This mornings Sunday Times

[Crockers]

I'm shocked to read some of these comments. They show a total lack if knowledge of the law.

So forget speed limits. It's the wrong phrase. It's assistance levels.

You can ride your ebike at any speed within the legal limit of the road in question. The law states it's the speed at which assistance is allowed. 25koh. If you can pedal your bike at 40 mph on an open road no problem. As at that speed the motor has turned off. If you pedal at 20moh WITH ASSISTANCE you're breaking the law. Not a made up law but one that see you in court for riding an motor propelled vehicle without tax, insurance etc.

 

[Gubbins]

I don't think that Soundwave has a bad bone in his body, but he is probably one of the most irresponsible riders out there, ebike or no ebike.

You only have look at his comments, and clips highlighting recklessly riding along public canal towpaths, public bridleways, public pavements outside rows of shops, and even down the middle of one way streets in the wrong direction.

You don't need an ebike to ride with complete disregard to other road users, pedestrians or the law, but in the event of him being involved in an accident on his ebike, the finger would soon be pointed universally at all ebike riders.

Why would it?

 

[Gubbins]

Could one argue that laws were made to be broken? If they weren't broken they wouldn't be needed, would they?

 

[LeighPing]

If you can pedal your bike at 40 mph on an open road no problem. As at that speed the motor has turned off. If you pedal at 20 mph WITH ASSISTANCE you're breaking the law.

So the same bike, same weight, etc, is ok if you're floundering and putting power into the pedals at 40 mph. But not if you use a little more electrical assist, at say half that speed.

The law is truly an ass.

 

[Will Tinker]

So the same bike, same weight, etc, is ok if you're floundering and putting power into the pedals at 40 mph. But not if you use a little more electrical assist, at say half that speed.

The law is truly an ass.

There for everyone's safety though bud...

 

[LeighPing]

There for everyone's safety though bud...

Oh really? That's a whole other debate in itself.

 

[Kudoscycles]

Actually technology is starting to make these speed pedelecs redundant.
We have all seen a lightweight,big geared sports bike,low rolling resistance tyres along the super highway at 30 plus mph. Non assisted sports bikes have come a long way since the days of the old clunkers,20 plus mph is now easily achievable,until you come to a steep hill.
My Kudos Stealth and Alamo are as close we can currently offer in assisted mode to the lightweight non assisted bikes. We fitted a lightweight but 250 watt motor,big chainring and skinny tyres and tried to select light mudguards,brakes,gears etc to keep the bike as light as possible but without using custom parts to keep the cost affordable. These bikes are easy to pedal non assisted at 20mph but will also assist when climbing steep hills.
I suspect these lightweight sports e-bikes will get lighter,15kgs or less,will be available soon at some increase in cost due to more sophisticated lighter components,maybe lighter battery and motor.
But to get the most out of these bikes you do need some level of fitness,they won't suit the unfit rider who really needs a mini motorbike.
KudosDave

 

[flecc]

The law is truly an ass.

No it isn't, unlike the legislators you simply haven't considered all the relevant factors.

Power assistance is allowed on bicycles for those who need it, not as a general provision to increase performance. The legislation is therefore aimed at utility cyclists who tend to cycle at under 15 mph, more commonly at around 10 to 12 mph. Lycras who ride at over 20 mph are completely irrelevant, clearly they do not need assistance.

Some safety laws are needed since unlike the operators of other powered vehicles, e-bikers are not tested in any way for proficiency. These laws and the reasons for them are as follows:

Assist speed limited to 25 kph/15.5 mph. This emphasises the need over performance factor, but more importantly it's connected to the fact of no rider proficiency testing. Physical fitness, reaction times, eyesight and hearing are broadly connected, we can be reasonably confident that the fit lycra clad rider is overall fairly safe at over 15 mph in these respects. The utility riders who the e-bikes are intended for are often going to be elderly with those facilities often impaired in many ways. They can often be partially disabled with impairments affecting safety. In the absence of rider testing the safety of the public at large has to take precedence.

Connected with the level at which the assist speed limit is set is the effect that evolution has had on our abilities. A fit normal person can run at up to 18 mph, so evolution has developed our senses and reactions to cope best with speeds up to that. As mentioned though, those senses and reaction times deteriorate with age, so given the target group likely common age profile, the assist speed is set a bit lower. Originally in Britain it was set at 12 mph but this was later raised to 15 mph to give some parity with EU law while still being lower than the optimum for the fully fit.

Pedelec control. This is to emphasise that the e-bike remains a bicycle with the power applied by pedalling, not a low powered motor cycle. That is why the EU don't allow throttles at all assist speeds.

To summarise, bureaucracy free pedelec law is not daft or irrational, and those who feel it is simply haven't considered all the relevant factors.

For those who want higher speeds there is another bicycle based class with some added bureaucracy for safety reasons, the S class, but to date our DfT will not permit it. That is where any lobbying should be directed, not at changing pedelec law, probably getting extra restrictions added and inconveniencing all.
.

 

[LeighPing]

Here's the relevant point in a law;-

You either break it. Or, you don't break it. In the case of this Times article, the word 'appears' was used. So no law was broken. Which makes this thread moot.

Ebikes are not about the elderly, disability or impairment. If they are a target group, then that's generated from the point of design and then sales. Talking of 'target groups'. Who are the latest e-MTB's targeted at?

 

[flecc]

Ebikes are not about the elderly, disability or impairment. If they are a target group, then that's generated from the point of design and then sales. Talking of 'target groups'. Who are the latest e-MTB's targeted at?

