Well, I have just gone and done it - Kalkhoff BS10 ordered today
- Thread starter flapajack
- Start date
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
Unfortunately it's not. It's no more a moped than an EPAC. If it were a moped, you could register it and use it legally, but you can't. I guess, technically, it's a motor vehicle of unspecified type.
I also doubt very much whether, even if you got caught by the police on one, they would treat it as a motor vehicle. I think that they're more likely to treat it as a non-compliant EPAC, and tell you not to use it again on the road, probably with a section 59 notice or something similar, like they do if you're caught on an electric stand-on scooter.
OK, it might not be a moped (I don't know what it is, but I have amended my original post to "something other than a bicycle"), technically. However, it certainly does not fit the legal definition of a bicycle. This is the point, moped or not, the OP has not used the cycle voucher to buy a, "bicycle" (in law). Cycle schemes allow for the purchasing of legal electric bikes because they fit the definition of a bicycle. It is important that you understand this point and that when I use the term, bicycle, I mean a machine that is recognised in law as being a bicycle, not something which looks like one and provides assistance to 20 or 30 MPH. This distinction is very important.
The bike which the OP purchased is a high speed high power S Pedelec. This is not a bicycle, it is something quite different (in law). Cycle schemes provide a generous tax break (HMRC) for the person who purchases a bicycle, so there is an income tax issue here. If the HMRC and the owner of the bike (the owner is the employer of the purchaser), were to find out that both the tax break and the rental agreement (employee rents the employer's bike from them) were being manipulated by both parties (the seller is complicit here as well as the purchaser) to fund the purchase of something other than a bicycle, there would be quite a bit of trouble to say the least. Maybe more trouble than actually using it illegally on the road.
This is the problem with people like you. You simply do not think these things through and consider the wider implications of your actions. This could be a very real problem for both the people who use the cycle scheme to buy an illegal bike and for the company who sells one under such circumstances. I hope that this is real enough for your needs.
If you have any doubts, contact HMRC, Cycle Scheme or an employer who runs a cycle scheme and see what they have to say on the subject. HMRC do scrutinise and do have an interest in cycle to work schemes. They do look at how they are being used and they have reviewed it in recent years, mainly due to the tax break being too generous in their opinion.
I am only saying all of this to highlight to a potential purchaser the implications of using a cycle scheme to buy something which is not recognised as being a cycle. People need to be aware of this so that they can make an informed decision. Again, the abuse of something which many people find useful (a tax break to buy a bicycle) could have detrimental implication for us all and to jump all over it it with ill thought out mindless drivel isn't acceptable.
Last edited:
Tillson
You are right, the cycle to work scheme is intended for people who wish to buy a cycle and use it to get to work.
To use it for another purpose is clearly very naughty indeed.
As far as I'm concerned, all bikes should be completely tax free anyhow. But that is another issue.
You are right, the cycle to work scheme is intended for people who wish to buy a cycle and use it to get to work.
To use it for another purpose is clearly very naughty indeed.
As far as I'm concerned, all bikes should be completely tax free anyhow. But that is another issue.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
Reminds me of the phrase:
"I might be a little bit pregnant"
That's an interesting point and makes me think about the degrees of non-compliance.
Pregnancy is an absolute condition. It's a yes or no situation, and if you cross the line from one to the other, there will be life-changing consequences.
With an e-bike, the condition is still absolute, but we have degrees of non-compliance and very low risk of consequences, but the risk goes up with the degree of non-complance.
Suppose a guy buys his EN15194 certified Oxygen Emate on the CTW scheme. When he rides it home, he finds the cutting in and out at 15 mph annoying, so he finds out how to hack the display software and increases the cut-off to 17mph, where it's a lot smoother.
Or the guy that buys a compliant bike and has trouble with his brake cut-offs, so he disconnects them.
Then there's the guy that buys a compliant Kalkhoff Aggattu. He finds out that with some simple jiggery pokery, you can adjust it to much more power and 24mph top speed, or the Ezee bike owner that pulls apart his speed restriction wires.
What about the guy that adds an Ebay DC/DC converter to run his lights. This will also certainly make his bike non-compliant. Fitting virtually any lights renders your bike non-compliant.
In summary, if we use the pregnancy test, I bet the majority of forum members will find themselves on the wrong side of the line, so the next question is how far over the line is acceptable? Non compliance is illegal whether it means fitting a light from your local cycle shop or a dongle to increase your bike's speed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Both the compliant Alien ebike and Cyclotricity kits I have bought had rack batteries. Both racks had number plate holders. I think it's just a relatively standard part of an ebike rack for some manufacturers.
Actually, thinking about it, there is no issue with the cycle scheme.
For example, you can get a Cytronex on the cycle scheme but as the bikes are worth more that the £1k technically you only buy the bike and you pay the rest for the motor/battery.
It would be the same with the Kalkhoff - you can't buy a whole one with £1k so you use the £1k to buy the bike and your own cash to buy the electrickery.
After all, if you took the bike out for a ride but left the battery in the garage would you still be riding an illegal ebike?
No, you wouldn't.
What's the difference in me buying my Trek FX 7.5 on the cyclescheme, then adding my own electric kit to it. Did I void the terms of the cycle scheme?
We're not debating if the rider has a defence if caught (we're all agreed on that I think) - we're debating whether he'd get caught - the chance of which is practically zero.
Last edited:
http://www.electricbikemag.co.uk/read.php
Has an arcticle on this subject in the advice section and also mentions that there has been at least one prosecution.
