I think it's a fear on not conforming, so anything new is only accepted when a critical mass of acceptance is achieved which indicates widespread approval.
America the brave, Britain the timid.
And you thought our e-bike laws are tough!!
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
America the brave, Britain the timid.
I ride a bike that assist upto 25mph and a peak motor power of 750watts. By your definition, I'm an idiot simply because I don't adhere to an arbritary, poorly implemented badly worded and stupidly reasoned draconian law.
The fact that I'm a responsible rider who adheres to the highway code and is careful in the use of this extra power, especially in the presence of pedestrians (with increased power comes increased responsibility) doesnt seem to have been factored in your reasoning. Tell me, if I rode every where at 25mph under pedal power only would you have an issue with that?
I'd put it to you that those blindly adhering to the legislation because "its the law" without any more complex reasoning are in fact the ones with a dubious iq.
Oh, and you need to read up on third party insurance liabilities and accepted exclusions. It's like that old myth/fallacy that people trot out stating "if your car doesn't have a valid mot or tax or has undeclared mods then your insurance is invalid".
Last edited:
I'm relieved, (for your sake) that you have such command of the law in your role as "a responsible rider who adheres to the highway code and is careful in the use of this extra power, especially in the presence of pedestrians (with increased power comes increased responsibility)......
I'm afraid that sounds to me like the height of arrogance but what do I know? Perhaps when you recount that opinion in front of your local bench, should you ever find yourself in that position through your riding an illegal machine on the highway, you'll be completely vindicated and I shall feel such a moronic fool for ever doubting you.
I do find it interesting that you are quick to tell us all that you adhere to the Highway Code yet you openly confess to breaking other parts of our UK laws because you find them "badly worded and stupidly reasoned".......some people might call that approach a double standard but I won't risk saying that as you obviously know a great deal about legal matters.
Because I'm the doubting type, I'm staggered that you have insurance which covers illegal bike usage on our roads in the UK so, perhaps you'd like to tell readers which company provides that cover. Insurance has come up several times in this forum and some members report having great difficulty insuring legally compliant ebikes so I'm sure they will be eager to know who provides cover for your illegal machine.
I'm off now to see if I can find a copy of any book on myths and fallacies. That must be riveting reading material!
Indalo
It's not arrogance - it's called personal responsibilty. I don't need leglistlation to tell me what's safe and what isn't - I have a brain to help me with that.
I'm perfectly prepared to have that argument if the time comes. Part of participating in civil disobedience means having the conviction to stand by your decisions and accepting the consequence.
I have an advanced understanding of the Highway Code and I consider it a excellent collection of common sense articles that actively contribute to making our roads a safer place. Our current ebike laws however do no such thing. That's the point I'm trying to make - I don't follow the Highway Code simply because "it's the Highway Code" but because it is a useful document. Similary, the current ebike leglislation is no such thing.
As far as my understanding of the law goes, yes, I do have several qualifications, particularly surrounding contract and employment law.
I have third party cover. Let me use an example of car insurance to see if it helps you understand the concept.
I take out fully comprehensive cover for my Mondeo. However, I'm a bit short on cash one month so I don't renew my MOT. One morning I drive into a third party causing extensive damage to thier vehicle - the accident is my fault. My insurer is notified and quite rightly refuses to cover thier obligations to me in respect of any injury to me or damage sustained to my vehicle, as I have breached a specific term and condition of the insurance contract (i.e. current MOT). However, they cannot renege on thier responsibilities to the third party, as under UK law they have an implied contract with the third party with NO clauses, and thus they are obliged to make reparations to the third part in representation of their client.
The only instance where they would not be liable to the third party would be if they could demonstrate the third party was a contributor are entirely culpable in the accident.
So, coming back to ebike insurance - and specifically insurance for illegal ebikes - if you have insurance that has a third party element (they all do) such as insurance via membership with the ctc or via your home insurance, and you have an accident on that bike - whilst you will not be covered for damage to yourself (which you don't need - every UK citizen already has excellent medical insurance) or you bike you ARE covered for any third party damages, even if you ride a bike with two rockets strapped to the back
Last edited:
I disagree with you on reasoning. Unlike operators of other powered vehicles, riders of e-bikes are not licenced or tested on proficiency so there is no measure of their competence. It is on that basis that legislators act. Recognising that bicycles can be operated without licencing and with few restrictions, they legislate to ensure that e-bikes are as close to normal bicycles as they can make them to ensure they also qualify for similar exemptions.
There are very few ways in which they can do that, basically speed, weight and power being the obvious ones. There is a valid argument that power need not be regulated if speed is, and the European parliament has currently accepted that. Weight limitation is valid since the weight of a bike travelling at a given speed determines the damage it can cause. Limiting weight to as little as possible so that they are not too much heavier than normal bikes is therefore rational.
That leaves us with speed limitation, and it's that which causes dissent. The legislators have chosen to limit to a liberally interpreted utility riding speed, on the basis that the assistance is primarily for those who need it, not for the highly capable and sport riders who commonly travel faster.
That appears to me to be entirely rational. I don't accept the argument of those who say "I can cycle continuously at 25 mph", simply because they obviously are not in need of assistance. The argument that bicycles can reach high speeds downhill is just as empty, since e-bikes can as well.
