Guy on Facebook said Police took a ride on his bike ?

[LeighPing]

All complete nonsense. As I thought, you don't have any serious suggestions.

And stopping all ebikes for a test ride is a serious suggestion is it?

 

[Deleted member 25121]

And stopping all ebikes for a test ride is a serious suggestion is it?

I never suggested that, to quote your very own words on here "You're always twisting my words to suit your agenda"

As many others have said, it appears that the police had reason to suspect that the ebike was illegal so they performed some initial tests on it.

If the police suspect that an ebike is illegal what do you suggest they do, ignore it?

 

[Amoto65]

What the hell has a dog got to do with it?

 

[gw8izr]

What the hell has a dog got to do with it?

I suspect he used to handle a land shark ;-)

 

[soundwave]

If the police suspect that an ebike is illegal what do you suggest they do, ignore it?

they wont chase me tho or anyone else with bikes with more power than mine, tho you get a pit bike and start blasting one of those around not because of the speed just the noise they make.

escooters and hover boards also not interested round here anyway

 

[Deleted member 25121]

He reminds me of those people who complain that far too many drivers drive too fast but get most indignant when they themselves are stopped for speeding.

I wonder what he did when he worked for the police, cleaned their cars perhaps?

 

[LeighPing]

If the police suspect that an ebike is illegal what do you suggest they do, ignore it?

Let's not miss the point entirely here. I'm not agreeing that illegal ebikes should be on the road. I'm saying that suspicions should be confirmed, using evidential best practice. Not by test riding for petty evidence that wasn't apparent in the first place. In this case speeding, which it would appear was not in excess in this particular discussion.

What the hell has a dog got to do with it?

My dog could catch a bloke on a bike from a standing start. Even a racer. After 25 mph it would be a bit hit and miss. Although, it does help if they're fleeing from a crime that they've committed in the first place. You can't let your dog bite everyone to see if they might have done something wrong.

He reminds me of those people who complain that far too many drivers drive too fast but get most indignant when they themselves are stopped for speeding.

I wonder what he did when he worked for the police, cleaned their cars perhaps?

I've cleaned lots of cars, yes. Does that make you feel better? Does that support my opinion less? As a Sgt I've done just about every aspect of the role. Still, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Threatening to take folks bikes in for testing, which as stated, could last weeks, is not evidence of wrongdoing.

My viewpoint won't change on shoddy policing practices. It never has and never will.

 

[flecc]

That's a lawyers dodge! You're always twisting my words to suit your agenda.

Not so, you were the one who twisted the words when you changed my safety into safely, remember?

The laws on pedelecs are actually quite simple to know and understand. They are constantly made unnecessarily difficult by riders and suppliers wishing to distort them into something to suit themselves. On throttles for example. And the DfT are as bad at this, seeming to want the public to be as confused as they've always been about e-bikes.
.

 

[LeighPing]

Not so, you were the one who twisted the words when you changed my safety into safely, remember?

I did write that Flecc. It wasn't a quote.

The laws on pedelecs are actually quite simple to know and understand. They are constantly made unnecessarily difficult by riders and suppliers wishing to distort them into something to suit themselves. On throttles for example. And the DfT are as bad at this, seeming to want the public to be as confused as they've always been about e-bikes.

Ain't that a fact. What's perfectly clear is that the waters are very muddy indeed concerning ebikes.

 

[flecc]

And stopping all ebikes for a test ride is a serious suggestion is it?

None of us is suggesting that should be done all the time, on this occasion there was a reasonable suspicion as it was a kit bike. I'm willing to bet you that a high proportion of kit built bikes are illegal in one or more ways.

You will remember when traffic wardens wandered around peering at tax discs, and may remember police officers doing it too, even issuing parking tickets as well. That is how this sort of policing is supposed to be done, as witness the requirement that pedelecs be plated with the information to be checked by the officer.

That isn't shoddy policing, it's how it is meant to be done, seizing opportune moments for a random check, without even any suspicion. That can be when an e-biker is paused or parking, or if there is a visual reasonable suspicion as in this case, by stopping them.
.

 

[flecc]

I did write that Flecc. It wasn't a quote.

I know you did and I didn't say it was a quote. But by posting safely instead of my safety you changed the meaning. Safety policy is an intention, safely is an absolute, and I wasn't speaking of absolute safety, just the relative safety of the fitter rider over the many others who are unfit enough to seek power assistance.

Ain't that a fact. What's perfectly clear is that the waters are very muddy indeed concerning ebikes.

No they aren't, they are very clear so long as people don't try to read something that's not there.

