Final limit at 250 watts EU ruling

[Jeremy]

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.

Yes. The current EAPC regulations date from 1983, whereas the EU regulations weren't introduced until 1999, with the introduction of EU wide Type Approval, but with an exemption for pedelecs and ebikes, leaving each state to continue to apply its own laws until Type Approval harmonisation. The UK adopted EU pedelec regulations in 2003, but rather unusually has not (yet) rescinded the national regulation.

This leaves the UK in the rather odd position of having two sets of (different) ebike regulations, one that requires EU Type Approval and one that only requires national regulatory compliance demonstration.

 

[103Alex1]

Yes. The current EAPC regulations date from 1983, whereas the EU regulations weren't introduced until 1999, with the introduction of EU wide Type Approval, but with an exemption for pedelecs and ebikes, leaving each state to continue to apply its own laws until Type Approval harmonisation. The UK adopted EU pedelec regulations in 2003, but rather unusually has not (yet) rescinded the national regulation.

This leaves the UK in the rather odd position of having two sets of (different) ebike regulations, one that requires EU Type Approval and one that only requires national regulatory compliance demonstration.

So really, the fact that UK doesn't want to be told what to do by Europe probably has some relevance to the domestic legislators' stance. But looking back to what happened over this as a guide to what "might" happen if UK introduces its own elective S-class legislation as Germany and Switzerland have done and concluding that the risk is not worth taking "in case" other boats are rocked doesn't really seem to me to be a balanced stance. More one of protectionism at the expense of progress if we're honest about it.

 

[morphix]

So really, the fact that UK doesn't want to be told what to do by Europe probably has some relevance to the domestic legislators' stance. But looking back to what happened over this as a guide to what "might" happen if UK introduces its own elective S-class legislation as Germany and Switzerland have done and concluding that the risk is not worth taking "in case" other boats are rocked doesn't really seem to me to be a balanced stance. More one of protectionism at the expense of progress if we're honest about it.

if the UK didn't want to be told What to do, then why adopt €U law? Why not stick with existing UK law? They obviously think harmonising ebike laW is the way forward for UK.

excuse typing trying out the stylus on a Toshiba Portege R400!

 

[flecc]

In fact we didn't completely adopt the EU's pedelec regulations in 2003, that is what we are due to complete shortly. A conflict occurred in 2003 when we had to adopt the EU's motor vehicle type approval legislation 2002/EC/24 and that contained an exemption from type approval for EU class pedelecs in section 1, 1(h).

The conflict in our legislation between the two laws should be resolved with the impending changes which will take the place of the 1983 EPAC regulations.

The conflict is that the UK 200 watt law requires a 250 watt e-bike to be type approved as a motor vehicle, but the Vehicle Inspectorate works to 2002/EC/24 which exempts the 250 watt pedelecs from that need. Other countries where conflicts existed like France and Belgium put that right back in 2003, but our civil service failed to do so.

if the UK didn't want to be told What to do, then why adopt €U law? Why not stick with existing UK law? They obviously think harmonising ebike laW is the way forward for UK.

Transport matters are controlled by the EU, an intention ever since the Treaty of Rome. Countries which join the union have to give up much of their control of transport policy. This is essential in a borderless Europe where all transport crosses between countries. The EU's policy control influence extends into all areas including major roads, airlines and trains.
.

 

[103Alex1]

Transport matters are controlled by the EU, an intention ever since the Treaty of Rome. Countries which join the union have to give up much of their control of transport policy. This is essential in a borderless Europe where all transport crosses between countries. The EU's policy control influence extends into all areas including major roads, airlines and trains.
.

... and the UK always wants to be a "special case" or adopt "subject to provisos" in matters where EU legislation or policies are involved

 

[morphix]

... and the UK always wants to be a "special case" or adopt "subject to provisos" in matters where EU legislation or policies are involved

Britain wants to be at the heart of Europe, but not a fully paid up member. leave our rebate alone!

Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests ... but we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European Statesmen address us in the words which were used of old - 'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Lord of the Host?' - we should reply with the words of the Shunamite woman: 'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people ...

 

[flecc]

... and the UK always wants to be a "special case" or adopt "subject to provisos" in matters where EU legislation or policies are involved

Yes, we are the black sheep of Europe. With time we are less and less likely to get our own way though, since the rest of the EU are getting rather fed up with our regular demands for renegotiations. I doubt they will ever agree to another one in the near future, nor should they.

We should make up our minds, in or out, and if in it should be fully in.

 

[morphix]

Yes, we are the black sheep of Europe. With time we are less and less likely to get our own way though, since the rest of the EU are getting rather fed up with our regular demands for renegotiations. I doubt they will ever agree to another one in the near future, nor should they.

