Some good points raised here.. When my bike is legal or not the claims principle is valid so I will be asking my home insurance for clarification..
Liability....
- Thread starter KTM Bike Industries UK
- Start date
I used to be a bit more waterproof than I am now do tend to stay in when it's wet!
Flecc, is this really the best you can come up with?
I was looking for some evidence of successful prosecutions based on the EU-compliant EAPCs and you provide the tale of the Met police acting politically at the behest of a grouping of MPs helping out the licensed Hackney Carriage association's complaints about loss of trade to the pedicabs.
As a Londoner like yourself, though now ex in my case, I'm familiar with that police action at that time but you are misleading readers here by selecting this very specific and unusual sector of the electrically-assisted pedelec market in your attempt to prove that 250w-powered motors are illegal. Trikes, as you well know, are a different kettle of fish and I'm sure 95% of forum readers wanted to read something relevant to 2-wheeled machines.
I cannot remember a single reported case of any 250w 2-wheeled EAPC being declared illegal on account of that single measurement being outwith that allowed by the 31-year old regulations. Of course, perhaps these things never make the press?
As for this 'waiver' you have often referred to, surely if that disallows prosecution for the 250w contravention under that 1983 regulation, then it must follow that such bikes are deemed to be legal, even though non-compliant. That being the case, no-one riding such a bike need have any concerns about contravening a 1983 regulation which by dint of the waiver becomes, to all intents and purposes, redundant.
Unless you Flecc, or someone else, is able to show me a definitive prosecution relating to an EU compliant, 2-wheeled EAPC, purely based on the fact it is 250w rated, then I shall presume that no such successful prosecution has ever occurred. In any event, I remain happy to rely on EU law should I ever have a problem with police on the wattage rating. Which court is going to convict me? I guess it will be the same court that will convict assorted police forces!
As for the mysterious waiver, it should be posted LARGE on every EAPC seller's website, on their showroom wall and should be clearly displayed on this website. That would be helpful to all concerned and I'm actually looking forward to reading the exact wording used including the specific advice to police not to prosecute offenders.
It has just occurred to me, given the chronology of events tabled in your various responses Flecc, that if it were the case that the first regional police service only purchased their EU-compliant EAPCs post-2008, then that would have been after the much-heralded pedicab prosecutions in London.
I find it difficult to believe that those involved in the first police procurement of EAPCs, (possibly Sussex?) were not aware of the London situation. Given also that other police areas subsequently went on to purchase similar EAPCs, one would have to believe that several different police forces failed to notice the gaffe......or maybe they did!
Tom
Tom, you really are unbelievable. First you say the EAPC regulations are redundant and don't have the decency to acknowledge that you were wrong when this case proves your error. You also said that the EU regulations have force in the UK instead, but once again you don't have the decency to acknowledge that you are also now shown to be wrong about that second belief you had.
You don't seem to understand the simple protocol that if you challenge someone, the onus is upon you to provide the reason and proofs why you believe they are wrong. It is not upon them to prove that what they've said is true. If you don't know that simple legal and moral fact I can only conclude you have been sleep walking through life.
There is no case that I know of that a two wheeled EAPC has ever been prosecuted over 250 watts in the UK and I have never claimed that there has been one. I have said that such a prosecution was attempted and who it was who intervened to get that stopped, and invited KTM to check that is the truth. What I have consistently stated is the fact that the 1983 EAPC regulations have always made 250 watt two wheel EAPCs illegal, and that remains the case. I and another have provided a link for you to see that the government itself agrees, but you've just ignored that.
The waiver that I contributed in small part to bringing about does not alter that illegality, it merely confines the degree to which the police can use that power limit part of the EAPC law. That is not in any way legality, it is merely a statement that the police will ignore that part of a law for the time being. Indeed, the DfT have carefully omitted the waiver part of their statement when publishing the outcome of the meeting which brought the waiver into being. Clearly they do not want to be cornered into admitting a law is to be ignored on their instructions, the civil service is far too smart to make that mistake.
So please accept that you were also wrong when you said that your 250 watt e-bike is legal in the UK. As I've shown, it is not and never has been, so how about a third apology?
As for the police behaviour in respect of adopting 250 watt e-bikes, I'm not interested. I've already said in reply to you that I obviously cannot answer for them and that you should ask them in person if you are interested. The freedom of information act gives you that power and you can use the link I provided earlier to prompt them on what the government say about e-bike 250 watt power legality.
.
You don't seem to understand the simple protocol that if you challenge someone, the onus is upon you to provide the reason and proofs why you believe they are wrong. It is not upon them to prove that what they've said is true. If you don't know that simple legal and moral fact I can only conclude you have been sleep walking through life.
