Approved ebike list?
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
Somehow I can't believe that the police are going to be carrying around dynos to test ebikes in the UK (or Australia, come to that). Given that you can legally have far more power at the back wheel than the notional 250W that the EU regs supposedly limit EPACs too, dyno testing ebikes in Europe as a whole would be fairly pointless.
The restricted motorcycle debate in the other link was interesting. I was aware of the 33hp limit for new riders, but not the 0.16 kW/kg limit. Presumably that's been included to keep extreme acceleration rates down, but it's still enough for a fair bit of performance (a lot more than my first post-motorcycle test 1959 T110, that's for sure!).
My inclination is to go for just a self-declared maximum assisted speed limit of 25km/h, maximum empty weight of 40kg (solo bike), 60kg (tandem or trike), and compliance with the bicycle safety regs (really just brake effectiveness). This approval route to be restricted to electric bicycles already in use in the UK prior to the formal introduction of Type Approval to EN15194 and further restricted post the introduction of Type Approval to one-off electric conversions to pedal cycles only.
If the DfT baulk at that proposal then we could fall back to the acceleration test in Annex D, but I would argue strongly that for a one-off conversion this should be self-certified by the builder, not something that requires a trip to a test centre.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
I guess you could make a dyno to do this, with a load that increases with the sum of rolling resistance reduction with speed and aerodynamic drag increase with speed, but TBH it would be a lot of faffing about. The acceleration test only needs a measured 20m of flat ground, with a run off area for braking beyond that. Although Annex D specified a total weight of 150kg, they give the formula to derive "power" so you could do it at any weight easily enough. For example, for a bike and rider total mass of 120kg then as long as the time taken to accelerate from a standstill to 20m (without pedalling) was greater than 7.3 seconds then the "power" would be 250W or less. For 150kg the time increases to 7.8S minimum.
EN15194 specifically allows the bike to be modified for the power test to disable the pedelec only function. (bizarre, but true............................)
So at the end of this debate (although I doubt it's the end) I'm still at the same conclusion:-
1: Even if my bike was restricted to 25kh/h
2: AND even if I made some notional attempt to adhere to the 250w continous ruling
3: AND even if I removed the throttle
I would STILL be riding an illegal ebike because it wouldn't be EN approved or have been tested to the BS standards, and I'd open to exact same charges (unregistered motor vehicle, no insurance, no mot, no tax etc) as if the bike did 45km/h, had 800 watts and was fitted with a throttle.
So, if the bike is illegal either way - I might as well make it worth it eh?
1: Even if my bike was restricted to 25kh/h
2: AND even if I made some notional attempt to adhere to the 250w continous ruling
3: AND even if I removed the throttle
I would STILL be riding an illegal ebike because it wouldn't be EN approved or have been tested to the BS standards, and I'd open to exact same charges (unregistered motor vehicle, no insurance, no mot, no tax etc) as if the bike did 45km/h, had 800 watts and was fitted with a throttle.
So, if the bike is illegal either way - I might as well make it worth it eh?
Just about sums things up!
The "degree of illegality" has two main effects;
- It might increase the probability of being caught, if the ebike performance is spotted on the road as being suspiciously high.
- It would reduce the degree of mitigation that could be pleaded if you ended up in court, or could be seen as an aggravating circumstance when a sentence was being determined.
Other than those two factors, then yes, breaking the law is breaking the law, whether by 1 watt or 1000 watts.
From what I understand from the various threads and my own reading, it would still be illegal even if it was EN15194 approved. This is a somewhat ****ty state of affairs.
I am not really bothered about being pulled over and having the bike examined. That is so unlikely that I scarcely give it a thought.
My main concern is, and always has been, what happens if I am involved in an accident and someone is injured. That is a very real possibility. No matter how careful or skilful (talking in general terms here) people perceive themselves to be, someone could step off a pavement in front of them and the result could be anything from bruised pride to death. Towards the more extreme end of the injury scale, the bike will be seized and it will be forensically examined for any infringements against construction and use law, and if what I am reading is correct, it will be found to have been in use illegally at the time of the accident.
Putting aside any road traffic offences for which the rider is convicted, a civil claim for injury damages is almost certain to follow. A civil claim requires a much lower standard of proof (balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt) and with a conviction for motoring offences committed at the time of the accident hanging around the neck, a good outcome for the rider looks to be a remote possibility.
Having no insurance and being faced with an injury compensation bill is going to be an uncomfortable situation, particularly if you have assets such as a house etc.
I think the above scenario is a possibility. You would have to be unlucky, but I would say that it is more of a possibility than being stopped by the Police and having your bike checked as part of a routine stop. It would be particularly bitter knowing that your bike supplier had told you that you were buying and riding a completely legal machine.
Last edited:
So what can I do?
1. Get my MP to write to whoever is in charge. Is it Norman Baker? https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/parliamentary-under-secretary-of-state--30
2. In the meantime, permanently disable the high power assist mode on my Kalkhoff Agattu. I think I might be able to to modify the wring of the handle bar switch to make it impossible to switch it out of the default medium assist mode. ( It looks easy to do since the bike switches on in medium assist mode so one just has to disable the up down buttons.) From my observations of bike performance I am fairly confident that this would restrict the power output at all times to less than 200 watts.
This is...a can of worms..so....if your bike is insured, your insurance is void as you 'may' be riding al illegal bike...?
Exactly.
