Final limit at 250 watts EU ruling

[morphix]

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

Right.. the problem is, an e-bike is already borderline eh between vehicle with people riding throttle only..what if the motor fails to cut out, due to a wiring fault or brake failure, on a footpath, it could be a disaster if someone is doing 18-20mph. So do you lift the restriction on speed and then ban all e-bikes from pavements? That would **** off loads of e-bike owners who are happy to ride at 15mph max.

 

[103Alex1]

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.

I am not being funny, but if peoples' eyesight and reflexes are sufficiently good to cycle at 15mph then I am pretty sure they are good enough to cycle at 20mph. Being physically capable of cycling unassisted at 22mph as a 16 year-old does not mean you have road sense and reflexes commensurate with same.

I am still struggling with this. Would like to see e-bikes used by a great deal more people than simply the older generation. If today's e-bikes (range and performance) had been available when I was 28 rather than 38 I would most likely have got one then and may even have taken up other forms of biking on the side. My bike when I was 18 (which set my attitudes to cycling very much in the negative) was nothing like the bikes available today in the Western world. I hated riding it and decided I hated cycling as a result. It was a perception which lasted until this year when I got on an eBike at 38.

I may be capable of cycling at a higher top speed than 15mph (source of statistics of this being the worldwide 'norm' undisclosed), but I'll hazard that in many parts of the world most bikes being riden (many probably about 20 years old) aren't up to going at more than 15mph - regardless of the cyclist's age/fitness. So their speeds would be limited by their bikes. Traffic controls bring down speed averages in urban areas hugely - and has been said in other recent posts the majority of people currently cycling in UK these days live in cities. So I am unsurprised by the figures. They most likely do not reflect the top speeds many people can cycle at on a decent bike on a clear long flattish run.

I would not have chosen to switch to cycling (only 2 months ago now) if it were not for the e-bike. My average speed in urban areas if of course very considerably lower because I am always having to stop for blooming lights and that registers on the trip statistics .. so it's only on longer cycles that the higher speeds can be sustained anyway on account of road conditions. From what you infer it's fit young sporty people who would be taking on those distances in the first place (unassisted) - presumably a small sub-section of the cycling community ? If more people could cycle further with some assistance in a faster time than a 12-15mph cruising speed allows I am pretty sure many more people (especially outside urban areas) would be likely to buy an eBike. More so if the market adjusts to supply them at a better price.

I would not class myself as "sporting" or "super-fit". So I don't think my attitudes are those of a person who is sport-oriented at all. Younger than the present average e-biker maybe, but would it not be a good thing if that changed ? It would most likely be extremely beneficial health-wise to those making the switch at any age.

The present assistance limit falls about 30% short of that which would open up biking as a longer range mode of transport (allowing a greater range of more timely journeys) for people other than sporty fitness-types. 20mph with 10% tolerance is a decent limit to allow longer journeys to be completed in a reasonable time. Seeing as if you are cycling between cities you inevitably get slowed right down at either end, just as you do in a car. Low-speed assistance is nice in town because stop-start cycling is tiring and boring. Higher speed assistance is nice on the open road for those times when you want to get from A to B with less effort.

It just seems that the whole issue of the law is "defensive" - seemingly having to justify calls to maintain the present limits instead of looking at setting them at a level which will positively encourage the market to develop and appeal to a wider range of people including those of a younger age group. I don't think I'm asking for a "personal law" at all - merely one which having got on an eBike as a primary mode of transport seems to cut out just at the point where you want it. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that.

As regards the worldwide demographic for eBike sales, I would be interested to know the average age. If the present limit is widely supported but that is by an age group heavily skewed to one side then it surely cannot reflect the views of the full potential market at all - that potential market has not bothered to buy in the first place and has chosen something else (like a motorbike or a mini).

I have no problem with a mandatory helmet for a 20mph limit, or even a (free preferably Government-sponsored) proficiency test. Don't know the rest of the German rules - but even at those speeds, registration and licences should not be required, or else by the same logic in the absence of cycling speed limits you should be made to get a licence for your road bike, if it can be ridden at above 20mph ... and presumably sit a cycling test too ?

 

[103Alex1]

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.

In practice some motors do deliver tail-off power between 15.5-17mph (the Impulse does in any case on Power mode), but the tail-off is sharp over a very small speed range and in consequence it is so weak as to be virtually meaningless in practice.

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.
.

