Kudos Arriba 25MPH ;-)

[tillson]

I will remind you all that riding a 250w bike on the road is illegal. The UK law is 200w. People started selling and riding 250w bikes because they were allowed in other countries. All those hypocritical people on this forum that insist that the law should be followed to the letter were/are also party to this illegal act.

Then, there were so many people including, prominent politicians, using and them that it would have been a mess if someone was prosecuted. BEBA wrote to the Dept of Transport, and because of the critical mass of illegal 250w bike riders and sellers, the D of T gave us a sort of amnesty from prosecution, but if you ask them, they will still tell you that 250w bikes cannot be used in public places because that is the law.

So, if you don't want people to ride at over 15mph, please say so on the basis of any rational argument, but please don't do it on the basis of legality when you're riding round on a 250w bike.

What D8veh knows, but isn't disclosing is that the DfT have stated that they intend to encompass the EU law (250 Watts) into UK law. This is going to happen and the DfT have further indicated anyone complying with EU law won't be prosecuted. D8veh knows this, but he is choosing not to tell you because its not convenient to his eBay / roll of tape lashed together moped agenda.

As far as I am aware, the DfT have indicated no such intentions as those stated above with regard to exceeding 250 Watts or 15 MPH.

The old UK 200 Watt thing quoted by D8veh is similar in relevevance to a taxi driver being required in law to carry hay on-board his vehicle. It is then like an unlicensed taxi driver claiming a defence because none of the other taxi drivers carry hay, therefore everybody is guilty of an offence and he should be allowed to carry on operating illegally.

Anyway D8veh knows this and he's just trying to muddy the water with his none sense.

 

[flecc]

Not necessarily. Riding a utility bike loaded with stuff at over 15mph can still be hard work.

Yes necessarily! As per your quote, riding a heavily loaded utility bike at over 15mph is not the cycling norm, something I well know since I lived through the years when Britain was a cycling country. Cycling speeds over 15 mph have only been more common since cycling became a sport based pursuit in this country, utility cyclists still commonly ride at below that, often well below. That is why our EAPC assist limit was originally set at 12 mph, the most common utility cycling speed. Similarly Europe set theirs at 25 kph (15.6 mph), a common upper utility cycling speed. 20 mph is a sport cycling speed, most commonly seen with the lycra clad club cyclists, and the assist law is not intended to add to their already satisfactory cycling performance.

Once again I say, think what the word assist means and who assistance is for. It is for those who need it.

As to taking hills at the same speed you would ride a road bike on the flat - why not ?

Why not? Because it's about assistance to cycle, and riding up hills at over 15 mph is not a cycling norm or anything like it, even for the fittest

The mere fact you posted this proves the point that you are really asking for a bureaucracy free motor vehicle, something that is true for all those who want higher assistance speeds and or throttle control.
.

 

[SRS]

Tillson

Its all a bit irrelevant. If somone wants to travel at an assisted 20mph, then they'll probably set their bike up accordingly.

After all there is no sense in an assisted system the switches off the assistance when the operator requires it.

You may be happy to potter along but some of us don't have all day.

 

[flecc]

As far as I am aware, the DfT have indicated no such intentions as those stated above with regard to exceeding 250 Watts or 15 MPH.

In fact they've stated the opposite, making it clear that they will not consider the German higher speed and power classes and restating that off-road "buttons" and the like will remain illegal.

And on a point of law, we did in fact sign up to 250 watts for e-bikes on 10th November 2003 when parliament passed into law the 2002/EC/24 type approval laws. The widespread sale of 250 watt e-bike commenced from then on. Problems only arose when the civil service failed to carry out the accompanying instruction to remove all conflicting laws, leaving the old 1983 200 watt EAPC regulation in place. The specific problem is that the courts and police primarily look at UK law and have to be reminded to look further at the EU orders that also apply and have primacy, something that I've successfully done to help prevent a prosecution.

To temporarily deal with this conflict, the DfT and police nationally now have a waiver in place pending the law's eventual revision, currently intended for 2016.

 

[flecc]

After all there is no sense in an assisted system the switches off the assistance when the operator requires it.

