UKH

I see the issue of under-age delivery riders who have 'rented' an account from someone else has finally blown up:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67371473

I say finally because I'm completely unsurprised.  If companies like Deliveroo (and many smaller pizza shops etc who offer delivery) don't even care whether these kids have a relevant motorcycle licence, I'm totally unsurprised that they don't care whether they are old enough to be working.

How is it possible to be openly using a moped or scooter for commercial deliveries on L plates?  Would you be allowed to be a taxi driver or van driver without a driving licence?  How are they insured (I'm pretty sure my motorcycle insurance specifically excluded commercial riding)?

It's possible because it's a solo motorcycle and the risk is mainly to the rider, rather than paying passengers (taxi) or other road users (vans).

If it changed to full licences, that would wipe out most of the employee pool - a full licence is (potentially - in both time and money) a lot more expensive than a provisional with a CBT, which is the minimum requirements for a moped.

I've always assumed that the insurance is covered by the company employing the rider, as they're often the ones supplying the bike and they should be doing the due diligence of checking qualifications.

I don't agree with it, either, but that's the reality.

On another note, I'm royally pissed off this morning with the great big tyre rut through my front garden from a delivery van yesterday. No idea which company, so can't complain

It's a failure of regulation. We let these companies get away with it, so people will take advantage of the opportunities. If they were classed as 'employers' with all the attendant responsibilities, the issue would largely go away. It would push costs up though - but that's just being realistic about the economics of having something delivered to your door 24/7

Agreed, if the employer is providing the vehicle then it's presumably their responsibility to ensure adequate insurance. However I suspect that many Yodel (and similar) drivers using their own cars are totally uninsured - business insurance for carrying goods is a heck of a lot more expensive than standard social and domestic policies.

Back to the OP and don't see how it's legal for the licence holder to just let their mates work under their licence (I remember something similar with Uber), as this renders the company security checks totally worthless and gives us as the customer zero protection.

In my experience, around here they are all on illegally converted e-pushbikes, doing 25 on the pavement without a hint of pedalling, causing no end of issues for pedestrians with those massive square bags, maybe I only notice because they are on the pavements though, and theres loads of L-plated motorbikes too?

But if someone isn't deemed competent to carry a pillion, how are they qualified to be a professional road-user?  I'd agree the risk is mostly to the rider, but not exclusively and I see a lot of terrible riding which shouldn't be tolerated from anyone, let alone someone who is acting as a professional.  Anyway, isn't the main point of restricting what you can do on a provisional licence to encourage you get properly qualified so you are less likely to get yourself killed?

A lot of qualifications are expensive, time-consuming and a general pain in the arse to obtain, but that's not a good reason to make them optional.  How about if Deliveroo and the others organised training and took some responsibility for getting their employees properly qualified?

Generally some sort of scooter with a massive top box.  With an L plate (who knows how many don't even bother with that?)

"Employee pool" - there's the rub.

The employers only get away with this because they maintain a fiction that their zero-hours casual employees are in fact not employees.  They're wholly independent self-employed sub contractors apparently, and therefore it's none of the employers' business or concern whether they are riding safely or legally - on petrol-engined scooters, electric motorbikes, e-bikes or bicycles.

The riders are much more in danger themselves than they are a danger to others for what its worth.  As far as the employers are concerned it's a pretty sharp practice imo, exploitative and immoral.

As you say, it's subcontracting (the ability to send a substitute to work in your place is one of the pretty much essential conditions that define a self-employed contractor; if they *couldn't* do that then they would be employees). It does make me wonder what the situation is with background checks etc, though. Is the original contractor implicitly assuming legal responsibility and liability for the actions of the subcontractor...? 

Edit: IANAL but I was curious. It looks like the contractor is responsible for *performance* but would not normally be liable for *negligence* of a subcontractor (the subcontractor would hold all liability). But that all assumes subcontractor was selected with due diligence. I am pretty sure that "hey, they never actually check if you're over 18" is not due diligence...

Don't forget riding the wrong way down one-way roads, riding scooters on pavements, motorbikes & scooters using cycle lanes, bypassing red lights by riding around them on the pavement, and generally breaking pretty much every bloody traffic law there is.

Traffic law enforcement is pretty much non-existent. It seems most cyclists (delivery & normal) have moved to the pavements, and expect right of way.

For context, I'm a cyclist. I don't drive.

Carrying a pillion is a totally different thing to riding solo and you can absolutely be a competent/professional road user without ever carrying a pillion - otherwise, there would be a pillion section in the CBT, which is the current minimum standard for riding a motorbike on the road.

There's not even a pillion requirement in the full bike test and you could carry one home from your test if you passed it.

It also depends a heck of a lot on the experience/weight of the pillion, but let's not digress.

They don't have the exclusive on terrible riding/driving - see comment above about my front lawn!

Absolutely, but given the cost of further training/examination and the low chance of getting caught, it's wide open to abuse.

CBT only lasts 2 years - bet plenty don't have a current one.

Agreed, but, as is evident so far, they just don't care and there would need to be a law change at the minimum to push something like that forward.

I'm also not sure there's enough bike instructors to cope at the moment...

This is the issue, I think. It costs more than people are prepared to pay to deliver these orders safely. This is one of the ways to cut costs, i.e. no checks on these 'self-employed' delivery drivers

It's a reason why we don't get these deliveries in our rural & very hilly village, I expect.

The fact that the scooter has L plates has little relation to whether or not the rider has a full licence.

All the fast food outlets have multiple riders for each scooter, some will have a full licence, some won't.

