Final limit at 250 watts EU ruling

[103Alex1]

This view of cycling is peculiarly British, sporting biased. In the days when most of this country were utility cyclists as normal elsewhere in Europe, a typical cycling speed was around 12 mph, often lower and rarely over 15 mph. That is the basis of the law, to help utility cyclists of all ages and varying cycling ability. It does not seek to accommodate those who clearly do not need assistance. That's logical and sensible.

The point I was getting at was about the restriction being there for "safety reasons". When there are plenty of cyclists travelling on pretty heavy unmodified bikes at above the assist max level set for e-bikes with no restrictions or special conditions / restrictions it doesn't follow logically for me that this is a valid reason for setting the limit there.

PS - I have free liability insurance through British Cycling membership (£12 offer for the first year with an online voucher code, discounts at various retailers etc. and some interesting members' info circulated too).

 

[flecc]

The point I was getting at was about the restriction being there for "safety reasons". When there are plenty of cyclists travelling on pretty heavy unmodified bikes at above the assist max level set for e-bikes with no restrictions or special conditions / restrictions it doesn't follow logically for me that this is a valid reason for setting the limit there.

Yes, it's certainly not for safety reasons, as ever "safety" is an added red herring as it is with the motorway 70 mph limit which was introduced as a fuel saving measure.

The logic of the law is that those faster cyclists on heavy bikes clearly do not need assistance.

 

[103Alex1]

Yes, it's certainly not for safety reasons, as ever "safety" is an added red herring as it is with the motorway 70 mph limit which was introduced as a fuel saving measure.

The logic of the law is that those faster cyclists on heavy bikes clearly do not need assistance.

... and as per usual, the law is flawed as those faster cyclists on heavy bikes would like to maintain their speeds up steeper inclines (one of the key attractions of an unrestricted bike) without the effort factor going into sport training territory. That is all - surely not a lot to ask !!!

 

[flecc]

... and as per usual, the law is flawed as those faster cyclists on heavy bikes would like to maintain their speeds up steeper inclines (one of the key attractions of an unrestricted bike) without the effort factor going into sport training territory. That is all - surely not a lot to ask !!!

But it's not about what the faster and capable cyclists want Alex, we would all like all manner of personal laws.

The EU's e-bike law is not in any way flawed since it does what was intended. It provides assistance for the groups of cyclists* most likely to need it, without turning the bicycle into a form of motor vehicle. Quite independently Japan reached exactly the same conclusions long ago and others are adopting the same laws, so there's a widespread consensus.

* That doesn't include those who cannot cycle normally through physical limitations, they are not cyclists. In other words it's not a disability provision law and that issue should be raised separately if such a law is desirable for those who would like to be regular cyclists. No law can suit every interest, since that implies no law at all.
.

 

[103Alex1]

But it's not about what the faster and capable cyclists want Alex, we would all like all manner of personal laws.

The EU's e-bike law is not in any way flawed since it does what was intended. It provides assistance for the groups of cyclists* most likely to need it, without turning the bicycle into a form of motor vehicle. Quite independently Japan reached exactly the same conclusions long ago and others are adopting the same laws, so there's a widespread consensus.

* That doesn't include those who cannot cycle normally through physical limitations, they are not cyclists. In other words it's not a disability provision law and that issue should be raised separately if such a law is desirable for those who would like to be regular cyclists. No law can suit every interest, since that implies no law at all.
.

That is to take the view that it's a "needs-driven" decision to use an e-bike, not one of choice for the utility benifit, which is the reason I got one .. seeing as I gave up my gas-guzzling polluting car too. It seems that the perception of e-biking here is too focused on it being something to help those who could not otherwise cycle, not to address it in a proper rounded way from all sides.

 

[flecc]

That is to take the view that it's a "needs-driven" decision to use an e-bike, not one of choice for the utility benifit, which is the reason I got one .. seeing as I gave up my gas-guzzling polluting car too. It seems that the perception of e-biking here is too focused on it being something to help those who could not otherwise cycle, not to address it in a proper rounded way from all sides.

You chose to use a bicycle for it's utility benefit, and if you feel you need some assistance the law provides for that. That is it's purpose, intentionally a needs driven law. No law is "properly rounded from all sides", that expression is without meaning since any law has to be specific in purpose to be understood and administered. "Properly rounded from all sides" means suiting everyone, so no law at all since everyone's requirements covers everything.

