Side swipped by a van.

[KeithH]

"One thought which has occurred to me is would the rider have been safer on an ilegal 25 - 30 MPH machine? I think they probably would, which is interesting."

I'm sure he would have been less at risk on a bike capable of pulling away from trouble. My first motorcycle was a 120 Suzuki capable of 40mph (eventually) and it was lethal on the London streets. I soon upgraded.
But
Would the rider have been safer on an 80 mph e-bike?
IMOH 15.5 is too slow but I have no idea of the optimum considering E-bike can be ridden by untrained youth. I thought I was immortal at that age.

 

[trex]

I always pull away slowly at junctions. A cyclist on a powerful bike would be tempted to pull away quickly and will put himself at much more risk.
Careless drivers may assume that their car/van will always be faster than a bike so would not bother to look in side mirrors.

 

[flecc]

IMOH 15.5 is too slow but I have no idea of the optimum considering E-bike can be ridden by untrained youth. I thought I was immortal at that age.

It's not just speed in relation to other traffic, harm to oneself is also a consideration for the legislators, expressed in such things as compulsory helmets for m/c riders and crash protection in cars. With pedelec riders untested for competence, their personal safety is an important factor.

Most people when fit can run at up to about 18 mph, so that is what evolution has developed our bodies to generally cope with in falls etc, making that a guideline speed limit for the unknown and untested rider. Pedelecs are assist bicycles, the clear implication being that they are for those who need that assistance, in turn meaning the less capable than the entirely fit.

Therefore the ideal speed limit is somewhat slower than that 18 mph, making the 15.5 mph limit entirely reasonable.

Of course that is irksome for those who are much fitter/younger etc, but bicycle assistance power was never meant for them. Pedelecs are not motor vehicles, they are just bicycles for the less fit, and these problems with speed limitation mainly arise when people think of them as another form of motor vehicle for general use.

 

[SRS]

No Entry means No Entry, advanced warning or not

You are correct.

 

[SRS]

Most shared paths, quite sensibly, have a bye law speed limit of about 10 or 12mph.

It is perfectly reasonable for any cyclist to want to cycle faster than that, meaning it would be illegal for them to use the path.

The speed limit is for those who have a speedometer only. Many bikes and most pedestrians do not.

 

[averhamdave]

The speed limit is for those who have a speedometer only. Many bikes and most pedestrians do not.

That doesn't sound right???

 

[SRS]

Of course that is irksome for those who are much fitter/younger etc, but bicycle assistance power was never meant for them. Pedelecs are not motor vehicles, they are just bicycles for the less fit, and these problems with speed limitation mainly arise when people think of them as another form of motor vehicle for general use.

Flecc, for the less fit and those who need them?

I can easily do without a pedelec, it just happens to suit my needs at times. Makes life easy when towing or into a strong head wind.

I do not see that these should be seen as bikes for the weak only. A perception I come across on my way to work daily.

I use an automatic washing machine, not because I need one, its just handy.
Gave using a manual drill decades ago, now use a lith powered version.

Whilst I am sure you will know where I am coming from, I wish Jo Public could understand.

 

[Riche]

Flecc is right
I think 15-16 mph is absolutely fine. I have had different powered motors over the years and think anything more powerful than 250w is dangerous to use on public footpaths and roads. Bicycles aren't designed for 29mph which is easily achieved with a 500w motor. 29mph on a bicycle is no fun.

Rich

 

[johnc461165]

News Flash "How do they do it?"

By being sheet drivers, that's how.

--------------------




I often crimp one out, but never use my hands.

I meant the company not the drivers

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Flecc is right
I think 15-16 mph is absolutely fine. I have had different powered motors over the years and think anything more powerful than 250w is dangerous to use on public footpaths and roads. Bicycles aren't designed for 29mph which is easily achieved with a 500w motor. 29mph on a bicycle is no fun.

Rich

Many people will agree with your sentiments, but power has nothing to do with speed. You can have a zero watt motor and still do 40mph in some circumstances, or you can have a 1000w motor that can't exceed 14mph. It may be OK for you to say 250w is OK, but for unfit people that weigh 100kg or more that ride down Ironbridge Gorge, they'd be stuck there for life if all they had was 250w. Luckily, most bikes designated 250w can actually consume 550 to 600w.

How much do you weigh? If it's less than 80kg, you're being selfish, or do you want to punish the heavyweights for having a few pies too many.

 

[flecc]

Flecc, for the less fit and those who need them?

I can easily do without a pedelec, it just happens to suit my needs at times. Makes life easy when towing or into a strong head wind.

I do not see that these should be seen as bikes for the weak only. A perception I come across on my way to work daily.

I use an automatic washing machine, not because I need one, its just handy.
Gave using a manual drill decades ago, now use a lith powered version.

Whilst I am sure you will know where I am coming from, I wish Jo Public could understand.

