Disregarding UK pedelec laws

[chris_n]

Following the (il)logic of some on here I've come to the conclusion that the motorway speed limit should be set at 150mph because my car do that speed and I'm an expert at driving at that speed. The 70mph limit was set in the times when cars and drivers were struggling at that speed and technology has moved on since then.

I was doing just that a fortnight ago, wasn't in the UK though.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Following the (il)logic of some on here I've come to the conclusion that the motorway speed limit should be set at 150mph because my car do that speed and I'm an expert at driving at that speed. The 70mph limit was set in the times when cars and drivers were struggling at that speed and technology has moved on since then.

- I fail to see how this might have any bearing on the cut-off speed for assistance on e-bikes.
I believe there was a time when motor vehicles were required to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag. Perhaps this should be reintroduced for e-bikers - particularly the older, heavier and less experienced, on heavier bikes, as earlier posters have suggested they may pose safety issues for themselves and other road users.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I fail to see how this might have any bearing on the cut-off speed for assistance on e-bikes.

That wasn't to be taken literally, I was making the point that some want the assist limit to be raised because they want to go faster and feel that they are in no risk to themselves or others in dong so. If motorists requested the same they'd be ridiculed.
I hope that clarifies the point I was making.

 

[youngoldbloke]

That wasn't to be taken literally, I was making the point that some want the assist limit to be raised because they want to go faster and feel that they are in no risk to themselves or others in dong so. If motorists requested the same they'd be ridiculed.
I hope that clarifies the point I was making.

Thank you.
I don't want to go faster, I would just welcome a little more assistance to help maintain a reasonable speed when conditions are appropriate. Whether you consider 18 - 20 mph reasonable is another matter, but that level is easily (and safely) attained by most club riders at some time during group rides. I hope that clarifies matters.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Thank you.
I don't want to go faster, I would just welcome a little more assistance to help maintain a reasonable speed when conditions are appropriate. Whether you consider 18 - 20 mph reasonable is another matter, but that level is easily (and safely) attained by most club riders at some time during group rides. I hope that clarifies matters.

Sorry, I thought you were looking for assitance at faster than 15.5mph.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Sorry, I thought you were looking for assitance at faster than 15.5mph.

I am - as I said, to help me maintain 18-20 mph, so an assistance cut-off limit of around 18 to 20 mph would suit me fine.
edit for clarity: for me this wouldn't be faster, just easier (and less painful)

 

[Deleted member 25121]

You want assistance at 18-20mph rather than 15.5mph, by my calculation that's assistance at 2.5-4.5mph faster.

That's the bottom line. The reason you want the increase is not particularly relevant, whether it's to save time, to pedal less hard, to avoid getting wet, to get to work on time, to catch a train, to keep up with your mates etc etc etc

 

[flecc]

So if we agree that assisted bicycles encourage more cycling, do we also agree that Environmental considerations are higher now, than in the 1980s - Air pollution caused by the massive increase in car usage, congestion etc.

Also that with the spreading on the 20mph limit for urban areas it makes sense to consider altering the assist limit so that its the same as the urban speed limit - purely to encourage as many car drivers to switch, as its the same top speed, but total urban journey time likely to be shorter (cycle lanes etc), daily moderate exercise to fight the obesity crisis, reduced costs for the journey, reduced wear & tear on roads, reduced total energy production required (how many hundred ebikes can be powered by one Tesla?) etc

Whether it makes sense is irrelevant, I just wish all those who constantly either initiate or return to this subject would stop banging their heads against the wall.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The reasons it won't happen are simple:

1) The law as it stands has become a world standard, now in force through the EU and and the non EU countries of Europe. Also in China, Japan, Australia and a host of smaller countries. Politicians and civil servants invariably play safe by following the herd, since that doesn't risk their necks by sticking them out. That's why they won't change the law. Instead they pull into ever greater alignment as we've all seen in recent years.

2) There is already widespread law requiring the 15.5 mph bicycle based class L1e-A to have registration, insurance, number plates and compulsory m/c helmet wearing. There is obviously no way we will be able to have faster assisted machines without these.

3) There are already the S class high speed e-bikes which are permitted to have over 15.5 mph assistance, subject to registration, number plates, insurance, helmet and a group Q or better driving licence. Obviously we will not be permitted more assist speed without those restrictions. Indeed, most of Europe and the rest of the world don't allow the S class at all, not even the USA.

Please, look at the facts and realise that our pedelec permission is only a limited concession to continue with our vehicles considered as bicycles if lightly assisted via the pedals, and only to commonly accepted utility riding speeds. As I've shown above, the slightest deviation from that means they become motor vehicles in existing law with all that implies.