What you are asking for in truth is another motor cycle class, since it is a fact that most of the world's cycling is done at speeds well below 15 mph, as it always was in Britain before cycling receded into a largely sport based pursuit.

E-bike law doesn't provide for the common sport cycling speeds for obvious reasons. If you can cycle routinely at much higher speeds than 15 mph you don't need assistance. If you can't but can cycle at more normal utility bike speeds, there's no reason to assist you to go faster. If you struggle to maintain utility cycling progress, the law provides for that with some power to enable you to cycle as well.

Anyone wanting to have higher speed assistance needs to comply with the laws appropriate to that, as the Germans and Swiss do for example with their high speed classes. It's also worth bearing in mind that higher speeds tend to need more than 250 watts rating, as the influx of 350 and 500 watt motors in the German high speed class e-bikes shows, making them even further from bicycles.

That brings us full circle to the original point of the law, retaining the e-bike as only a bicycle and not in any way a motor vehicle.
.

 

[BAH48]

It's all quite simple, if you want to go faster with less effort, buy a scooter/motorcycle.

 

[morphix]

But it's not about what the faster and capable cyclists want Alex, we would all like all manner of personal laws.

The EU's e-bike law is not in any way flawed since it does what was intended. It provides assistance for the groups of cyclists* most likely to need it, without turning the bicycle into a form of motor vehicle. Quite independently Japan reached exactly the same conclusions long ago and others are adopting the same laws, so there's a widespread consensus.

* That doesn't include those who cannot cycle normally through physical limitations, they are not cyclists. In other words it's not a disability provision law and that issue should be raised separately if such a law is desirable for those who would like to be regular cyclists. No law can suit every interest, since that implies no law at all.
.

I agree with this and can see the sense in it, having these clear distinctions and limitations on pedelecs to keep them separate from electric mopeds.. we've discussed this a lot in the past and you can see the sound reasoning behind this law really end of the day..for the safety of all concerned, but also the simplicity/clarity for the industry and regulation side. The only thing I will differ on with flecc and some others, is retaining the choice of independent throttle, but since the UK gov has intended to do that anyway for older bikes/kits, its not really an issue for most people here..and new buyers post-law change will still have the CHOICE for a short while after the law comes in to buy that type of bike or fit that kit if they wish too.

 

[morphix]

It's all quite simple, if you want to go faster with less effort, buy a scooter/motorcycle.

Yeah that's basically it.. you can't have it both ways eh.. like the higher speed of a moped but the functionality and freedoms of a bicycle still. You need insurance because there's greater risk of accidents etc and the bike has to be checked for safety.

 

[flecc]

There is another point to be made here.

Moped users are tested as riders to ensure public safety.

Some feel that because some cyclists can pedal at well over 20 mph, that is appropriate for e-bike assistance.

That misses the fact of the inherent higher health and fitness of the fast cyclists, these and often relative youth which are also likely to give them faster reactions and better eyesight. E-bikers are often much older and anyway the fact of needing assistance often implies less health and/or fitness and lessened eyesight.

Therefore the fast unpowered cyclist is self-tested for ability to cope with higher speeds in a way that e-bikers are not.

 

[103Alex1]

Yeah that's basically it.. you can't have it both ways eh.. like the higher speed of a moped but the functionality and freedoms of a bicycle still. You need insurance because there's greater risk of accidents etc and the bike has to be checked for safety.

I still don't buy it. I was on a moped in the Summer and rode that at 70kph without any difficulty in the Med, within the speed limit. With an appropriate licence and wearing an appropriate helmet.

This is a very far cry from 18-20mph, which as I say is a speed many cyclists ride at anyway without the need to have licences, insurance and registration / MOTs. I've little desire to buy a moped in the UK - enjoy riding those in the blazing sunshine in 30 degree heat. However, I would like to have some assistance on my bike up hills at my cruising speed (with pedal effort) and not with the use of a throttle. Dare I say it but ... if I want a throttle may as well buy a moped.

Looking retrospectively to cycling norms of yesteryear isn't surely the right way for progression. Today's bikes are nothing like those of the times when the average trip was to the post office. Many people use them for long distance cycling nowadays on a daily basis. The bikes themselves are mechanically better suited and needs are changing.

 

[flecc]

As I've just posted elsewhere Alex, it's not yesteryear since most of the world cycles at less than 15 mph today and if Britons returned to cycling en masse, they would too. By the way, you can e-bike legally at 17 mph with assistance, since there is 10% tolerance on the 15.6 mph (25 kph) limit.