Missing the point, the law isn't about what you require, it's about what is good for society.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

What D8veh knows, but isn't disclosing is that the DfT have stated that they intend to encompass the EU law (250 Watts) into UK law. This is going to happen and the DfT have further indicated anyone complying with EU law won't be prosecuted.

The DfT have not indicated that noone will be prosecuted. They chose their words very carefully and stated that they wouldn't support a prosecution, which is not the same thing. In the one recent case I've seen to do with illegal electric bikes, where a woman was appealing against her conviction for using one, they used 200w as the law. Her conviction was upheld on the basis that her bike didn't have proper pedals. Her bike had a motor below 200w, otherwise she would have lost on that. In the courts the Judge uses the law as it's written.

D8veh knows this, but he is choosing not to tell you because its not convenient to his eBay / roll of tape lashed together moped agenda.

I have no agenda about the law or anything else. I neither support nor oppose any of the rules or regulations, nor do I support or oppose anybody that that wants to comply or flout them.

I don't what you mean by "eBay / roll of tape lashed together moped". I have never advertise any type of electric vehicle on Ebay. The only thing I've ever sold to do with electric vehicles is the rear version of the motor that Cyclotricity fit in their bikes and kits, and a 14 amp controller, which has less power than many fitted to EN15194 certified bikes. Neither of these items would be powerful enough to make an electric moped. Could you clarify what you mean?

 

[tillson]

Tillson

Its all a bit irrelevant. If somone wants to travel at an assisted 20mph, then they'll probably set their bike up accordingly.

After all there is no sense in an assisted system the switches off the assistance when the operator requires it.

You may be happy to potter along but some of us don't have all day.

Hi SRS

I quite understand that some people want to travel at speeds greater than 15 MPH. There are plenty of alternative modes of transport which allow this, cars, motorbikes, scooters, mopeds, busses, taxis, trains, aircraft and bicycles with fit rider are a few examples. From that combination of various modes of transport, you should be able to get to where you want.

What is not an acceptable mode of transport is a machine which purports to be a bicycle, but is in fact a motor vehicle which should be subjected to all of the regulations applicable to motor vehicles.

Let's not mince words here. What you are actually wanting to do is to cheat the system and to not spend your cash on road tax, insurance, licensing and safety equipment. You want a motor vehicle but you don't want or can't afford to pay for the running costs. As plenty of other people have pointed out, speeds greater than 15 MPH are possible and it is legal to do it, you just have to shoulder the responsibilities which accompany the higher speeds. Some people are responsible individuals by nature and some aren't. It just depends where you see yourself.

 

[RobF]

Hi SRS
What you are actually wanting to do is to cheat the system and to not spend your cash on road tax, insurance, licensing and safety equipment. You want a motor vehicle but you don't want or can't afford to pay for the running costs.

I expect most ebike owners - fast and slow - are like me and have a car as well, so avoiding car running costs and taxes doesn't come into it.

 

[Kudoscycles]

Having read through this thread from start to finish, the thing that stands out clearly is that people want the bike to assist or to power them along at a speed greater than 15 MPH. I also ride an unassisted bike, probably more regularly than my Ebike, and I am reasonably fit. When cycling along level ground on my UNASSISTED bike to and from work and not competing in an event, I maintain about 15 MPH. This is the same speed to which my Ebike assists. The Ebike is a bit quicker up hills than the unassisted bike and both will do about 45 MPH down the steepest hills in my area. Overall, the Ebike is a bit quicker because of the help it gives me going up hill. If I use the unassisted bike and my wife, who hardly ever cycles and has had a full knee replacement, uses the electric bike, we more or less equal in pace when leisure cycling.

The above is the whole point of an electrically assisted bicycle as defined by the present law. It exists in order to allow someone who is not particularly fit to perform on a bicycle to a similar standard as an average fit rider. It is not intended to power a person along the level at 25 MPH + like a moped. This simply isn't what ebikes are for or what they were ever intended to be. We have moped laws for higher speeds and that includes electric mopeds if you don't like the emissions from IC engines. People have then gone on to say, "but I don't want to pay for insurance and road tax and I want to ride in cycle lanes." I don't particularly enjoy paying for road tax and insurance on my car, but it's something I have to do. It comes with car ownership in the same way that responsibility comes with moped ownership. All of this garbage about cars being able to exceed the speed limit is just that, irrelevant garbage. Cars, by definition in law, are able to do that in the same way that bicycles, by law, can do things that a car can't. They are two entirely different entities each with their own list of advantages and disadvantages. To cherry pick elements of each and then contrast them to form an argument is plain stupid.