So once again, please stop head banging, you won't get anywhere.
.

 

[youngoldbloke]

Whether it makes sense is irrelevant, I just wish all those who constantly either initiate or return to this subject would stop banging their heads against the wall.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN

So once again, please stop head banging, you won't get anywhere.
.

Accepted!

You want assistance at 18-20mph rather than 15.5mph, by my calculation that's assistance at 2.5-4.5mph faster.

That's the bottom line. The reason you want the increase is not particularly relevant, whether it's to save time, to pedal less hard, to avoid getting wet, to get to work on time, to catch a train, to keep up with your mates etc etc etc

It is certainly relevant to me.
Final point - a higher cut-off level would not necessarily result in going faster - that is entirely up to the rider and their leg muscles. The cut-off is not a speed limit. Why is this so hard to understand?
Bye for now

 

[trevor brooker]

Whether it makes sense is irrelevant, I just wish all those who constantly either initiate or return to this subject would stop banging their heads against the wall.

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The reasons it won't happen are simple:

1) The law as it stands has become a world standard, now in force through the EU and and the non EU countries of Europe. Also in China, Japan, Australia and a host of smaller countries. Politicians and civil servants invariably play safe by following the herd, since that doesn't risk their necks by sticking them out. That's why they won't change the law. Instead they pull into ever greater alignment as we've all seen in recent years.

2) There is already widespread law requiring the 15.5 mph bicycle based class L1e-A to have registration, insurance, number plates and compulsory m/c helmet wearing. There is obviously no way we will be able to have faster assisted machines without these.

3) There are already the S class high speed e-bikes which are permitted to have over 15.5 mph assistance, subject to registration, number plates, insurance, helmet and a group Q or better driving licence. Obviously we will not be permitted more assist speed without those restrictions. Indeed, most of Europe and the rest of the world don't allow the S class at all, not even the USA.

Please, look at the facts and realise that our pedelec permission is only a limited concession to continue with our vehicles considered as bicycles if lightly assisted via the pedals, and only to commonly accepted utility riding speeds. As I've shown above, the slightest deviation from that means they become motor vehicles in existing law with all that implies.

So once again, please stop head banging, you won't get anywhere.
.

I agree, based upon current thinking.

But change happens, laws are revised etc

Doing nothing & maintaining the status quo means that congestion, pollution, obesity etc remain as unsolved problems.

Its good to think of alternatives, discuss the implications, find faults etc.

But I hope that we live in a world that can still aspire to improve.

Whether an increase from 15.5mph to 20mph would be a benefit or a waste of time, is available for discussion, even if it has the odds of the national lottery.

 

[flecc]

I agree, based upon current thinking.

But change happens, laws are revised etc

Doing nothing & maintaining the status quo means that congestion, pollution, obesity etc remain as unsolved problems.

Its good to think of alternatives, discuss the implications, find faults etc.

But I hope that we live in a world that can still aspire to improve.

Whether an increase from 15.5mph to 20mph would be a benefit or a waste of time, is available for discussion, even if it has the odds of the national lottery.

Indeed, and I'm personally all in favour of having 20 mph as a more realistic cutoff speed.

But of course it will never happen when it means changing the law across most of the world. It's a bit like trying to change the course of a supertanker with the rudder from a dinghy.

In reality road vehicle laws have been becoming ever more restrictive with time as our UK speed limits show. I entered the world of car and motorcycle driving when there was no national speed limit, just 30 mph in built up areas and drive as fast as we liked everywhere else!

But then in the late 1960s and into the 1970s we gradually got the national speed limit of 60 mph and 70 for dual carriageways. Incidentally, the 70 for motorways was nothing to do with safety, it was introduced for fuel saving during the Arab oil crisis and was never removed.

Now of course speed limits get ever more restrictive and you may have noticed how the old 50 mph that was used on some stretches has been disappearing. Now when an authority wants to slow traffic on a 60 mph road, they drop the limit straight down to 40 or even 30, ignoring that a 50 mph limit is legally available.
.

 

[trevor brooker]

Indeed, and I'm personally all in favour of having 20 mph as a more realistic cutoff speed.

But of course it will never happen when it means changing the law across most of the world. It's a bit like trying to change the course of a supertanker with the rudder from a dinghy.

In reality road vehicle laws have been becoming ever more restrictive with time as our UK speed limits show. I entered the world of car and motorcycle driving when there was no national speed limit, just 30 mph in built up areas and drive as fast as we liked everywhere else!

But then in the late 1960s and into the 1970s we gradually got the national speed limit of 60 mph and 70 for dual carriageways. Incidentally, the 70 for motorways was nothing to do with safety, it was introduced for fuel saving during the Arab oil crisis and was never removed.