Yes, I do understand, and it's a widespread view. But the legislators are insistent that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance, so subject to the factors I mentioned.

To be fair they do have classes of vehicles to fit other needs, but they are subject to some additional, arguably necessary, bureaucracy. Chief among those are the low powered moped, not faster but allowing 1000 watts in a bicycle form to better tackle hills and headwinds, and the moped for those wanting to travel rather faster than common bicycle speeds. The latter can have pedals and often do in China, that they aren't on any mopeds here is due to lack of demand, not legal restriction.

And then there's the high speed e-bike class that Germany has and which can exist in any EU country. That it isn't elsewhere is due to the other EU national governments, including ours, refusing it.

So there isn't any overall blocking of higher speed or power, just a reasonable insistence that added power on an unregistered vehicle operated by an unknown and untested rider is confined to a small amount at safe speeds for those who need it, not those who merely want it. And certainly not those who want it with much less restriction.

My views are supported by the fact that the motor cycle trade bodies are very strongly opposed to any easing of pedelec regulations and lobby strongly on this matter. Clearly they recognise that any easing would cut into their business, thus proving that those who want easing of pedelec regulation are really asking for what is generally accepted to be a motor vehicle.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

My views are supported by the fact that the motor cycle trade bodies are very strongly opposed to any easing of pedelec regulations and lobby strongly on this matter. Clearly they recognise that any easing would cut into their business, thus proving that those who want easing of pedelec regulation are really asking for what is generally accepted to be a motor vehicle.

I think that your ideas are a little dated there Flecc. It seems that Dealers have found that the unrestricted bikes sell like hot cakes, so there may be now a bit more pressure to bring the S class to UK.

 

[flecc]

I know that's true of some here in Britain Dave, but they'll need to tell their trade bodies who are currently opposed to change in both mainland Europe and Britain. Most of the lobbying on this is to the EU in Europe so what a minority of British m/c dealers do is unlikely to be very influential.

As for the S class, the DfT have been emphatic, no way, and since they have that view in common with all the other 25 non-participating member countries, the chance if it ever being here seems vanishingly small.

 

[Riche]

Many people will agree with your sentiments, but power has nothing to do with speed. You can have a zero watt motor and still do 40mph in some circumstances, or you can have a 1000w motor that can't exceed 14mph. It may be OK for you to say 250w is OK, but for unfit people that weigh 100kg or more that ride down Ironbridge Gorge, they'd be stuck there for life if all they had was 250w. Luckily, most bikes designated 250w can actually consume 550 to 600w.

How much do you weigh? If it's less than 80kg, you're being selfish, or do you want to punish the heavyweights for having a few pies too many.

Agreed. but speed limit of 15-16mph for an electric bike on a public road is more than acceptable, yes you can still go faster, I do if pedal hard I can reach speeds of 17 or 18. If you are a heavy and I do fall into that category a more power would be nice. Wasn't there a some sort of equation for working out power of bike which took into account the weight of the rider? So a heavier person could use a more powerful motor.

Rich

 

[peerjay56]

Yes, I do understand, and it's a widespread view. But the legislators are insistent that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance, so subject to the factors I mentioned.

Flecc, can you quote a source for this view?
It seems to me that if this were the case, pedelecs would be classed as a mobility device. They are not classed as such, so to suggest "that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance" is incorrect. IMHO

 

[shemozzle999]

Glad to hear you are riding a legal bike Riche, I was concerned that others had taken it upon themselves to take action on your behalf.
If it wasn't the case and an unfavorable judgement occurred the outcome could have been a minimum of 6 points for no insurance and several years of increased premiums.
I agree with flecc that the older driver appears to be imparting bad driving skills to the younger driver and as a professional driver it is totally in inexcusable.
Luckily for them you were not injured or you bike damaged but you are now free to pursue the matter
however you wish.

 

[flecc]

Flecc, can you quote a source for this view?
It seems to me that if this were the case, pedelecs would be classed as a mobility device. They are not classed as such, so to suggest "that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance" is incorrect. IMHO

What does the word assist mean, when is assistance applied? It's applied in circumstances when and where it is needed, so that fundamentally is your answer. The only occasion that the term mobility vehicle is applied is when it's intended for those registered disabled, which excludes a huge proportion of the population who have some lesser limitations. They can still need assistance in some circumstances but are by no means disabled in the eyes of most of us.

As for the source otherwise, it's the law itself. Here in Britain, in the EU and in Japan which has very similar law, the legislators based the regulations on what they considered to be utility cycling rather than all forms of cycling, quite obviously excluding the fully fit types who commonly cycle at 20 mph and more. Indeed the Japanese were very specific about that and the original UK EAPC regulations were perhaps even more clear.

