Some of Britain's finest legal minds were asked to ponder the status of motorised scooters yesterday thanks to a bizarre police chase likened to the Keystone Cops.

Sitting at the high court in London, Lord Justice Pill, with Mr Justice Bell, suggested the public may need more protection from the Go-Ped craze because a loophole in the law had allowed their uncontrolled use.

The case followed a chase through Harrogate, North Yorkshire, which ended in the arrest of 38-year-old restaurateur, Michael Saddington, on charges of driving while disqualified.

As he tried out a Go-Ped belonging to one of his staff - similar in style to the popular folding aluminium scooters, but larger and fitted with a small petrol engine - Mr Saddington heard police sirens.

"It was a bit like the Keystone Cops actually. When the siren was going I thought: 'I wonder where they are going,' expecting them to whoosh straight past. But it turned out they were chasing me," he said outside the court.

Yesterday's test case was brought by the chief constable of North Yorkshire against a Harrogate magistrates court decision last February that Go-Peds were not motor vehicles.

The magistrates had cleared Mr Saddington, from Middlesbrough, of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified and driving without insurance.

The judges said the court would need time to consider whether Go-Peds, which are capable of speeds up to 20mph, could be classified as motor vehicles as a possible answer to the difficulties they posed.

Geraldine Kelly, appearing for the police, said the status of the scooters, which are powered by a 22.5cc two-stroke direct drive engine, was causing confusion and guidance was being sought from the court.

She 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.

Richard Reed, appearing for Mr Saddington, said: "This is not a motor vehicle and a clear message needs to be sent out that these are not to be used on the road - a message clearly spelt out by the manufacturer and retailer."

After the hearing, Mr Saddington, described how he had borrowed a Go-Ped. He said he was spotted by police after he failed to stop at traffic lights. He was chased by a police car until he picked up his machine and went into a pub, where he was questioned and officers discovered he was disqualified from driving.

When he appeared before magistrates, he pleaded guilty to failing to stop at the lights and failing to stop for the police.

He was found guilty of failing to wear protective headgear, but was cleared of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified and with no insurance. He was fined £275, including costs.

In court, Ms Kelly argued that both a driving licence and insurance should be required for Go-Ped drivers as they could properly be classified as motor vehicles under the provisions of the 1988 Road Traffic Act.

Lord Justice Pill said: "This all shows the dangers of putting a Go-Ped on a public road. That is the very kind of machine which the public needs protection against."

The case continues.