That's completely missing the point. Pedelecs to give them their correct name, and their law, are about giving some assistance on bicycles to those who need it to cycle. That and that alone is the point of the law, to enable as many as possible to ride bicycles. Pedelecs are not intended for those who can cycle perfectly ok without assistance, though if they want to use them they can of course and many do.

The pedelec law provision is nothing to do with sales, other target groups, what the market would like, mountain biking or high performance. They can be provided for separately and in one respect here have already been with the L1e-A class. That's similar to the pedelec provision and is also 15.5 mph limited, but allows up 1000 watts for those who need even more power due to even less cycling ability.

And as I've pointed out, for those who want more cycling speed as well there's the S class elsewhere which you can lobby for here since that is what you want.

Since you are having such difficulty in understanding the position, let me now spell it out simply in another way:

The DfT is considering the possibility of that bicycle based 28 mph S class here in the UK, and with that in mind has already put in place a driving licence class for it, category AM. The S class where it exists also has registration with number plate and compulsory third party insurance.

Therefore, what makes you think that they would ever allow the same higher speeds for unregistered and uninsured pedelecs ridden by unlicenced riders?
.

 

[LeighPing]

That's completely missing the point.

That's a personal opinion.

Pedelecs are not intended for those who can cycle perfectly ok without assistance

So is that.

Since you are having such difficulty in understanding the position

That too.

Therefore, what makes you think that they would ever allow the same higher speeds for unregistered and uninsured pedelecs ridden by unlicenced riders?

I never said that. But seeing as you've implied it, I don't think that and it would then be an ebike. Right?

Pedelecs to give them their correct name

 

[flecc]

That's a personal opinion.

So is that.
That too.

I never said that. But seeing as you've implied it, I don't think that and it would then be an ebike. Right?

Not my personal opinions, but that of the legislators who aimed their laws the way they did, expressly avoiding pedelecs ever becoming motor vehicles in law. I've watched these and their laws develop internationally over more than 65 years, so am averse to being corrected by very obvious falsehoods based on what someone wants.

For us in law there is no such thing as an ebike, so your last point isn't valid.

In Europe they are pedelecs which are EPACs, in the UK they are EAPCs, the latter standing for Electric Assist Pedal Cycles.

There are of course de facto electric bikes which is what you may mean by ebike, but there's no law allowing them without considerable bureaucracy which classifies them as motor vehicles.
.

 

[LEBC Tom]

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/souped-up-e-bikes-investigated-by-sunday-times/020037

It maybe in the news but the owners and some dealers do not care.

 

[LeighPing]

Pedelecs are not intended for those who can cycle perfectly ok without assistance

Is that not your personal opinion then?

I've watched these and their laws develop internationally over more than 65 years, so am averse to being corrected by very obvious falsehoods based on what someone wants.

Me too. Only I don't want anything.

In relation to the times article, no law was broken here today. No proof, other than supposition, was provided.

For us in law there is no such thing as an ebike, so your last point isn't valid.

Usually, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck. It's a duck. An ebike is a pedelec term in common usage. It's valid here and is quicker to type.

 

[s60sc]

From road.cc/content/news/203474-e-bikes-being-widely-used-over-their-speed-limits

”The Sunday times found the retailer 50Cycles selling a range of German Kalkhoff “speed ebikes” with 350-watt motors capable of speeds of up to 28mph.”

Can the impulse motor handle the strain?

 

[LeighPing]

A better link to the story above this.

 

[flecc]

Is that not your personal opinion then?

By inference it isn't. When legislators designed a law to allow limited power and assist speed on a bicycle for those who needed it, by inference they were not intending it for those who don't need it. And they certainly were not intending their law to be a trojan horse for higher assist speeds.

An ebike is a pedelec term in common usage. It's valid here and is quicker to type.

EAPC is even shorter to type than ebike, but for some reason almost no-one uses it. I've a good idea I know what that reason is.
.

 

[anotherkiwi]

pedelecs don't have a "speed limit", mopeds do. Pedelecs have an assistance limit. Mopeds (s-pedelecs) have an assistance limit and a speed limit. About 75% of French mopeds are tuned and I often follow them at 75 km/h and slightly over (theoretical top speed of a heavy 50cc two stroke).

French Moped stats for 2014
In 2014 , users of mopeds (two wheelers under 50 cm3 , including scooters) constitute 5% of road deaths. Mortality increased by 4 %.

Teenagers are particularly affected, 15-19 yrs = 42% of the total killed

Fatal accidents occur as often in the country as in urban areas. And just over half are night accidents (55%), with a peak between 13h and 22 h .

11% of moped riders killed were not wearing a helmet.

Alcohol is particularly present: 32% of moped riders involved in fatal accidents in 2014.

Number of persons killed 165 and 2738 hospitalised

 

[LeighPing]

By inference it isn't. When legislators designed a law to allow limited power and assist speed on a bicycle for those who needed it, by inference they were not intending it for those who don't need it. And they certainly were not intending their law to be a trojan horse for higher assist speeds.



EAPC is even shorter to type than ebike, but for some reason almost no-one uses it. I've a good idea I know what that reason is.
.

I infer based on your quote. You say it a lot. Do you have your own opinion on it? How could you know others intent? How can you infer that, if not based on your own opinion?

What's your idea on why others use the term 'ebike' then?

 

[LeighPing]

Alcohol is particularly present: 32% of moped riders involved in fatal accidents in 2014.

Number of persons killed 165 and 2738 hospitalised

If you have a nation of drunks, then obviously some percentage of them will die on an ebike.