Maximum stated power 250 watts, maximum assist speed 15.5 mph, power assist only by pedalling, maximum nominal voltage 48 volts.

Just four items, what way is that difficult to remember and understand? In what way is it murky?
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

My viewpoint won't change on shoddy policing practices.

But you want the police to ignore illegal ebikes. Hmmmm......

 

[LeighPing]

I know you did and I didn't say it was a quote. But by posting safely instead of my safety you changed the meaning. Safety policy is an intention, safely is an absolute, and I wasn't speaking of absolute safety, just the relative safety of the fitter rider over the many others who are unfit enough to seek power assistance.

No they aren't, they are very clear so long as people don't try to read something that's not there.

Maximum stated power 250 watts, maximum assist speed 15.5 mph, power assist only by pedalling, maximum nominal voltage 48 volts.

Just four items, what way is that difficult to remember and understand? In what way is it murky?
.

This isn't my argument. But whilst those 4 items read simply, I'll maintain that it's murky. Although, you saying this;-

"Maximum stated power 250 watts, maximum assist speed 15.5 mph, power assist only by pedalling, maximum nominal voltage 48 volts."

Seems clear enough. Until you add reality into the mix. For instance 2 of my bikes have throttles. They're pre 2016 ebikes. Is that OK? Is that legal?

'Maximum stated power 250 watts'.. but that's not always the maximum power shown, or that can be done. That 'maximum' is often grossly exceeded by legal ebikes. Is that true or false? Or, are you just talking about a sticker on the motor? Well, if that's what the law says then that's what it says. Interpretations may differ.

But you want the police to ignore illegal ebikes. Hmmmm......

Did I say that? I doubt it.

 

[Amoto65]

It is not unusual for the police to lie and twist peoples words, hence it should not be a surprise that LeighPing is behaving the same.

 

[LeighPing]

It is not unusual for the police to lie and twist peoples words, hence it should not be a surprise that LeighPing is behaving the same.

There you go, we're in agreement at last.

But my behaviour isn't in question is it? For what? Having a difference of opinion?

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Did I say that? I doubt it.

Yes, your response to my post 102.

Make your mind up.

 

[flecc]

For instance 2 of my bikes have throttles. They're pre 2016 ebikes. Is that OK? Is that legal?

Of course they are legal. They were legal when supplied and there is never any retrospective regulation. Once legal, always legal in this respect. As an ex copper you'll know that those with car driving licence from before 1st February 2001 could ride a moped without another test or CBT. They still can and always will be able to.

'Maximum stated power 250 watts'.. but that's not always the maximum power shown, or that can be done. That 'maximum' is often grossly exceeded by legal ebikes. Is that true or false?

But this is no concern of yours so why are you speaking of it? Its a technical matter concerning construction, one for the designer, not you. To satisfy your curiosity, the relevant technical document, EN15194, only specifies that the motor can maintain 250 watts continuously without overheating.

In practice few pedelec motors only have 250 watts continuously available, it's almost always at least 300 watts, commonly 400 to 500 watts, and occasionally over 600 watts.

But again that's just technical information and not for the average e-biker.
.

 

[LeighPing]

Of course they are legal. They were legal when supplied and there is never any retrospective regulation. Once legal, always legal in this respect. As an ex copper you'll know that those with car driving licence from before 1st February 2001 could ride a moped without another test or CBT. They still can and always will be able to.

But this is no concern of yours so why are you speaking of it? Its a technical matter concerning construction, one for the designer, not you. To satisfy your curiosity, the relevant technical document, EN15194, only specifies that the motor can maintain 250 watts continuously without overheating.

In practice few pedelec motors only have 250 watts continuously available, it's almost always at least 300 watts, commonly 400 to 500 watts, and occasionally over 600 watts.

But again that's just technical information and not for the average e-biker.
.

I do laugh at some of your passionate responses Flecc. Like I said, murky.. Oh no I didn't! You changed my muddy to murky. That's a whole different thing then.

I hope that I've made myself clear enough.

 

[LeighPing]

Yes, your response to my post 102.

Make your mind up.

I don't hold with equality in all things, only with equality before the law and nothing more. I partially agreed with your post. Not wholly, but in part it was true enough for me to agree with some of it.

 

[flecc]

I do laugh at some of your passionate responses Flecc.

Once again it's a joke to you. Many come in here to find out the truth about pedelec law, so I treat the subject seriously, factually not passionately.

Like I said, murky.. Oh no I didn't! You changed my muddy to murky. That's a whole different thing then.

Apologies for that error, but murky happened to be more aposite than muddy in respect of reading a law.

That's another way of saying you shouldn't have used the wrong word in the first instance.
.