The EBIKE Law that doesn't make ANY SENSE (and it DISCRIMINATES)
- Thread starter Deus
- Start date
like most he does not understand how it works the 15mph limit and the 250w limit is that 250w @ 15mph anything more and the controller cuts out as over the speed limit.
under the 15mph limit a motor can provide as much power as it likes, my bosch cx is more like 8-900w as other wise it would not go up any hill.
and if plod lets all these take away riders on diy bombs with 1000w hub motors camp out side mc donalds waiting for orders what fkn law it is just a joke now.
and they dont even wear crash helmets so doubt any of them are insured buy the company's they work for so if they hit some one you wont get a penny from them.
under the 15mph limit a motor can provide as much power as it likes, my bosch cx is more like 8-900w as other wise it would not go up any hill.
and if plod lets all these take away riders on diy bombs with 1000w hub motors camp out side mc donalds waiting for orders what fkn law it is just a joke now.
and they dont even wear crash helmets so doubt any of them are insured buy the company's they work for so if they hit some one you wont get a penny from them.
Or perhaps he does and just mis-represents the situation in order to produce a video that will get more views == more money.
The guy doesn't understand the law. It's 250W maximum continuous output. He has taken a single line from a website that is misquoting the law. Not surprising this happens when even official gov websites often misquote the law.
Guys, please stop posting silly Youtube videos. Each time I watch something like that my IQ drops by 1.
He's another idiot who twice shows he doesn't know what "assist" means.
Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles, Part 1:
Pedelecs are EAPCs in the UK, meaning Electric Assist Pedal Cycles. Ergo, the electric power is only ever there to assist the pedalling. Hence no throttle of course, since a throttle would automatically break that legal definition.
A lot of confusion is caused by pedelecs in the mainland EU being called EPACs.
That does not stand for Electric Pedal Assisted Cycles, since that would also break the definition by making the e-power primary.
EPAC in the EU stands for Electric Power Assisted Cycles, leaving the legal definition intact and again ruling out throttles.
OK, so why no throttles without pedalling? Simple, because when not pedalled for propulsion it's no longer a bicycle, and to escape motor vehicle law it's important to remain as bicycles. That's why a pedelec is defined by an exemption from being a motor vehicle and not a separate law, since the latter would separate them from bicycles in law.
And that must never happen, since it could lose our permitted access to pavements in heavy traffic, access to shared footpaths, access to dedicated cycleways, access to bridleways, access to some National Trust lands and access to Sustrans routes.
Link to Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles Part 2:
.
Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles, Part 1:
Pedelecs are EAPCs in the UK, meaning Electric Assist Pedal Cycles. Ergo, the electric power is only ever there to assist the pedalling. Hence no throttle of course, since a throttle would automatically break that legal definition.
A lot of confusion is caused by pedelecs in the mainland EU being called EPACs.
That does not stand for Electric Pedal Assisted Cycles, since that would also break the definition by making the e-power primary.
EPAC in the EU stands for Electric Power Assisted Cycles, leaving the legal definition intact and again ruling out throttles.
OK, so why no throttles without pedalling? Simple, because when not pedalled for propulsion it's no longer a bicycle, and to escape motor vehicle law it's important to remain as bicycles. That's why a pedelec is defined by an exemption from being a motor vehicle and not a separate law, since the latter would separate them from bicycles in law.
And that must never happen, since it could lose our permitted access to pavements in heavy traffic, access to shared footpaths, access to dedicated cycleways, access to bridleways, access to some National Trust lands and access to Sustrans routes.
Link to Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles Part 2:
.
Last edited:
Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles Part 2:
Here I show just how bad things could be if pedelecs tangle with motor vehicle law. Seventy-three years ago I joined the trade and was fitting assist motors to bicycles, and this is what was involved back then:
Fit the motor and twistgrip control to the customer's bicycle.
Obtain registration.
Fit front and rear full size motorcycle number plates.
Fit tax disc holder and add the tax disc to it.
Meanwhile the customer had to obtain his provisional driving licence if he didn't already have a full motorcycle licence.
Then on collecting their now assisted bicycle and on a provisional licence, they had to have L plates front and rear.
To get rid of the L plates, it meant taking and passing the full motorcycle drivng test.
Finally they had to pay for the VED (tax disc) every year, 17 shillings and 6 pence in 1950.
It's been a long struggle through the legal changes of the 1970s, 1980s, 2000s and 2010s to get to where we are now with so much freedom.
Yet some of you think the assisted bicycle law is tough now! When you argue for it to change, beware of how badly that could go wrong, once the machine we are riding is no longer a bicycle in law.
Link to Part 1
.
Here I show just how bad things could be if pedelecs tangle with motor vehicle law. Seventy-three years ago I joined the trade and was fitting assist motors to bicycles, and this is what was involved back then:
Fit the motor and twistgrip control to the customer's bicycle.
Obtain registration.
Fit front and rear full size motorcycle number plates.
