Approved ebike list?

[shemozzle999]

........., such provisions being to accommodate different markets where the legal power levels vary. They generally aren't meant for owners to exploit.

I can see no need for this to be accessible externally, as power programming can be done during batch assembly, if required for post programming it would render the unit to be subject to re-approval.

 

[Jeremy]

There are two variants of the CE mark

One which is the known and loved one wot gives a sense of well being, the other one stands for China Export.. however as the genuine one can be 'self certified' it kinda means diddly squat (except as a defence / excuse by the importer/retailer when its all gone bang and some one is injured)

I've heard the "China Export" story, in my case directly from the vendor in China I bought the duff charger from, but I'm not convinced it's anything other than an excuse for deliberate fraud. Although in general CE marking is self-certified, in the case of electrical safety there has to be a QA audit trail back to the compliance demonstration against the LVD, and also perhaps the EMC Directive. As such it is harder for any reputable manufacturer to misuse, as if they have, for example ISO or similar accreditation then these audit trails and procedures will be checked during both initial accreditation and subsequent audits for retention and renewal of that accreditation.

 

[Jeremy]

I can see no need for this to be accessible externally, as power programming can be done during batch assembly, if required for post programming it would render the unit to be subject to re-approval.

I think it's just convenient for the manufacturers to do this. They can manufacture bikes ahead of knowledge of demand by area and rely on the dealers making the "right" settings during PID. From the manufacturers perspective they only have to stock one configuration, saving them keeping separate stocks for each region.

 

[shemozzle999]

Maybe we should just accept that 95% of ebikes are illegal (throttle / assist past 15.5 mph / questionable 200/250w rating) and try not to draw attention to ourselves. If we get st*ffed it will be because someone with a 1000w bike is involved in a fatal accident and it's picked up by the media.

I accept that it is impossible to stop people producing illegal bikes but we have an opportunity to address the issue with a clearly defined law and plug up the loop holes.
The sweeping it under the carpet approach I do not think will help the situation.

 

[Jeremy]

Maybe we should just accept that 95% of ebikes are illegal (throttle / assist past 15.5 mph / questionable 200/250w rating) and try not to draw attention to ourselves. If we get st*ffed it will be because someone with a 1000w bike is involved in a fatal accident and it's picked up by the media.

I suspect that's what the majority of people who know and understand the problem are already doing. It's all those who don't understand it that worry me slightly, as I personally feel it's a bit unreasonable for customers to be blissfully unaware that they may be breaking laws that could, in extreme circumstances, end up with them facing serious charges.

My approach has always been, right from the very first ebike I built, to make sure that the electric bits were well-integrated into the bike and so discreet as to be difficult to spot at first glance. Coupled with riding at speeds and in a manner that's similar to other cyclists around I've always felt the the probability of getting caught was very small.

 

[flecc]

I think there may be exceptions to this. If the accident involved injury or even death, then I think it is quite likely that the "blind eye" might well pop open and start looking at the strict interpretation of the law. I wouldn't even like to hazard a guess as to what might happen then.

Liability and negligence in law can be quite surprising at times. Years ago I was working on a double manslaughter case, where a volunteer had been charged following the alleged failure of a bit of structure and the subsequent death of a friend and another. The barrister leading the defence (who engaged my services) explained the law to me with an example where a man, who happened to be a motor vehicle technician, gave advice to his neighbour over the fence on changing the brake pads on his car. The neighbour made an error, unknown to the motor vehicle technician, and the brakes failed, causing an accident. The motor vehicle technician was held partly liable, as the court took the view that his advice, although free, was professional, so raising the standard of his duty of care above that of being simply a neighbour.

This leads me to suspect that, in the event of a serious accident, nothing would be off limits as far as pursuing charges against the bike rider might be concerned.

I agree Jeremy, that's why I stressed "if the 250 watt/throttle issues are the only ones". This informal waiver could only be used when someone is innocently using a non-conforming e-bike, though precedent shows a minor accident will not be an issue either.

 

[103Alex1]

I think there may be exceptions to this. If the accident involved injury or even death, then I think it is quite likely that the "blind eye" might well pop open and start looking at the strict interpretation of the law. I wouldn't even like to hazard a guess as to what might happen then.

....