I'm oblivious to what has clearly been a struggle to get where things are for someone - if that includes you, flecc then if you've been one of those who have had to fight to get limits where they are then thank you for that. However, I am looking at the position with a fresh pair of eyes and questioning the net result accordingly. As I'm sure will be clear from the above posts, I perceive eBikes as an opportunity for younger people who don't cycle to get more involved and be satisfied the parameters are high enough for them to want to. At the moment they probably are only just about enough but the borderline massive who test out and do their homework will probably walk away especially when faced with the prices of higher-end bikes.

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..

20mph is exactly the figure I had in mind as being sensible as a limit. I won't comment on the throttle issue because I don't think it actually makes a difference - a bike going at 20mph on a pavement or footpath is a hazard and I would never cycle like that. But I could easily do so on a push-bike if I wanted to. So again I don't see that this has any relevance to the power-assist limit. If there's a worry over speeds on cycle paths then put a speed limit on them.

Limiting the bikes themselves is a lazy way of trying to enforce an unwritten concept which cannot work in practice as they can be ridden over that speed if people want to without assistance. Is it only those who "need assistance" who are not to be trusted to keep to 15mph ? In practice I reckon if it's the older generation we are talking about they are the ones most likely to have the sense to drop their speed to a sensible level with or without any limitations on their speed-assist functionality.

The throttle issue is what I think is clouding the whole topic to be fair and certainly what brings confusion about whether a bike is a moped in disguise or not. I don't have a throttle and so perhaps see things more clearly - I have to pedal to power the bike. If I do not pedal it does not move any more than an unassisted bicycle would do under its own momentum. It is not a moped or anything remotely resembling one and if it assisted me to pedal up a hill to sustain my 17mph using full power for half a mile rather than cutting out just before leading to massive extra effort, it would be no more a moped than it was on the flat. All it has done is "assist" me.

Perhaps if the limits were imposed for throttle-assisted bikes (which are also as I seem to be gathering the ones used by most of the generation which flecc maintains are not "self-certified" by their physical capabilities to have sufficient reflexes and eyesight to be cycling above 15.5mph) then perhaps it would be easier to open up the demand for pedal-assist only versions for the younger generation, with a bit more oomph.... and thus appeal ?

 

[NRG]

Its worth keeping in mind here that the actual limit is 25kph with a +10% tolerance so in reality the limit is 17mph so its not that bad.

 

[GaRRy]

Its worth keeping in mind here that the actual limit is 25kph with a +10% tolerance so in reality the limit is 17mph so its not that bad.

And also to note that this is the limit of the assistance. There is nothing to stop you travelling faster just that the motor is not allowed to help.

 

[morphix]

And also to note that this is the limit of the assistance. There is nothing to stop you travelling faster just that the motor is not allowed to help.

Yeah exactly.. if you have your bike geared high enough and/or you're fit enough, you can go to 15.5mph then pedal and maintain a speed easily that's well above 15.5mph.. That's why I say 15.5mph is sufficient maximum assistance really for bicycles..

 

[morphix]

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 seems a sensible way.. I think having some form of insurance makes sense, not sure whether it should be voluntary or compulsory though...I think historically road legal bikes have posed very little risk and caused very few severe accidents/damage?... Here's a thought though..if we did have compulsory insurance on e-bikes, maybe that would discourage illegal bike users, as they would know their insurance wouldn't cover them.

Maybe a market will develop in time for e-bike insurance, who knows... I imagine it would be very cheap just a small annual premium due to the low risk.

I'm going to check with my building society today and see if my travel insurance covers this scenario of third party liability for riding my e-bike as the policy does have third party to £2-3 million.

 

[flecc]

I perceive eBikes as an opportunity for younger people who don't cycle to get more involved and be satisfied the parameters are high enough for them to want to.

20mph is exactly the figure I had in mind as being sensible as a limit. I won't comment on the throttle issue because I don't think it actually makes a difference - a bike going at 20mph on a pavement or footpath is a hazard and I would never cycle like that. But I could easily do so on a push-bike if I wanted to. So again I don't see that this has any relevance to the power-assist limit. If there's a worry over speeds on cycle paths then put a speed limit on them.

Limiting the bikes themselves is a lazy way of trying to enforce an unwritten concept which cannot work in practice as they can be ridden over that speed if people want to without assistance.

I can and do understand your arguments for a higher assist speed, but as you've shown, it can bring about demands for more regulation or usage exclusions just as has happened elsewhere. Those separate the e-bike from a bicycle so are undesirable for that reason alone.