Fit tax disc holder and add the tax disc to it.
Meanwhile the customer had to obtain his provisional driving licence if he didn't already have a full motorcycle licence.
Then on collecting their now assisted bicycle and on a provisional licence, they had to have L plates front and rear.
To get rid of the L plates, it meant taking and passing the full motorcycle drivng test.
Finally they had to pay for the VED (tax disc) every year, 17 shillings and 6 pence in 1950.
It's been a long struggle through the legal changes of the 1970s, 1980s, 2000s and 2010s to get to where we are now with so much freedom.
Yet some of you think the assisted bicycle law is tough now! When you argue for it to change, beware of how badly that could go wrong, once the machine we are riding is no longer a bicycle in law.
Link to Part 1
.
Last edited:
Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles Part 3:
Those who argue for a change on pedelec law are completely wrong, since what they are arguing for already exists in the next three vehicle classes, L1e-A and L1e-B, the latter including S pedelecs (high speed). That is why the politicians and civil service will never listen to their misguided arguments.
What they SHOULD be arguing for is a change in the way those higher classes are legislated, asking for easements in the way they are implemented. For example:
1) Not requiring a group Q driving licence and registration for the 15.5mph bicycle based 1000 watt with throttle L1e-A class. That would satisfy all those who want throttle and/or plenty more power to assist with disability but not wanting higher assist speed.
2) Adopting easier conditions for the L1e-B class which includes S pedelecs. By having reduced size rear number plate with simple registration and just a cycle helmet sufficient instead of a full m/c helmet. Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands already have this, so that alone will encourage our officialdom to at least listen to the argument.
This latter change would satisfy all those wanting higher assist speed, up to 28mph assist, plus the power to achieve that with the 500 watts rating allowed, all with minimal bureaucracy.
This is the sensible way to try to get the law changed, it's worked for others.
Trying to change the existing pedelec law to higher speed and/or power is the idiots way, since it can and never will happen, nor would we want the outcome.
Link to Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles Part 1
.
Those who argue for a change on pedelec law are completely wrong, since what they are arguing for already exists in the next three vehicle classes, L1e-A and L1e-B, the latter including S pedelecs (high speed). That is why the politicians and civil service will never listen to their misguided arguments.
What they SHOULD be arguing for is a change in the way those higher classes are legislated, asking for easements in the way they are implemented. For example:
1) Not requiring a group Q driving licence and registration for the 15.5mph bicycle based 1000 watt with throttle L1e-A class. That would satisfy all those who want throttle and/or plenty more power to assist with disability but not wanting higher assist speed.
2) Adopting easier conditions for the L1e-B class which includes S pedelecs. By having reduced size rear number plate with simple registration and just a cycle helmet sufficient instead of a full m/c helmet. Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands already have this, so that alone will encourage our officialdom to at least listen to the argument.
This latter change would satisfy all those wanting higher assist speed, up to 28mph assist, plus the power to achieve that with the 500 watts rating allowed, all with minimal bureaucracy.
This is the sensible way to try to get the law changed, it's worked for others.
Trying to change the existing pedelec law to higher speed and/or power is the idiots way, since it can and never will happen, nor would we want the outcome.
Link to Why pedelecs must remain as bicycles Part 1
.
Last edited:
I agree.
Change the limits for pedelecs and the limits will be broken a little bit more and you will end up having more people riding around on 'motorbikes' but they will not have followed the requirements for type approval, use regulations, driving licenses, insurance, MOTs, etc.
I see no clamour to remove the 'restrictions' on motorbikes, so why are eBikes so special ?
What makes them special in the eyes of those who dislike the regulations is that they see EAPCs as a loophole, powered vehicles without motor vehicle laws.
So they want to widen the loophole by stretching the law.
That must not happen for the reasons I've stated, so we should as a community strongly oppose all such moves to widen EAPC laws.
Any changes must only be made in the lower powered motor vehicle regulations to suit the perceived need. Not in any way damaging the legal status of EAPCs as bicycles.
We've already seen that happen in the adoption of 250 LPM (Low Powered Moped) to get fully acting throttles via a form of Type Approval, namely Single Vehicle Approval. That gains ministerial permission for them to be regarded as EAPCs when ridden. However, as type approved mopeds they are motor vehicles in law and no longer bicycles, since they've automatically lost the exemption from Type Approval as motor vehicles.
One cannot get exemption from a law that one uses for its benefit !!
.
Indeed.
After all they are only bicycles powered by batteries.
What harm could there possibly be ?
... and of course a Tesla is only a bicycle with four wheels powered by batteries.
So if you go into Halfords and buy a (real cheap) bicycle you can add a couple of wheels and a battery and you have a Tesla ?
Is there an Indestrucable tutorial on how to do this ?
Last edited:
That isn't steep! No wonder so many hub conversions on this forum are 250W+
We have quite a lot of more challenging hills here, as of course many other areas of the UK have. https://www.strava.com/segments/10040936?filter=overall
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
