Riding an electric cargo bike legally in the UK

[Croxden]

I guessed you meant a large caravan but thought my observation worthwhile for those who might not know whether a bike could tow a small one.
.

Another Sheldon Cooper moment flecc?

 

[SteveRuss]

Actually bike caravans are entirely legal in many countries including the UK, a dozen shown on the link below and many more online. At one time Wisper e-bikes considered adding a bicycle caravan to their e-bike range.

Bicycle caravans
.

My B&B bike tour plans this year may now have completely changed

 

[Swytch Bike]

No, from what I understand from Flecc's post is that he has implied that no dealer is applying the letter of the law therefore I can only assume that all that do not are selling illegal bikes unless they state otherwise.

Hi Shemozzle

I'd be interested to know your stance on eBikes where you can adjust the top speed using the display. Are they illegal because technically you could be riding with assistance above 15mph (an no one could prove otherwise because you can always change the settings before you get pulled over)? Or is it OK as long as you are limiting it to 15mph when you are on the road.

If you had one of these on a 1000W kit, presumably you'd want to see a feature where the controller also limits the output current (and thus power) and can limit to 250W when selected? Are there any kits/controllers that can do this? (i.e. limit the actual power as well as the top speed).

In a similar vein to the discussion around bells being technically legally required, but not mandatory for sellers to fit one at the point of sale, I would say that it isn't irresponsible for a dealer to sell a kit that can be configured for road legality by the user, but has the option of being de-restricted if they choose.

 

[shemozzle999]

My stance has been a simple one, I just want consumers to be able to purchase an electric bicycle and be free to use it on the road legally.

#FitaLabel

If you want to push the boundaries as a dealer by all means do so but don't place an item in the market for the customer to bear the responsibility to test the law, you should do that yourself first.

 

[flecc]

In a similar vein to the discussion around bells being technically legally required, but not mandatory for sellers to fit one at the point of sale, I would say that it isn't irresponsible for a dealer to sell a kit that can be configured for road legality by the user, but has the option of being de-restricted if they choose.

Not the same thing at all though. Bells are not required to be fitted, technically or otherwise, a dealer merely has to offer one to someone purchasing a bike face to face, but not to online or mail order customers.

The assist speed limit law is mandatory, a pedelec while on the road must only be capable of motor assistance to 15.6 mph under the rider's control.

The provision of a rider adjustment to software via display buttons which is capable of increasing that speed is illegal. The bike does not conform to the construction aspect of the law even when not derestricted.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

"Tamper proof by end user" or words to that effect are used in the law. There are very few kits even the 250W ones which are EN 15194 compatible, Bionix springs to mind as one. Even factory made legal bikes can be tampered with to make them go faster.

In France that puts you in the same ball park as any kid with a derestricted moped: 135€ fine on the spot and possible confiscation of the bike. And if you are in an accident the insurance companies involved will not want to know you if it is proved that your bike was set for over 25 kph. The wattage is a different kettle of fish because even the law makers are not stupid enough to not know that spot on 250W is impossible to obtain, fluctuating with the charge of the battery etc. The kit I am about to buy has "Road Legal" marked on the description. Notice those quotation marks - 250W nominative, 340W constant and 560W peak with a 15 amp controller and 36V battery. In the same breath they offer an optional 17 amp controller which puts the kit far on the wrong side of road legal if my school certificate physics don't fail me...

If you use it in a responsible way you have little risk of being pulled over. Famous case in France: a guy went to court for speeding in a velomobile. He thought that he would get away with it because he had no number plate. Silly man kept going through the same speed camera so one day the police were waiting for him and there he was, on the 8 o'clock national news! If you go over 50 kph in town on a bicycle you are breaking the law. He was doing 65-70 kph and he had racked up a dozen or so tickets, very expensive day in court!

 

[JohnCade]

Not the same thing at all though. Bells are not required to be fitted, technically or otherwise, a dealer merely has to offer one to someone purchasing a bike face to face, but not to online or mail order customers.

The assist speed limit law is mandatory, a pedelec while on the road must only be capable of motor assistance to 15.6 mph under the rider's control.

The provision of a rider adjustment to software via display buttons which is capable of increasing that speed is illegal. The bike does not conform to the construction aspect of the law even when not derestricted.
.

So all the bikes sold by reputable sellers like Kudos and Woosh with the King Meter display are selling illegal bikes even when factory set to 25 kph?

In practice I very much doubt that Officer Dibble would have much of a clue about getting into the settings. Although he might be riding an e bike himself of course, and it might even have a King Meter.

 

[flecc]

So all the bikes sold by reputable sellers like Kudos and Woosh with the King Meter display are selling illegal bikes even when factory set to 25 kph?

I believe so since the King Meter controls are rider ones, at all times under the rider's control. Suppliers sometimes attempt to indemnify themselves against any possible third party insurance implications by refusing to tell customers how to alter the control settings. But that doesn't alter the possible illegal construction aspect

In practice I very much doubt that Officer Dibble would have much of a clue about getting into the settings. Although he might be riding an e bike himself of course, and it might even have a King Meter.

Of course the police themselves in a number of forces were using illegal 250 watt e-bikes for years before the DfT issued a waiver to allow their use pending a change in the law. Ironically the waiver was effectively an instruction to the police not to prosecute on the 250 watt issue.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

Of course the police themselves in a number of forces were using illegal 250 watt e-bikes for years before the DfT issued a waiver to allow their use pending a change in the law. Ironically the waiver was effectively an instruction to the police not to prosecute on the 250 watt issue.
.

I think they have been loosely exempt under Article 1 2002/24EC

This Directive does not apply to the following vehicles:

(b) vehicles intended for pedestrian control;

but now are specifically mentioned in Article 2 2013/168EC;

2. This Regulation does not apply to the following vehicles:

(e) vehicles designed and constructed for use by the armed services, civil defence, fire services, forces responsible for maintaining public order and emergency medical services;

 

[the_killjoy]

Being pedantic one could point out it says constructed for use by rather than constructed and used by.

So just buy a ex-police one

 

[flecc]

I think they have been loosely exempt under Article 1 2002/24EC

This Directive does not apply to the following vehicles:

(b) vehicles intended for pedestrian control;

but now are specifically mentioned in Article 2 2013/168EC;

2. This Regulation does not apply to the following vehicles:

(e) vehicles designed and constructed for use by the armed services, civil defence, fire services, forces responsible for maintaining public order and emergency medical services;

I don't understand your first reference since their e-bikes are not intended for pedestrian control, so this section in both 2024/24/EC and 168/2013 doesn't apply.

But yes, the exemption in article 2 of 168/2013 can apply.

However, some of out police forces were using e-bikes from 2008 onwards, long before the latter law.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

Of all the exceptions in 2002/24 if I were looking for justification of an exclusion then I would have thought only 1 (b) have been used to loosely excuse them from riding them from 2008 as pedestrian control is a duty carried out by police.

This Directive does not apply to the following vehicles:

(b) vehicles intended for pedestrian control;

It could not be now used as it has been modified with the addition of "exclusively" hence the addition of the new (e) rule in 2013/168

 

[flecc]

Of all the exceptions in 2002/24 if I were looking for justification of an exclusion then I would have thought only 1 (b) have been used to loosely excuse them from for riding them from 2008 as pedestrian control is a duty carried out by police.

This Directive does not apply to the following vehicles:

(b) vehicles intended for pedestrian control;

. Not exactly the spirit of the law, but certainly a salutary warning to civil service lawyers about sloppy drafting!
.