"Police stat shows that 260 electric powered bicycles were seized by officers last year"

"The number of illegal e-bikes being ridden on the streets of Britain has doubled in the space of just one year, it has been revealed."

 

"Christine White, whose father Jim Blackwood was killed in Kent when an e-bike rider hit him on the pavement, told The Telegraph: 'E-bikes are potentially lethal, and have become almost impossible to control."

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13256989/Illegal-e-bike-seized-police-victims-families-demand-crackdown.html

The problem mentioned above is that Mr Blackwood was hit on the pavement by a person riding a bike - the motor is as like as not an irrelevance, though it is obviously an even worse example of yob behaviour. That's the issue really: Yobs. Yobs on foot; yobs on skates; yobs on scooters and yobs on bikes of all kinds.

 

I say the motor is an irrelevance to the degree of injury, because any young man of reasonable size and fitness, can ride a standard bicycle fast enough to easily do someone a very nasty injury, especially if they are frail through age or any other reason. Most of my life I could easily ride for at least a few miles at twenty miles an hour. 14 stone combined of me and a bike hitting you on a pavement will do you no good at all. That's why I don't do it. Whether a bike cuts off at 15.6 miles an hour or 20 miles an hour is an irrelevance, though it probably requires twice the motor power to accomplish that 5 mile an hour difference.

 

It is all wrong to focus on the electric motor, or marginal differences in power output as the harmful feature. The harmful feature is the YOB behaviour - riding on a pedestrian only path in this case.

 

Today I was in Newcastle and as usual in a well healed middle class district, I saw two men riding the rapid electric scooters (hire scooters - classed as motor vehicles) along pedestrian only pavements - this when the road was almost empty on Easter Sunday morning at about nine o clock after the clocks had been put forward. There was no excuse and no need at all for this.

 

The very worst outcome of all this, is the who-ha about whether the bike precisely meets the pedelec regulations in every degree. The REAL issue is really bad riding practices, and endangering other people by riding up behind them at 15 miles an hour on a pavement. Riding on pavements by adults is happening in all the cities I see, and no one is doing anything about stopping it.

Riding on pavements by adults is happening in all the cities I see, and no one is doing anything about stopping it.

That's because there was a statement from the minister of transport some time ago (Flecc will know exactly) saying that a bike could be ridden on the pavement if the rider felt in danger from the traffic on the road. This leaves the police with a problem because there is no way of quantifying how a person feels.

This is further muddied by the proliferation of shared use paths.

Both factors cloud the waters and are a typical modern british work around fudge rather than admit that infrastructure might need some serious tweeking.

I do, however agree, that there is a dreadful, selfish sense of entitlement in a lot of peoples behaviour. What happened to, I fear now seen as old fashioned, concepts like respect, consideration and social spirit. These cannot be legislated for and can only come from a ground up swell across society.

You might be right, except that this is not a new situation. It has been building for years and getting worse. Also - what a minister 'says' is not the law and it makes no difference to the police policy if a minister says something ridiculous like that - albeit that some individuals may take it as permission to do the thing spoken of.

 

I do, however agree, that there is a dreadful, selfish sense of entitlement in a lot of peoples behaviour. What happened to, I fear now seen as old fashioned, concepts like respect, consideration and social spirit. These cannot be legislated for and can only come from a ground up swell across society.

Yes - completely right. I drive cars, motorbikes, electric bikes and traditional cycles and I see yobs behaving abominably in every category.

When I used to commute to college\work by cycle, from maybe the mid 1970s, to then stopping a few years and then using the Bromptom for train\work commute from around the year 2000, then of course I saw a lot of irresponsible riding. Whilst some of the daft stuff over those years put the cyclist at risk, it was not that common to see the public in general put at risk.

 

Since the electric bike era, I now see riding, mostly from eBike users, that is definetly putting the public at risk on an almost daily basis.

 

Odd.