This leads me to suspect that, in the event of a serious accident, nothing would be off limits as far as pursuing charges against the bike rider might be concerned.

I would agree with this and if there were any other aggravating factors surrounding the incident sentencing would most likely be influenced even if not overtly in the event the person is found guilty of something. This is especially so in the Magistrates Court or if an initial not guilty plea has been entered in order to be able to challenge the basis for a prosecution.

In practice, lawyers tend to plea bargain and in summary proceedings there is often little will to become embroiled in complex legal wrangles unless you are willing to pay for the privilege. Just in the same was as insurers often settle small claims even when there is little or no evidence of the insured's liability.

You will find that if you are ever involved in court proceedings then even when you 'win' and are awarded costs, by the time your costs have been 'taxed' (i.e. reduced down from how much you incurred to how much the court thinks you should get back), you will be left with a big hole in your pocket.

 

[shemozzle999]

I think it's just convenient for the manufacturers to do this. They can manufacture bikes ahead of knowledge of demand by area and rely on the dealers making the "right" settings during PID. From the manufacturers perspective they only have to stock one configuration, saving them keeping separate stocks for each region.

Couldn't any additional stocking costs could be recovered by a simpler approval system?

 

[flecc]

I would prefer to see that in law, rather than relying on the old boy network

There is a form of precedent in our sphere. For example, the Countryside Act 1968 only permits bicycles to use bridleways since unlike other cycling law it does not mention "tricycles and bicycles with four or more wheels".

However, Sustrans applied to the DfT for an exemption for tricycles and that was granted. This exemption has been formalised since no revision of that act was impending. In our case there is no point in formalising an exemption since revisions are already in process which will take care of the 250 watt issue.

 

[flecc]

Re: Law breaking. The government has refused to extend shopping hours on Sunday 23rd December, but Sainsburys have just knowingly announced illegal shopping hours for Sunday 23rd December. Ok for the big boys?

The law only permits 6 hours of continuous shopping on a Sunday.

Sainsburys will open it stores from 10am to 11am for browsing with checkouts operating from 11am they say. That means the checkouts should close at 5pm, but Sainsburys say they will continue to 5.30pm to clear the large numbers of fresh food customers expected to be checking out then.

All very elastic with 7.5 hours open in total. What's the betting that many of their checkouts will be serving before 11am anyway. Question is, will police forces station an officer in every Sainsburys, both to enforce the law and to arrest offending managers?

 

[Jeremy]

I would agree with this and if there were any other aggravating factors surrounding the incident sentencing would most likely be influenced even if not overtly in the event the person is found guilty of something. This is especially so in the Magistrates Court or if an initial not guilty plea has been entered in order to be able to challenge the basis for a prosecution.

In practice, lawyers tend to plea bargain and in summary proceedings there is often little will to become embroiled in complex legal wrangles unless you are willing to pay for the privilege. Just in the same was as insurers often settle small claims even when there is little or no evidence of the insured's liability.

You will find that if you are ever involved in court proceedings then even when you 'win' and are awarded costs, by the time your costs have been 'taxed' (i.e. reduced down from how much you incurred to how much the court thinks you should get back), you will be left with a big hole in your pocket.

A lot depends on the particular circumstances and the robustness of the evidence, though. If, for example, it were a fatal accident, then I think we could be fairly certain that the ebike in question would be thoroughly checked. If found to be significantly non-compliant with the law by a competent authority, then there probably wouldn't be any point in challenging that, the defendant would be far better to plead guilty and get the sentencing discount that would then be applied.

The rest of the case would be down to mitigation and aggravating circumstance. For example, if the ebike had been built by the rider, then that would be an aggravating circumstance that would increase the sentence, as by building it he/she was accepting a greater degree of liability for compliance than someone who just bought a ready built ebike. The same would apply if the rider could be shown to have either modified a ready built ebike, or to have reasonably known or suspected that his/her ebike had been modified to increase performance.

On the other hand if someone bought a ready built ebike, believing it to be legal, and had no reasonable grounds to suspect that it wasn't, then that would be fairly powerful mitigation that would act to reduce the sentence (before discount for the early guilty plea).

