Food for thought

[indalo]

I'm not sure if this bike would be deemed UK street legal but I can imagine a lot of guys would be happy to ride one of these!





Indalo

 

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure if this bike would be deemed UK street legal but I can imagine a lot of guys would be happy to ride one of these!



View attachment 4629

Indalo

I suspect you're right!

Reminds me of the time when my younger brother was stopped by the police in Falmouth, many years ago. For a lark he had strapped one of those "inflatable dolls" to the pillion of his motorcycle. The police stopped him as he had been reported for carrying a passenger without a crash helmet. Apparently the look on the police officers face when he realised what the "passenger" was was priceless!

 

[Old_Dave]

A fully road legal 250w 36v built from a kit

As its Panto season, the relevant response just has to be....

O'h no it isn't

 

[eHomer]

I hate to burst your bubble, but unless you have had that bike tested and approved to one or other of the applicable sets of regulations, then it's as illegal as the other one!

I'm always ready to admit defeat when it comes to interpretations of the law.

Two questions though,

I really did think that if the completed bike was 250w maximum power, under 40kg, only gave motor power whilst actually being pedaled, and could do no more than 15 mph, then it was in fact "fully legal" ?


If I'm wrong in that assumption, then surely even then, it's not "just as illegal" as the other one ?

 

[Miles]

As I've explained above, yes we do have that option. Effectively the only extra we have is that the bike must carry a tax disc (VED), but since the VED is zero rated that costs nothing. It just means attaching a tax disc holder on the left of the bike where it can be seen, hardly a hardship.

There is another significant difference which is that, in this country, you are also obliged to wear a DOT certified motorcycle helmet.......

 

[amigafan2003]

I look forward to your direction on what constitutes acceptable construction and use of an ebike so that I may be guided by the dark lamp of your stupidity.

Name calling again, bravo, bravo!

You can call me many things and you'd be right but stupid would not be one of them. So you'll have to excuse me if I take no notice of a poster that resorts to an ad homien fallacy as an attempt to further their argument.

 

[Jeremy]

I'm always ready to admit defeat when it comes to interpretations of the law.

Two questions though,

I really did think that if the completed bike was 250w maximum power, under 40kg, only gave motor power whilst actually being pedaled, and could do no more than 15 mph, then it was in fact "fully legal" ?


If I'm wrong in that assumption, then surely even then, it's not "just as illegal" as the other one ?

There are two sets of regulations that can apply. One is UK Statute Law, in the shape of Statutory Instrument 1168 from 1983. This defines an Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle as one that has an electric motor with an output power of not greater than 200W, a weight (for a solo bike) of not more than 40kg and a maximum electrically assisted speed of 15mph. On its own SI 1168 isn't the real problem here, though, as the detail is within SI 1176, the Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983. This Statutory Instrument says more about EAPCs in section 4:

“4. No person shall ride, or cause or permit to be ridden, on a road a pedal cycle to which the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 apply unless it is fitted with -

(a) a plate securely fixed in a conspicuous and readily accessible position showing –
(i) the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle,

(ii) the nominal voltage of the battery (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the vehicle, and

(iii) the continuous rated output (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the motor of the vehicle;”

The key point here is the reference to the "1971 British Standard". The “1971 British Standard” is defined in the Statutory Instrument as BS1727: 1971. To be legal evidence has to be available showing that both the battery voltage and the motor power output stated on the data plate have been shown to comply with this British Standard. No acceptable means of compliance have been given in the Statutory Instrument, so in this case the law would fall back on the general standard of proof that is required when demonstrating technical compliance to a British Standard. In this case this would normally be a test or assessment against the requirements of the British Standard by a suitably accredited body.

The alternative way of defining a legal electric bike is for it to have been shown to be compliant with the EU EPAC regulations, as defined in EN 15194. This allows a motor power of 250W and a maximum assisted speed of 25km/h but adds some other restrictions, including the one that stipulates that the bike shall have the pedals rotating in order for the motor to provide power.

To be legal under the EU EPAC regulation the ebike needs to be Type Approved against the requirements of EN 15194, an expensive business for a one-off.

So, to be legal any ebike in the UK has to have some form of approval. Either the motor power and battery voltage have to be assessed using the procedure in BS 1727 :1971 (by an accredited test house), with this data being recorded on a data plate on the bike, or the ebike has to have been tested and approved to EN15194.

The net result is that the majority of ebikes in the UK are probably illegal. My ad hoc survey of UK ebike dealers website earlier today didn't fill me with confidence. Few actually stated clearly that their ebikes had been tested and approved, which leads me to suspect that some may well not be legal. As Mentioned earlier in this thread, I've looked at and repaired a few dozen ebikes in the last few years, including some well-known brand names, and only one was actually legal.