We should make up our minds, in or out, and if in it should be fully in.

I agree, but our PM who promised a referendum as part of conservative manifesto has back tracked -Now he says it can't be a simple in/out ref, has to be a ref to renegotiate our membership. I think he knows which way an in/out will go. So we could end up like Norway or Switzerland, a special non-member member. ;-) They enjoy all the benefits without the costs/bureaucracy?

This budget discussion and pressure to reduce or give up our rebate, or greater fiscal union could prompt a referendum sooner rather than later. And now Labour interestingly are calling for in/out capitalising on anti EU sentiment. Wouldn't like to be Cameron, rock and hard place springs to mind.

 

[flecc]

Hardly that Morphix, our position is very different. Norway withdrew from the EU since it has natural riches which in relation to it's tiny population ensure a prosperous independent future.

Switzerland has never been a member, having long established a unique position in the world which also ensures it's ok without any special concessions.

We do not have their advantages and are in a far weaker position than Norway with our lack of natural riches and very large population. Leaving the EU would be a very risky thing to do and I think it would be a huge mistake. Had we never joined we may have been better off, but getting to that position now is far from certain.

 

[morphix]

Hardly that Morphix, our position is very different. Norway withdrew from the EU since it has natural riches which in relation to it's tiny population ensure a prosperous independent future.

Switzerland has never been a member, having long established a unique position in the world which also ensures it's ok without any special concessions.

We do not have their advantages and are in a far weaker position than Norway with our lack of natural riches and very large population. Leaving the EU would be a very risky thing to do and I think it would be a huge mistake. Had we never joined we may have been better off, but getting to that position now is far from certain.

Can you explain then in a nutshell what benefits we actually get from EU? I read somewhere besides the £5 billion plus we pay in, it costs many more billions supporting two political and legal systems etc. If the benefit is mainly trade and open borders cant we continue that without full membership?

Personally l think our immense spending is cause of our weak position, we have the world's largest military budget after USA. money wasted left, right and center. Too much welfare and the NHS is a bottomless pit etc. We should live within our means.

Damn it, now we're getting heavily entrenched in politics, quick someone change the subject ;-)

 

[flecc]

The benefit is trade advantage without barriers, 50% of all our exports are to the EU, taking advantage of those conditions. Exports are our lifeblood and we would lose much of that if we left.

Before we joined we had other world markets and relationships which we lost for various reasons when we joined. For example we had a healthy trading relationship with New Zealand and Australia which was lost when we shopped in the EU for such as lamb meat. They had to sell elsewhere which they've successfully done and they buy from that elsewhere rather than us of course as a result. In fact New Zealand was disgusted at our abandoning our relationship with them in favour of Europe. That's why we can't get back to where we once were if we left the EU, we've burnt our boats.

I fully agree with your second paragraph but the EU is not a major part of that wastage. It's our internal policies that are the great bulk.

 

[morphix]

I'm not sure if I mentioned earlier on this thread (I can't keep up with all the legal threads going on lately!) about Nationwide offering personal liability cover on their free travel insurance policy to current account holders (of which I'm one)... I've just dug out my policy and had a look at it.. sorry guys, but no protection for e-bikes it seems:

Exclusion clause (for £2 million personal liability) from third party accidents or deaths arising from the use of: motorised or mechanical vehicles and trailers attached to them, with the exception of electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters being used on pedestrian routes (or
where cover is provided for an adventure activity, see points 5 and 6 below)

Oh well.

 

[flecc]

Worth consulting them on this Morphix, e-bikes are bicycles in law which cannot perform beyond bicycle ability. They are legally not motor vehicles. They may accept that legal position for their policy.

 

[morphix]

Worth consulting them on this Morphix, e-bikes are bicycles in law which cannot perform beyond bicycle ability. They are legally not motor vehicles. They may accept that legal position for their policy.

Good idea, I'll give them a call and if they say its covered I'll ask for it in writing and frame it on here ;-)

 

[103Alex1]

The main lesson we have still not learned is that diversification and expansion of export markets is our only hope longer term to turn the situation we now find ourselves in around. Having free trade with Europe clearly hasn't been the answer and has come with a great many strings attached both politically and economically.

There was lots of talk of this happening at the beginning of the Coalition's term of office, and plenty of trips abroad as a result rolleyes. How successfully are we putting that sensible theoretical path into genuine practice ?

The benefit is trade advantage without barriers, 50% of all our exports are to the EU, taking advantage of those conditions. Exports are our lifeblood and we would lose much of that if we left.

