TfL to regulate pedicabs for the first time as thousands of Londoners express safety concerns
Plans to regulate the use of pedicabs in London are set to advance next year, following a consultation that has found overwhelming support for tougher safety standards.
The consultation, carried out by Transport for London (TfL) found that out of nearly 7,700 respondents, 75% currently felt unsafe while using a pedicab in the capital.
The rickshaws, common sights in London's main tourist destinations, are not currently regulated.
Nearly all (97%) of participants backed mandatory insurance for pedicab operators, 95% support the introduction of criminal background checks for drivers, and 85% believe that pedicab fares are too expensive.
Draft policy proposals include a TfL licensing system, along the same lines as that currently in place for London taxi drivers, with requirements including a minimum age of 18, a UK or EEA-valid drivers' licence, and English language skills.
TfL are also considering the introduction of insurance requirements, alongside safety equipment mandates.
The proposals could come into force from 2026 – but will become more detailed over the coming months, and are subject to a second consultation at the end of the year.
The use of music by pedicab drivers sparked particular frustration among the survey's respondents – including over 2,400 comments, double the number relating to any other topic.
96% of participants were in favour of volume limitations on music and other audio from pedicabs, and 78% believe these controls should be in place 'all the time'.
Helen Chapman, TfL's director of Licensing & Regulation, said: 'Pedicabs can provide a unique and green way to see the capital.
'However, they have an impact on the safety of the road network and are currently unregulated.
'We look forward to working with the pedicab industry to ensure it is run fairly and safely and continues to be a sustainable mode of transport.'
The move comes in the wake of parliamentary calls for regulation last year – which culminated in the Pedicabs (London) Act, granting TfL the statutory powers necessary to go through with the licensing system.
The transport authority proposes to take the lead on enforcement of any new regulations themselves, with all expenses recouped through the fees for pedicab licences.
In a campaign response to the survey, the London Pedicab Welfare Association (LPWA) said: 'While the intention behind this requirement is to ensure the safety of passengers and regulate the industry, it has created challenges for pedicab drivers who do not possess a driving licence.'
The LPWA instead proposed alternatives, including the introduction of a theory test for drivers to obtain their licence.
Ros Morgan, chief executive at the Heart of London Business Alliance, welcomed the proposals, saying: 'For far too long, members of the public have been at the mercy of rogue operators who do nothing to enhance the reputation of the West End.
'Implementation of the scheme could not come soon enough.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer makes U-turn in bid to head off Labour welfare revolt
Ministers now expect the Government's welfare legislation to pass the Commons after Sir Keir Starmer backed down in the face of a major rebellion over welfare cuts. In a late-night climbdown, the Government offered Labour rebels a series of concessions in an effort to head off Sir Keir's first major Commons defeat since coming to power. Some 126 Labour backbenchers had signed an amendment that would halt the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in its tracks when it faces its first Commons hurdle on July 1. Rebels now believe the concessions on offer, which include protecting personal independence payments (Pip) for all existing claimants, will be enough to win over a majority. Asked on Friday morning whether the Government now expected the Bill to pass, health minister Stephen Kinnock told Times Radio: 'Yes.' The Government's original package had restricted eligibility for Pip, the main disability payment in England, and cut the health-related element of Universal Credit, saying this would save around £5 billion a year by 2030. Now, the changes to Pip eligibility will be implemented in November 2026 and apply to new claimants only while all existing recipients of the health element of Universal Credit will have their incomes protected in real terms. The changes represent a major climbdown for the Prime Minister, just days after he insisted to reporters he would 'press on' with the cuts, arguing there was a 'moral case' for them. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed the U-turn in a letter to MPs late on Thursday night, along with plans for a review of the Pip assessment to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people. A Number 10 spokesperson said: 'We have listened to MPs who support the principle of reform but are worried about the pace of change for those already supported by the system. 'This package will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, provide dignity for those unable to work, supports those who can and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.' Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, described the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disability people in the design of future reforms. The concessions could leave Chancellor Rachel Reeves scrambling to fill a hole in her budget come the autumn, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggesting they could reduce the projected savings by at least £1.5 billion per year. On Friday morning, Mr Kinnock declined to be drawn on how that reduction would be covered, saying it was 'very much the Chancellor's job as we move into the budget in the autumn'. He also declined to comment on whether it was fair that two people with the same condition would receive different amounts of money depending on when they started their claim. Mr Kinnock told Times Radio there were 'many different individual circumstances' and it was 'not possible to generalise'. There was a mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions. Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'. Director of strategy Jackie O'Sullivan said: 'It is the right thing to do and sends a clear message – cutting disability benefits is not a fair way to mend the black hole in the public purse.' The MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any Government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'. Charlotte Gill, head of campaigns at the charity, said: 'We urge MPs not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions. 'The only way to avoid a catastrophe today and in the future is to stop the cuts altogether by halting the Bill in its tracks.' The Tories described concessions as 'the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns' from the Government. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Under pressure from his own MPs, Starmer has made another completely unfunded spending commitment. 'Labour's welfare chaos will cost hardworking taxpayers. We can't afford Labour.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer offers major concessions on benefit cuts after crisis talks with Labour rebels
Sir Keir Starmer has caved to a Labour rebellion and offered major concessions to his backbenchers on his planned benefit cuts. In a screeching £1.5bn U-turn, people currently receiving personal independence payment (Pip) will be protected in a move the prime minister hopes will spare him a humiliating defeat on Tuesday. Adjustments to universal credit will also see existing claimants' incomes protected, work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall confirmed in a letter overnight. The U-turn followed crisis talks with backbenchers, with some 126 Labour MPs within the party having signed an amendment that would hve killed the flagship welfare bill. It cuts £1.5bn from the £5bn the government had hoped to save through the changes, and blows a hole in Labour's spending plans that economists warn will need to be filled with either tax hikes or spending cuts elsewhere. Speaking after the U-turn was announced, care minister Stephen Kinnock refused to say how the £1.5bn shortfall would be made up, pointing to the chancellor's Budget this autumn. He said he was 'really pleased with the way that the dialogue happened' and that the changes were a 'step in the right direction'. And he went as far as accusing critics of the original welfare proposals of spreading 'misinformation', claiming that Labour had always planned to 'protect the most vulnerable in society'. Sir Keir's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill has its second reading on Tuesday, the first opportunity for MPs to support or reject it. The major concessions announced overnight should be enough to win back the support of tens of rebels and get the measures over the line. A Downing Street spokesman said: 'We have listened to MPs who support the principle of reform but are worried about the pace of change for those already supported by the system. 'This package will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, provide dignity for those unable to work, supports those who can and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system. 'Our reforms are underpinned by Labour values and our determination to deliver the change the country voted for last year.' The government's original package restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability payment in England, and limited the sickness-related element of universal credit. Existing claimants were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes. In her letter, the work and pensions secretary said: 'We recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety. 'We will ensure that all of those currently receiving PIP will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only. 'Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of Universal Credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms.' She said a ministerial review would ensure the benefit is 'fair and fit for the future' and will be a 'coproduction' with disabled people, organisations which represent them and MPs. 'These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right,' she said. The change in Pip payments would protect some 370,000 existing claimants who were expected to lose out following reassessment. If the legislation clears its first hurdle on Tuesday, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill. The so-called 'reasoned amendment' tabled by Treasury select committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier had argued that disabled people have not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. She said: 'This is a good deal. It is massive changes to ensure the most vulnerable people are protected… and, crucially, involving disabled people themselves in the design of future benefit changes.' While the concessions look set to reassure some of those who had been leading the rebellion, other MPs remained opposed before the announcement. Speaking before the U-turn, Rachel Maskell said: 'As the government is seeking to reform the system, they should protect all disabled people until they have completed their co-produced consultation and co-produced implementation. 'I cannot vote for something that will have such a significant impact … as disabled people are not involved, it is just a backroom deal.' One MP said that ministers would need to 'go back to the drawing board' to make the Bill acceptable. Another said they expected the legislation would get through second reading if the government conceded the key sticking points relating to existing Pip claimants, the health element of universal credit and a policy consultation. 