This isn't about do-gooding or holier than thou attitudes, it's about being a responsible person. To think otherwise is an admission of having lost both the argument and a sense of moral responsibility.

No one is saying that a person can't own or use an electric bike which is capable of greater than 15 MPH under power, you can do this. But you must realise that it is no longer a "bicycle" in law and you must forego the easements in law which the compliant electrically assisted bicycle owners enjoy.

There really isn't anything clever about putting a high power motor and large capacity battery on a bike. It's easy to do. You just need an eBay account and a roll of tape. The present range of legal bikes and kits are well developed and will allow people who are unfit or have a disability to perform at a level similar to or better than the average cyclist. If you want anything more than this, that is fine, but but you have to do it intelligently and properly. You owe that to the vast majority of legal bike owners and retailers.

Tillson,I agree with much of your posting except the link between e-bike usage and fitness. It is probably this perception which is one of the primary reasons why e-bike usage in the UK has not become as popular as in Holland or Germany.
Sit in any pavement cafe in the town centre of any Dutch or German town and you will see teenagers,great grandma,the fit chic,the powerbuilt guy,the businessman in a suit,mum with a toddler on a rack all using e-bikes. Sitting outside a bar in a German city and a bunch of 20/30 something guys will arrive on bikes or e-bikes,some wobbling a bit on the way home!!!
But if you do as many shows as I have you realise that us Brits have an entirely different attitude to these e-bikes....
Often heard 'thats cheating'....they get annoyed when I ask who we are cheating? You would be thought of having a screw loose if you ran alongside a bus and shouted at the people on the bus because they are bussing to work and you are walking.
'Thats for old people'.....try telling that to a Dutch e-biker!!
'Thats for infirm people'.....whilst I respect that these bikes are good for those who have lost the power in their legs they are not mobility scooters,unfortunately they were often sold in mobility centres which sent out the wrong signals.
'Its not a proper bike'.....usually by the lycra clad Bianchi rider,I have an employee who has a lightweight KTM but will often use an e-bike to work because he can remain sweat free.
'I wouldn't have one of those in my shop'.....usually by a high end cycle shop,I wheeled a Haibike All Mountain bike into one of those shops,the salesman wear lycra all day!!!! But they came back with all smiles after a test ride,they were forced to admit that it was a lot of fun,now get out of our shop just in case a customer wants one!!!!
I could go on,how we ended up with these attitudes in the UK,which are contrary to just about all other euro countries I just don't know. But it is these attitudes that are stopping more e-bike usage in the UK,which is a shame.
KudosDave

 

[flecc]

The DfT have not indicated that noone will be prosecuted. They chose their words very carefully and stated that they wouldn't support a prosecution, which is not the same thing.

Not so, this is their wording:

"The DfT and Police are aware that electric bikes currently sold and used in the UK are fitted with 250W motors, they do not intend to become involved in prosecuting those that sell or ride them."

That is a clear indication that the police will not prosecute 250 watts. This statement was pursuant to the appeal for DfT support by a police force. They did not get that support so now have to comply with the DfT position.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Not so, this is their wording:

"The DfT and Police are aware that electric bikes currently sold and used in the UK are fitted with 250W motors, they do not intend to become involved in prosecuting those that sell or ride them."

That is a clear indication that the police will not prosecute 250 watts. This statement was pursuant to the appeal for DfT support by a police force. They did not get that support so now have to comply with the DfT position.

Thanks for clarifying that. It'll make many 250w bike owners less nervous. OK, so its unlikely,(not impossible) that you won't be prosecuted, but that doesn't make it legal.

 

[tillson]

I expect most ebike owners - fast and slow - are like me and have a car as well, so avoiding car running costs and taxes doesn't come into it.

Why don't the people who own the high power / speed bikes register them as mopeds then? The answer is, they don't want to pay. This brings us back to my original point:- They want to cheat the system, they don't have the shoulders to take on the full responsibility.

