ESC0053

Written evidence submitted by the Association of British Insurers (ABI)

About the ABI

1. The Association of British Insurers is the voice of the UK’s world-leading insurance and long-term savings industry. A productive, inclusive and thriving sector, our industry is helping Britain thrive with a balanced and innovative economy, employing over 300,000 individuals in high-skilled lifelong careers, two-thirds of which are outside of London. 

2. The UK insurance industry manages investments of over £1.7 trillion, pays nearly £12bn in taxes to the Government and powers growth across the UK by enabling trade, risk-taking, investment and innovation. We are also a global success story, the largest in Europe and the fourth largest in the world. 

3. Founded in 1985, the ABI represents over 200 member companies providing peace of mind to households and businesses across the UK, including most household names and specialist providers.

4. The ABI’s role is to: 

• get the right people together to help inform public policy debates, engaging with politicians, policymakers and regulators at home and abroad; 
• be the public voice of the sector, promoting the value of its products and highlighting its importance to the wider economy and society;
• help encourage consumer understanding of the sector’s products and practices; and 
• support a competitive insurance industry, in the UK and overseas.

Executive Summary

5. We agree that e-scooters and other micromobility devices can provide an important role in how people choose to travel, particularly as we prepare to change the way we commute to help mitigate reduced public transport capacity as a result of the ongoing pandemic.

6. We would want to see a regulatory framework that strikes the right balance between enabling innovation without imposing disproportionate burdens on businesses and customers wishing to use these devices; and ensuring that other public goods, such as safety, are adequately protected.

7. There should be a coherent approach to the treatment of e-scooters in the context of construction and use requirements; and civil and criminal liability.

8. We strongly oppose the implementation of any regulatory framework that could result in liabilities falling onto the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) and premium-paying motorists without a corresponding insurance requirement for these vehicles; or some form of contribution towards the MIB’s liabilities from users of e-scooters and related vehicles.
9. There  is  currently  a  lack  of  strong  evidence  that addresses how best to regulate  the  use  of  powered  transporters and the classification and regulation of these devices varies greatly between countries where they are subject to existing or new legislative frameworks.
10. Safety risks may vary between different types of devices based, amongst other factors, on their design features. There is a need for clear terms for vehicle classification that are based on safety considerations whilst accommodating different vehicle types to future proof any legislation.
11. Appropriate construction standards need to be accompanied by proportionate user requirements (forms of licencing and registration, training, helmet use, changes to the Highway Code, considerations of insurance requirements) and appropriate infrastructure considerations (e.g. types of road use, geofencing of rental fleets).
12. Should the Government decide to legislate to legalise the use of e-scooters on roads, a controlled and considered roll-out to mitigate against potential negative safety implications is necessary.
13. The insurance market stands ready to work with Government and Parliament to help deliver the right levels of protection for users of e-scooters and other road users. We would be happy to provide the Committee with an overview of potential insurance solutions for e-scooters and similar devices.

Whether the legislation of e-scooters is up to date and appropriate

14. There is no designed legal regime for powered transporters, such as e-scooters, and this has led to some discrepancies in the current framework. For example, e-scooters meet the definition of a motor vehicle under the Road Traffic Act 1988. However, they cannot be used legally on roads or in other public places because it is impossible for e-scooters and their users to comply with the legal requirements that apply to motor vehicles, including type approval and licencing.

15. We agree in principle that e-scooters can play an important role in how people choose to travel in the future. It is evident that members of the public wish to use these devices given the large number of e-scooters that are already being used on roads and other public places. Unless there is sufficient enforcement activity to deter the illegal use of them, it would be preferable to set out a robust regulatory framework that allows for the safe and legal use of e-scooters.

16. There is currently a lack of strong evidence that addresses how best to regulate the use of e-scooters In light of this evidence gap, it would be our preference to err on the side of caution. Road safety will always be the key concern for insurers. We would want to see a regulatory framework that strikes the right balance between enabling innovation without imposing disproportionate burdens on businesses and customers wishing to use these devices; and ensuring that other public goods, such as safety, are adequately protected.

17. Accordingly, there will need to be detailed consideration of the types of e-scooters that should be permitted on the road. Safety risks may vary between different types of devices based, amongst other factors, on their design features. There may be merit in considering construction requirements that are based on the potential risks of those types of devices. Germany’s Regulations on Personal Light Electric Vehicles,[1] for example, only provide for the legal use of vehicles with the following features:

• with a handlebar;
• maximum design speed between 6 kph and 20 kph;
• power limitation at 500 W (1,400 W for specific self-balancing vehicles);
• minimum requirements concerning road safety rules (brake and lighting systems, dynamics of vehicle movements and electric safety, among other things).

