Blind and partially sighted people are being forced off streets by silent, fast machines—that's a rights crisis. 73% of RNIB respondents had a near-miss, and my own community members report constant fear; a ban restores their equal access to public space.

Paris banned rental e-scooters after a referendum and pedestrian injuries fell sharply—that's a clear precedent. But Copenhagen shows that even with dedicated lanes and speed limits, harm persists; history suggests the ban is the more decisive intervention.

What happens to the thousands of people who rely on e-scooters for their commute or delivery work? A ban without a robust alternative risks simply shifting the problem—or punishing low-income riders who can't afford a car or taxi.

This ban unlocks a genuinely safer, more inclusive street for everyone—especially children, elderly, and disabled pedestrians. With the £90 million annual cost of collisions saved, we can invest in proper cycling infrastructure and public transport instead.

The proposer's grief is real, and the safety data is damning—but we need to acknowledge that a ban also removes a low-carbon transport option. Can we design a phased transition that phases out e-scooters while rapidly scaling up bike-sharing and bus routes to fill the gap?