 

[flecc]

how we ended up with these attitudes in the UK,which are contrary to just about all other euro countries I just don't know. But it is these attitudes that are stopping more e-bike usage in the UK,which is a shame.
KudosDave

I totally agree with your entire post Dave, but quote the portion above in order to answer the implied question.

We ended up with our current attitudes simply because as a nation we dropped almost totally out of cycling in the 1960s and '70s. When the mountain bike was invented at the end of the 1970s, the concept attracted many Britons so cycling resumed as a sport biased pursuit. This added sport biased interest also brought expansion to the tiny nucleus of club sport riders, those we we refer to as lycras.

What never restarted in Britain at that time was utility cycling, cycling as transport, so cycling became regarded as a solely sporting pursuit, particularly by all those born after 1960. These conditions were not shared by the major European cycling countries where utility cycling never disappeared, in some scarcely declining at all. That is why all ages in such as the Netherlands see bicycles as transport.
.

 

[tillson]

Thanks for clarifying that. It'll make many 250w bike owners less nervous. OK, so its unlikely,(not impossible) that you won't be prosecuted, but that doesn't make it legal.

You are trying to infer that riding a 250 Watt, 15 MPH limited Ebike is no different to riding a higher powered, higher speed machine. This is entirely false.

 

[flecc]

Thanks for clarifying that. It'll make many 250w bike owners less nervous. OK, so its unlikely,(not impossible) that you won't be prosecuted, but that doesn't make it legal.

Or illegal though, since 250 watts is on paper both legal and illegal. However, as a transport issue the EU law incorporated into UK law has primacy, a view supported by independent international lawyers, so as ridiculous as it sounds, 250 watts is more legal than 200 watts.

 

[flecc]

Back in October 2006 I posted a suggestion for an better way of democratic government which would meet the approval of many of those unhappy with our present e-bike laws, and indeed with many other laws as well. Here it is:

We don't have a democracy of course, it's an elective dictatorship when we elect others who are then free to dictate. True democracy was only just about possible with a tiny population as when the Greeks invented it, but we've reached a point in technical advancement where a sophisticated type of true democracy is now possible. Here's my long considered model for it.

The election of representatives in the present manner, but with their powers limited to the details of existing policy. The population able to vote online to introduce new proposed policies, or changes to existing policy, subject to the following:

1) All registered members of the public regardless of age able to submit proposed policies or changes online.

2) The top most proposed policies or changes selected for presentation online for voting on acceptance or rejection, subject to the following:

To access a vote on a policy or change, it would be necessary to correctly answer some questions about that subject. The questions would be a random presentation to avoid prior knowledge.

The purpose of that restriction would be to eliminate the influence of votes based on ignorance. This would not be a restriction on democracy since everyone has access to education, further education, internet facilities etc, so could gain the necessary knowledge in order to widen the issues they were able to vote on.

Policies or changes then adopted by the population could be fine tuned by the elected representatives, but they could not cancel or ignore them. A second chamber could be a safeguard against attempts to do that.

Under this method, newer forms of transport could be promoted by the population at large and voted into policy, with voting only by those knowing something about the subject. For example, an issue concerning electric bikes would be strongly influenced by those with knowledge of the issue, rather than them being ignored by the overwhelming majority who know nothing of the issue and don't care either under the present system.

Vive la revolution!

 

[103Alex1]

Yes necessarily! As per your quote, riding a heavily loaded utility bike at over 15mph is not the cycling norm, something I well know since I lived through the years when Britain was a cycling country. Cycling speeds over 15 mph have only been more common since cycling became a sport based pursuit in this country, utility cyclists still commonly ride at below that, often well below. That is why our EAPC assist limit was originally set at 12 mph, the most common utility cycling speed. Similarly Europe set theirs at 25 kph (15.6 mph), a common upper utility cycling speed. 20 mph is a sport cycling speed, most commonly seen with the lycra clad club cyclists, and the assist law is not intended to add to their already satisfactory cycling performance.

Once again I say, think what the word assist means and who assistance is for. It is for those who need it.