 

[flecc]

There is another significant difference which is that, in this country, you are also obliged to wear a DOT certified motorcycle helmet.......

True in law Miles, but in fact wearing an open-face full cycling helmet of the Casco type for example would pass muster. This type of helmet is very popular in Australia and New Zealand so must be practical even in quite hot conditions, especially on an e-bike.

I can't see the police stopping anyone riding reasonably and wearing one of these, they have far more to occupy themselves these days with ANPR and the large number of uninsured, unlicenced drivers operating without valid MOT certificates.

 

[Miles]

True in law Miles, but in fact wearing an open-face full cycling helmet of the Casco type for example would pass muster......
I can't see the police stopping anyone riding reasonably and wearing one of these, they have far more to occupy themselves these days....

I'm sure you're right on that but it would be nice if the regulations themselves were in step. If it came to a personal injury case though, you'd be out of luck....

 

[eHomer]

There are two sets of regulations that can apply. One is UK Statute Law, in the shape of Statutory Instrument 1168 from 1983. This defines an Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle as one that has an electric motor with an output power of not greater than 200W, a weight (for a solo bike) of not more than 40kg and a maximum electrically assisted speed of 15mph. On its own SI 1168 isn't the real problem here, though, as the detail is within SI 1176, the Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983. This Statutory Instrument says more about EAPCs in section 4:

“4. No person shall ride, or cause or permit to be ridden, on a road a pedal cycle to which the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 apply unless it is fitted with -

(a) a plate securely fixed in a conspicuous and readily accessible position showing –
(i) the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle,

(ii) the nominal voltage of the battery (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the vehicle, and

(iii) the continuous rated output (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the motor of the vehicle;”

The key point here is the reference to the "1971 British Standard". The “1971 British Standard” is defined in the Statutory Instrument as BS1727: 1971. To be legal evidence has to be available showing that both the battery voltage and the motor power output stated on the data plate have been shown to comply with this British Standard. No acceptable means of compliance have been given in the Statutory Instrument, so in this case the law would fall back on the general standard of proof that is required when demonstrating technical compliance to a British Standard. In this case this would normally be a test or assessment against the requirements of the British Standard by a suitably accredited body.

The alternative way of defining a legal electric bike is for it to have been shown to be compliant with the EU EPAC regulations, as defined in EN 15194. This allows a motor power of 250W and a maximum assisted speed of 25km/h but adds some other restrictions, including the one that stipulates that the bike shall have the pedals rotating in order for the motor to provide power.

To be legal under the EU EPAC regulation the ebike needs to be Type Approved against the requirements of EN 15194, an expensive business for a one-off.

So, to be legal any ebike in the UK has to have some form of approval. Either the motor power and battery voltage have to be assessed using the procedure in BS 1727 :1971 (by an accredited test house), with this data being recorded on a data plate on the bike, or the ebike has to have been tested and approved to EN15194.

The net result is that the majority of ebikes in the UK are probably illegal. My ad hoc survey of UK ebike dealers website earlier today didn't fill me with confidence. Few actually stated clearly that their ebikes had been tested and approved, which leads me to suspect that some may well not be legal. As Mentioned earlier in this thread, I've looked at and repaired a few dozen ebikes in the last few years, including some well-known brand names, and only one was actually legal.

Thank you Jeremy, that must have taken some time to type out and cover the answr in such detail.

I stand corrected, and will no longer boast about "full legality"

What a strange country this is on certain things. Why have they made compliance so difficult to achieve ?

 

[wurly]

There was a guy who posted on ES about his road legal ebike. As far as i know he's the first one to do it.

Endless-sphere.com • View topic - 30mph UK road legal electric bicycle

I have considered doing this myself, but having to deal with the beaurocracy and trying to find 'reasonable' insurance having to wear a type approved crash helmet and then having to use the road system when there is a safer cycle path adjacent. Too many reasons against i'm afraid. As it stands i'm restricting my ebike to the legal speed limit and taking my chances as to whether i'm stopped by the law, after all it's still a bicycle not a motorbike. And, i should add, living in Somerset, most of my riding is 'rural' so the chances are pretty remote i'd say.

 

[Jeremy]

What a strange country this is on certain things. Why have they made compliance so difficult to achieve ?

A very good question indeed.

For a time I was the Head of Type Approval for UK Marine Radio, Radar and Navigations Systems. One thing I learned during that time was that some manufacturers are very powerful and influence regulation in their favour. The bigger manufacturers inevitably seem to support some form of very expensive Type Approval, as a means of preventing smaller manufacturers from muscling in on their market.