Similar consideration should be given to other mechanical features that can have a material impact on a device’s handling and safety risks (such as minimum standards for tyre dimensions or brakes) and ensuring that certain basic roadworthiness requirements (including the presence of lights and audible signals) can be met. There is a need for clear terms for vehicle classification that are based on safety considerations whilst accommodating different vehicle types to future proof any legislation.

18. There should be a coherent approach to the treatment of e-scooters in the context of construction and use requirements; and civil and criminal liability.

19. A major concern would arise were these devices permitted to be used on the roads and regulated in a manner similar to electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPCs) whilst at the same time falling under the definition of “vehicle” as per the current Motor Insurance Directive[2] and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

20. This could lead to a situation where a large number of these devices are legally used on roads and are involved in collisions, and result in a claim being made against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) under the Uninsured and/or Untraced Drivers' Agreements. This agreement, and the funding of the MIB, as a fund of last resort, is based on the premise that a contribution is made from all users of vehicles that have the potential to cause serious harm and are therefore subject to compulsory insurance requirements. Expecting motorists, whose insurance premiums ultimately fund the MIB, to fund a regime that would cover accidents that are not caused by motor vehicles and whose users have not contributed to the MIB would seem to be an undesirable outcome.

21. It would also be undesirable to mandate, for example, different vehicle or user licencing requirements for devices that have the same or similar potential to cause harm to their users or other road users.

22. In this context, we note that a current draft of the revised MID limits the scope of compulsory motor third-party liability insurance cover to vehicles with a maximum design speed of more than 25kph and a maximum weight of more than 25kg. This could enable the legal introduction of such devices without subjecting them to compulsory motor insurance, although individual states may choose to introduce other forms of mandatory cover.
23. We further note that there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the effect that the UK’s departure from the EU may have in this area. For example, existing EU legislation and case law will continue to have effect in the UK at the end of the transition period unless the UK government legislates to amend the status quo. It is also unclear whether the UK will continue to adhere to the provisions of the MID or whether the Government may seek to diverge and, for example, not define e-scooters and similar devices as motor vehicles for compulsory insurance requirements.
24. Until these changes are implemented, should they be implemented, such devices will either need to be subject to compulsory motor insurance or, should the UK government decide to derogate from existing MID requirements, any claims arising from the use of these devices would have to be met by the MIB without commensurate premium income.
25. We strongly oppose the implementation of any regulatory framework that would result in liabilities falling onto the MIB and premium-paying motorists without a corresponding insurance requirement for these vehicles; or some form of contribution towards the MIB’s liabilities from users of e-scooters and related vehicles.

To what extent e-scooters have positive benefits, for instance relating to congestion and promoting more sustainable forms of transport

26. It is not for the insurance sector to make a judgment on the societal and/or environmental benefits of any particular mode of transport. Other organisations are better placed to comment on the benefits of e-scooters.

Where in the urban environment e-scooters could be used (e.g. road, pavement, cycle lanes), and how this could impact other road uses and pedestrians, including people who have visual impairments or use mobility aids

27. We do not believe that e-scooters should be permitted to use the pavement or pedestrian areas. It is important that the pavement remains a safe and protected space, particularly for vulnerable pedestrians. There is a clear reasoning behind allowing mobility scooters to use pavements and we do not see a similar justification for allowing other motorised devices to be used in this space.
28. E-scooters do present a risk to other road users and there have been reports of pedestrian fatalities following collisions with e-scooters.[3] While serious pedestrian  injuries in collisions with e-scooters are rare, especially  when  compared  to  injuries sustained by pedestrians from collisions with motor vehicles, there is likely to be under-reporting  of  injuries and we would note that the comparison of accident and fatality rates between e-scooters and other types of vehicles must be caveated due to the absence of comprehensive datasets.
29. Despite the obvious risk of collisions with pedestrians, who would not expect to share a pavement with fast-moving powered transporters, any devices that are parked inconsiderately or abandoned can deter people from using public space and can be a serious impediment to people with limited mobility and a trip hazard for visually impaired people.
30. Should the Government decide to legislate to legalise the use of e-scooters on roads, a controlled and considered roll-out to mitigate against potential negative safety implications is necessary.
31. Road surface conditions seem to be a significant contributory factor in e-scooter crashes.[4] This would suggest a need for considering a restriction of road use to types of vehicles that can meet certain wheel size and/or suspension criteria.
32. Restricting use away from high-speed roads where potential accident severity will be greater may be advisable in the absence of any further evidence. However, we acknowledge that this may be difficult to enforce in practice and may lead to unnecessary confusion. Our support for this use is conditional on vehicles meeting the minimum construction requirements outlined below (in particular the location and dimensions of lights to ensure that users of micromobility devices are visible to other road users from a sufficient distance to maximise reaction and braking time).
33. Given the relative similarities in speed and size, it seems appropriate to allow e-scooters on cycle lanes and tracks. Evidence is limited on the impact that allowing certain vehicles on cycle lanes and tracks will have. There is further need for a review of the potential impact that allowing them may have on existing infrastructure and how users of newly permitted devices would interact with cyclists in a confined space. We believe that the recently announced trials will be beneficial to evaluate the effects.