In each case they specified that the pedelec/e-bike remained a bicycle and not a motor vehicle, with limitations variously on speed, power and even acceleration. The implication is clear, that those who use bicycles in a utility manner for general transport purposes can have assistance for the more difficult circumstances of their cycling, but not for performance purposes like speed and acceleration.

So limitation to those who need assistance, not anyone who wants it in the way that suits them.

 

[peerjay56]

What does the word assist mean, when is assistance applied? It's applied in circumstances when and where it is needed, so that fundamentally is your answer. The only occasion that the term mobility vehicle is applied is when it's intended for those registered disabled, which excludes a huge proportion of the population who have some lesser limitations. They can still need assistance in some circumstances but are by no means disabled in the eyes of most of us.

As for the source otherwise, it's the law itself. Here in Britain, in the EU and in Japan which has very similar law, the legislators based the regulations on what they considered to be utility cycling rather than all forms of cycling, quite obviously excluding the fully fit types who commonly cycle at 20 mph and more. Indeed the Japanese were very specific about that and the original UK EAPC regulations were perhaps even more clear.

In each case they specified that the pedelec/e-bike remained a bicycle and not a motor vehicle, with limitations variously on speed, power and even acceleration. The implication is clear, that those who use bicycles in a utility manner for general transport purposes can have assistance for the more difficult circumstances of their cycling, but not for performance purposes like speed and acceleration.

So limitation to those who need assistance, not anyone who wants it in the way that suits them.

There is a big difference between 'needed' and 'wanted'. I do not need assistance, but have chosen a pedelec because I want assistance and am happy with the limitations with regard to power and speed that legislators have set. I see no reference in the EAPC regulations regarding needs of the rider, other than a need to be a minimum of 14 years of age.
As a fully fit male, I am happy to travel at far lower speeds than 20 mph, because I am not a sport cyclist. At other times, if I want to get from A to B more quickly, I can 'get a shuffle' on. But I'm still not a sport cyclist.

 

[flecc]

I see no reference in the EAPC regulations regarding needs of the rider, other than a need to be a minimum of 14 years of age.

if I want to get from A to B more quickly, I can 'get a shuffle' on. But I'm still not a sport cyclist.

Of course the law makes no mention of needs, does the 70 mph speed limit mention it's to limit those who want to go faster, or alternatively say it's for those who want to get a move on? No, those are the matters discussed when the laws are being framed, and in the same way, cyclists needs and wants would be discussed when setting pedelec laws and exemptions. The limitations specified in law are the outcome of such discussion, not a transcript, but they reveal the thinking behind them, as do the subsequent answers to queries on the matter.

Yes, you are not a sport cyclist in your eyes, but the legislators have a different view, and they set the laws. People can and do argue this issue ad nauseum, but the fact remains that the laws were and are very specifically based on common utility cycling practice as seen in each region of law. In the UK and Japan utility cycling's common upper speed was seen as about 12 mph, in the EU as about 25 kph (15.6mph). The only reason the UK much later changed it's limit to 15 mph was to more closely align to EU rules.

And finally I remind what I said in my last post, what is the meaning of assist and when is assistance provided. It is provided for those who need it, not normally for those who want it but don't need it. A fit active young person might think, "S*d cooking, I want meals on wheels", but they won't get that assistance. Equally, does anyone rush to help fully fit people to cross a road? No, but some do offer to help those who are frail and appear to need assistance.

When the legislators used the word assist and specifically excluded the most fit, the intention was obvious, to provide assistance to those who need it.

 

[peerjay56]

Of course the law makes no mention of needs, does the 70 mph speed limit mention it's to limit those who want to go faster, or alternatively say it's for those who want to get a move on? No, those are the matters discussed when the laws are being framed, and in the same way, cyclists needs and wants would be discussed when setting pedelec laws and exemptions. The limitations specified in law are the outcome of such discussion, not a transcript, but they reveal the thinking behind them, as do the subsequent answers to queries on the matter.

Yes, you are not a sport cyclist in your eyes, but the legislators have a different view, and they set the laws. People can and do argue this issue ad nauseum, but the fact remains that the laws were and are very specifically based on common utility cycling practice as seen in each region of law. In the UK and Japan utility cycling's common upper speed was seen as about 12 mph, in the EU as about 25 kph (15.6mph). The only reason the UK much later changed it's limit to 15 mph was to more closely align to EU rules.

And finally I remind what I said in my last post, what is the meaning of assist and when is assistance provided. It is provided for those who need it, not normally for those who want it but don't need it. A fit active young person might think, "S*d cooking, I want meals on wheels", but they won't get that assistance. Equally, does anyone rush to help fully fit people to cross a road? No, but some do offer to help those who are frail and appear to need assistance.

When the legislators used the word assist and specifically excluded the most fit, the intention was obvious, to provide assistance to those who need it.

Flecc,
I have no doubt you believe you are right on this matter, but you provide no evidence to suggest that it is anything but your own interpretation.