News: DfT consults on insurance for e-bikes & lawnmowers

Pedelecs

Editorial
May 20, 2015
115
136
A European Court of Justice judgment may see third party insurance being required for a broader scope of ‘vehicles’ being ridden on private land as well as roads and public places.

The directive follows on from a Slovenian, Damijan Vnuk, being injured after falling from a ladder hit by a reversing tractor on private property. The European Court of Justice ruled that the accident should have been covered by compulsory vehicle insurance in 2014.

The Department for Transport remains legally obliged to consult on and implement changes to the law for as long as the UK remains a part of the EU. As such, yesterday saw the publication of the ‘technical consultant on motor insurance’ document.

Full story: http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/news/dft-consults-insurance-e-bikes-lawnmowers/
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LeighPing

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,354
30,700
Derogation for such as pedelecs has to be the outcome. Inclusion of all the unregistered classes mentioned would have the ridiculous outcome of illegal vehicles such as Segways having compulsory insurance in law.

The courts would never accept that.
.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: LeighPing

Ruadh495

Pedelecer
Oct 13, 2015
145
63
52
I'm trying to work out how this judgment changes the definition of "motor vehicle" so that it now includes pedelecs when previously it did not.

I wonder if the reference to electrical assisted pedal cycles in 3.9 actually refers to non-road legal types being used on private land, which are directly affected.

How is the exemption conferred by EAPC 2015 different from "derogation". Does it just have to be formally confirmed? Presumably all member states have similar legislation for EPACs, exempting them from insurance requirements. So one amendment we are likely to see would be an statement than EU compliant EPACs are not included in the definition of "motor vehicle". Once again throttles would be a problem in the UK, with throttle equipped types requiring insurance (probably unobtainable) as well as type approval.
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
A pedelec isn't a motor vehicle, it is an electrically assisted bicycle. It doesn't have a throttle and the motor won't work until you ride it. It is insured the same way as any other bicycle is.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,354
30,700
So one amendment we are likely to see would be an statement than EU compliant EPACs are not included in the definition of "motor vehicle".
I doubt this will be necessary since the Two and Three Wheel Type Approval EU wide law (168/2013) exempts compliant pedelecs from type approval as motor vehicles.
.
 

Ruadh495

Pedelecer
Oct 13, 2015
145
63
52
A pedelec isn't a motor vehicle, it is an electrically assisted bicycle. It doesn't have a throttle and the motor won't work until you ride it. It is insured the same way as any other bicycle is.
It's still a "mechanically propelled" vehicle, at least in the UK. How propulsion is controlled doesn't matter.
 

Ruadh495

Pedelecer
Oct 13, 2015
145
63
52
I doubt this will be necessary since the Two and Three Wheel Type Approval EU wide law (168/2013) exempts compliant pedelecs from type approval as motor vehicles.
.
Which does suggest that the EU doesn't consider pedelecs to be "motor vehicles". Is that law or just inference, though? The UK would appear to treat 168/2013 exempt vehicles as motor vehicles (hover boards for example). The reference to EAPCs being " new scope" vehicles may refer to "twist and go" only. However they also seem to think mobility scooters are affected...

It almost looks like someone is trying to make more of this than there is. Seven months ago I'd have thought it "leave" propaganda.

Looks like the UK should derogate the EAPC class to keep throttles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flecc

HelenJ

Administrator
Staff member
May 19, 2011
218
381
My understanding so far at least from that document is that the Vnuk judgment changes the insurance obligation to one of vehicle use rather than where it is being ridden, so where the Road Traffic Act says the definition of a motor vehicle is a ‘mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on road’ it therefore requires insurance. However this incident was on a private farm and the ECJ ruled that insurance should be extended to “any use of a vehicle consistent with the normal function of that vehicle" - i.e. the fact that the vehicle is being used in its normal way is the deciding factor, regardless of where, meaning that a much broader definition of traditionally off-road ‘mechanically propelled vehicles’ used on private land are also now potentially pulled into scope as a result, to align with this judgment.

More here: http://www.blmlaw.com/publications/20516/pdf/Vnuk briefing note.pdf
 

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
It's still a "mechanically propelled" vehicle, at least in the UK. How propulsion is controlled doesn't matter.
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.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: HelenJ and flecc

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,354
30,700
meaning that a much broader definition of traditionally off-road ‘mechanically propelled vehicles’ used on private land are also now potentially pulled into scope as a result, to align with this judgment.

More here: http://www.blmlaw.com/publications/20516/pdf/Vnuk briefing note.pdf
I still see flaws though.

As another kiwi points out, a pedelec isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle. It's primarily a bicycle and only a mechanically assisted vehicle if the rider pedals, so it's questionable whether it even falls within the scope of the ECJ judgement.

It will be at least a year before there's any change to UK law, and as BLM observe, there are considerable problems in drafting the order changing the RTA. Given our record of long delays in such changes, I could see the "year" lasting until beyond our departure from the EU. It took 13 years to correct our pedelec law to align with EU law!

And as I observed earlier, trying to introduce compulsory insurance for vehicles like Segways that are illegal for use in any UK public area is a legal impossibility.

The ECJ have inadvertantly opened a huge can of worms with this judgement.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HelenJ

Ruadh495

Pedelecer
Oct 13, 2015
145
63
52
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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: HelenJ

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,354
30,700
So what we actually have here (IMO) is a proposal to require insurance and number plates for currently legal EAPCs.
This would mean the end of legal pedelecs and render the EAPC regulations superfluous.

Registration, number plates and insurance would automatically qualify pedelecs as L1e-A, previously termed the Low Powered Moped class. That permits up to 1000 watts rating with 25 kph/15.6 mph assist limit, the four times permitted power substantially altering the assisted bicycle concept.

Once all these problems are realised I don't think this will happen, and I anticipate a considerable backing down on the impact of the ECJ ruling.
.
 
Last edited:

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
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.
s-class allows throttle only up to 20 km/h which is why it is classed as a moped in France. If it had been a "real" pedelec maybe things would have been different here?

For the rest of the insurance problems mentioned I think you are getting a first glimpse of your post brexit world...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: flecc