Now of course speed limits get ever more restrictive and you may have noticed how the old 50 mph that was used on some stretches has been disappearing. Now when an authority wants to slow traffic on a 60 mph road, they drop the limit straight down to 40 or even 30, ignoring that a 50 mph limit is legally available.
.

I anticipate that it will be a decade at least before all urban areas have a 20mph limit & until then there is no incentive for drivers to consider alternatives.

 

[vfr400]

Thank you.
I don't want to go faster, I would just welcome a little more assistance to help maintain a reasonable speed when conditions are appropriate. Whether you consider 18 - 20 mph reasonable is another matter, but that level is easily (and safely) attained by most club riders at some time during group rides. I hope that clarifies matters.

I know hundreds of people that already have that - many of them on this forum. The law already allows 17.1875 mph. Do you think that anybody is bothered about another 1 or 2 mph? How would anybody know that you've got it?

 

[flecc]

I anticipate that it will be a decade at least before all urban areas have a 20mph limit & until then there is no incentive for drivers to consider alternatives.

Probably true, though it could occur quite quickly. My London Borough of Croydon is the largest in London with more population than most cities, but now has a borough wide 20 limit with just the through roads allowed 30 mph.

But I remain unconvinced that most British drivers will adopt cycling, most will still grimly hang onto their steering wheels to the bitter end. One trouble is that the overprotection of kids that developed from the early 1980s and the notion that cycling is dangerous meant so many parents wouldn't let their kids have bikes.

The result is that a very high proportion, perhaps even the majority, of under 50s have never learnt to ride a bike, and those who haven't learnt rarely want to try in adulthood. Especially when they remain convinced from their childhood indoctrination and media hype of accidents that cycling is dangerous.
.

 

[vfr400]

Probably true, though it could occur quite quickly. My London Borough of Croydon is the largest in London with more population than most cities, but now has a borough wide 20 limit with just the through roads allowed 30 mph.

But I remain unconvinced that British most drivers will adopt cycling, most will still grimly hang onto their steering wheels to the bitter end. One trouble is that the overprotection of kids that developed from the early 1980s and the notion that cycling is dangerous meant so many parents wouldn't let their kids have bikes.

The result is that a very high proportion, perhaps even the majority, of over 50s have never learnt to ride a bike, and those who haven't learnt rarely want to try in adulthood. Especially when they remain convinced from their childhood indoctrination and media hype of accidents that cycling is dangerous.
.

It might not be the complete solution, but look at London. There are a lot of cyclists there - probably more than anywhere else by proportion of commuters and general people travelling because it's just too expensive and inconvenient to use a car there. Basically, it's too convenient to use a car, when they take away all the car parking spaces, like they did in Bristol, and enforce other such inconveniences, people will look for alternatives. hopefully. soon we can all ride around in Podrides or similar.

 

[flecc]

Basically, it's too convenient to use a car, when they take away all the car parking spaces, like they did in Bristol, and enforce other such inconveniences, people will look for alternatives.

Fortunately I'm right on the southern border of London and my driving, even shopping, is mostly south into Surrey and beyond. And stockbroker Surrey with all it's influential residents will be the last place to drop car use.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

It is certainly relevant to me.
Final point - a higher cut-off level would not necessarily result in going faster - that is entirely up to the rider and their leg muscles. The cut-off is not a speed limit. Why is this so hard to understand?

Laws aren't about you, they're there to protect us all.
You keep talking about speed, please note that the 15.5mph is the maximum assistance speed above which the motor provides no assistance. Nobody is saying that you aren't free to cycle faster than that, are they?

 

[youngoldbloke]

Laws aren't about you, they're there to protect us all.
You keep talking about speed, please note that the 15.5mph is the maximum assistance speed above which the motor provides no assistance. Nobody is saying that you aren't free to cycle faster than that, are they?

I wasn't going to take any more part in this 'discussion', but I must make a final comment. Please READ my posts. Throughout I have made a point of referring to an assistance CUT-OFF limit'. My post you quote is making exactly the same points as yours above.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

I wasn't going to take any more part in this 'discussion', but I must make a final comment. Please READ my posts. Throughout I have made a point of referring to an assistance CUT-OFF limit'. My post you quote is making exactly the same points as yours above.

You didn't answer my question, who is saying that we aren't free to cycle faster than the 15.5mph assistance limit?

 

[D C]

Following the (il)logic of some on here I've come to the conclusion that the motorway speed limit should be set at 150mph because my car can do that speed and I'm an expert at driving at that speed. The 70mph limit was set in the times when cars and drivers were struggling at that speed and technology has moved on since then.

Mine won't go that fast, can anyone recommend a dongle?
Dave