The 15 mph assist limit law as it stands reflects the majority range of cycling ability, so it makes usage exceptions and added bureaucracy unnecessary and administration easy. In other words, it gives all of us almost complete and very desirable freedom. Higher speeds are not suitable for shared footpaths, many cyclepaths and bridleways and other places where animals are found unleashed and under limited control.

Limiting the bikes isn't a lazy legislative concept, it's to expressly take care of the fact that cyclists are not tested for competence in the way all motor vehicle operators are. The average human when at their fittest can run at up to about 18 mph and evolution over the millenniums has equipped us with the commensurate reactions and eyesight. As I've described before, this is self-adjusting, our abilities deteriorate in synchronism with age and infirmity, the elderly with poorer eyesight and slowed reactions can no longer run at 18 mph.

So we are self testing, the cyclist who consistently pedals at 20 mph unassisted is naturally safe at that speed due to their inherent fitness and relative youth. Someone power assisted at that speed is not self tested, they could be dangerous without anyone knowing it, least of all themselves, since everyone rates themselves as above average, an impossibility!

So an assist speed limit has to be integrated into the e-bike when the rider is not tested for proficiency, just the point at which that is set being in contention. You feel that it should be 20 mph, we've had others arguing for 25 mph, while many feel 15 mph is fine. The authorities worldwide have or are currently largely settled on 15 mph being appropriate. It is a widespread common natural limit of normal cycling speed, most of the world's cycling done at or below that, so no special control measures are needed.

That is not true of 20 mph, that being the province of the lycras and some commuters in a very few places, almost invariably with drop handlebars when on unpowered bikes, emphasizing the sporting nature of such riding. They are, as described, naturally self tested for suitability.

So I'm a strong supporter of the simplicity of a law that gives near total freedom without the petty restrictions of routes I can't use, compulsory insurance, registration, helmet wearing and number plates. Those things have all happened elsewhere when higher speeds have been allowed. As things stand we already have a large proportion of our population hating cyclists and calling for taxation and more regulation of them. Power propelling ever larger numbers at higher speeds would just ensure they got their way to our great disadvantage, since our legislators are always happy to restrict our freedoms. It's what they do and their purpose in life!

Lets just count our blessings and enjoy the almost unique freedom that we have, shared only by those other pests, the pedestrians!
.

 

[103Alex1]

So we are self testing, the cyclist who consistently pedals at 20 mph unassisted is naturally safe at that speed due to their inherent fitness and relative youth. Someone power assisted at that speed is not self tested, they could be dangerous without anyone knowing it, least of all themselves, since everyone rates themselves as above average, an impossibility!

So an assist speed limit has to be integrated into the e-bike when the rider is not tested for proficiency, just the point at which that is set being in contention. You feel that it should be 20 mph, we've had others arguing for 25 mph, while many feel 15 mph is fine. The authorities worldwide have or are currently largely settled on 15 mph being appropriate.

It is a widespread common natural limit of normal cycling speed, most of the world's cycling done at or below that, so no special control measures are needed

...

That is not true of 20 mph, that being the province of the lycras and some commuters in a very few places, almost invariably with drop handlebars when on unpowered bikes, emphasizing the sporting nature of such riding. They are, as described, naturally self tested for suitability.

So I'm a strong supporter of the simplicity of a law that gives near total freedom without the petty restrictions of routes I can't use, compulsory insurance, registration, helmet wearing and number plates. Those things have all happened elsewhere when higher speeds have been allowed.

Obviously these arguments have been bought into by legislators and if that helps those who are genuinely capable of using independent means of transport safely and who would otherwise have their freedoms curtailed I can accept that the price paid by those who end up tangled in red tape at the other end instead is not an excessively high one.

I've no problem with compulsory helmet-wearing (despite it being of arguable benefit), liability insurance, number plates or registration - there is no excuse for taxation of an eco-friendly mode of transport. I don't think you should need the same licence you need for a car to cycle assisted at 20mph when you can do it unassisted without or that people capable of cycling at those speeds are by definition competent to be on the roads. Those arguments make no sense at all.

Limiting the bikes isn't a lazy legislative concept, it's to expressly take care of the fact that cyclists are not tested for competence in the way all motor vehicle operators are.

I understand what you say about restriction and legislation ... it puts up barriers and I agree totally that both defining an appropriate scope and enforcement issues are usually less than appropriate leading to a loss of freedom for many who are perfectly competent and value what remains of their feelings of independence. I would fight to the end to keep that in the same position. However, as regards roads, just as bikes are faster-moving than in previous times cars are too and it's definitely arguable that proficiency tests are needed for peoples' own safety.... driving reflexes are certainly very helpful when cycling on busy roads.