Standards bodies are also influential, and are, in effect, self-licking-lollipops. They create standards, and define Acceptable Means of Compliance, then use these as levers within government to ensure that they get enshrined in Statute Law as a means of providing them with a secure income.

The same is true, probably to a greater extent, within the EU.

The main problem seems to be that government has no real experts, and is often forced to rely upon the advice it gets from those it selects to provide technical expertise. Very often these selected advisers have an axe to grind in the relevant industry and it's quite rare for smaller companies or individuals to have a say in policy.

Common sense does sometimes prevail. Many years ago I worked for a couple of years to get the CAA to relax regulation of very light aircraft, on the same basis as ebikes should be deregulated, that as long as the speed and mass of the aircraft was sufficiently low there was no real need for regulation. After five or six years of work, with others following in my footsteps to take the argument forward, the government relented and removed regulation for aircraft under 100kg empty weight and with a very low wing loading.

The same needs to be done now with ebikes, using the same maximum allowable kinetic energy argument. The power restriction red herring needs to be removed, as does the pedelec red herring. The only significant safety issue is the ability of the ebike to cause damage or injury, and that only depends on speed and weight. Motor power and whether or not the pedals are rotating have no bearing on the safety of an ebike, as long as the maximum assist speed and weight are regulated.

 

[tillson]

The main problem seems to be that government has no real experts, and is often forced to rely upon the advice it gets from those it selects to provide technical expertise. Very often these selected advisers have an axe to grind in the relevant industry and it's quite rare for smaller companies or individuals to have a say in policy.

Common sense does sometimes prevail. Many years ago I worked for a couple of years to get the CAA to relax regulation of very light aircraft, on the same basis as ebikes should be deregulated, that as long as the speed and mass of the aircraft was sufficiently low there was no real need for regulation. After five or six years of work, with others following in my footsteps to take the argument forward, the government relented and removed regulation for aircraft under 100kg empty weight and with a very low wing loading.

This is so very true. A few years ago, the annual insurance premium for my hot air balloon doubled overnight. The CAA had been, "advised" that the level of insurance cover needed to be based on the maximum take off mass (MTOM) of the craft. Despite being nothing more than a slow moving nylon bag with a few sticks dangling below it, a balloon has a surprisingly high mass. Several tonnes when the mass of air inside the envelope is considered. This places balloons in the same insurance risk category as high mass, high velocity aircraft. Rather silly when you consider the likely relative impact damage. The insurance industry's fingerprints are all over this change and they were involved in advising the CAA / EASA

I also asses lighter than air craft for airworthiness so that they can have their certificate of airworthiness renewed each year. The medical section within EASA have been pushing for the assessing inspectors to hold a Class 2 JAR medical certificate as part of the inspector's licence criteria. Why on earth would this be necessary? Could it have anything at all to do with the fact that approved medical examiners (AMEs) charge anything up top £500 for the medical?

Hot air ballooning has gone from a sport enjoying very little regulation, a good safety record and lots of easements from the Air Navigation Order, to something which resembles running a small airline and all the associated bureaucracy. Most of which I would argue has come into being on the advice of those with a vested commercial interest.

I won't mention trailer licensing killing off the supply younger people entering the sport. That legislation really was dreamed up at the mother of all cake and @rse parties.

I would hate to see ebikes go the same way. I can imagine that there is a small army of organisations (insurers most prominent) that would just love the opportunity to, "advise" the government that ebikes need to be more closely regulated. Blatant illegal ebike use will be manna from heaven for them.

 

[Jeremy]

Hot air ballooning has gone from a sport enjoying very little regulation, a good safety record and lots of easements from the Air Navigation Order, to something which resembles running a small airline and all the associated bureaucracy. Most of which I would argue has come into being on the advice of those with a vested commercial interest.

In my case it was microlight flying, where the sport went from being unregulated, with an excellent accident record (no recorded fatalities at all in the UK during this period), to something that required so much bureaucracy that I, and others, just packed it in. Did all the regulation make it safer? No, actually it could be argued it made the sport far more dangerous, for a host of reasons. Thankfully a prolonged campaign did get the CAA to remove regulation at the very light end and the result has been a bit of a boom in safe, quiet, fun, but slow deregulated craft again.

I would hate to see ebikes go the same way. I can imagine that there is a small army of organisations (insurers most prominent) that would just love the opportunity to, "advise" the government that ebikes need to be more closely regulated. Blatant illegal ebike use will be manna from heaven for them.

