TONIGHT 9pm: - E-Bikes: The Battle for Our Streets - Panorama

BBC 1 8pm....I so hope that this will have some sort of balance to it but Panaroma has been for many years now designed for morons to watch so I expect the level of journalism to be technically inaccurate and biased demonstrating a severe lack of understanding ot the base problems or the stats that currently support the number ebike fires in UK (1 in 3000).

 

If I could be arsed I'd take notes....

It's on iplayer. Forgettable though.

I thought it was relatively balanced reporting. I wish they didn’t refer to illegal electric motor bikes as e-bikes though. The two howlers I did spot were the guy saying an e-bike collision is similar to being hit by a car. It’s really not, not by several orders of magnitude. That and the bikes kill ~200 people per year. Okay but cars kill more than that every day and the idea of e-bikes is to get people out of cars.

Someone made an editorial decision not to get in to battery fires which I think was sensible however they got the most basic technical fact wrong when mentioning 250W and forgot to mention 'continuous' so that's poor research to get such a basic important fact wrong.

 

Whilst they were happy to show some video of a wideo cop chasing deliveroo guy through a back street they glossed over the amount of people the cops have maimed or killed whilst giving chase to ebikes.

 

Glasgow City Council must've spent a chunk of the alleged £750m on their Avenues projects and bike lanes but now they've literally just finished making the busiest pedestrianised street (Sauchiehall St) in the City mixed bike and walkways.

 

The bikes lanes they laid 2/3 years ago (Garscube Rd for example) ago now have as many pot holes as the roads do...

Adrian Chiles did a fair job on the subject but the Telegraph Reporter like Daily Mail staff seem to have it in for Ebikes as well as Scooters .

IMO the starting point, if seriously interested in properly defining "power" legality, is to rewrite that clause to something both realistic and legally solidly definitive.

But that is probably so much an anathema to the legal community, the police will remain hamstrung.

 

In respect to finding parallels to accidents to pedestrians involving cars, there is a fundamental difference that thankfully few cars are going through pedestrian precincts or along shared cycle pedestrian footways and routes.

just think in 20 years time the scooters could be going this fast.

fist aid kit

if seriously interested in properly defining "power" legality, is to rewrite that clause to something both realistic and legally solidly definitive.

 

It already is realistic and solidly definitive. the motor needs to be rated at no more than 250w. That's it. What can't you understand about it? What's not realistic about it?

It already is realistic and solidly definitive. the motor needs to be rated at no more than 250w. That's it. What can't you understand about it? What's not realistic about it?

because under the 15mph and 250w limit the motor can provide as much power as it can limited to the amps in the controller and bms which is 20a on mine thus a bbs hd at 30a nukes me at push of a button

 

if my bosch motor only had a max of 250w it would be useless and why if i dongle it i can hit near 40mph at 120rpm at the cranks.

It already is realistic and solidly definitive. the motor needs to be rated at no more than 250w. That's it. What can't you understand about it? What's not realistic about it?

 

Because "rated" here is itself not something definitive, its an arbitrary value accredited by whoever sticks the label on the unit. Its not IMO realistic in that 250 Watts is placed too low for much other than flat terrain.

In the diesel world, "we" rated against time and temperature stability limits. Even "continuous" itself had its time limits, its was not what might be implied, "continuous".

 

Here, this is an absolute gift for a vender to stick any power rating label on they like.

There are defined protocols for rating motors, granted they dont deal with specific values, more ranges of performance, and tbh the one time i glanced over them I was not equipped to read much from them, but i got there via a reference from the text of en15194 .. Fraid i dont have any links as it was a personal search at the time, but Its not too deep down the rabbit hole once you skirt round the euro paywall for the actual regs..

The problem with the test is that it was designed before ebikes existed, and for the purpose of ensuring motors are fit for purpose by being NOT LESS THAN a certain continuous power capability! It doesn't impose any restriction on maximum power.

 

Unless the language inside EN15194 but outside of the formal test is tightened up to require the test to be failed at 251W continuous, then the motor power part 9f this will not change.

 

The obvious easy 'precise' fix is for EN15194 to say something about the motor/controller combination, which can easily be constrained by software.

The program followed the classic British narrative; there is a problem, so tighter regulations are needed.

 

Rather than attempt to shift the blame to the lack of regulations why not simply say; lets introduce proper and widespread enforcement of the existing regulations and see if the situation improves.

 

Cannot see the benefit of 'tighter regulations' if they will be widely ignored like the current ones.

The program focused on pedestrians being hit by bikes in pedestrian areas and on pavements. This is not the fault of powered bikes but one of errant behaviour by riders. Regulating (or indeed banning eapc's) will not solve the problem of people who act anti socially and with no regard to fellow humans.

There was a clip of a policeman doing a 'speed test' of a bike by holding it's wheel of the ground. This relies on the bikes speedo (in my case a cycle computer) which is an uncalibrated measuring device dependant on a not exact wheel size. How can this be right? That said the bike did have a throttle, so......

