Courts applying laws incorrectly against e-bike owners?

[morphix]

I just spotted this interesting blog post earlier discussing a local news story from last year concerning an e-bike owner who was caught pushing his e-bike while drunk and then caught again riding it while drunk.

First the first offence he was charged with being drunk while in charge of mechanically propelled vehicle and for the second offence being drunk while in charge of a cycle. It's strange how the court altered the definition of the e-bike between cycle and mechanically propelled vehicle. This meant two different offences were committed which couldn't normally happen if the vehicle was in one category.

Of some relevance was the fact the owner removed the pedals from the bike (at least for the first offence). The blog poster poses the question does removing the pedals off an e-bike mean it's no legally classed as a mechanically propelled vehicle? The blog poster suggests that under the law the e-bike should be classed as a motor vehicle since it had no pedals meaning it didn't comply with the e-bike law. So the e-bike owner got off lightly by the court not applying the law correctly for the first offence.

For a cycle, the drunk and in charge offence carries a £200 fine and/or 1 month in prison. But for being drunk and in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle (even just pushing it), it's up to £2,500 fine, up to 3 months in prison, license points and possible disqualification from driving. For being drunk and riding a mechanically propelled vehicle it's up to 6 months in prison and a £5000 fine, possible temporary driving ban. Something to consider if you're fancy getting on your e-bike from the pub when you're a bit over the limit!

The article discusses the extra powers and legal obligations police have concerning someone suspected of being drunk and riding a mechanically propelled vehicle. You can be forced to provide a breath, blood or urine sample back at the station. Normal bicycle owners can't be forced at all apparently.

Here is the blog article:
Man convicted of being drunk in charge of an e-bike | UK Cycle Rules - information on cycling law in England and Wales

 

[danfoto]

But hang on - isn't it the case that a bicycle is a carriage, not a vehicle?

 

[flecc]

Yes, I'd seen this one before. As it had no pedals fitted and had a motor, it was a motor vehicle as defined by both the 1983 EAPC regulations and the 2002/EC/24 type approval regulations of 2003.

 

[danfoto]

OK ... still trying to wrap what's left of my brain round this. If he hadn't taken the pedals off, would it still have been a motor vehicle?

 

[steveindenmark]

Does the fact that you don`t need pedals to ride an electric bike mean anything.

Plus if these offences were close to each other it does imply that he had the pedals and a means of attaching them again. In which case should he have not been charged with going equipped to steal as well ;Ø)

Steve

 

[flecc]

OK ... still trying to wrap what's left of my brain round this. If he hadn't taken the pedals off, would it still have been a motor vehicle?

If it was a legal e-bike in all other respects, with the pedals on it would not have been a motor vehicle.

The law on this aspect is quite clear, a legal ebike has to be capable of being pedalled. If it isn't, it's a motor vehicle. In a higher court case against someone riding a motorised pavement scooter which had vestigial pedals and cranks on the front wheel spindle, that was ruled to be a motor vehicle since the pedals arrangement wasn't practical for pedalling.

The cyclist in the thread case could still be charged with both a bicycle and a motor vehicle offence, since it's a legitimate function of a court to determine which law applies, but he should not be convicted of both.

Being convicted of both would justify an appeal.
.

 

[steve.c]

Hi. As I've said here before I was convicted of drink driving and attended the drink drive awarenes corse and while on the corse (which was v/good) I asked a traffic officer If you could be done for d/d on an electric bicycle and without hesitation he said YES. I said nothing then but later I caught him on his own I tackled him again and after about 15mins and searching through all his books he said "I'm sorry but I was wrong but no you can't be done for drink driving on a road legal electric bike" but can be charged with being drunk in charge of a bicycle which is a totally differant thing. Steve

 

[morphix]

OK ... still trying to wrap what's left of my brain round this. If he hadn't taken the pedals off, would it still have been a motor vehicle?

Hehe, confusing case isn't it. As flecc said, assuming his bike was e-bike fully legally compliant, only with the pedals off does it become a motor vehicle.

I noticed the guy who wrote that blog is a barrister and has been researching the law on e-bikes and cycles.. he seems to be saying that with the pedals off any e-bike would automatically be classed as a motor vehicle under the law...effectively an illegal motorbike. He reckons only taking the motor off would stop it being a motor vehicle while it has no pedals. But the court failed to make that determination and apply the higher penalties it seems.

On another post he also said e-bikes which have an "off-road" switch are classed as motorbikes while able to go faster than 15.5mph, yet perfectly road legal when they're switched into restricted mode!

