It does, an e-bike with a throttle is a moped not a pedelec. The primary propulsion on a pedelec is the rider not the motor which is only there to assist.
I'll admit to using the term "pedelec" loosely. That term, which has no legal status, does correctly apply only to an electrically assisted pedal cycle where assistance is controlled by the pedals only.
In the matter of insurance (not type approval) UK law has not, up to now, drawn any distinction on the basis of how power is applied.
Sadly it's not possible to define pedelecs as "not mechanically propelled" on the basis that power is only applied in company with pedaling. Were this the case s-class pedelecs would be legal in the UK. All e-bikes, pedal or throttle controlled, are regarded as mechanically propelled vehicles under the RTA1988, with some being exempted from some (most) provisions by the words "treated as pedal cycles" in the EAPC Regulations. This is the law by which the UK thought it met the requirements of the insurance directive.
Am I alone in smelling a rat here? It appears that this judgment did two things. One: it extended the insurance requirement to anywhere a vehicle is used, including private land. Secondly (and more importantly for us): it changed the definition of a "vehicle" with respect to that directive. Previously this was understood to be a "mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on the road". The judgment removed the words "intended or adapted for use on the road", leaving just "mechanically propelled vehicle". Therefore tractors, forklifts, powered pallet trucks, lawnmowers etc suddenly came within the scope of the directive. This actually removes any possibility of using the type approval directive (168/2013) as a definition of "motor vehicle".
Thus far fairly clear, if problematic in practice. However, the UK DfT have chosen to mention in their consultation two classes of vehicle which were already intended for use on the road, mobility scooters and electrically assisted pedal cycles. These benefited from specific exemptions from the insurance requirement of the RTA 1988. If those exemptions were valid under the insurance directive prior to the Vulk judgment, why would they not still be valid after it? So legal EAPC should not be affected.
The consultation document suggests that the DfT believes (wants?) mobility scooters and EAPCs to be included. It is noted that derogation is not "fair" since derogated classes would not be uninsured, but would instead have their insurance requirement met by the MIB, at a cost imposed on non-derogated classes (car drivers would be paying for EAPC insurance...). Under "enforcement" we see the suggestion of a register and marking.
So what we actually have here (IMO) is a proposal to require insurance and number plates for currently legal EAPCs. This to be blamed on the ECJ but persisted after the EU amends the insurance directive, persistence being permitted by Brexit.
The mention of trailers is interesting too. It refers to "any trailer whether attached or unattached", so trailers will need their own insurance. Also cycle trailers if they are ever used with a newly in scope EAPC...