The poor state of the law also brings up another unfortunate issue. If someone has doubts about the legality of thier ebike, I wonder how great the temptation would be to leave the scene of an accident - presuming the rider is able to do so?
If the law were more reasonable then that temptation would not exist.
There is a similar discussion about the benefits of providing basic third party insurance with the VED, similar to some countries on the continent (i.e. they'd be less hit and runs if everyone had basic third party insurance).
Correct. Although a freind has made a successful claim through his CTC insurance after he was knocked off his 25mph, 1kw ebike.
Last edited:
Just to put this into perspective (because I believe that some of the probable consequences are getting stretched a little here), how many people have any form of personal liability insurance cover, other than when driving a car or riding a motorcycle?
My guess is that the majority of cyclists have no form of third party insurance cover.
An ebike that has a performance similar to that of a pedal cycle presents no more risk to the general public.
How often do we hear of cyclists being sued for injury damage (or pedestrians pushing prams, or people riding mobility scooters, or propelling wheelchairs, come to that)?
I believe that, at the moment, most cyclists are taking the risk that they could be sued for injuries caused anyway, and I doubt that the bike being electrically assisted will make a jot of difference to that.
If you are one of the small minority (I suspect) that have some form of third party liability insurance for your bike, then yes, my guess is that it will be invalidated if the ebike isn't legal.
My guess is that the majority of cyclists have no form of third party insurance cover.
An ebike that has a performance similar to that of a pedal cycle presents no more risk to the general public.
How often do we hear of cyclists being sued for injury damage (or pedestrians pushing prams, or people riding mobility scooters, or propelling wheelchairs, come to that)?
I believe that, at the moment, most cyclists are taking the risk that they could be sued for injuries caused anyway, and I doubt that the bike being electrically assisted will make a jot of difference to that.
If you are one of the small minority (I suspect) that have some form of third party liability insurance for your bike, then yes, my guess is that it will be invalidated if the ebike isn't legal.
I think it's possible to get too paranoid about this issue. The DfT protection, though not a well documented exemption, would I'm sure extend to all e-bikes conforming to EU law, the DfT acknowledging that this legality is and has been the intention for years. In the case of an EU legal e-bike, I'm confident that even an issue that has reached the CPS will be killed off if the grounds for the prosecution was the illegality of the e-bike.
After all, a good case could be made to sue government for negligence, since their support for 250 watts has been documented at various times since at least 2005. Furthermore, the EU type approval order 2002/EC/24 was passed into UK law on 10th November 2003 as instructed by the EU commission. This not only mentions the legality of 250 watt pedelecs, it also instructs member governments to remove all conflicting legislation by that date, something that was clearly not done. That can be punishable by the EU commission.
Would the government really want a determined individual to open this particular can of worms? I think not.
As always happens, expediency would come into play.
After all, a good case could be made to sue government for negligence, since their support for 250 watts has been documented at various times since at least 2005. Furthermore, the EU type approval order 2002/EC/24 was passed into UK law on 10th November 2003 as instructed by the EU commission. This not only mentions the legality of 250 watt pedelecs, it also instructs member governments to remove all conflicting legislation by that date, something that was clearly not done. That can be punishable by the EU commission.
Would the government really want a determined individual to open this particular can of worms? I think not.
As always happens, expediency would come into play.
But only if the legality of the bike is questioned - which seems rare (didn't happen in my friends case - his wife just came and picked the bike up, police didn't take a second look at it - they just advised him to take photos of the damage when he got it home).
I would think that anyone with home insurance has third party liability insurance. I know I do. That insurance covers me for up to £5M if I injure someone whilst riding a bicycle. If my bike was judged to be illegal (not a bicycle), that insurance would not cover me. I would need some sort of motor insurance, which I don't have for the bike.
These are very small risks and you would have to be unlucky, but the third party liability insurance on home cover is there for a reason and on a non approved ebike, you are financially exposed. If the cover wasn't on my home insurance and I rode a regular unassisted bike, I'd take out some form of third party insurance to cover that very small risk which has very large consequences.
Good point, I'd forgotten that many home insurance policies provide cover when riding a bike.
For the sake of argument, if someone was convicted of driving without insurance and driving without a licence or in contravention of a court disqualification on an EU-legal bike then I would sincerely hope that everyone in the industry would rally round to fund the cost of them suing the government for negligence over being in breach of the terms of 2002/EC/24. The government has blatently flouted its undertakings to remove conflicting legislation by 10th November 2003 and its guilt is clear. To criminalize a citizen on the back of that government culpability could be tantamount to a breach of human rights.
In point of fact it is the EU who should be imposing sanctions on the UK for breach and demanding rectification - and perhaps restitution.
Morally this is a strong case, legally it isn't, unfortunately.
One problem in the UK, that's existed for a long time, is that it is legal to sell something that cannot be used in this country without breaking the law. CB radio is perhaps a good example where for a couple of years shops were selling illegal radios quite openly. The same has happened with things like GoPeds, MiniMotos, pit bikes, mini quads and any number of other products that cannot be legally used in the UK (except, perhaps, under extremely limited conditions).
When I was dealing with the chap that bought the illegal "scooter" ebike a while ago, Trading Standards did try to go after the retailer, but all they could have done (had he not done a runner) would have been to try and stop him selling on the basis that he may have been misrepresenting the goods in the description.
I doubt you could go after the vendors if you were very unlucky and faced prosecution, as the law would assume that caveat emptor applies, and that therefore the onus was on the purchaser to confirm legality.
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