 

[morphix]

Hi. As I've said here before I was convicted of drink driving and attended the drink drive awarenes corse and while on the corse (which was v/good) I asked a traffic officer If you could be done for d/d on an electric bicycle and without hesitation he said YES. I said nothing then but later I caught him on his own I tackled him again and after about 15mins and searching through all his books he said "I'm sorry but I was wrong but no you can't be done for drink driving on a road legal electric bike" but can be charged with being drunk in charge of a bicycle which is a totally differant thing. Steve

Interesting. That explains the convictions the guy got then in that article. He got drunk while in charge. So the police have same powers as they would for a motorist pretty much in terms of breath testing or requesting a sample, if you're caught with an e-bike drunk. But if you have a normal cycle they can't force you to supply samples, they have to make a determination on intoxication by your riding or behaviour it seems.

 

[flecc]

So the police have same powers as they would for a motorist pretty much in terms of breath testing or requesting a sample, if you're caught with an e-bike drunk.

No they don't.

A legal e-bike is a bicycle in law and a rider cannot be breathalysed, asked for a sample or charged under motor vehicle laws.

Stevec says as much in his post above.

 

[morphix]

No they don't.

A legal e-bike is a bicycle in law and a rider cannot be breathalysed, asked for a sample or charged under motor vehicle laws.

Stevec says as much in his post above.

That's interesting. That contradicts what the barrister posted here:

Similarly if you ride an e-bike, the police can’t require you do tests on the spot (breath tests, impairment tests etc). But you can be made to do a breath test or provide a blood or urine sample at a police station or hospital – in which case failure to comply is an offence carrying a fine of up to £5000. (RTA ss. 7(1), 7(6); RTOA s.9, Sch 2)

I wonder if he means it, as it reads, a legal compliant e-bike...or whether he means an e-bike that's not road legal? This seems to be a really important point eh. If the police can't ask you to go with them if your bike is legal.

But here's the thing... assuming you can't be made to go to station..what happens if you're in that position, and the police say they think your bike might not be legal and needs to be checked at station, would that be grounds for them to force a sample too?

 

[flecc]

That's interesting. That contradicts what the barrister posted here:



I wonder if he means it, as it reads, a legal compliant e-bike...or whether he means an e-bike that's not road legal.

I think he may be thinking of an illegal e-bike. In any case, that interpretation seems irrational, the police not allowed to breathalyse on the spot would give them no measured indication of a drunken state, giving them no positive cause to demand attendance at a police station for samples.

Unfortunately those RTA references give no year and there are large numbers of Road Traffic Acts. E-bikes don't usually get a mention in any of them, the only one I know of being the 14 years age limit. There are mentions in Construction and Use regulations, but they are technical and wouldn't include drinking.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I think it's all a bit academic. If I remember correctly, the police let him off the first two times, and then they were a bit fed up with him on the third, so they decided to do something about it, From the above account, it seems they caught him a forth time. I don't think we've got anything to worry about unless you cause an accident or are totally incapable.

 

[morphix]

Thanks flecc, as it's such an important point and that info on the barristers site might be out of date or just wrong, I asked him to clarify and provide those years for the RTA refs..so I will report back if I hear anything.

 

[morphix]

All these laws, regulations and different overlapping legislation can make your head spin! I'd hate to be a judge.

 

[flecc]

Thanks flecc, as it's such an important point and that info on the barristers site might be out of date or just wrong, I asked him to clarify and provide those years for the RTA refs..so I will report back if I hear anything.

Thanks Paul, I think it does need clarification with an exact reference to the RTA and sections he means, just quoting RTA and sections in isolation is meaningless, since they could be anywhere.

Laws may be somewhat unnecessary at times, but they are not usually irrational in their mode of operation.

 

[morphix]

Following on with this interesting discussion from last night, here is a reply I had today from the barrister chap who runs the UK Cycle Rules website.. I can't quote him exactly (he's asked me not to, and stresses that this shouldn't be taken as legal fact or advice), anyway here is a summary...

He says that the quote and RTA references above are based on his interpretation of how e-bikes meet the definition of mechanically propelled vehicles in law, rather than bicycles. And he says this view is most likely to be the one courts will apply based on RTA 1988.

But he goes on to say he can't say with certainty that courts will always apply that definition or that it's even the right definition, because he says courts haven't addressed or agreed on this specific question yet.

He closes by saying that on the basis that courts do hold to this view that e-bikes are mechanically propelled vehicles then under ss4 and 7 RTA the police have the powers to require a specimen at a hospital or police station if they believe you're intoxicated while in charge of an e-bike.

 

[morphix]

So to break this down, in a nutshell... are road-legal e-bikes bicycles, or mechanically propelled vehicles in law? Perhaps it's not so simple, and they can fall into both categories, depending on the courts assessment and the offences/laws being applied?

 

[yselmike]

I got flattened by a scooter friday night the first thing the police wanted was an ID the second was blow into this, in Amsterdam.

 

[Morgann]

I got flattened by a scooter friday night the first thing the police wanted was an ID the second was blow into this, in Amsterdam.

I take it you were on a pedelec? And, Dutch Law; presumably different from UK law?