I'm intrigued enough by Flecc's opinion, and your agreement with it that I would be interested to hear you logic, so I can ensure its discussed our end.
Trading Standards law says this:
____________________________________
Introduction
If your business supplies products to consumers, you need to make sure the products are safe.
The heaviest responsibility falls on producers, eg the manufacturer of a product. But distributors - such as shops and wholesalers - also have legal responsibilities.
Failing to meet your responsibilities can have serious consequences. You could face legal action with possible fines or even imprisonment. You could also be sued by anyone who has been injured or has suffered damage to personal property as a result of using your product.
This guide outlines the basics of product liability and product safety law. It will help you understand how you are affected and what action you need to take.
_____________________________________
Now I know about Mini Motos, because I've owned and raced them in the past and there are standards they have to meet to be sold... BS7407:1991 Specification for vehicles directly propelled by energy derived from a fuel, capable of carrying children, etc etc, some even come under EN71 Toys. So if any of these have been crashed, or used illegally the dealers may well have been covered.
So what I don't understand is how you think a dealer selling a dongled eBike (and this is a clear distinction from an sPedelec) would be protected legally in the even some riding the dongled bike was involved in an accident, based on the clear guidance under trading standards laws.
Because they clearly aren't safe, the dealer is bypassing the legally required speed restriction.
Its also possible that dealers selling dongled bikes and sPedelecs who describe them "as being suitable for offroad us" could also be liable under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Looking forward to reading your responses.[/QUOTE]
*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************
Hi,
I don't think we've spoken before.
I will happily give you my logic without fear or favour as to why I find myself agreeing with Flecc's post.
In his post Flecc writes:
“First specifying ebike when there is no such thing in UK law. The vehicle you speak of as being classed as a bicycle is in law an EAPC (Electric Assisted Pedal Cycle). If a dealer sells an e-bike, ebike, electric bicycle etc with no mention of it being an EAPC, there is no offence in law or any liability attached to that legal sale.”
I agree with this especially when you use Trading Standards and the Trades Description Act to enforce your argument.
Google tells me that KTM Industries have 49 E-Bikes in this category. Don’t take this personally you are not alone.
e-bike shop sells Electric Bikes.
If push ever comes to shove the nice people from Trading Standards can be very exacting when it comes to describing what you are selling. The current law applies to EAPC’s which is what you are hopefully retailing. As an industry it must be worth considering promoting the term “EAPC” in the blurb to flag up that you are selling an “honest” approved bicycle and by so doing distance yourself from those involved in any possible wrong doing. There needs to be a clear distinction. The distinction will benefit all concerned.
Dongles.
So long as an electric bike/ e-bike is sold as such and isn’t paraded as an EAPC I have no issue. I notice e-bike shop only supply and fit to their own customers and are at pains to point out that it for use on private land only. I do not see it being sold as an EAPC.
I do have an issue with the EAPCS where pressing a combination of buttons on the display can de-restrict the bicycle. If you take the line that it's a safety issue then they should all be recalled. Trading Standards excel in this area.
Best Regards,
Phil
ps. Pre legalisation I spent a considerable time lobbying the then Minister for Transport and attending his surgeries for face to face meetings, hence my interest.
Trading Standards law says this:
____________________________________
Introduction
If your business supplies products to consumers, you need to make sure the products are safe.
The heaviest responsibility falls on producers, eg the manufacturer of a product. But distributors - such as shops and wholesalers - also have legal responsibilities.
Failing to meet your responsibilities can have serious consequences. You could face legal action with possible fines or even imprisonment. You could also be sued by anyone who has been injured or has suffered damage to personal property as a result of using your product.
This guide outlines the basics of product liability and product safety law. It will help you understand how you are affected and what action you need to take.
_____________________________________
Now I know about Mini Motos, because I've owned and raced them in the past and there are standards they have to meet to be sold... BS7407:1991 Specification for vehicles directly propelled by energy derived from a fuel, capable of carrying children, etc etc, some even come under EN71 Toys. So if any of these have been crashed, or used illegally the dealers may well have been covered.
So what I don't understand is how you think a dealer selling a dongled eBike (and this is a clear distinction from an sPedelec) would be protected legally in the even some riding the dongled bike was involved in an accident, based on the clear guidance under trading standards laws.
Because they clearly aren't safe, the dealer is bypassing the legally required speed restriction.
Its also possible that dealers selling dongled bikes and sPedelecs who describe them "as being suitable for offroad us" could also be liable under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Looking forward to reading your responses.[/QUOTE]
*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************
Hi,
I don't think we've spoken before.
I will happily give you my logic without fear or favour as to why I find myself agreeing with Flecc's post.
In his post Flecc writes:
“First specifying ebike when there is no such thing in UK law. The vehicle you speak of as being classed as a bicycle is in law an EAPC (Electric Assisted Pedal Cycle). If a dealer sells an e-bike, ebike, electric bicycle etc with no mention of it being an EAPC, there is no offence in law or any liability attached to that legal sale.”
I agree with this especially when you use Trading Standards and the Trades Description Act to enforce your argument.
Google tells me that KTM Industries have 49 E-Bikes in this category. Don’t take this personally you are not alone.
e-bike shop sells Electric Bikes.
If push ever comes to shove the nice people from Trading Standards can be very exacting when it comes to describing what you are selling. The current law applies to EAPC’s which is what you are hopefully retailing. As an industry it must be worth considering promoting the term “EAPC” in the blurb to flag up that you are selling an “honest” approved bicycle and by so doing distance yourself from those involved in any possible wrong doing. There needs to be a clear distinction. The distinction will benefit all concerned.
Dongles.
So long as an electric bike/ e-bike is sold as such and isn’t paraded as an EAPC I have no issue. I notice e-bike shop only supply and fit to their own customers and are at pains to point out that it for use on private land only. I do not see it being sold as an EAPC.
I do have an issue with the EAPCS where pressing a combination of buttons on the display can de-restrict the bicycle. If you take the line that it's a safety issue then they should all be recalled. Trading Standards excel in this area.
Best Regards,
Phil
ps. Pre legalisation I spent a considerable time lobbying the then Minister for Transport and attending his surgeries for face to face meetings, hence my interest.
Last edited:
