Suggestion that delivery companies should check their riders bikes are legal !!!!!!

[flecc]

I don't like what they do at all, but I can't say they mislead people.

If they say this, as you have said they do:

"the electric motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts or less "

They are misleading, since the law says no such thing about EAPCs. Since they are the only legal electrically assisted pedal cycles on the road, that is all they can be offering to insure so they must adhere to what the law says, which is:

"pedal cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with
an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous
rated power of less than or equal to 250 W"

Note the key words I've highlighted in red, highlighting that EAPCs primary remain as bicycles, in fact as in law. They apply to their insurance whether they like it or not, leaving out those words in their terms as if trying to pretend they are some form of motor vehicle is not a basis for legal argument. To try to argue that would certainly be misleading as well as unlawful.
.

 

[Az.]

If they say this, as you have said they do...

Have a look yourself. Scroll down to very bottom to reference 7

Third party liability insurance | British Cycling

www.britishcycling.org.uk

so they must adhere to what the law says, which is:

"pedal cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with
an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous
rated power of less than or equal to 250 W"

I checked quite a few insurance companies and all have very similar policies with missing key words that you highlighted. This is also the reason why I decided not to take third party liability insurance. Perhaps it would be wise to ask them to clarify things.

 

[flecc]

I checked quite a few insurance companies and all have very similar policies with missing key words that you highlighted. This is also the reason why I decided not to take third party liability insurance. Perhaps it would be wise to ask them to clarify things.

I don't need to look, in a dispute the court would soon clarify things for them. In respect of third party risks they are bound by what the law says is an EAPC. If a machine is a compliant EAPC, they are liable.

In respect of other incidental risks they are only bound by any incidental risks they are claiming to insure.

You are flogging a dead horse and all you are achieving is wearing out your keyboard.
.

 

[lenny]

best budget keyboard review

 

[guerney]

The fundamental behind all this is that the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Man are incompatible

The Laws of Nature/Jungles are also incompatible with the Laws of Man - which is good news for all the fat, ill, old, diasabled, neurodivergent (except the ones alert and fit enough to run away) etc. needing care, which saves the rest of us eating them. Mind you, cannibals have reported humans taste like pork, which is why I avoid Chinese restaurants run by Triads. (That last bit is true, it's how they dispose of bodies. And nearly all of them are organised by Triads.)

I don't need to look, in a dispute the court would soon clarify things for them. In respect of third party risks they are bound by what the law says is an EAPC. If a machine is a compliant EAPC, they are liable.

In respect of other incidental risks they are only bound by any incidental risks they are claiming to insure.

I wish I had faith enough to buy third party ebike insurance, with policies intetionally worded so poorly. Does what's said on the website matter? Surely it's the policy wording that's relevant? Are the laws relevant to the contract a subset of pedelec laws, which together form a subset of all UK laws? Or is contract law completely separate from pedelec laws? If not, how many people with their insurance claim having been denied will take thair insurer to court, if indeed they have financial resources to do so? Do we need to take out insurance to insure against dodgy insurers? Should we buy three or more policies from three different ebike insurers?

 

[esuark]

I wish I had faith enough to buy third party ebike insurance, with policies intetionally worded so poorly. Does what's said on the website matter? Surely it's the policy wording that's relevant? Are the laws relevant to the contract a subset of pedelec laws, which together form a subset of all UK laws? Or is contract law completely separate from pedelec laws? How many people with their insurance claim having been denied will take thair insurer to court, if indeed they have financial resources to do so? Do we need to take out insurance to insure against dodgy insurers? Should we buy three or more policies from three different ebike insurers?

I can only agree with what you have said. Like me you must have read policies and wonder what they really are insuring with so many get out clauses.

 

[flecc]

I wish I had faith enough to buy third party ebike insurance, with policies intetionally worded so poorly.

Surely it's the policy wording that's relevant?

No, their wording is irrelevant if they are claiming to cover third party risks for an EAPC. Third party insurance has a very definite legal meaning.

I don't think the insurance companies are intentionally wording poorly in this instance. They are merely using simple wording for simple people, rather than using baffling legalese.

Don't confuse their legal liability to the third party under third party insurance, with other elements of the insurance covering incidentals for the insured's benefit.
.

 

[Kizza]

.... I suspect that the delivery riders might technically be 'self employed', a standard avoiding tax (and insurance claims) regime.

A lot of these guys aren't even paid minimum wage, and have no choice but to work in the gig economy.

As for "standard" tax evasion - like the other 4 million self-employed people in the UK, there are records of how they're paid and they are required to file a tax return every year

 

[saneagle]

there are records of how they're paid and they are required to file a tax return every year

There aren't and they don't. I know people that do it. It's just cash. Unrecorded tips too!

A fair proportion of those checked in Coventry were illegal immigrants. How are they going to complete a tax return?

 

[Kizza]

The rider's app transmits GPS co-ordinates, it'd be easy to identify dangerous illegal ebike use; illegal speeds on level roads etc. The government could obtain that data and determine far more.

Impossible to prove because you can - technically -pedal faster than the cut off point

It would be laughed out of court (although it wouldn't get that far)

You have to be caught in the act

There aren't and they don't. I know people that do it. It's just cash. Unrecorded tips too!

A fair proportion of those checked in Coventry were illegal immigrants. How are they going to complete a tax return?

That probably explains why they holiday in the Bahamas each winter and store their money in the Caymans

 

[StuartsProjects]

As for "standard" tax evasion - like the other 4 million self-employed people in the UK, there are records of how they're paid and they are required to file a tax return every year

The businesses who contract these self employed riders are presumably not paying NI contributions for them ?

 

[guerney]

Impossible to prove because you can - technically -pedal faster than the cut off point

It would be laughed out of court (although it wouldn't get that far)

You have to be caught in the act

...going up one way streets the wrong way, combined with data from nearby GPS devices in cars could determine if they were jumping lights etc. that (could be hacked, released pretending to be a hack by Facebook [that way they're not as bound by laws] or illegally scraped info bought on the dark web) could be processed by that big AI the HMRC is training up for a myriad of other things right now - and it wouldn't need to be end up in court, the app operators could simply blacklist them.

 

[saneagle]

The businesses who contract these self employed riders are presumably not paying NI contributions for them ?

They would argue that they don't employ them. The couriers are self-employes and they contract them. That would be true if the couriers do deliveries for more than one food company.

 

[guerney]

Delivery rider tax evasion is peanuts compared to what the likes of Amazon, Google, Facebook, the rich etc. should be paying. It's more expedient to go for low hanging fruit and demonise the ever increasing numbers of working poor and those on benefits, than chase multiple linked shell companies through mutiple tax-haven jurisdictions and search for crypto assets converted to other cypto assets converted to currency, or look for ludicrously priced copyright of logos, designs, text ("intellectual assets") leased to different branches of themselves in different countries, sandwiched with other tax evasion schemes - the mix of all that and more can be quite bewilderingly complex and varied. Only the wealthy can afford to do it.

 

[AndyBike]

So is derestricting now out on this forum - previous questions were answered rapidly on how to do it. OR is this just for couriers

 

[saneagle]

So is derestricting now out on this forum - previous questions were answered rapidly on how to do it. OR is this just for couriers

There's a difference between a guy that wants to get rid of the awkward and abrupt 15 mph cut-off on his 250w pedelec and these delivery riders, who have 30 mph electric mopeds.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not here to judge people, nor enforce the law, nor would I encourage people to break the law, but if they need help to solve a problem, I'll always give it and I'll offer advice on safety aspects.

 

[Bonzo Banana]

Why do you persist in getting this wrong?

We are signed up to BS EN15194, the legal technical standard which determines the motor rating, NOT the actual power. Nor does it set any maximum power.

So the actual power is not a matter for any court, only compliance with the law as it stands.
.

I have no problem with that but then why are we persisting in classing some ebikes as illegal which operate over 250W but require active cooling to do so. We are now seeing many hub motor ebikes with what are obviously 500W, 750W, 1000W motors certified under European certification as 250W and sold as 250W.

Cyrusher XF650 Ebike. Hardtail Electric Bike. 50 miles electric bicycle.

50+ miles/charge hardtail ebike. The XF650 is our entry-level priced electric bicycle from our electric bikes catalog. Fat tire, pedal-assist, aluminum frame. Great ebike for commuting, best value for money ebike.

www.cyrusher.co.uk

In just about every country in the world these ebikes would be rated by their actual wattage but in the EU we have ended up with some extremely strange and illogical certification which allows a lot more than 250W but calls itself 250W. It's open season how you interpret the wattage so why are so many pointing the finger at ebikes that are typically much lower wattage than mid-drive motors as illegal?

I completely disagree with certification that allows for different interpretations but if that is what we have so be it. I'm in no way wanting to restrict power just apply those so called interpretations fairly and not try to limit it as a privilege for junk mid-drive motors with complex design and engineering, proprietary batteries and mountings, excessive drivetrain wear and restricted access to spares and which ultimately are expensive to buy and short life. If you want to give an unfair advantage to ebikes make it those which are environmentally more responsible, easy to repair and have a much longer lifespan.