It would likely cut down on the sort of cycling which drivers get wound up about. It's largely kids who I see darting up pedestrian crossings between pedestrians, along pavements and jumping down off them again round the corner to circumvent traffic lights too - but not always... and yes, I'm one of those who stays at the front of the queue at the lights shaking my head in disbelief.

It does seem that some of the views expressed are for political objectives to avoid other consequences rather than totally honest about what is and isn't consistent or reasonable. I tend to view and express things objectively without alterior motive and if the reasons for taking a stance are to serve the interests of a few who stand to lose a great deal then let's say so and be honest about it. At least that way those of us who would like more scope even if it's at the expense of some additional requirements understand why we're accepting the status quo.

 

[morphix]

Obviously these arguments have been bought into by legislators and if that helps those who are genuinely capable of using independent means of transport safely and who would otherwise have their freedoms curtailed I can accept that the price paid by those who end up tangled in red tape at the other end instead is not an excessively high one.

I've no problem with compulsory helmet-wearing (despite it being of arguable benefit), liability insurance, number plates or registration - there is no excuse for taxation of an eco-friendly mode of transport. I don't think you should need the same licence you need for a car to cycle assisted at 20mph when you can do it unassisted without or that people capable of cycling at those speeds are by definition competent to be on the roads. Those arguments make no sense at all.





I understand what you say about restriction and legislation ... it puts up barriers and I agree totally that both defining an appropriate scope and enforcement issues are usually less than appropriate leading to a loss of freedom for many who are perfectly competent and value what remains of their feelings of independence. I would fight to the end to keep that in the same position. However, as regards roads, just as bikes are faster-moving than in previous times cars are too and it's definitely arguable that proficiency tests are needed for peoples' own safety.... driving reflexes are certainly very helpful when cycling on busy roads.

It would likely cut down on the sort of cycling which drivers get wound up about. It's largely kids who I see darting up pedestrian crossings between pedestrians, along pavements and jumping down off them again round the corner to circumvent traffic lights too - but not always... and yes, I'm one of those who stays at the front of the queue at the lights shaking my head in disbelief.

It does seem that some of the views expressed are for political objectives to avoid other consequences rather than totally honest about what is and isn't consistent or reasonable. I tend to view and express things objectively without alterior motive and if the reasons for taking a stance are to serve the interests of a few who stand to lose a great deal then let's say so and be honest about it. At least that way those of us who would like more scope even if it's at the expense of some additional requirements understand why we're accepting the status quo.

Well you explain your views well. I think they are more social and safety considerations, rather than political reasoning behind the legislation on pedelecs. perhaps some would argue 15.5mph is too low a restriction in the real world... but if the speed was raised significantly (when you take into account the cycling effort ontop), then the gap between pedelecs and entry-level electric mopeds would be much narrower? Right now we have a wide gap, or buffer..that separates our e-bikes from electric mopeds.. so they're still ok for use as normal bicycles on pavements and on roads without any additional safety costs or obstacles..

Like I said before, it's never going to be possible to have one law that suits everyone, so perhaps the e-bike legislation could be more flexible to allow something inbetween a true pedelec and a true moped/electric motorbike.. and that "inbetween" class would require all those things you mention, some form of training, registration, insurance etc. It's been said before though by flecc and others, you can really do that already simply by registering your bike with DfT. There's nothing to stop you building an e-bike that is outside the legal limitations, then registering it as a moped and getting number plates, insurance etc..you would need a provisional driving licence and CBT pass of course, and you'd be forbidden for riding on pavements. So we do really need any change to the e-bike law a "higher power level" of e-bike?..probably not?

 

[flecc]

It does seem that some of the views expressed are for political objectives to avoid other consequences rather than totally honest about what is and isn't consistent or reasonable. I tend to view and express things objectively without alterior motive and if the reasons for taking a stance are to serve the interests of a few who stand to lose a great deal then let's say so and be honest about it. At least that way those of us who would like more scope even if it's at the expense of some additional requirements understand why we're accepting the status quo.

Your last point is certainly valid for many Alex. However, I don't favour any special measure deals for minorities which affect all e-biker's freedoms, and I'm sure that's true for the majority of e-bikers.

It's academic really, there is no possibility of the change you want. The limits that Britain first set were an assist speed limit of 12 mph with a continuous maximum power of 200 watts with no peak power tolerances, almost useless. When EU harmonisation forced the speed limit increase to 15 mph, it became clear that Britain was at it's limit of tolerance, since they added the Britain only restriction of a 14 years lower age limit.