The "dubious iq" that produced this answer is 153 on the Cattell scale.
For what it's worth I support mandatory training for cyclists - I'd like to see something akin to the CBT. I think it should be free for those at school or in further education and for others at a token cost. I don't agree with registration - completing the course could simply be demonstrated by carrying a unique card, like a national insurance card, when you're out on the bike.
I think if other vehicles are expected to obey the rules of the road when they are travelling with a cyclist then the cyclist should be expected to do the same - and have the relevant training to enable them to do so.
In a way I concur but have you noticed that legislation is almost always passed in an attempt to control the irresponsible or unintelligent? It is rarely passed in order to control the responsible or intelligent, hence the arbritary 14 yrs old minimum age as well.
Ditto
And please lets not have the discussion stall - an answer to this legislation question needs to be found for ebikes to be succssful. At least when you've disagreed with me you've had the common courtesy to not call me an idiot or a clown
Another quote I like:-
"Sir, I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it".
Last edited:
I suppose it's arguable that it must match the lowest common denominator, since setting the barrier higher would mean a proportion unable to cope. I think it's true of most law that it irritates those who don't need it, and setting the level for the majority can be annoying and inconvenient.
I've always argued that the "Italian" approach is best. Have all the laws with appropriate severity, but only enforce them when absolutely necessary. That way they ride scooters etc without helmets, even very young children ride mopeds etc. The police tend to act only when something goes wrong, which inherently means that in the main, only the guilty suffer the irritations of laws. The sensible who operate without accidents and annoyance to others are not inconvenienced.
You've nailed my sentiments exactly
I also think there is an increasing element of our Police service that is adopting a similar approach - or that's at least that's the conclusion I came to when I rode away from two cyclist mounted policemen on Blackpool prom on Thursday ;-)
It's the patchiness of this in Britain that's the problem. Here in the Metropolitan Police area, districts act differently and individual officers vary widely. In the "county" forces, the chief constables insitute their own policies, one will crack down on something that is ignored over the border. Worse still this extends to the magistrates, one area's magistrates unilaterally deciding to make examples of a particular type of offence which doesn't happen anywhere else.
Yes, that's another issue - if a law is going to be actively enforced it should be enforced with uniformity and fairness across all counties.
As far as those deriding those who break the ebike law all I can say is a hope none of you shave or mow your lawns on a Sunday ;-)
Yes, reminds me of a law that was in force until quite recently. London cab drivers by law had to carry a bale of hay in the back, a left-over from the horse drawn hackney carriage days.
Yup, and one day we'll look back and laugh at the current ebike law and think how silly it was.
I'm just not confident on that, As things stand, the EU law is getting increasingly used elsewhere. As I posted at the outset, China intends to adopt it asap, Victoria in Australia could become the thin edge of the wedge there once they complete adoption since the rest of the country wants the 250 watts allowed. Japan's law is very close to it. Add on the whole of Europe and thats much of the e-bike using world, and the US scene as I've shown is not to be envied. The trend overall is clearly to more restriction.
Its the assist speed which is mostly in contention, but that is the least likely to ever change. Throttles may be permitted it seems, but tied to under 25 kilos which will limit the motors etc that might have come with loss of motor power restrictions.
I see this as a matter of how e-bikes are seen. We tend to see them as a type of vehicle, but the legislators don't. They see bicycles as a type of vehicle, which can if required have some motor assistance. This explains why the laws take the form of exemptions rather than complete specific recognition of a separate vehicle type, and remaining laws applying are the ordinary bicycle ones.
For higher speeds they do recognise a specific type as in Germany, but add registration, number plate and insurance requirements. The same applies in Switzerland. So higher speed without bureaucracy is extremely unlikely in our lifetimes and probably in the life of e-bikes.
Aha - I see those as being broadly in the same category as cigarettes and booze - both of those would surely be class-A drugs if they were not so deeply entrenched in 'normal' life. Also, perhaps more significant to the cynic in me is the fact that all of them are huge cash generators for the Exchequer, local councils, etc...
Rog.
Hang on a minute, can I back up for a bit of clarification..... is it the case that, if I have ctc bicycle insurance (and that will include 3rd party insurance), then the 3rd party element of that insurance will remain in force for a vehicle that is not a classed as a bicycle. Happy to be corrected, but it doesn't sound very likely to me.
Amigafan2003
I have just shared your logic with a colleague and you have given us both a good laugh on what would otherwise be a dull shift. Thank you for that. Sadly, I don't think that you have the, "tools" available to you to understand why your, "reasoning" has such comedy value. (Lets just say that we are both going to cancel our car insurance tomorrow and rely on the house insurance instead)
You have attained an astonishing level of ignorance that I had previously thought impossible to achieve. In fact, your ignorance shines like a golden shaft of urine streaking through a dark void in knowledge before entering your ****-pot world of law, logic and reasoning. You have also demonstrated a breathtaking disregard for the consequeces of your actions upon others, supplying us with a justification which is based entirely upon some sort of self perceived confidence in you skills as a cyclist.
I have seen other posts querying some of the statements that you have made and all that I can say to these people is, "treat with caution, the man is in urgent need of help!"
Last edited:
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