In this country the waters have been muddied by the cheapskate introduction of shared use paths which have turned out to be an accident waiting to happen. Who'd have thought? Progress along these paths, on a bike, is made near impossible by the ill discipline of pedestrians wandering all over whilst looking at their phone with their dog on a 3M lead. This made worse by inconsiderate riding by those who don't give a .... and don't have a bell . Proper seperation is what's needed, not just white lines painted on the road. My mates guide dog doesn't recognise white lines. It does however stop at curbs - even dropped ones.

Overall I thought the program was the usual Daily Mail type rant based on partial understandings of the regs that do exist.

Where were the scooters in all this?

Both the D Mail and Torygraph seem to have it in for Electric bikes, although also non electric bikes versus cars in general are written about, usually in a way to antagonise their readership in their hatred of free loading bike riders clogging up their precious roads.

There was a clip of a policeman doing a 'speed test' of a bike by holding it's wheel of the ground. This relies on the bikes speedo (in my case a cycle computer) which is an uncalibrated measuring device dependant on a not exact wheel size. How can this be right? That said the bike did have a throttle, so......

the guy has a twist and go throttle that has been banned since 2016.

If he had a throttle that requires pedalling first, police would have not been able to test his bike.

This said, I did find that clip worth watching. Best way to explain the law to new ebikers.

It already is realistic and solidly definitive. the motor needs to be rated at no more than 250w. That's it. What can't you understand about it? What's not realistic about it?

 

Perhaps the fact the controller is 25A on many mid-drive ebikes and power of over 900W sometimes well over 1000W for a freshly charged battery. For e-mountain bikes used off-road with a lot of climbing they can discharge a 600Wh battery in 40 minutes. Also many Chinese ebikes that were originally rated at 750W are now certified as 250W in Europe despite being an identical spec because Chinese suppliers have learnt how EU certification works (i.e. its completely meaningless when it comes wattage). My washing machine is sold as 2000W and its peak consumption is about 2100W but when its just slowly turning over the drum it is 200W so should it be a 200W washing machine or a 2000W washing machine? I would say just like 99% of electrical certification it is correct at 2000W. If you start manipulating how certification is written so a 1000W ebike can pretend to be a 250W ebike I would say its a lie and certification should be honest and trustworthy like 99.9% of certification is. When you go in a bike shop and a pisspoor 20" wheeled ebike with a 140Wh battery is called 250W and £10k state of the art e-mountain bike with 110Nm of torque is also 250W you know the certification process is utterly incompetent or corrupt.

 

You are obviously quite intelligent with a lot of info about ebikes but this is basic electrical knowledge I don't get why you agree with the misleading EU certification, do you support every device having false wattage claims? Is my washing machine now 5W because that is all it uses while on but not doing anything?

 

Surely there has to be a connection between the wattage given and normal use. You can't just choose any random number between 0 and its maximum peak consumption?

 

When you see a home conversion and the ebike has caught fire you can't help wondering if the motor was sold as 250W and the end customer confused by this has bought a battery pack capable of 250W and not the true 750-1000W of the motor. I just think its dangerous to falsely rate motors too.

 

Perhaps the fact the controller is 25A on many mid-drive ebikes and power of over 900W sometimes well over 1000W for a freshly charged battery. For e-mountain bikes used off-road with a lot of climbing they can discharge a 600Wh battery in 40 minutes. Also many Chinese ebikes that were originally rated at 750W are now certified as 250W in Europe despite being an identical spec because Chinese suppliers have learnt how EU certification works (i.e. its completely meaningless when it comes wattage). My washing machine is sold as 2000W and its peak consumption is about 2100W but when its just slowly turning over the drum it is 200W so should it be a 200W washing machine or a 2000W washing machine? I would say just like 99% of electrical certification it is correct at 2000W. If you start manipulating how certification is written so a 1000W ebike can pretend to be a 250W ebike I would say its a lie and certification should be honest and trustworthy like 99.9% of certification is. When you go in a bike shop and a pisspoor 20" wheeled ebike with a 140Wh battery is called 250W and £10k state of the art e-mountain bike with 110Nm of torque is also 250W you know the certification process is utterly incompetent or corrupt.

The important point is the test is made on a flat road.

This point is often missed even by long time ebikers.

On flat roads, you only need to beat the headwinds to maintain your statutory 25kph assisted speed. The power required is much less than what is needed to climb a steep hill, about 200W for an average unfit rider so 250W is amply sufficient.

The issue is how much power would you need to climb a steep hill and how would you make a level playing field so not to penalise those who are unfit and still keep the motor running cool?

On this, the legislation is lacking, hence the misunderstanding. The current law doesn't say how steep the hill has to be and long you can climb at 25kph without overheating. When and where there is no law, what do you think is fair?

The important point is the test is made on a flat road.

This point is often missed even by long time ebikers.

On flat roads, you only need to beat the headwinds to maintain your statutory 25kph assisted speed. The power required is much less than what is needed to climb a steep hill, about 200W for an average unfit rider so 250W is amply sufficient.

The issue is how much power would you need to climb a steep hill and how would you make a level playing field so not to penalise those who are unfit and still keep the motor running cool?

On this, the legislation is lacking, hence the misunderstanding. When and where there is no law, what do you think is fair?