That's proof absolute that any further speed increase would certainly be accompanied by harsh restrictive requirements. Given our record they will be harsher than those in Germany and Switzerland, and these are bad enough already. I could envisage the same access restrictions, plus the same requirements to register, number plate, insure and wear helmets, but with some compulsory training like a sort of CBT added. That would do nothing to encourage e-biking, probably discouraging it in the same way that the CBT has greatly damaged motor cycling.
.

 

[Wisper Bikes]

All of the above demonstrates the reasons I am particularly in favour of the German Mofa or speed pedelec class being introduced in the UK.

As we are all now aware, in Germany there are two classes of pedelec, standard and speed. The speed pedelec is legally able to travel at 45kph, and the rules are very similar to those that govern standard pedelec use. The differences apart from speed and power are the compulsory use of a high EU standard cycle helmet, registration, licensing and I believe insurance.

There is no danger to the pedlec we all know and love, as the 45kph speed pedelecs are considered motor bikes and not bicycles and therfore treated very differently.

All the best

David

 

[morphix]

All of the above demonstrates the reasons I am particularly in favour of the German Mofa or speed pedelec class being introduced in the UK.

As we are all now aware, in Germany there are two classes of pedelec, standard and speed. The speed pedelec is legally able to travel at 45kph, and the rules are very similar to those that govern standard pedelec use. The differences apart from speed and power are the compulsory use of a high EU standard cycle helmet, registration, licensing and I believe insurance.

There is no danger to the pedlec we all know and love, as the 45kph speed pedelecs are considered motor bikes and not bicycles and therfore treated very differently.

All the best

David

This is probably a sensible compromise approach that fills the gap between pedelec and electric mopeds (of which there is as cost difference and practical benefits I guess for an "S-pedelec".. ). I think it would probably make it easier/clearer and less problematic to present and register a bike that doesn't meet the current UK/EU pedelec criteria, than it is at present perhaps?

Once those bikes are registered, do they lose the flexibility and freedoms of a bicycle in Germany? Or can they still be ridden on pavements and cycle lanes?

 

[flecc]

This is probably a sensible compromise approach that fills the gap between pedelec and electric mopeds (of which there is as cost difference and practical benefits I guess for an "S-pedelec".. ). I think it would probably make it easier/clearer and less problematic to present and register a bike that doesn't meet the current UK/EU pedelec criteria, than it is at present perhaps?

Once those bikes are registered, do they lose the flexibility and freedoms of a bicycle in Germany? Or can they still be ridden on pavements and cycle lanes?

They lose those freedoms as I've remarked before, mainly road only usage allowed.

The main problem of our having this class is as I explained in my previous post above, given our record, Britain may well impose more than just those German restrictions. Our legislators are not noted for their tolerance in any arena.

 

[morphix]

They lose those freedoms as I've remarked before, mainly road only usage allowed.

The main problem of our having this class is as I explained in my previous post above, given our record, Britain may well impose more than just those German restrictions. Our legislators are not noted for their tolerance in any arena.

Yeah and for "simplicity sake" they might just decide to lump all bikes together and we'll all find ourselves having to jump through hoops just to get what's freely available to all at present.. I think it's a can of worms best left alone for UK..what works in Germany where common sense prevails might not work in nanny-state Britain.

Saying that, we're supposed to be moving more towards a "big society" model where government works more closely with its electorate, and where decisions like this are not taken behind closed doors by bureaucrats who know nothing of e-bikes or the real world.. surely such planning and decision-making should be made around a table with all stakeholders represented, including the public. Hmm, yeah.

 

[103Alex1]

Your last point is certainly valid for many Alex. However, I don't favour any special measure deals for minorities which affect all e-biker's freedoms, and I'm sure that's true for the majority of e-bikers.

The biggest special measure deal for minorities in truth is to permit unregulated use of eBikes in the first place, is it not ? Special measure deals in one context but not in another.

They lose those freedoms as I've remarked before, mainly road only usage allowed.

The main problem of our having this class is as I explained in my previous post above, given our record, Britain may well impose more than just those German restrictions. Our legislators are not noted for their tolerance in any arena.

