RICKSHAW operators have voiced their disappointment after Scotland's highest court upheld a council's decision to ban them from operating on safety grounds.
Glasgow City Council had racked up legal bills of £60,000 to take the long-running legal battle to the Court of Session after a sheriff ruled that it had no right to refuse Robin Birrell's application for a rickshaw licence on the grounds that the vehicle had no three-point seatbelts or a roll cage to safeguard passengers if it overturned.
The pedal-powered rickshaws, known as pedicabs, can carry three passengers at a time who are harnessed using a single lap belt between them.
The council's decision followed a report by the Land and Environmental Services (LES) department which raised concerns about the vehicles, which do operate in Edinburgh.
The LES document was used by the Licensing and Regulatory Committee as grounds to reject Mr Birrell's application in April 2013, together with evidence from then Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, Stephen House, that they could pose a hazard on city centre roads.
Mr Birrell appealed to Glasgow Sheriff Court, arguing that it was "not feasible" to fit three-point seatbelts and a roll cage. He won the case in February 2014, but the council subsequently barred any new rickshaw licences from being granted in the city pending the outcome of an appeal the Court of Session to overturn the ruling.
Lord Malcolm has now granted the council's appeal.
He stated: "While no doubt a different committee might reach another view, the concerns flowing from the absence of individual three-point seatbelts and a roll cage are uncomplicated and easily understood.
"[Mr Birrell's lawyer] repeatedly emphasised that pedicabs would not travel at high speed; however, the same cannot be said of other vehicles which might collide with a pedicab."
The court also rejected the argument from Mr Birrell's legal team that since the pedicab was certified by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), Glasgow City Council had no right to "'second guess' government regulations and standards on the design and construction of such vehicles" and that "the only possible view was that, having obtained the VOSA certificate, the vehicle must be taken as suitable for its proposed use, with or without seatbelts and a roll cage".
Owen O'Neill, manager of Evolution Rickshaws, which provides the pedicabs, said they were disappointed by the ruling.
He said Mr Birrell was considering whether to appeal to the UK's Supreme Court.
Mr O'Neill added: "A rickshaw is not a motorised vehicle. There's no requirement for roll cages or three-point seatbelts.
"At no stage before the refusal was Robin told 'if your rickshaw doesn't have these specific requirements then we're going to refuse your application' - he just turned up on the day, they produced this LES document, and they refused his application. It was just this ambush of information at the last minute."
Around 12 other rickshaw operators are awaiting licence decisions.
A spokesman for Glasgow City Council said: "We welcome this decision as the court found that the Licensing Committee was fully entitled to refuse the application to licence the pedicabs of this operator on the basis of public safety.
"The council is currently reviewing its policy on pedicabs and we will study carefully the Court of Session's judgement as part of that process.
"Public safety is a primary concern for the Licensing Committee."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article