Would I support changes in the law to allow assiatance to a higher speed and other possible changes (eg larger motors). Provided they were sensible (eg 20 mph / 500w motors) then almost certainly.
I think that a 20 MPH assist limit would be good.
I've long argued this position and even the European parliament recently considered a proposal to abolish pedelec power limitation. Unfortunately they didn't pursue it further with the EU Commission, possibly due to the complexity of everything else being discussed on two wheeler law.
I'm sure they don't, just the 4 mph pavement and 8 mph road speed limits. The first of those limits was derived from the Pedestrian Controlled Vehicles limit of 4 mph (6 kph in the EU).
Sounds good to me. Shared cycle paths need sensible consideration to speed. When I was fit I could quite happily ride down the Tissington trail at 20 to 25 mph on the empty sections, I wouldn't dream of going that fast with other users on the trail.
Me Too !! (Muse 'Resistance' playing loudly in background)Heeeeey, The E-Bike Rebel Aliance is born...
EBRA. Count me in.
Well ... let's be fair ... more a shade of twilight than dark !Kalkhoff BS10
Riding on the dark side, apparently!
Come on, After a lifetime of riding litre + motorcycles with outrageous performance I suddenly find that cycling at more than 15MPh on a electric bicycle makes me edgy,dangerous and a menace to civilised society! At 55 you dont get many chances to get that sort of kudos, let me enjoy!
Lets get this straight in no way am I suggesting that riding a bike a 15 mph makes you a menace to society. But the simple truth is you are breaking the law and in legal terms your offence is far worse than a 17 year old driving a unisured untaxed motor car (as at least it is a registered motor vehicle). now I am also not saying this is fair or right but the fact is its true. But even that is not my issue.
Back top the issue of proportionality. I think SRS made the point earlier about unfair laws. Let's face it, a silent disregard was adopted by the entire eBike industry over the 200W issue. It would be a sensible thing for the govt. to make it feasible to register "L1e mopeds" and allow them to have their place on the road subject to appropriate conditions.
You know, on the first reading of this I thought what a load of self-rightous bo***x, but then I read it aloud in a high pitched nasal voice (think Mr Bean) and it made so much more sense!
But the forthcoming 200 watts change and waiver meanwhile isn't due to anyone ignoring the law. It's entirely due to conformity with EU transport law which specifies 250 watts.
The truth is, riding a de-restricted electric bike under power at speeds above 15 MPH doesn't make you any more of a danger to yourself or others than when you are on a normal unassisted bike. That is as long as the speeds aren't ridiculous. I also appreciate that having ridden high power motor bikes for many years, your hazard perception and two wheel self preservation instincts will be well honed. I have absolutely no doubt that you would be safe on a bike capable of more than 15 MPH.
And the fact you have to resort to such a banal statement has just mde my day as well as it just proves my point that you dont give a damn about anybody but yourself.
I wouldn't assume people are "quite happy" to do anything of the sort. But there will be circumstances where people weigh everything up, analyze honestly what they are doing in the context of their own lives and conclude that it's a reasonable course to take. Just as they did en masse over the 250W eBike issue. They won't do it en masse with these bikes largely on account of considerable additional cost and limited supply set against the relatively limited additional benefit they get from them. So that's a self-regulating equilibrium.
And that's where I think this is all a complete red herring. E-bikes not conforming are motor vehicles and will be treated as such. Therefore a case involving a non-compliant motor vehicle that's electric is no different to a case involving a derestricted petrol moped. The argument that in some way riders of bikes not classed as bicycles will affect riders of a clearly defined group of eBikes classed as bicycles is not sufficiently convincing to warrant the attacks on riders of one by riders of the other. It's basically, to me, just paranoia and hubris. It's those recumbent riders who pose the real dangers
).Eloquently and succintly put, and probaly much more appropiate than my attempt at injecting some humour into the debate (there appears to be a few forum members who find fun something of a challenge to understand).I wouldn't assume people are "quite happy" to do anything of the sort. But there will be circumstances where people weigh everything up, analyze honestly what they are doing in the context of their own lives and conclude that it's a reasonable course to take. Just as they did en masse over the 250W eBike issue. They won't do it en masse with these bikes largely on account of considerable additional cost and limited supply set against the relatively limited additional benefit they get from them. So that's a self-regulating equilibrium.
All disregard is not "blatent" disregard. It is often carefully weighed up as to whether reasonable in all the circumstances. People have every right to moan when any injustice is metered out on account of unfair and unrealistic laws. No point comparing to the scooter laws - I personally think they're inappropriate too, but hey ho. There have been many laws repealed on account of being deemed inappropriate after sufficient time has passed.
There are even more which exist but are so rarely invoked in practice all but the most knowledgeable of the legal profession are unaware of their existence. Some will very likely carry potential prison terms. I'm sure enough of these could be dug up to make it hard for you to lead anything like the reasonable modern day-to-day life you are accustomed to without breaking several every day, with enough effort put in at the Law Library (but there are more productive things to do !).
The facts do not appear to support the legal position as to the dangers posed by S-Pedelecs. But the main point is there are likely better uses of public resources than to pursue riders of these bikes on the basis of a hypothetical danger. The riders have taken a risk-based approach as a result. The outcome will most likely be that S-Pedelec owners ride their bikes with no additional risk to society and everyone gets on with focusing on more important things.
And that's where I think this is all a complete red herring. E-bikes not conforming are motor vehicles and will be treated as such. Therefore a case involving a non-compliant motor vehicle that's electric is no different to a case involving a derestricted petrol moped. The argument that in some way riders of bikes not classed as bicycles will affect riders of a clearly defined group of eBikes classed as bicycles is not sufficiently convincing to warrant the attacks on riders of one by riders of the other. It's basically, to me, just paranoia and hubris. It's those recumbent riders who pose the real dangers
