It's a bit of a touchy point
I think the only thing that would make them vehicles is their size. After all, nobody with half a brain would argue that a tandem is a vehicle, although it's bigger than a standard bike and can carry two people. My position is that the size is irrelevant and it's the way they are powered that makes a difference. I know for a fact that whatever the case in other parts of the world, all the rickshaws in Edinburgh are entirely human-powered.

Edit: These are what we use.
( MatJ LOOK, Tue 21 May 2013, 17:50, 3 replies)

Speaking as a nobody with half a brain
I would happily argue that a tandem is a vehicle and it's an argument I'd win.

ve·hi·cle (v-kl)
n.
1.A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance
(unclestinky, Tue 21 May 2013, 19:50, closed)

And a rollerskate?

( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Tue 21 May 2013, 19:52, closed)

two
to escape from the Gendarmes when covered in the blood of your children
(unclestinky, Tue 21 May 2013, 20:03, closed)

I don't know which I enjoy more:
A tricycle isn't a cycle, or a cycle isn't a vehicle.
Classic /qotw.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 22 May 2013, 8:43, closed)

How did you get that?
My opinion is that a rickshaw is a form of bicycle and that a bicycle is not a vehicle under standard legal definitions, but a class of its own.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 22 May 2013, 18:40, closed)

Your opinion is wrong on all counts...
Anything with other than two wheels is, by definition, not a form of bicycle.

Also, a bicycle is definitely a vehicle, as is a rickshaw.
(Kyzia was here on, Wed 22 May 2013, 21:38, closed)

My point
(As also made by benzyl, below) is that the law views bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles identically, and views them as a separate group from motor vehicles. Some of the same laws apply in that a cyclist is propelling a something on the highway, but my point is:

In law, cycles and motorised vehicles are treated differently.

In law, it doesn't matter how many wheels it has. It's all the same.
( MatJ LOOK, Thu 23 May 2013, 3:59, closed)

Maybe. I always thought
the idea of cycle lanes etc is to avoid mixing vulnerable vehicles (?) with cars and trucks.

Allowing cyclists into a pedestrian area kind of implies they are small and light enough not to be any significant danger to people walking about, so it would seem to me a relatively large vehicle like that rickshaw wouldn't count. You could certainly say it is vulnerable though, simply because it moves much slower than other traffic.

Having said that, if a copper was happy for you to be there in a rickshaw, they must qualify.

By the way - is it true that some cheeky rickshaw drivers have been caught with electric motors hidden away under the cab?
(username failed moderation, Wed 22 May 2013, 8:52, closed)

It's called electric assist
We don't have it here partly because if anyone did, they would be able to undercut the rest of us. I think some of the London rickshaws do, and in Amsterdam too.

There's a story that a London rickshaw cyclist, used to flat roads and electric assist, came up here to work a few years ago. After one night, he quit over the phone from the train back to London.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 22 May 2013, 18:37, closed)