A Facebook group post, where a rider was stopped and issued a Fixed Penalty Notice for the “alleged offence use of a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”. Which carried a fine of GBP300 and 6 points.
He used the following response template:
I hereby contest the offence alleged on XXDATEXX at XXTIMEXX at XXLOCATIONXX of Use a motor vehicle on a road/public place with third party insurance contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
I contest on the grounds of “Special Reasons” as I was misled into believing electric unicycles did not classify as “motor vehicle” and therefore regulations under Road Traffic Act 1988 were not applied.
My belief was evidenced by the fact I’ve ridden my electric unicycle frequently around London for over four years, often through routes with high police presence including Whitehall, Parliament Street, The Mall, Charing Cross Road, Tower Bridge Road and Bishopsgate to name a few, and have never previously been approached or signalled to stop by a police office throughout this time, despite always in conspicuous sight when riding.
The demonstrates starkly the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not enforced equally in relation to electric unicycles.
Moreover, the severity of the allegation in the context of its circumstances seems wholly disproportionate, whereby in the spirit of the law a lesser non-endorsable offence such as “driving a motor vehicle without MOT under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988” could equally have been alleged instead. Such circumstances relate to the fact I was wearing a high-visibility cycling jacket and cycle helmet at the time, and immediately stopped and dismounted before the police office when signalled.
It’s pertinent to acknowledge I’ve held a full car licence for over 20 years as well as a full motorcycle licence for over 3 years and my record is flawless without a single penalty point issued to date, which I hope demonstrates that I take very seriously my responsibilities in ensuring compliance with Road Traffic Act 1988 regulations.
I would also like to contest on the grounds that according to the definition of Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs) and the criteria which must be satisfied to be legally considered as such, my electric unicycle meets these requirements and therefore classifies as an EAPC and not motor vehicle. Unfortunately, in the instance this alleged offence the police officer did not make adequate attempt to inspect the electric unicycle in consideration of its categorisation as an EAPC as crucially he did not handle the device and therefore did not inspect its other side to check manufacturer and battery voltage details.
It’s perhaps also timely to consider a recent statement made by Jesse Norman, Minister of State for Transport, in the Department of Transport’s publication “Future of Mobility”, dated March 2019, where he proclaims in his Foreward “We have an extraordinary opportunity here – to put Britain at the heart of the next mobility revolution, and bequeath a better, greener and more successful country for future generations. It’s an opportunity that we are determined – with your help – to seize.” The report highlights existing issues surrounding current legislation and the misclassification of electric unicycles and other “micromobility” vehicle stating on p.54, 7.13 “This review will consider options for appropriate testing regimes for micromobility, to ensure any such vehicles on the road are safe and fit for purpose. As well as identifying basic parameters for safe design and operation of new vehicles such as electric scooters, the aim will be to enabled future trials of innovative ideas without the need to change legislation each time. This work may lead to new definitions of vehicles to enable wider use of micromobility.”
In light of the reasons stated above I contest the offence which has been alleged.
He then received confirmation of his ticket being cancelled.