Has an arcticle on this subject in the advice section and also mentions that there has been at least one prosecution.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
There was a guy prosecuted for riding a Segway on the footpath and a woman, who had a stand-on scooter with two bolts welded to the tint front wheel, which she claimed were pedals. The court decided that they weren't pedals, so she got convicted. I speculate that there was a lot of history to that case, like she had been warned by the police before the bolts were welded on. Then she probably argued with them, and may have even been rude to them. Who knows? Whatever: It wasn't a bicycle.
Actually you would. Because the machine is designed and built as something other than a bicycle, it falls under motor vehicle law, not bicycle legislation. You would still be liable in the same way that you would if you free wheeled down the road astride a motorcycle with the engine switched off or in a car without the engine running. Insurance and all of the other things are still required.
As for your comments about using the first £1000 to buy the bike and the remainder for the motor and battery, I'll leave it there without further comment. This way people will see the calibre of the person that they are dealing with and will be able to dismiss your other contributions as nonsense too.
Last edited:
Under EU law it is called a Powered Bicycle class L1-a, as opposed to a moped which is class L1-b.
Both being class L1 shows them to be related and both motor vehicles, since that classification is one of those in the EU type approval regulations for two and three wheel motor vehicles.
Under that type approval regulation which is also in force in UK law, the only bicycle exempted from classification as a motor vehicle is a pedelec of 250 watts maximum assist power, with the assist speed restricted to a maximum of 25 kph.
Are you really suggesting that if you rode an S class without a battery attached that you could be done for riding a motor vehicle?
It'd be laughed out of court.
I know you're using the analogy of riding a motorcycle with the engine switched off but it's not in the same league at all.
And before you resort to "the law is the law" that's not the case in this country - magistrates and judges have a degree of free will and interpretation open to them. "Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law" is also an incorrect saying.
Again you resort to an ad hominem fallacy - I'd would request a little more respect than that if you'd be so kind - we're supposed to be having a civilised debate. Click the link if you're unsure - resorting to argumentum ad hominem is considered a very poor debating technique.
Attack the argument, not the person.
Last edited:
See my post above yours. Yes, the motor vehicle offence is committed since an S class e-bike has a motor vehicle classification in UK type approval law. A court would not be at all amused and would convict.
That it does not have a UK legal use as an S class e-bike isn't relevant, it is a motor vehicle and the offence of riding one unregistered is compounded by it not being approved for UK use.
I disagree - I would be pretty confident that riding an s-class bike as a normal cycle with no battery attached would not incur the wrath of the law.
But anyway - we're now straying into hypotheticals rather than actuals and as such, I will graciously retire from the thread - I'm off out for a ride on my ebike
Last edited:
The question is not whether or not you would get away with it, or the police or cps would ever bother to prosecute it...it's merely a question of fact in law and flecc is correct.I disagree - I would be pretty confident that riding an s-class bike as a normal cycle with no battery attached would not incur the wrath of the law.
But anyway - we're now straying into hypotheticals rather than actuals and as such, I'm graciously retire from the thread - I'm off out for a ride on my ebike
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
My interpretation is that if it were registered, which is not easy to do, and it had a number plate, then it would still be classed as a motor vehicle whether it had the battery or not, but without a number plate, it would be a bicycle, since it can only be judged on what's there. It cannot propel itself, so is not a motor vehicle.
If it's classified in law as a motor vehicle, and an S class e-bike is as I've posted here above, it has to be judged as a motor vehicle.
A court has no other option once it's status as a motor vehicle is specified by quoting the two relevant laws. If it's not registered and plated, the offence is compounded.
Riding an S class e-bike without a battery is exactly the same as gliding a motorbike with engine switched off and/or without petrol, one is still in charge of a motor vehicle. That applies even if walking and pushing a motor vehicle, as a number of cases have demonstrated.
As Amigafan says though, this is hypothetical since such a prosecution is highly unlikely, especially since police officers are unlikely to have much knowledge of this obscure area of motor vehicle law.
A court has no other option once it's status as a motor vehicle is specified by quoting the two relevant laws. If it's not registered and plated, the offence is compounded.
Riding an S class e-bike without a battery is exactly the same as gliding a motorbike with engine switched off and/or without petrol, one is still in charge of a motor vehicle. That applies even if walking and pushing a motor vehicle, as a number of cases have demonstrated.
As Amigafan says though, this is hypothetical since such a prosecution is highly unlikely, especially since police officers are unlikely to have much knowledge of this obscure area of motor vehicle law.
Last edited:
It's very difficult to take you seriously when you make suggestions such as using the first £1000 to buy the illegal bike and then to fund the motor and battery yourself. That is silly.
The point that I am trying to make concerns tax relief through the cycle to work scheme. When you apply for a cycle scheme voucher, you are applying for tax relief on the rental and possibly the eventual purchase of a bicycle. You are also asking your employer to buy a bicycle and to rent it to you. You are then placed on trust, in the form of a voucher, to go and buy the bike on behalf of your employer. To then abuse the tax relief and also abuse the trust of your employer by not buying a bicycle (buying an S Pedelec instead) is quite a serious matter and rather despicable in my view. The retailer is just as bad for colluding in such an enterprise.
I would suggest that this is tax fraud and possibly a disciplinary offence against your employer. Some people may view this as trivial. I know of people who genuinely believe that if you leave your belonging unattended, they are quite within their rights to take possession of them (steal or theft). They view theft as a trivial matter, that's their ethos. I'm not suggesting that this cycle scheme fraud is in the same league, but it lies somewhere between the two, ie being a decent human being, or being a person who steals people's property. It depends on where your own personal standards sit.
Last edited:
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
