I'm not wasting time
I am simply pontificating about how in an ideal world the rules would make sense to me in my opinion and I'm interested in what others think. I disagree with you that what I'm saying is that I want permission to break the rules because my vehicle has a different name. I'm saying 'as a point of interest' that I think the rules as they are, are silly. I beleive a lot of people in the industry also think so other wise they wouldn't be playing the games that they do regarding peak power etc.... If we don't discuss things then how would anything ever change... I'm pretty sure there are many examples of this throughout history.
Then I could express it as you are being unrealistic. For starters it is completely untrue that many in the industry are in favour, indeed I know of all those who are opposed to any change. Some were in favour of the S class being adopted as well as the pedelec one, and the government granted their wish, subject to all the motor vehicle rules, but most are not producing them, such is their lack of interest in more speed.
It's also nonsense to say the industry are playing with the power rules, they most certainly are not. In the technical document EN15194 the authorities have laid down the basics while recognising there's no realistic way of assessing actual motor power at the wheel when the rider has to be pedalling as well according to law. How much is coming from the rider, how much from the motor? So the document only gives how to ensure a 250 watt rated motor can actually deliver that much to meet the rating. That it's not too much much more is only covered by a rather crude acceleration test to give a guesstimate, so basically the law leaves it to the designer to assess how much power is necessary and the natural limitation of how much battery a cyclist can carry with them.
In practice i can tell you of where both the designers and the wider public have chosen to have less power than the law allows. That the authorities don't care much about the power was shown by the European Parliament recommending to the Commission that all power limitation be dropped for pedelecs. That wasn't actioned but nor was it argued against.
To argue this subject Chris it's necessary to have a far greater picture of what is going on. For example you are probably unaware that this subject is and has long been under discussion by committees almost continuously. Those taking part are representatives of governments including the EU, their transport departments and organisations, powered two and three wheeled motorised vehicle producers and safety organisations.
Of course there is conflict between the producers in those. For example the moped/scooter manufacturers are firmly against pedelecs making any inroads on their market so strongly oppose any pedelec liberalisation of speed or any other advantage. An example is that our desire to have throttles they blocked with spurious safety arguments, so we haven't got them legally while remaining classified as bicycles without all the regulations.
You can see from this that the public play no direct part in the decisions, since it's the governments present who we vote for who represent us there. They will only argue for higher speeds if their public wants them, and overwhelmingly their publics don't.
Ergo, your arguments, however rational they might seem to you, are doomed to fall upon deaf ears.
.
