Liability....

[RobF]

This thread began as an attempt to scare the cautious away from S pedelecs and dongles.

A cautious reader who has managed to plough through all of it might now be be scared of using any ebike.

Funny how things turn out.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

This thread began as an attempt to scare the cautious away from S pedelecs and dongles.

no it didn't, you're too cynical but I don't blame you. We know the readers on here can't be swayed, there are two very distinct groups and us asking about liability and dongles isn't going to stop individuals using them ....

We're thinking of selling the S pedelecs. It was started in the hope that someone who advocates their use, or even sells them - could convince us that its possible to sell them and not leave ourselves massively liable.

The benefits to the industry as a whole of having KTM pushing this sector of the market has to be a good thing. But if we step in, and its not something anyone actually wants to promote, it could blow the bubble for everyone. Hence the need for a co-ordinated industry response.

The lack of response from anyone in the trade who sell these devices, I think answers my question. They either haven't checked, or they have and have ignored the advice and are just hoping one of their customers isn't involved in an accident.

The side debate, going on about 250w, whilst isn't relevant to my questions, is very interesting, and I'm happy to watch it play out.

 

[danielrlee]

KTM, if all you're worried about is your own liability, why not just get the customer to sign a disclaimer saying they won't use the bike on publicly accessible land?

Sorry if this has already been discussed in the thread.

 

[the_killjoy]

More than once or twice or .....

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

KTM, if all you're worried about is your own liability, why not just get the customer to sign a disclaimer saying they won't use the bike on publicly accessible land?

Sorry if this has already been discussed in the thread.

totally not worth the paper its written on. All that does is show that you know you're doing something wrong.

 

[danielrlee]

totally not worth the paper its written on. All that does is show that you know you're doing something wrong.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly would YOU be doing wrong?

 

[RobF]

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly would YOU be doing wrong?

Col is concerned that as a seller he could be held liable for misuse by the owner of the bike.

Most of us disagree, but there's no doubt if I happened to crash into Wayne Rooney and ended his career there would be a big claim somewhere.

 

[danielrlee]

Col is concerned that as a seller he could be held liable for misuse by the owner of the bike.

Most of us disagree, but there's no doubt if I happened to crash into Wayne Rooney and ended his career there would be a big claim somewhere.

I guess I was looking for something more specific. I get the impression that he's kind of creating his own problem here and discussing it publicly could even make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

EDIT: In your example, how could anyone other than the rider be held responsible? If I decide to do 120mph down the M1 and kill somebody, I'm pretty sure Honda wont be held responsible.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly would YOU be doing wrong?

you might have missed this link.

https://www.gov.uk/product-safety-for-manufacturers

supplying bikes that aren't considered safe to use on the roads. (and I mean safe for the rider AND other road users) has large implications that some seem not to understand, and I'm trying to establish why? Because as Flecc has pointed out the default response from any with professional legal qualifications is always "don't do it" but with some big businesses doing it, and lots of people on here advocating the use of more powerful and faster motors I was hoping someone on here could give some legal justification for their confidence. Not just to reassure me, but also all the people using these bikes.

So far nothing has actually come up. Its just people trying to say, they'll be ok... because others are doing other things that are illegal. Which isn't a good defence for anything in a liability case.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

I guess I was looking for something more specific. I get the impression that he's kind of creating his own problem here and discussing it publicly could even make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

EDIT: In your example, how could anyone other than the rider be held responsible?

That's the problem, which Is why all the other traders are doing what I suggested - keeping their mouths shut and their heads down. The whole thing is a mess. It's every man for himself until it gets sorted - hopefully in 2016.

 

[RobF]

I guess I was looking for something more specific. I get the impression that he's kind of creating his own problem here and discussing it publicly could even make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

EDIT: In your example, how could anyone other than the rider be held responsible?

My belief is that only the rider could be held responsible.

However, when there's lots of money to be paid out insurance companies tend to look for someone else to pay it.

The maker/seller of the bike is likely to have more money than the rider, so the temptation will be to follow that money.

Moral of the story for Mr Average Cyclist is to have some public liability cover.

 

[JohnCade]

I think he's doing two things. One he's being cautious, which in a businessman is advisable. Particularly in an area like this. The other is he's trying to call out the sellers of these bikes and devices in public.

They haven't chosen to respond. Which is perhaps wise, but does say something about their confidence in their immunity from any liability resulting in the use or misuse of their products.