Whether there should be advice or compulsory requirements to use specific safety equipment when using an e-scooter

34. Insurers’ views on the risks of e-scooter use are predominantly focused on the risk of injury to users of those vehicles; and other road users. Existing evidence in relation to e-scooters suggests that the majority of injuries appear to involve the rider falling or losing control. Similarly, a study of e-scooter use in Southern California[5] suggests that the vast majority of reported injuries relate to users who had fallen off the device or collided with an object. The fact that the overwhelming majority of e-scooter users do not use helmets is of concern in this context.[6] There are also concerns that the same design that makes e-scooters portable, light and efficient means they offer less protection to the user.

35. E-scooter rider fatalities often involve a collision with a motor vehicle. This may be due to a combination of factors relating to user behaviour (e.g. lack of training, intoxication or not using personal protective equipment) and vehicle construction (e.g. relatively small size of wheels or positioning of lighting systems).
36. The fact that voluntary helmet use among e-scooter users where their use is permitted is reported to be significantly lower than for cyclists raises serious concerns for rider safety and we would therefore strongly recommend making the wearing of (cycle-standard) helmets compulsory for any micromobility devices that will be allowed on roads.

Whether there should be safety and environmental regulation for the build of e-scooters, and what this might entail

37. All e-scooters that are permitted to be used on roads or other public places should be subject to the same minimum safety standards to ensure adequate protection of their users and the public. As a minimum, these vehicles’ specifications should enable them to be compliant with regulations applying to EAPCs or a similar regulatory framework of the same or higher safety standard.
38. Other organisations are better placed to comment on environmental regulations for the build of e-scooters. From a safety perspective, we would expect permitted e-scooters to exhibit the following features as a minimum:

• fitted with no motor other than an electric motor; 
• designed to carry one person in a standing position with no provision for seating; 
• a maximum ultimate speed of 12.5 miles per hour;
• two wheels, one front and one rear, aligned along the direction of travel; 
• a mass, excluding the rider, not exceeding 25 kilograms; 
• means of directional control via the use of handlebars; 
• means of controlling the speed via hand controls and whose power control defaults to the 'off' position; 
• the maximum speed should be set in relation to the engine power without a power limiter so it cannot be overridden/tampered with;
• two independent brakes that must comply with minimum braking standards (e.g. the German requirement that they can bring the vehicle to a complete stop; can function up to the maximum design speed of the vehicle; must achieve a minimum deceleration value of 3.5 m/s2; and should one of the brakes fail, each individual brake must achieve at least 44 per cent of the deceleration value without leaving the lane);
• lights (with required specifications/minimum dimensions) should be forward and backward facing and constantly on. These should be on the handlebar(s) to ensure that traffic can see users/riders in good time;
• audible warning signal(s);
• some minimum standard for tyre/wheel quality should be considered – potentially only allow devices with pneumatic tyres;
• there may be merit in setting a maximum permissible laden weight to avoid overloading and the impact this may have on braking and tyres;
• given the widespread adoption of geofencing, it may be sensible to include the ability to be geofenced in the design requirements. This would bring obvious benefits to rental companies, users and local authorities in enforcing, for example, speed or parking restrictions in particular areas and preventing accidents.

The experience of other countries where e-scooters are legal on the roads

39. There  is  currently  a  lack  of  strong  evidence  that addresses how best to regulate  the  use  of  powered  transporters and the classification and regulation of these devices varies greatly between countries where they are subject to existing or new legislative frameworks.
40. A recent study by the International Transport Forum notes that “little is known about micro-vehicles’ safety performance.”[7] We agree that there is an insufficient evidence base to make a clear and informed decision on the safety risks of micromobility devices to users and other parties. Further investigation is essential and until more research is available, it would therefore be our preference to err on the side of caution. We therefore welcome the Government’s recent announcement to enable e-scooter trials as the evidence gained from these schemes will provide valuable insight into the risks and benefits posed by e-scooters; and how they should best be regulated in the United Kingdom.

June 2020