See also the health point I made just before you posted.

Finally, the law has to have a fixed point and the one that exists is entirely logical and very widely supported in the world as I've more than adequately explained. You don't like it, but so what, we all have laws we don't like, but we can't have personal ones.

If you did achieve 20 mph assistance for all in law, it would be accompanied by things you don't like as in Germany and Switzerland.
.

 

[OldBob1]

Lets keep it simple, forget motor power, limit the speed the motor will power you(15 MPH), and all cyclists have a basic insurance cover (third party) just in case.

 

[flecc]

Lets keep it simple, forget motor power, limit the speed the motor will power you(15 MPH), and all cyclists have a basic insurance cover (third party) just in case.

That's rather what the European Parliament proposed recently Bob, but it's just been turned down to keep things simple and ensure there's no creep into motor vehicle territory. That's right of course, it would creep that way if there was no power limit, logical as that measure seems.

 

[shemozzle999]

I see that the debate rages on.

Purists on this site are convinced that there is a definative difference between a throttle and a PAS system as a means of providing power to the wheels of a bicycle, one to be allowed and one to be denied, although both achieve the same result.

 

[flecc]

The debate rages on.

Purists on this site are convinced that there is a definative difference between a throttle and a PAS system as a means of providing power to the wheels of a bicycle, one to be allowed and one to be denied, although both achieve the same result.

We've got what we've got, we should all be happy. For most of cycling's 200 years there was no assistance!

What we have now is heaven.
.

 

[morphix]

I still don't buy it. I was on a moped in the Summer and rode that at 70kph without any difficulty in the Med, within the speed limit. With an appropriate licence and wearing an appropriate helmet.

This is a very far cry from 18-20mph, which as I say is a speed many cyclists ride at anyway without the need to have licences, insurance and registration / MOTs. I've little desire to buy a moped in the UK - enjoy riding those in the blazing sunshine in 30 degree heat. However, I would like to have some assistance on my bike up hills at my cruising speed (with pedal effort) and not with the use of a throttle. Dare I say it but ... if I want a throttle may as well buy a moped.

Looking retrospectively to cycling norms of yesteryear isn't surely the right way for progression. Today's bikes are nothing like those of the times when the average trip was to the post office. Many people use them for long distance cycling nowadays on a daily basis. The bikes themselves are mechanically better suited and needs are changing.

OK put it another way, 18-20mph may be fine on the roads, but what about on foot paths? I know most forum members are too sensible to do that and many don't even ride on footpaths unless there's signs... but still, if we had ebikes going over 15mph without pedalling you can see some idiots might start doing that on pavements and injure someone? Since bicycles enjoy that freedom of being able to go on and off pavements, surely it's wiser then if we're to keep that flexibility to have a sensible safe max speed limit (determined to be 15.5mph) for bicycles? Else the thing no longer is really safe to be considered a bicycle and used in that manner on footpaths etc? And also, the higher the speed, the higher the risk of accidents, so then you may have to introduce compulsory CTB testing on e-bikes to make sure they're aware of highway code etc and riding safety..you would also need to carry out proper checks on the bikes brakes and electrics etc.. at the moment we're fortunate not to have to do any of that, because the speed limit makes bikes safe enough to pose little risk of serious injury.. see what I'm saying? It's really a benefit to us to have this limit, it keeps e-bikes low-cost, accessible, relatively regulation-free and easy to own for all. And is 15.5mph really such a limitation? As most have said, if your bike is geared properly you can get 20mph+ easily if you pedal.. really a bicycle is what it is.. it's not meant to travel faster than 20mph on the flat..if you need to go faster than that, you need an electric moped or something?

I think the whole point of ebikes is to enhance the bicycle and ASSIST the rider, assist being the key operative term.. rather than change the bicycle into something else..i.e. a motor vehicle.

All that said, I can understand that *some* people may need to go faster in some situations, and some experienced riders may be capable of riding sensibly..but I think from a law point of view, you have to consider the bigger picture and what's best for the most people..you can't please everyone..

 

[shemozzle999]

Yes, but don't forget to get some sleep.

We've got what we've got, we should all be happy. For most of cycling's 200 years there was no assistance!

What we have now is heaven.
.

 

[flecc]

And there's shared footpaths and cyclepaths too Morphix, both unsuited to over 15 mph.

 

[flecc]

Yes, but don't forget to get some sleep.

I get up much later then most, so no fears there!