I'm not sure why you'd want to ride an "S-Pedelec" on stand-alone cycle lanes. Off-roading on converted MTBs is a different issue entirely. As it stands, I ride my bike pretty much exclusively on roads when at speed. Wouldn't want to ride it on pavements / standalone cycle routes at those speeds - the surfaces are usually cracking up, poorly laid, interspersed with tarmac hills around trees or subject to a constant need to cross side-roads. So the road is far preferable as you can just get on and ride.. it's just being shunted over to the stormwater drainage grills and breaking up road edges that's the bug bear.

I'm all in favour of 'S-Pedelec' classing for people who want to ride them and are happy to accept the conditions the Germans/Swiss imposed. Don't necessarily think it's a given that Britain would impose a load more restrictions than Germany and Switzerland - have they indicated they would ? Out of interest, why the range cap on an S-Pedelec ? All the rest I understand but is this just to make them "different" to the others in that aspect for the hell of it with no proper rationale, or to make sure battery development is slowed down because of a concept-driven legislative cap on some notion of range, which has no real meaning in practice ?

Life today is so complicated and it's all basically down to overcrowding.

 

[flecc]

Don't necessarily think it's a given that Britain would impose a load more restrictions than Germany and Switzerland - have they indicated they would ?

Life today is so complicated and it's all basically down to overcrowding.

We have a record of going much further on restrictions that our continental cousins, that age limit I mentioned for example and the much more restrictive initial position for e-bike power and speed. Currently the response of the DfT to a mention of the European Parliament's thoughts of higher power was markedly negative, to the effect that it was not going to be accepted here.

You can see which way they think. They are always careful to cover their backs in any change and prefer not to change anything. That's why it's taken us eight years so far to revise our e-bike legislation to match the 2003 EU measure and not yet completed it, something other EU countries did immediately back then.

Your last sentence is very valid, but I see no chance of us of solving that problem. Natural events may yet solve it for us.

 

[morphix]

We have a record of going much further on restrictions that our continental cousins, that age limit I mentioned for example and the much more restrictive initial position for e-bike power and speed. Currently the response of the DfT to a mention of the European Parliament's thoughts of higher power was markedly negative, to the effect that it was not going to be accepted here.

You can see which way they think. They are always careful to cover their backs in any change and prefer not to change anything. That's why it's taken us eight years so far to revise our e-bike legislation to match the 2003 EU measure and not yet completed it, something other EU countries did immediately back then.

Your last sentence is very valid, but I see no chance of us of solving that problem. Natural events may yet solve it for us.

Maybe this explains why the government seems "cold" to e-bikes in general as a not only climate-change eco-friendly mode of transport, but a solution to our overcrowded roads, unhealthy population, ageing society etc etc. If they're not rushing on the legislation side to make things easier for the industry, that shows how much they care. I asked various departments if they would ever consider helping the industry (promoting e-bikes, grants, subsidies) or lowering VAT on imported bikes/parts used for transport..brick wall response.

 

[103Alex1]

Maybe this explains why the government seems "cold" to e-bikes in general as a not only climate-change eco-friendly mode of transport, but a solution to our overcrowded roads, unhealthy population, ageing society etc etc. If they're not rushing on the legislation side to make things easier for the industry, that shows how much they care. I asked various departments if they would ever consider helping the industry (promoting e-bikes, grants, subsidies) or lowering VAT on imported bikes/parts used for transport..brick wall response.

Governments are full of hypocrites and sound bite-merchants pedalling populist myths. There is no real will to tackle car use - far too much money being made off fuel duties and VAT without which they would have to find some other way of raising money which would make them (even) more unpopular than they already are. It's up to individuals themselves to elect to make changes in their own lives and they get little thanks and next to no assistance for doing so.

Britain is in this matter it seems (as in so many others) once again its own worst enemy.

 

[103Alex1]

We have a record of going much further on restrictions that our continental cousins, that age limit I mentioned for example and the much more restrictive initial position for e-bike power and speed. Currently the response of the DfT to a mention of the European Parliament's thoughts of higher power was markedly negative, to the effect that it was not going to be accepted here.

You can see which way they think. They are always careful to cover their backs in any change and prefer not to change anything. That's why it's taken us eight years so far to revise our e-bike legislation to match the 2003 EU measure and not yet completed it, something other EU countries did immediately back then.

Did Britain's regulations pre-date the EU's ? If they did, existing regulations were being changed as opposed to new ones being introduced with benchmarks already in place.

Britain's conservatism over progressive developments does seem totally counter-productive. What it really needs is some new legislators ! However, an age limit on an S-Class bike (at both ends) would seem to be a simple solution to what is being made an unnecessarily complicated problem.