'It would need to be in the Bill, not just a commitment,' they said. Speaking in the Commons on Wednesday, Sir Keir told MPs he wanted the reforms to reflect 'Labour values of fairness' and that discussions about the changes would continue over the coming days. He insisted there was 'consensus across the House on the urgent need for reform' of the 'broken' welfare system. 'I know colleagues across the House are eager to start fixing that, and so am I, and that all colleagues want to get this right, and so do I,' he said. 'We want to see reform implemented with Labour values of fairness. 'That conversation will continue in the coming days, so we can begin making change together on Tuesday.' There was a mixed reaction among charities to the prospect of concessions. Learning disability charity Mencap said the news would be a 'huge relief to thousands of people living in fear of what the future holds'. 'It is the right thing to do and sends a clear message – cutting disability benefits is not a fair way to mend the black hole in the public purse,' director of strategy Jackie O'Sullivan said. But the MS Society urged rebels to hold firm and block the Bill, insisting any government offer to water down the reforms would amount to 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster'. Head of campaigns at the charity, Charlotte Gill, said: 'We urge MPs not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions. 'The only way to avoid a catastrophe today and in the future is to stop the cuts altogether by halting the Bill in its tracks.' The Tories described concessions as 'the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns' from the government. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Under pressure from his own MPs, Starmer has made another completely unfunded spending commitment. 'Labour's welfare chaos will cost hardworking taxpayers. 'We can't afford Labour.'
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
India's war on English makes no sense
India's Hindu nationalist rulers are waging war on the English language. They like to claim it is the language of colonial subjugation. Amit Shah, the home minister and a powerful ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has predicted that the day is coming when Indians who speak English will feel 'ashamed' to do so. In his eyes, the English language is a legacy of colonial rule and should be stamped out. It is hard to think of anything more stupid and counterproductive than this shameless campaign. Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition Congress party, was withering in his condemnation: 'English is not shameful; it is empowering. English is not a chain; it is a tool to break the chains.' Hear, hear to that! The English language has helped, not hindered, India in the modern era Shah has long railed against colonial rule in India. He and others in the Indian government argue that the British Empire 'enslaved' Indian minds long after the Raj. 'I believe that the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture. For our history and culture to be understood, it cannot be done in foreign languages.' This is nonsense. Attacking English speakers in India ignores the larger truth that the country has no real national language of its own. Hindi, the official language of central government, is little more than an artificial 20th century construct. Even the Hindustani of Bollywood films is spoken mainly by Indians concentrated in the 'cow belt' of northern India. The rest of the subcontinent speaks hundreds of regional vernaculars. English is the only language that binds the whole together, a genuine lingua franca. Why belittle it? Much official daily business across India would be difficult, if not impossible, without English. It is the language of business, science and technology across the country. Proficiency in the language can often lead to better employment prospects and higher earnings. That's why many aspirational Indians want their children to go to a school where lessons are taught in English – it is a means of escape from the rigid caste and class hierarchies that persist across the country to this day. Roughly 129 million people speak English across the country; that is second only to the United States in terms of overall numbers of English speakers. When Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first post-independence leader, delivered his famous 'Tryst with Destiny' speech on the eve of India's independence in August 1947, he did so in English. That speech, widely celebrated for its eloquence, marked the real end of colonial rule in India. How odd that Nehru's modern-day successors don't appreciate the language he spoke in. Shah's assault on the English language has inevitably sparked nationwide debate about the enduring legacy of British rule. That is what he wants to focus on. It has also prompted renewed suspicions about what this campaign is really about, which is less welcome for the government. Ministers would prefer Hindi to take precedence over English when it comes to language. Why would that be? Is it just a coincidence that Hindi is spoken primarily in northern India, which is where the ruling BJP party gets most of its votes? Voters elsewhere, who do not speak Hindi, are right to be suspicious. Opposition politicians likewise have their doubts. The Congress party claims the government does not want poor Indians, trapped at the bottom of society, to learn English because it doesn't want them to move ahead in society and attain equality. Maybe, maybe not. What can be said with certainty is that the English language has helped, not hindered, India in the modern era. Its rulers should be celebrating the country's English-speaking millions, not denigrating them in a petty and manufactured language war – to make a meaningless point about the colonial past.