There is no case that I know of that a two wheeled EAPC has ever been prosecuted over 250 watts in the UK and I have never claimed that there has been one. I have said that such a prosecution was attempted and who it was who intervened to get that stopped, and invited KTM to check that is the truth. What I have consistently stated is the fact that the 1983 EAPC regulations have always made 250 watt two wheel EAPCs illegal, and that remains the case. I and another have provided a link for you to see that the government itself agrees, but you've just ignored that.
The waiver that I contributed in small part to bringing about does not alter that illegality, it merely confines the degree to which the police can use that power limit part of the EAPC law. That is not in any way legality, it is merely a statement that the police will ignore that part of a law for the time being. Indeed, the DfT have carefully omitted the waiver part of their statement when publishing the outcome of the meeting which brought the waiver into being. Clearly they do not want to be cornered into admitting a law is to be ignored on their instructions, the civil service is far too smart to make that mistake.
So please accept that you were also wrong when you said that your 250 watt e-bike is legal in the UK. As I've shown, it is not and never has been, so how about a third apology?
As for the police behaviour in respect of adopting 250 watt e-bikes, I'm not interested. I've already said in reply to you that I obviously cannot answer for them and that you should ask them in person if you are interested. The freedom of information act gives you that power and you can use the link I provided earlier to prompt them on what the government say about e-bike 250 watt power legality.
.
Last edited:
Thank you for clarifying the position over the waiver.
With the helpful dealings with the Dft under the FOI act I was coming to the same conclusions that there is no tangible evidence available regarding it.
I assume your reference to a meeting on the 13th April 2013 is the one published here, please correct me if I am wrong:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/232171/disclosure-minister-external-meetings-dft-apr-jun-2013.csv/preview
It now makes me ask myself what was the main purpose of the waiver was it to semi secure the owners of the bikes who purchased them in good faith to use on the road or for the trade to continue selling them?
You have inferred elsewhere that the blame for the situation lies squarely with the Government, but they did not start selling bikes that did not meet the law.
With the helpful dealings with the Dft under the FOI act I was coming to the same conclusions that there is no tangible evidence available regarding it.
I assume your reference to a meeting on the 13th April 2013 is the one published here, please correct me if I am wrong:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/232171/disclosure-minister-external-meetings-dft-apr-jun-2013.csv/preview
It now makes me ask myself what was the main purpose of the waiver was it to semi secure the owners of the bikes who purchased them in good faith to use on the road or for the trade to continue selling them?
You have inferred elsewhere that the blame for the situation lies squarely with the Government, but they did not start selling bikes that did not meet the law.
Last edited:
Of interest in this debate of liability perhaps.
http://road.cc/content/news/129281-london-cyclist-seriously-injured-crash-another-rider-frustrated-police-failure
http://road.cc/content/news/129281-london-cyclist-seriously-injured-crash-another-rider-frustrated-police-failure
The main purpose of the waiver was to make the current position on the roads tenable following the disputed attempt at a prosecution, the DfT itself saying that they had to accept the reality. It wasn't in any way to cover the trade since they had no legal liability, they were doing nothing wrong and could continue their 250 watt sales anyway.
As for responsibility for the mess, I've blamed both parties. The government in the form of the civil service left the implementation of the mandatory type approval legislation 2002/EC/24 to the last minute, so late in fact that it went one day beyond the deadline set by the EU. It seems any measures to comply with the accompanying instruction to remove all conflicting legislation were inadequate, since the EAPC regulations clearly conflicted with the exemption in section 1, subsection 1(h) of 2002/EC/24.
The selling of 250 watt e-bikes in the UK occurred for two reasons. Firstly, before that EU law even came into being, Giant of Taiwan and others started to sell them here, possibly and perhaps probably because they thought that as EU members, our law would be that common in Europe anyway at that time. It was also the Japanese law which the Panasonic unit followed, Giant using that.
Secondly, those who followed often misinterpreted that exemption from motor vehicle type approval as being the new pedelec law. It wasn't of course, it merely made e-bikes between 200 and 250 watts motor vehicles, illegal to use in the UK. No doubt Giant's very popular 250 watt Lafree was a reassuring factor for other suppliers, after all they were the world's largest producer of bicycles at the time so could be thought unlikely to be wrong.
But not all makers and suppliers got it wrong, such as Heinzmann, Powabyke, Sakura and others continued to sell 200 watt rated e-bikes and kits, some like Powacycle and later Cyclone had some 180 watt motors for the UK market.
Of course consumers went for what seemed to them the better option of 250 watts, so that created a snowball effect, the more selling them, the more followed, to the point where 250 watts dominated.
The first sign I saw of probable DfT realisation of the situation was when they posted a webpage in 2005, two years after that type approval legislation, publishing the key factors of the UK law and the EU law below, with no proper explanation why they did that. Perhaps it was trying to cover themselves in some way? That webpage didn't stay up for long thankfully, since it was likely to add to the confusion.