I do, however agree, that there is a dreadful, selfish sense of entitlement in a lot of peoples behaviour. What happened to, I fear now seen as old fashioned, concepts like respect, consideration and social spirit. These cannot be legislated for and can only come from a ground up swell across society.

 

Absolutly agree.

 

Unfortunatly a lot people in society these days see law breaking as the norm and perfectly acceptable, plenty of examples of that in posts here.

 

The common attitude is that of course 'serious' law breakers should be prosecuted, but 'minor' law breakers should not be 'persecuted'.

I see yobs behaving abominably in every category.

"A hooded man jumped off a bike and shot his victim twice before fleeing. "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-68555627

That's because there was a statement from the minister of transport some time ago (Flecc will know exactly) saying that a bike could be ridden on the pavement if the rider felt in danger from the traffic on the road. This leaves the police with a problem because there is no way of quantifying how a person feels.

This is further muddied by the proliferation of shared use paths.

Both factors cloud the waters and are a typical modern british work around fudge rather than admit that infrastructure might need some serious tweeking.

I do, however agree, that there is a dreadful, selfish sense of entitlement in a lot of peoples behaviour. What happened to, I fear now seen as old fashioned, concepts like respect, consideration and social spirit. These cannot be legislated for and can only come from a ground up swell across society.

 

In this list of reasons why I don't cycle on pavements, I forgot to mention people using their phones while walking their dogs, which find themselves distressed and confused because they're suddenly forced into becoming guide dogs with no training. Disguised as a pedestrian, I was almost bitten last week - the deadhead owner didn't even look up from his phone until I'd yelled a second time. It was all rather horribly traumatic.

 

I can't stand it - people walking out of terraced houses right out in front, dog walkers, kids, toys, escooters, drivers or passengers exiting cars, cats, squirrels, foxes, badgers, birds, rats and other cyclists, rabbits sometimes, hedgehogs, frogs too, bagged and unbagged dog doo doo, slippy wet plastic bags which might have contained dog doo doo, confetti, condoms, big squishy and slippy worms and slugs, rotting discarded part eaten food, branches bricks sticks and stones, people walking out from between vehicles, nervous ill or drunk pedestrians who might lurch or wobble over in any direction, the horrible state of pavements, the madness of wheelie bin street clutter days, scrap metal and dead appliances left out, protuding tree roots etc. etc. It's faster and safer by road.

...muggers, poles for signeage too close together to ride through, hypodermic needles, pools of vomit, small nitrous oxide popper cans, mattresses, gobtoppers and other balls, conkers, pine cones, odd bits of wood or plastic and other materials, discarded vapes which might explode like land mines when you ride over them etc. etc. It's deffo safer cycling on the road.

Edited March 31, 20242 yr by guerney

You might be right, except that this is not a new situation. It has been building for years and getting worse. Also - what a minister 'says' is not the law and it makes no difference to the police policy if a minister says something ridiculous like that - albeit that some individuals may take it as permission to do the thing spoken of.

 

Incorrect, a ministerial permission is operationally law and has to be obeyed by the police when they are instructed accordingly.

 

Such recent permissions are the year 2000 permission to cycle on pavements when in fear of traffic, the year 2013 permission to regularise the 250 watts in place of the British law's 200 by ordering the police to accept the variation in watts, and the 2019 order that an EAPC could through type approval have a fully acting thottle and be still treated as a bicycle for all purposes, despite that being contrary to the law.

 

In fact since Section 65 of the Highways Act 1980 was passed into law 44 years ago, permitting shared use pavements, it has been government policy for cyclists to make more use of the often largely empty pavements.

.

The reason that police are seizing double the number of illegal bikes every year is not because the number of illegal bikes is increasing. It's because the police have doubled their very miniscule effort to seize them.

 

It's the same argument that the commies use: There are more people using food banks today than there have ever been. That's nothing to do with how many people need free food. It's simply that there are more food banks than ever before. If somebody offers free stuff, people will come and get it.