Although challenging common law, based on legal precedent, is occasionally worthwhile in court, challenging primary legislation is pretty tough and almost always doomed to failure, particularly if the legislation in question is as simple and clear as the statutes governing ebikes. If there is hard evidence of non-compliance with primary legislation like this then there is no real scope for bargaining at all, the only possibility might be if the evidence of non-compliance was borderline.

 

[GaRRy]

So all of us who have read this thread are stuffed

 

[Old_Dave]

Please sir, I only read a bit of it and I didn't inhale

 

[smudger1956]

Hmm..the first line of this thread was..I don't wish to start more hares running on the legal/illegal debate

 

[Cyclezee]

Re: Law breaking. The government has refused to extend shopping hours on Sunday 23rd December, but Sainsburys have just knowingly announced illegal shopping hours for Sunday 23rd December. Ok for the big boys?

The law only permits 6 hours of continuous shopping on a Sunday.

Sainsburys will open it stores from 10am to 11am for browsing with checkouts operating from 11am they say. That means the checkouts should close at 5pm, but Sainsburys say they will continue to 5.30pm to clear the large numbers of fresh food customers expected to be checking out then.

All very elastic with 7.5 hours open in total. What's the betting that many of their checkouts will be serving before 11am anyway. Question is, will police forces station an officer in every Sainsburys, both to enforce the law and to arrest offending managers?

Cyclezee will also be open for business all over the festive season including Christmas Day.........apart from lunch, the Queen's speach.......and oh yeah The Great Escape.

This time Steve McQueen will make it over the barbed wire

Free mince pies to every customer

 

[jazper53]

I prefer to challenge the law by non-compliance, rather than give this issue any further thought, as I have a life to live, whats left of it.

 

[Jeremy]

Hmm..the first line of this thread was..I don't wish to start more hares running on the legal/illegal debate

Good intentions, and all that....................

I have at least now got a shortlist of possible bikes for the lady down the road, though, although I've still been surprised by the vagueness with which the ebikes that clearly don't have formal approval to EN15194 are described. I've not found a single example of an ebike that is, or claims to be, compliant with the UK EAPC law, any that do claim compliance only seem to consider the EU EPAC regulations.

BTW, my reason for wanting to be careful in the first place is that the lady in question's late husband led a campaign a few years ago to stop people riding illegal MiniMotos around the local playing field and along the footpath leading to it. I have a suspicion that she would very much want to be squeaky clean about legality, especially as some of the parents in the village who had bought these MiniMotos for their kids weren't too impressed by the police clamp-down on them!

 

[jazper53]

Good intentions, and all that....................

QUOTE]

I would like to believe you but....................................???

 

[Jeremy]

Good intentions, and all that....................

QUOTE]

I would like to believe you but....................................???

But what?

TBH, what I was hoping for was someone to come forward, preferably from the ebike business, with a clear and unequivocal statement with regard to ready made ebikes and their legality. Certainly a couple of vendors have made it clear that their ebikes are Type Approved to EN15194 and hence legal, but equally we've seen a lot of confusion as to what is and what is not legal, including a reference to a kit being approved (which it cannot really be on it's own, it turns out).

The bottom line is that I had to spend a lot more time digging through the law and trying (in vain) to find any DfT exemptions that might apply. Whether this has been useful or not is up the the individual. In my case I've got what I wanted, although not quite as easily as I'd hoped. Some may have been annoyed by the whole discussion, some may have been informed by it, others may possibly have been surprised by it (as I was to some degree).

What is now clear to me is that the situation is messier than I'd assumed, and some vendors seem as confused and uncertain about the law as some customers. I'm not at all sure that's a good thing if we want to encourage people back into cycling via ebikes.

 

[amigafan2003]

An interesting point as well is that many high powered, fast ebikes can be brought back in line by simply substituting a lower voltage battery.

For instance my bikes battery is 63v. It would be very easy to dispose of that battery (assuming I'm not insensible as a result of an accident) and present the bike for inspection with a 36v battery - whereon it would match the characteristics of most "legal" ebikes - ignoring the type approval issue etc.

And of course it's very easy to also have a passive system built in so anyone testing the bike wouldn't be able to get the bike to assist above 16mph and the wattage would also be very low - certainly in line with EN approved bikes - in fact it'd feel a bit wimpy, the tester would probably conclude walking to be faster ;-)

Of course, Tilson will tell me that the above is all perjury etc - and he'd be right.