Why should someone with a 500W hub motor have to keep looking over their shoulder for the police but someone who has a 900W mid-drive motor does not?

It's pretty clear the interpretation of what is classed as a 250W motor varies enormously in the EU and this isn't something you see at all outside the EU. In fact much of the EU certification is clearly stated with regard wattage for other items just like similar certification around the world. In the EU there are standards that are near identical to US standards they have kept them very similar.

To me the whole EU ebike certification is completely amateur and incompetent clearly written by people who didn't know what they were doing or biased it a certain way because of maybe commercial interests in Europe. It's just utterly moronic in so many ways. What sort of idiot would put a power rating label on a hub motor when its the controller that dictates power or force basic cadence sensors which force ebikes to 100% power and can be very dangerous instead of throttles. I've dealt with hundreds of different certification standards in my time due to being a compliance officer previously and nothing touched the incompetence of EU ebike certification.

 

[Woosh]

The issue is caused by people who derestrict their bikes which voids the EN15194 conditions. Speed makes a huge difference in power requirement. You only need about 200W to maintain 15mph even when not pedalling or only ghost pedalling. So even if you have a 1000w bbshd fitted to your bike, you can't exceed the 250w limit on flat roads until you reach about 17mph unless you have a gale force wind in your face.

 

[saneagle]

I have no problem with that but then why are we persisting in classing some ebikes as illegal which operate over 250W but require active cooling to do so. We are now seeing many hub motor ebikes with what are obviously 500W, 750W, 1000W motors certified under European certification as 250W and sold as 250W.

Cyrusher XF650 Ebike. Hardtail Electric Bike. 50 miles electric bicycle.

50+ miles/charge hardtail ebike. The XF650 is our entry-level priced electric bicycle from our electric bikes catalog. Fat tire, pedal-assist, aluminum frame. Great ebike for commuting, best value for money ebike.

www.cyrusher.co.uk

In just about every country in the world these ebikes would be rated by their actual wattage but in the EU we have ended up with some extremely strange and illogical certification which allows a lot more than 250W but calls itself 250W. It's open season how you interpret the wattage so why are so many pointing the finger at ebikes that are typically much lower wattage than mid-drive motors as illegal?

I completely disagree with certification that allows for different interpretations but if that is what we have so be it. I'm in no way wanting to restrict power just apply those so called interpretations fairly and not try to limit it as a privilege for junk mid-drive motors with complex design and engineering, proprietary batteries and mountings, excessive drivetrain wear and restricted access to spares and which ultimately are expensive to buy and short life. If you want to give an unfair advantage to ebikes make it those which are environmentally more responsible, easy to repair and have a much longer lifespan.

Why should someone with a 500W hub motor have to keep looking over their shoulder for the police but someone who has a 900W mid-drive motor does not?

It's pretty clear the interpretation of what is classed as a 250W motor varies enormously in the EU and this isn't something you see at all outside the EU. In fact much of the EU certification is clearly stated with regard wattage for other items just like similar certification around the world. In the EU there are standards that are near identical to US standards they have kept them very similar.

To me the whole EU ebike certification is completely amateur and incompetent clearly written by people who didn't know what they were doing or biased it a certain way because of maybe commercial interests in Europe. It's just utterly moronic in so many ways. What sort of idiot would put a power rating label on a hub motor when its the controller that dictates power or force basic cadence sensors which force ebikes to 100% power and can be very dangerous instead of throttles. I've dealt with hundreds of different certification standards in my time due to being a compliance officer previously and nothing touched the incompetence of EU ebike certification.

View attachment 55157

Good points. A lot of people think things like that, but that's not how it is. You have the idea in your head that regulations should limit power, but they don't. Some other countries do, but ours doesn't. The only thing we have to do is comply with regulations, not make our own ideas of what somebody might have intended when they wrote them.

The only regulation on the power is that the motor must be rated at 250w or less. There is no regulation on how it should be rated other than the motor must be able to run at the rated power without overheating. It's normal in engineering to have a substational margin between the rated use and the actual use. The greater the margin, the less chance of failure. Safety margins of 300% are quite common.

 

[Az.]

There's a difference between a guy that wants to get rid of the awkward and abrupt 15 mph cut-off on his 250w pedelec and these delivery riders, who have 30 mph electric mopeds.

Of course there is a difference between a guy with 15mph restricted bike and the same guy with 30mph derestricted one. The difference is you (and others who give advice on how to derestrict bike), because you make that happen.