Trendy motorised scooters known as Go-peds are motor vehicles in the eyes of the law and their riders must have a driving licence and third-party insurance to use them on the highway, the High Court ruled last week.

In a judgment that effectively bars the scooters from public pavements and streets because it is impossible to get insurance for them, two judges held that they are intended for use on the roads, despite the distributors' warning against such use.

The temptation to use Go-peds on the roads is considerable, notwithstanding their limitations, said Lord Justice Pill, sitting with Mr Justice Bell in London

The judges allowed a test case challenge by the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire to a Harrogate magistrates court decision last February that Go-peds were not motor vehicles.

The magistrates had cleared scooter rider Michael Saddington, 38, from Middlesbrough of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified and without insurance.

The ruling was to decide the legal issues involved and did not result in Mr Saddington being convicted. His lawyers said after the judgment that no insurers would cover the scooters because they were unclassified and did not have type approval and so lacked a VIN number.

The scooters are powered by a 22.5cc two-stroke direct drive engine and are capable of speeds up to 20mph. The police had urged the judges to rule that they should be classified as motor vehicles so their use could be controlled in the interests of public safety. But Richard Reed, counsel for Mr Saddington, contended they were far removed from the definition of a motor vehicle.

They had an inadequate form of steering, had no clutch, lights, reflectors, suspension, seat, horn, speedometer, mirrors or mudguards and had been designed for sport and for use on private land. Mr Saddington had described a Keystone Cops scene in which he was pursued through Harrogate town centre by police with flashing lights and sirens wailing.

He had borrowed the toys for boys Go-ped on the spur of the moment from a member of staff while he was proprietor of the Ginnel Cafe at the Corn Exchange building.

He admitted he was very stupid to go on the road. He was ordered to pay fines and costs totalling 275.