... and how much of that is to Ireland ? (!) ... a trading partner which if I understand it right needs financial underpinning on a non-interest bearing basis to enable them to place their orders .... ... can't we find some people to sell to who can actually settle their accounts ?

 

[morphix]

The main lesson we have still not learned is that diversification and expansion of export markets is our only hope longer term to turn the situation we now find ourselves in around. Having free trade with Europe clearly hasn't been the answer and has come with a great many strings attached both politically and economically.

There was lots of talk of this happening at the beginning of the Coalition's term of office, and plenty of trips abroad as a result rolleyes. How successfully are we putting that sensible theoretical path into genuine practice ?



... and how much of that is to Ireland ? (!) ... a trading partner which if I understand it right needs financial underpinning on a non-interest bearing basis to enable them to place their orders .... ... can't we find some people to sell to who can actually settle their accounts ?

The coalition gov started off the right footing I think when they came to power, they cooled off from USA/EU and went off to developing economies like China, India and Brazil, looking to establish better trade arrangements. That's where the real trade opportunities and future growth lies.. I just heard Jaguar has set-up shop in China to make brand new Chinese models of Land Rover.

Also BP sold out a big part of its Russian biz to the state-owned oil giant Rosneft..more like a merger as they got paid in cash and 18% shares.. so that creates now one of the worlds largest oil companies under semi-British ownership. Heh. That's one market/place I wouldn't feel safe doing biz. Even post-Soviet era, the state just seems to seize assets and take control of companies!

 

[flecc]

Originally Posted by Churchill
Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests ... but we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European Statesmen address us in the words which were used of old - 'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Lord of the Host?' - we should reply with the words of the Shunamite woman: 'Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people ...

This was typical Churchillian nonsense, playing with words. We are physically a full part of Europe, an offshore island which until a very short while ago was part of the mainland of Europe anyway. The creation of the Channel Tunnel make us once again a land connected part of Europe.

Europe is where our future belongs as part of a giant power group, which is the way the world is going. Being in it we can trade more freely with Europe and are still free to trade with the rest of the world as Alex has highlighted above. Alone we are not a big enough country to punch with sufficient weight in a future world of giants, the USA, China, India, Russia, Brazil and others.

Europe's present problems will pass, they are shared by other nations like China, the USA and others who have very big current and impending problems of their own. We have a simple choice, we can live and trade together with difficulties as at present, or we can return to the past world of separatism and frequent wars with each other. I know which your children will prefer in the future.

 

[Wisper Bikes]

Originally Posted by Nationwide

Exclusion clause (for £2 million personal liability) from third party accidents or deaths arising from the use of: motorised or mechanical vehicles and trailers attached to them, with the exception of electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters being used on pedestrian routes (or where cover is provided for an adventure activity, see points 5 and 6 below)

Is a bicycle covered by the phrase "mechical vehicle"?

All the best

David

 

[morphix]

Originally Posted by Nationwide

Exclusion clause (for £2 million personal liability) from third party accidents or deaths arising from the use of: motorised or mechanical vehicles and trailers attached to them, with the exception of electric wheelchairs and mobility scooters being used on pedestrian routes (or where cover is provided for an adventure activity, see points 5 and 6 below)

Is a bicycle covered by the phrase "mechical vehicle"?

All the best

David

That's a good question David and one I'm yet to get a definitive answer to from Nationwide...I will find out tomorrow as if this policy does treat e-bikes as non-motorised vehicles, it may offer a handy way for e-bike owners to get £2 million third party cover (which includes damage to property as well as physical injury and death) at zero cost as the policy is free to current account holders (who deposit £700+ a month). It also covers for £50k accident payout and a host of benefits (foreign medical costs and cash for NHS overnight stays)..it even includes routine travel to and from home and work. I'll report back tomorrow or as soon as they respond.

If anyone is interested in this policy let me know as they have a referral program going, £50 for new members if introduced by an existing member.

 

[morphix]

OK I've just got off the phone with Nationwide Building Society about this £2 million third party liability question..They put me through to their insurance department who manage the travel insurance... they definitely confirmed that the policy would not cover e-bike users against third party liability unfortunately.

I did clarify what I meant by electric bicycle and said legally a bicycle with assistance that can ride on pavements under the law etc. I even asked if they would cover a normal regular bicycle without electric motor. "No" was the answer. "nothing like that all, not even a horse" to quote his exact words.

I've sent an e-mail through to the insurance department just to double check, as I know sometimes the telesales people are not that clued up, but I expect I'll get the same response as he seemed quite clear on it.

I'm not sure what use the third party liability is for travel insurance then if you can't be moving!