliveroo fleece, Just Eat box – you don’t know who to complain to. Plus, faces hooded and under scarves.
Many of them work for major supermarkets, who seemingly can do nothing; I’ve complained the riders, who often don’t understand English; how will they follow all our rules? In any case, legislation would not affect many other scallies and yobs, often up to no good. Imagine them doing ‘national service’; mayhem!
Zero chance of JE/Deliveroo
Zero chance of JE/Deliveroo doing that.
Following the HC with a pedal bike will earn you £6 an hour. The only way to turn a profit is to ignore the HC or for them to increase pay.
Not going to happen, and
Not going to happen, and would be affective it it did.
Given how many police appeals there are giving the description of a car (as no-one caught the numberplate) identification is harder than people think. This would be even harder to see being on a jacket or bag.
The Police don’t have the resource to enfoce the current road laws let alone this.
The article says ” allow
The article says ” allow their insurance policy and registration to be checked.” This is quite an assumption.
Considering that any delivery rider is earning a living (I use the term loosely) they should be insured for using their vehicle “for hire or reward” whether it is a car, moped, a push bike, pedelec, scooter or e-bike. etc. any vehicle.
I assume insurance companies would refuse cover for illegal e-bikes or scooters and would withdraw cover from registered vehicles that have no MOT or VED.
Does anyone know if an insurance policy that covers hire and reward is available for a pushbike?
bikercub wrote:
Onsi provide insurance to Deliveroo riders (and some other delivery firms).
Hi
Hi
I do Deliveroo/Uber eats a couple of times a week. It’s pretty good money where I am and nice town to cycle in.
Deliveroo provide insurance for bike/e-bike riders. https://riders.deliveroo.co.uk/en/support/new-riders/what-does-deliveroos-free-rider-insurance-cover
Uber eats do too as far as I’m aware but their parameters are more strict.
Actually the insurance isn’t
Actually the insurance isn’t provided for illegal eBikes used by Deliveroo riders.
Illegal eBikes are classed as scooters / mopeds because of the power assistance and lack of cut out at 15.5mph.
The insurance Ts and Cs states:
“Riders using a car or scooter to complete deliveries will need to purchase their own vehicle insurance”
They are not classed as
They are not classed as scooters or mopeds at all!
Geordiepeddeler wrote:
If it has a throttle it’s a moped. If it has assist over 15mph or power over 250w then it is either an S-Pedelec or a moped, either of which need insurance and a number plate in the UK.
Nearly every example I see in Sheffield are using throttles so they’re all mopeds without number plates and I assume without valid insurance.
Nearly every example I see in
Nearly every example I see in Sheffield are using throttles…
Also in Preston, where I was waiting right by the A6 (the main route north from Preston police HQ) 1/2 an hour for a bus a few nights ago. They’re now moving in massed ranks on criminal forays out to leafy North Lancashire- here are 4 hiding their faces just like most of you are probably seeing every day and, of course, not pedalling. 3 are definitely illegal. The police could pick up loads of these every day, confiscate them, and reduce the problem rapidly- they just can’t be bothered.
I think this would just
I think this would just encourage them to use an unbranded bag and jacket to disguise the fact they are delivering at all.
Dear burglars, before you
Dear burglars, before you start burgaling could you please register on the central burglar database and prominently display your burglar registration number so you will be easier to catch when you go burgaling.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
They rely on the honour system