Easier to put L plates on all the scooters and just leave them there

In which case, the scooters presumably belong to the business, and the employers can't even rely on willful ignorance of whether all the riders have a full licence.

Isn't it law (I'm sure it is with is with cars, don't know about motorbikes) that you can't display L plates unless a learner is actually driving? 

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about cars otherwise all the driving instructors would be committing offences when driving to pick up their clients

A lot of misconceptions in this thread.

You can't sign up to work for delivery apps without proving elegibility to work in the UK, proof of hire and reward insurance, proof of licence, dbs check, etc etc.

If you then choose to rent out your account, you are completely responsible for ensuring your "substitute" meets all the same standards.

But if you say you are on a bike - or ebike - for which a licence and insurance is not required - then there's no effective check.

I see enough illegal delivery bikes that this is not a rare occurrence

An exception applies for driving school vehicles, but the law states that on all other vehicles L places "must/should" be covered or removed when the learner isn't driving 

I think you're right but I still think that's a pretty minor issue compared with the admission that the employers are specifically modifying the vehicles to allow kids without a full licence to comply with one aspect of the law whilst almost certainly being uninsured for the job they are doing. 

Very little stopping them canceling the hire and reward insurance and going back to cheaper social, domestic and pleasure either. 

I do think renting the accounts goes on a lot though, someone legal signs up to every delivery app there is then rents out the right to work on the black economy. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if organised gangs are not involved. Sign up hundreds of legal people and sell or rent the accounts to illegal immigrants. 

Top tip, if your ever involved in an accident with a taxi get a photo of the driver, my aunt had a minor scrape with one, cars got fixed, no drama until a year later and the inevitable injury claim, aunt contested it as it and it actually got to court. The guy in court was an old bloke but the driver at the time was a young guy. No photos but the judge or magistrate threw it out because 2 cars rubbing together wouldn't cause the injuries claimed for. 

I still don't think you are right, I can't find the actual law anywhere. have you found it? Highway Code says "should" which means it is just guidance, not the law.

RAC website is a bit more detailed

"The Highway Code states that plates should be removed or covered when not being driven by a learner driver.

However, it is not illegal to drive with L plates after you pass your test."

I do agree it would be good if it was the law, but perhaps not a priority for the government right now.

You are correct about the L plates. 

In the Highway Code, when it says you 'should' do something, there is no specific offence for not doing it. But your lack of compliance can be used in a traffic court against you.

For something like undertaking on the left (a should not) , it would be easy to imagine a case where your actions lead to an accident and a case against you for e.g dangerous driving.

For keeping L-plates on, its hard to imagine an outcome that would end up in court, 

And with no lights !

Hang on just for a moment folks.

What exactly is the concern here?

I had a paper round and sometimes borrowed an older friend's moped.  Was the corner shop responsible?  Really?

And lots of jobs get done by kids.  Or are we saying that kids shouldn't do paid work?

As long as they're paid the right wage for their age (and the age-related minimum is a scandal, but not relevant here), they can do the work.

It's not then up to the employer to determine if they use a push bike (plenty do) or not.

Sounds like confected outrage to me.

There are very clear rules on employing minors and what hours they can work, especially under 16s.

Sure.  And have they been broken by the employer?  Not at all clear to me.

If they found out about it and failed to act then yes they could be held accountable.

In my area (IG post codes takes 6th, 7th and 8th places in top 20 most uninsured driver London post codes, 2023 data), 13% of car drivers have no insurance (East London in general) and 1:10 lack one or more of the following: tax, insurance, licence, mot. 

There are hundreds of thousands of cameras, but almost no police. What's the benefit of worrying about technicalities of L plates? There are bigger fish to fry.

Back in the 80s I did a bit of fast food delivery. I used my own bike, but the company supplied scooters with L plates for people who wanted to use them. There were no checks whatsoever. A new guy started work, and went straight out on a delivery having never driven a powered vehicle of any kind before. At the time I thought it was bonkers that this was legal, but it was on a small scale back then. With the number of drivers nowadays it's so much worse.

Good advice. When my wife was smashed into by some idiot (did significant damage to the car) he then tried to wriggle out of it saying he wasn't even in the country at the time and wasn't driving!

And even if they do have a full licence, was it them that actually passed it?

There's plenty of dodgy people that will impersonate you and pass your theory/practical test for you for a fee. For example:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23402395

https://www.south-wales.police.uk/news/south-wales/news/2022/gor-jul/woman-...

Ha haa it's not just dodginess, it can be a cultural norm in some communities. I was told by a doctor at a London hospital (not naming anyone/anything) that they had a genuine issue where if a patient can't make an appointment they might ask their cousin, brother etc to go in their place including blood tests!

The doctors have to consider this when reading results as conditions can miraculously be better in one test and then the problems return again in the next.

If someone didn't consider it unacceptable to do that for their hospital appointments/tests they'd hardly be concerned to get a relative to sit their driving test for them if they were too busy that day 🤣

In my younger days you could drive a 50+ ton mobile crane on L plates, even as recently as 20 years ago I used to drive a 55ton, 18m long and 3m wide crane on a normal licence. 

Were you doing the high rise deliveries?

The rules for tractors seem somewhat lax and not having kept up with how capable some of them are on road nowadays vs the crap ones of yore.

Well the 16 yr olds are limited in the width and speed compared with having a normal car licence, if it was a real problem (as opposed to a percieved one) I'm sure something would be done. In many US states farmers can drive a full-loaded semi on a car licence, in fact they can load more than usual.