 

I've seen this written before but again how on earth can all these ebikes some tiny and light, others huge, heavy cargo bikes all end up at 250W exactly? It makes no sense at all. These tests are all performed in a laboratory so obviously it can only be simulated flat roads and maybe those tests don't even factor in the weight of the ebike. So why are we going after so many ebikes as over 250W when clearly they are all pretty much capable of going along a flat road at 250W. So if we accept that rule just about every ebike is legal as long as its restricted to 15.5mph assistance. So why are people with direct drive hub motors seen as outside the law? So why can't I have a 90kg ebike with a 5000W motor if it can trundle along a simulated flat road with 250W?

 

We have a situation where high wattage ebikes are classed as legal and low wattage ebikes are classed as illegal (i.e. 350W rated) despite both sharing the 15.5mph assistance speed restriction.

 

Certification shouldn't be written like this, the true wattage of a ebike should always be its rating surely and this is especially true of ebike kits where you buy the battery separately.

These tests are all performed in a laboratory so obviously it can only be simulated flat roads and maybe those tests don't even factor in the weight of the ebike.

the manufacturer can do road tests but this is unnecessary because it's an automatic pass.

You don't need more than 200W to keep the bike and rider at constant 25km/h on a flat road. 10% allowance is given for road friction if you do road test. As all the bikes are tested under the same conditions, factory made bikes don't have much trouble getting EN15194.

A declaration from the manufacturer is enough. The motors are usually tested for electromagnetic emissions and electrical insulation.

When you go in a bike shop and a pisspoor 20" wheeled ebike with a 140Wh battery is called 250W and £10k state of the art e-mountain bike with 110Nm of torque is also 250W you know the certification process is utterly incompetent or corrupt.

 

The fact that you persist in referring to ebike and e-mountain bike shows that that you, like almost all in this forum, simply do not understand the relevant legality or its purpose. Here once again for the umpteenth time is the correct position:

 

1) All e-bikes are motor vehicles which have to be type approved and registered in the UK.

 

2) Our compliant EAPCs are never e-bikes and should never be called that, they are simply assisted bicycles subject only to bicycle law. As such they are excused compliance with motor vehicle law, provided they fully comply with the relevant exemption conditions. Therefore they do not have need of any certification of actual power.

 

3) Since an assisted bicycle can range from a small wheeled light folder to a circa 150 kg pedicab or van capable of carrying three adults or 250 kgs of goods over any normal roads, the actual power permitted has to vary to suit the purpose. Therefore the power limit indicated in the exemption conditions has to be nominal, leaving the actual power and torque provided entrusted to the designer suiting it to the designed purpose.

 

So why do we have this vague situation?

 

The authorities almost worldwide have realised what a terrible mistake it was to permit near universal car ownership, so they are trying hard to get the public to accept less environmentally and legally damaging forms of transport. The ideal primary means is the bicycle, but with widely variable terrains and personal physical abilities, some assistance is necessary, without all the complexities of motor vehicle law to make that acceptance possible.

 

Hence our EAPC permission, which has now become the only world standard for such vehicles.

.

Edited January 7, 20251 yr by flecc

"E-bike - The Battle for our streets"

Well that's incitement from Panorama

Why aren't they being charged with a hayte krime? ;-)

The Cabbage Patch doll with down's syndrome presenting the programme is wrong! They're not "rules", they're laws, and they're clearly not "unenforceable" - we saw a policeman seize a throttle enabled bike, and another officer fail to catch and brutalise a food delivery dude riding a derestricted bike, because the copper wasn't properly equipped with a motorbike and truncheon. The existing laws are clear, there aren't enough police to enforce them. I say enforce speed limit laws for ebikes, ignore power. Speed causes more damage than power. Powerful bikes can be car replacements. Limiting ebikes strictly to 250W would increase use of less "green" modes of transport blackening lungs and stunting growth. People would become shorter and we'd become a country of midgets again. Can't win a ground war against Russia with midgets. That utterly useless programme was created by clueless airheads. It should be illegal for children's toys with limited capacity to present tv programmes. Hard to watch such cruel exploitation of the vulnerable.

Edited January 7, 20251 yr by guerney

The wattage is irrelevant to safety, which is purported to be the purpose of the rules.

Speed is the crucial factor

I think 20mph should be the limit, same as for cars in a school zone.

We will always get idiots riding or driving like idiots, reasonable enforcement is the key. :-?

When you go in a bike shop and a pisspoor 20" wheeled ebike with a 140Wh battery is called 250W and £10k state of the art e-mountain bike with 110Nm of torque is also 250W you know the certification process is utterly incompetent or corrupt."

 

You can have a legal pisspoor 20" e-bike and legal state of the art 110Nm bike. What is wrong with that? What is incompetent and corrupt about that? You are using very strong words and accuse people without any proof.

 

BTW my pisspoor bike has 120Nm motor.

 

So why are people with direct drive hub motors seen as outside the law?

 

What are you talking about Bonzo? Who sees people with direct drives as outside the law??? As long as bike meets legal criteria it is legal. It doesn't matter if motor is direct drive or geared.

Edited January 7, 20251 yr by Az.