There are more people using food banks today than there have ever been. That's nothing to do with how many people need free food. It's simply that there are more food banks than ever before. If somebody offers free stuff, people will come and get it.

 

The fat ones shouldn't be given even more food to eat. I have yet to see fat measuring calipers and bathroom scales being widely used by food banks, but hope to someday. Or extremely narrow doors.

Edited March 31, 20242 yr by guerney

The reason that police are seizing double the number of illegal bikes every year is not because the number of illegal bikes is increasing. It's because the police have doubled their very miniscule effort to seize them.

 

It's the same argument that the commies use: There are more people using food banks today than there have ever been. That's nothing to do with how many people need free food. It's simply that there are more food banks than ever before. If somebody offers free stuff, people will come and get it.

 

Demand for free food still outstrips supply while the bulk of taxes are paid by those who work for their income, the richer you are, the smaller portion of your income goes to taxes.

It's the same argument that the commies use: There are more people using food banks today than there have ever been. That's nothing to do with how many people need free food. It's simply that there are more food banks than ever before. If somebody offers free stuff, people will come and get it.

I haven’t seen a legal pedelec on the road or pavement for a few years now.

every dealer i know dongle there own bikes

I maybe have missed something, is there a competition in process to see who can make the most offensive (political) post ?

I haven’t seen a legal pedelec on the road or pavement for a few years now.

 

I see the legal ones all the time, they are mostly in the majority.

 

So I know it sounds completly and utelrly weird on this forum but I believe there are in the UK still at least a couple of people who believe being legal and sticking to the rules is good.

I maybe have missed something, is there a competition in process to see who can make the most offensive (political) post ?

 

A friend of mine volunteers at a food bank, he's handed food to many obese people. Obesity is sometimes due to poor diet and malnutrition, but sadly it's simply excess calories which creates obesity in the western world. And I say that as someone who has lost a lot of weight. From my perspective, there's no valid reason to be fat. It's a choice.

plod round here gets there McDonalds ect delivered to there car door buy a 2-3kkw hub motor bike there fkn everywhere.

 

tho i have only ever seen about 3-4 sur rons tho and those nut jobs on those one wheel thing in-between there legs fkn thing left me for dust and no crash helmet of course same as all the rest.

tho i have only ever seen about 3-4 sur rons tho and those nut jobs on those one wheel thing in-between there legs fkn thing left me for dust and no crash helmet of course same as all the rest.

 

Self balancing rides can behave unpredictably - dead Segway CEO:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Heselden#Death

I am reminded why I try never to read The Daily Mail. That was inaccurate click bait. The most telling statistic missing was the total number of people who had been killed by being hit by a bicycle. flecc will probably know.

I say the motor is an irrelevance to the degree of injury,

 

Depends what you mean by that. Motor/controller/battery directly affect speed and acceleration. Speed and acceleration affect risk of accident and risk of injury.

 

That's why I don't do it. Whether a bike cuts off at 15.6 miles an hour or 20 miles an hour is an irrelevance, though it probably requires twice the motor power to accomplish that 5 mile an hour difference.

 

No Tony. When it comes to risk of injury, there is a massive difference between 15 mph and 20mph.

All comes down to energy.

As far as I remember to calculate impact energy you multiply mass by impact velocity squared and then divide by two, so even small increase in speed dramatically increase impact energy.

Until about a year ago, as far as I know, only two people in about four years had been killed by cyclists. The cases were truly appalling cases of atrocious riding. Whatever the number, two, three, whatever - it is too many and almost for sure, due to truly dreadful, irresponsible riding.

Depends what you mean by that. Motor/controller/battery directly affect speed and acceleration. Speed and acceleration affect risk of accident and risk of injury.

 

 

 

No Tony. When it comes to risk of injury, there is a massive difference between 15 mph and 20mph.

All comes down to energy.

As far as I remember to calculate impact energy you multiply mass by impact velocity squared and then divide by two, so even small increase in speed dramatically increase impact energy.