Why not? Because it's about assistance to cycle, and riding up hills at over 15 mph is not a cycling norm or anything like it, even for the fittest

The mere fact you posted this proves the point that you are really asking for a bureaucracy free motor vehicle, something that is true for all those who want higher assistance speeds and or throttle control.
.

No, not necessarily. I do not see why having huge bulging steroid-driven thighs entitles you to cycle at 20-60mph "and that's OK because you can" but when someone is assisted to do the same it requires a driving licence because some beaurocrat says it must. Makes no sense at all. Being able to cycle fast on a road bike doesn't give you any more road sense than an older rider an an eBike. Privileges and concessions as usual for the fit.

And yes, I think a beaurocracy free motor vehicle up to performance sports people can use their bodies to push non-motorized vehicles to on the public highway is perfectly reasonable. The hypocritical way it's all set up is risable. For so long as road bikes are allowed on the streets being pushed by sport riders at those speeds then utility bikes should be capable of being pushed to the similar levels. What's good for the goose ....

When you say "it's about" .... that may be what "it's about" for some people but it isn't what "it's about" for many others !!!!!!!! "It" is only about what a group of individuals who happen to have powers and agendas have decided "it" should be about.

 

[john h]

just one amendment flecc,[ The election of representatives in the present manner] but not with the same pay amount as in the present manner.

 

[los monty]

In fact they've stated the opposite, making it clear that they will not consider the German higher speed and power classes and restating that off-road "buttons" and the like will remain illegal.

And on a point of law, we did in fact sign up to 250 watts for e-bikes on 10th November 2003 when parliament passed into law the 2002/EC/24 type approval laws. The widespread sale of 250 watt e-bike commenced from then on. Problems only arose when the civil service failed to carry out the accompanying instruction to remove all conflicting laws, leaving the old 1983 200 watt EAPC regulation in place. The specific problem is that the courts and police primarily look at UK law and have to be reminded to look further at the EU orders that also apply and have primacy, something that I've successfully done to help prevent a prosecution.

To temporarily deal with this conflict, the DfT and police nationally now have a waiver in place pending the law's eventual revision, currently intended for 2016.

A quick look at this legislation indicates power must cut off if rider stops pedalling, which I assume outlaws throttles.
Harmonization sounds good on paper but less so when the starting point is that you cant even agree which side of the road to cycle on. Hands up anyone who cant quote a ridiculous piece of European legislation.
Are we losing track of the original post a guy tweaking a bike to provide a smoother ride at 2mph over the limit.
Lets have a bit of toleration or accept our legal system will grind to a halt allowing the real villains to escape justice

 

[flecc]

No, not necessarily. I do not see why having huge bulging steroid-driven thighs entitles you to cycle at 20-60mph "and that's OK because you can" but when someone is assisted to do the same it requires a driving licence because some beaurocrat says it must. Makes no sense at all. Being able to cycle fast on a road bike doesn't give you any more road sense than an older rider an an eBike. Privileges and concessions as usual for the fit.

Yes necessarily, see these extracts from a post I made before on this subject:

"Assist speed limited to 25 kph/15 mph. This emphasises the need over performance factor, but more importantly it's connected to the fact of no rider proficiency testing. Physical fitness, reaction times, eyesight and hearing are broadly connected, we can be reasonably confident that the fit lycra is overall fairly safe at over 15 mph in these respects. The utility riders who the e-bikes are intended for are often going to be elderly with those facilities often impaired in many ways. They can often be partially disabled with impairments affecting safety. In the absence of rider testing the safety of the public at large has to take precedence.

Connected with the level at which the assist speed limit is set is the effect that evolution has had on our abilities. A fit normal person can run at up to 18 mph, so evolution has developed our senses and reactions to cope best with speeds up to that. As mentioned though, those senses and reaction times deteriorate with age, so given the target group likely common age profile, the assist speed is set a bit lower. Originally in Britain it was set at 12 mph but this was later raised to 15 mph to give some parity with EU law while still being lower than the optimum for the fully fit."

Essentially all safety linked law has to be set to the lowest common denominator to protect in the worst case situation. It was only a few weeks ago that we had a newby posting that having tried the new e-bike that he had just bought he was too terrified by it to continue using it. It was just about the lowest powered and slowest of the current e-bikes on the market today, showing just how low capabilities can be.