Following that from time to time the DfT have acknowledged that the EAPC law was to be updated to harmonise with the EU, usually indicating within a couple of years. They are still doing that of course, the latest indication being 2016. They even archived the EAPC webpages at one point, but soon took down the advice that they'd done that and reposted the EAPC law advice. There was also a consultation with all interested parties to ask their views on what should be in the revised law, one we were invited to take part in.
.
Last edited:
Well Iets hope that compromises can be agreed in at least the exempt class can be resolved without causing a delay in harmonisation and that the other classes under consideration do not present a barrier for a swift introduction. The Government needs our full support on this matter.
I'm sure nothing will be done to improve on the current legal situation before implemention of a harmonised law on pedelecs that approves 250 watts, since the DfT are satisfied that the waiver is sufficient until then.
Effectively that is true of course, since our police forces cannot now prosecute on the conflicted issue.
There are only two possible flaws that I can see. One is that theoretically a private prosecution is still legally possible, but we can safely discount that since the CPS would I'm sure block it, after no doubt consulting the DfT on this unusual to them issue.
The other is if the promised referendum on continued EU membership results in us leaving the union, said by some in high places to be a possibility. That would leave the waiver in a questionable position, since it's basis is solely that we are to harmonise. Once a decision was made the leave the EU, all harmonisation processes would immediately be cancelled or at least be suspended.
It would then be necessary to have our EAPC regulations amended to 250 watts for bicycles. Since e-tricycles already have 250 watts permitted in that law, that should be an extremely simple amendment, just eliminating the variation clauses, leaving one law for both.
That would certainly suit us of course, since it would leave us with 250 watts and throttles.
.
Effectively that is true of course, since our police forces cannot now prosecute on the conflicted issue.
There are only two possible flaws that I can see. One is that theoretically a private prosecution is still legally possible, but we can safely discount that since the CPS would I'm sure block it, after no doubt consulting the DfT on this unusual to them issue.
The other is if the promised referendum on continued EU membership results in us leaving the union, said by some in high places to be a possibility. That would leave the waiver in a questionable position, since it's basis is solely that we are to harmonise. Once a decision was made the leave the EU, all harmonisation processes would immediately be cancelled or at least be suspended.
It would then be necessary to have our EAPC regulations amended to 250 watts for bicycles. Since e-tricycles already have 250 watts permitted in that law, that should be an extremely simple amendment, just eliminating the variation clauses, leaving one law for both.
That would certainly suit us of course, since it would leave us with 250 watts and throttles.
.
Last edited:
Perhaps insurance cover might help in the future when things are harmonised:
http://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/magazine/topics-online/2012/02/e-bikes/index.html
The promised referendum can only happen if the Tories win an overall majority. Which of course they didn't do last time in much more favourable circumstances. Any other result, a Labour win or a coalition of any kind, even one involving the Tory party, will not result in a referendum. Because the other major parties would only have one if the EU proposed a new treaty which had the effect of taking powers away from the British Parliament.
Dave is only interested in a wall paper job anyway. He's trying to pull off the same trick that Wilson did and for the same reason. A pretend renegotiation, some tiny so called concessions that can be sold to his backbench Europhobes, and then the big sell to the country of how much worse we would all be out of the EU.
But it ain't going to happen anyway.
Dave is only interested in a wall paper job anyway. He's trying to pull off the same trick that Wilson did and for the same reason. A pretend renegotiation, some tiny so called concessions that can be sold to his backbench Europhobes, and then the big sell to the country of how much worse we would all be out of the EU.
But it ain't going to happen anyway.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
Almost certainly true, but in covering the flaws the possibility had to be mentioned.
.
Trading Standards have a different view to Flecc's. They are investigating an e-bike dealer(s). Among the things they are considering is product safety and the dealer in question's liabilities. This is a extract from their latest letter:
"The regulations that most clearly apply, and that are also enforced by Trading Standards, are The General Product Safety Regulations 2005.
These require an item supplied to be a safe product. If considered in isolation it is likely that either product (the e-bike and the dongle) would be safe. It is the effect of the two in combination that is most relevant. Under R.2 of these regs a safe product is defined so as to include consideration of its effect on another product where it is foreseeable that it would be used with them. It also refers to reasonably foreseeable use. It is foreseeable that this would include use on the road...
On the EU point, Dft tell me that the only reason UK has not yet fully adopted EU regs is lack of parliamentary time. They now say that time has been found and that UK will adopt before the end of this year.
If any other dealers concerned about the retailer de-restricting e-bikes would like to discuss this in more detail please contact me.
Rgds, James FitzGerald
In what way James? I've not addressed the safety issue that Trading Standards are concerned with, only the legal aspects with regards to breaches of EAPC law.
These are views on two different issues.
.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