The reason that microlights were regulated in the first place was because of one fairly big manufacturer who wanted to get one over on his main competitor. The manufacturer in question went to the CAA and argued that his competitors product was inherently unsafe (which it wasn't, as it turned out) and they should take a look at it. They did, concluded that the answer was to regulate all microlights with immediate effect and grounded everyone more or less overnight. All this despite the fact there'd never been a fatality at that time!

We are very prone to knee-jerk legislation in this country, and assume that it will be a panacea. One good example is the tightened gun control laws that came in after the Hungerford and Dunblane fatalities. This hasn't had the slightest effect on criminal gun use and has only caused inconvenience to people like target shooters. We've seen similar knee-jerk reactions when things like Go Peds and MiniMotos became popular, with much increased enforcement action being taken to get them off the roads and pavements. The same would almost certainly happen if people started seriously abusing the ebike laws, by riding stupidly fast on what looks clearly like a motorcycle, rather than a bicycle.

The reaction to such increased vigilance and enforcement might be to drive most UK ebikes off the road, given that most are already illegal anyway, I believe.

Quite how we address this basic problem I don't know, but I suspect it would be a difficult topic to raise within government without setting a few hares running in the wrong direction.

 

[Old_Dave]

inconvenience

However, the hand in value of the brass was a tiny sweetener

 

[tillson]

In my case it was microlight flying, where the sport went from being unregulated, with an excellent accident record (no recorded fatalities at all in the UK during this period), to something that required so much bureaucracy that I, and others, just packed it in.

Ballooning hasn't enjoyed such a good safety record, mainly due to pilots flying into power lines and perishing in the ensuing fire. However, I can't think of a single casualty resulting from equipment failure.

Nothing contained within the new legislation, airworthiness procedures and associated bureaucracy does anything to address the cause of virtually all ballooning accidents, piloting mistakes.

After 25 years, I'm on the verge of giving up. Having only flown the balloon for 6 hours this year, if I think about the hourly flying rate it makes me weep. There is a whole heap of licensing nonsense on the way from Brussels for 2015 which will further reduce the number of participants.

Interestingly, the German aviation authorities are sticking two fingers up to EASA and continuing to legislate in a much more relaxed way. This is in stark contrast to our authorities who seem increasingly eager to adopt everything that comes out of EASA.

 

[Jeremy]

In the 5 or 6 years or so of microlight flying before regulation was imposed there were no fatal accidents, in the same period immediately after regulation there were around a dozen, primarily pilot error, but one or two related to structure or equipment. Nowadays the fatal accident rate sits at around two or three a year, despite ever increasing regulation. The deregulated very light microlights still have an unblemished safety record......................

Pretty much everyone in the sport (barring those with vested commercial interests) is agreed that regulation does nothing to enhance safety, in fact many (including me) feel that it actually creates safety problems, by bleeding money away from the impecunious (meaning they don't fly so much, so their skills get rusty) or by actually creating the daft situation where safety related modifications are so expensive to get through CAA approval that many don't bother!

Don't get me started on EASA, I'm just thankful I have an old UK PPL but no longer bother to fly. The last straw for me was having to pay the CAA to have them certify on my licence that I could speak English to an acceptable standard (HTF do they think I passed the RT test years ago?).............................

 

[tillson]

The last straw for me was having to pay the CAA to have them certify on my licence that I could speak English to an acceptable standard (HTF do they think I passed the RT test years ago?).............................

I'd tried to put that sorry episode to one side as it infuriates me. It beggars belief doesn't it.

 

[GaRRy]

As far as the Germans, yes, I am aware that their 28mph cycles are regulated but at least people have the option. We do not. Again why?

Various posts suggest that these sort of speeds warrant a motorcycle status. Rubbish, a motorcycle is a completely different beast. Many having a cruising speed well in excess of 100mph.

Yes a Motorcycle is a different beast and can have cruising speeds in excess of 150 let alone 100.

However a Moped is legally restricted to 30 mph which is not exactly a lot more than 28 mph and has far superior brakes, lights, suspension and handling than any bicycle will ever have. So what you are supporting is a vehicle almost as fast with far less safety features and none of the compliance of a moped (license, MOT etc). Sorry this seems complete madness to me.

Oh and on top of this most serious motorcycle accidents happen in 30 mph zone and involve "sorry officer I did not see him" motorists if such a bicycle was ever allowed just watch the accident stats go through the roof.

 

[Jeremy]

I'd tried to put that sorry episode to one side as it infuriates me. It beggars belief doesn't it.

Beggars belief doesn't come close. I found the whole thing so bloody stupid, and insulting, that I decided the time had come to just jack it in and take up boating................