Interesting.

 

I am well aware of the way energy increases at the square of the speed of a moving body, so it is technically correct that faster means more damage in a collision though on the question of how 'massive' that difference is between 15 and 20 miles an hour, I think you are being hyperbolic. At 15 miles an hour the KE in joules of an 80 kilo bike and man is 0.000694 Joules. Five miles an hour faster it is 0.00123 Joules, under twice the lower speed amount. Massive? I don't know.

 

However, you ignore my main point which is that the risk of collision is MUCH more a matter of manner of riding than it is of a mere 5 miles an hour of increased velocity.

 

I ride about 5000 to 6000 miles a year on motorcycles ranging in power between 20hp (15kw power output and 140 kilos dry weight) and 47hp (35kw and 210 kilos dry weight) and I have been riding continually those kinds of distances and power levels for over fifty years. I have not had an accident on my by comparison VERY powerful and weighty machines since about 1970 when I fell off an ancient bsa on a roundabout covered in diesel oil. In all of my driving (add on about 8000 miles a year these days of car driving and in the past that figure was about 15000 miles for about forty years) I have never harmed another person.

 

Why is this? Well, aside from good luck, I consistently drive and ride with caution and consideration. THIS IS THE KEY FACTOR in safety, though some here are VERY hung up on technical regulations and laws - regulations and laws which any sane person can see are made by half witted PPE graduates, pensioned off lawyers and greasy pole climbers in an utterly dysfunctional parliament and civil service. Yes Stuart, I despise our law making body and its members. What have they got right? Point to ANY feature of government that works or is performing well. I say this as a man of 73 years old who last had a driving penalty in 1971, rightly imposed for exceeding a 30 miles an hour speed limit by a small margin, so I am no wholesale law breaker and criminal. Nonetheless, I laugh at the idea that a throttle which will propel a pedelec at 16 miles an hour is a menace to society and that we must all kowtow to the stupid rule that we must not have one, on pain of court penalties and confiscation. It's a joke. 1.3% of pedestrians injured in ten years between 2005 and 2010 were injured by anyone on a bicycle while 98.7% were injured by a motor vehicle. The numbers of pedestrians (regrettably) killed, amount to about 2 to 3 a year over a long period. These are usually caused by grotesquely bad riding and are exceptional rather than the norm. The courts take a very serious approach to these in contrast to the usually weak penalties imposed on drivers who are generally charged with careless driving rather than dangerous driving.

 

The menace to society is that man or boy (and it is almost always men and boys) who rides like an a-hole on pavements or with grotesque stupidity on the roads. Pedants and nitpicking sheep may disagree. That is their prerogative. The English disease is to legislate against the freedom of all to curtail the insane behaviour of a few morons. I detest it. Meanwhile, an average of two cyclists are killed each week and 67 are seriously injured by motor vehicles.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140522000123#:~:text=On%20average%20over%20the%2011,67%20seriously%20injured%20per%20year.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2022/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2022

Until about a year ago, as far as I know, only two people in about four years had been killed by cyclists.

 

Risk of hitting pedestrian is relatively low. Speed and increased bike weight (e-bikes can be easily 3 or 4 times heavier than non electric bikes ) mainly affect risk of injury to cyclists.

 

Massive? I don't know.

 

OK... another example, this time when impact energy is directly reflected to cyclists.

 

Imagine hitting wall at 2mph... 5mph... 20mph...25mph...100mph

 

However, you ignore my main point which is that the risk of collision is MUCH more a matter of manner of riding than it is of a mere 5 miles an hour of increased velocity.

 

I just reacted to a minor thing in your post. I totally agree with the rest what you wrote. It is a mixture of speed and stupidity which is most dangerous. After all children survive all falls on balance bikes.

 

I have not had an accident on my by comparison VERY powerful and weighty machines

 

and I hope it will stay that way. Unfortunately ALL bikers I knew had serious accidents or... are dead.