 

[danielrlee]

The whole thing is a mess. It's every man for himself until it gets sorted - hopefully in 2016.

That's an understatement, but I'm not sure it will be any clearer in 2016. It seems it isn't illegal to sell them now - unless explicitly stated so in 2016, this isn't going to change is it?

 

[danielrlee]

you might have missed this link.

https://www.gov.uk/product-safety-for-manufacturers

supplying bikes that aren't considered safe to use on the roads. (and I mean safe for the rider AND other road users) has large implications that some seem not to understand, and I'm trying to establish why?

There's nothing inherently unsafe about an s-class bike is there? Surely if there was, they wouldn't be allowed to be used under registration elsewhere in the EU.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

EDIT: In your example, how could anyone other than the rider be held responsible? If I decide to do 120mph down the M1 and kill somebody, I'm pretty sure Honda wont be held responsible.

yes but you're driving a car that is considered safe to be on UK roads, its only your speed thats the problem bit. Honda haven't sold you something that can't be used on the road. Its a subtle but important difference.

Imagine riding your riding your eBike on a canal path s class or dongled one, and you are doing 19mph, you come round a corner and hit a horse which knocks the rider off and they have serious injuries that keep them off work for 6 months and their insurance company comes after you the individual rider, they will also come after the dealer and the brand if they can to recover the costs.

So far all the debate seems to have been about prosecution for riding an illegal bike, I am now asking about liability. A big difference.

There's nothing inherently unsafe about an s-class bike is there? Surely if there was, they wouldn't be allowed to be used under registration elsewhere in the EU.

they can be used elsewhere with registration, helmets and everything else. The reason they are not allowed on the roads / trails here, is 100% because of safety. If they are ever allowed, they will be considered like mopeds, and the same laws will apply.

EDIT - should also add... you as an individual would obviously be liable for the accident in any event, but if you were on a normal road legal bike, you'd be solely liable, unless the bike was faulty in someway. The reason the dealer or brand would be liable if you were on an S-Class or dongled bike is that the goverment have said they aren't safe to be used, but you'll have been sold one, so some responsibility is passed up the chain depending on how things are handled.

 

[danielrlee]

Col, on the basis that it's not currently illegal to SELL them (and we're fairly certain that's the case) would a professional indemnity insurance solve your worries?

 

[flecc]

Is there anything to actually back this up? Any statements, letters, emails or anything in writing from the time? Because this would be very useful for everyone.

I do have some documentation, but as I've posted before, I acted for BEBA in the strictest confidence so cannot disclose the traffic police officer by name or the police force involved. I also have no wish to embarrass them.

However, since you are a BEBA member, you can simply ask them. David Miall will probably be the most fully informed on the intended case.

You have no fear of prosecution in this respect since April 2013, as I've reported a waiver has been in place since then, stopping police forces from implementing the 200 watts limit of EAPC law, but only that part. The rest of the EAPC law can and is being implemented and the EAPC regulations are the only ones in force in the UK. Once again, consult BEBA for they were a party to that meeting at which the DfT created the waiver.
.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Col, on the basis that it's not currently illegal to SELL them (and we're fairly certain that's the case) would a professional indemnity insurance solve your worries?

we have that.... but we're advised that, whilst it is not illegal to sell them, if we do start selling them - it might not cover us.

 

[danielrlee]

we have that.... but we're advised that, whilst it is not illegal to sell them, if we do start selling them - it might not cover us.

Effing b*****d underwriters! I'm sure they make it up as they go along.

In my experience, business and ethics do not mix, so I think your conscience and foresight is to be applauded while this mess is being sorted (if it is at all that is). For the time being though, I think you're fighting against the tide.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

I do have some documentation, but as I've posted before, I acted for BEBA in the strictest confidence so cannot disclose the traffic police officer by name or the police force involved. I also have no wish to embarrass them.

However, since you are a BEBA member, you can simply ask them. David Miall will probably be the most fully informed on the intended case.

You have no fear of prosecution in this respect since April 2013, since as I've reported a waiver has been in place since then, stopping police forces from implementing the 200 watts limit of EAPC law, but only that part. The rest of the EAPC law can be implemented and the EAPC regulations are the only ones in force in the UK. Once again, consult BEBA for they were a party to that meeting at which the DfT created the waiver.
.

as I keep trying to say... its not prosecution we're talking about. But yes thanks I'll speak to David and see if we can get some details of the important documents to reassure the powers that be.