Author Topic: CTC AGM 2021 low-capacity motor vehicles. 00  (Read 1487 times)


  • Timelord
Re: CTC AGM 2021 low-capacity motor vehicles. 00
« Reply #25 on: 28 April, 2021, 10:47:50 am »
I wonder if the response to demand for e-bike carriage might be "But lithium batteries!" Almost all cycle-camping trips using trains are technically illegal because the regulations of carriage prohibit gas cannisters (I'm not sure about liquid or solid fuels but that seems likely too).

Yes there is that risk.  Obviously lithium-ion batteries become extremely dangerous somewhere between the size of a laptop and an e-bike(!)
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...


  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: CTC AGM 2021 low-capacity motor vehicles. 00
« Reply #26 on: 28 April, 2021, 01:57:39 pm »
Motorail obviously used specially designed waggons but you did use to be able to transport a small motorbike in the guards van. Nothing to burn there, no. But that ended in the 1980s or 90s, when these things were counted differently.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Re: CTC AGM 2021 low-capacity motor vehicles. 00
« Reply #27 on: 28 April, 2021, 04:28:56 pm »
Loosely related, a couple of years ago the BHPC introduced a racing class for people who get to events "without the use of a private motor vehicle".  This wording was intended to allow for multi-modal trips involving trains, buses, ferries, etc. and seems a better fit than 'low capacity' in that context (not least because people do occasionally use an under-occupied minibus to transport HPVs).

I should note that this is as much about recognition and encouragement of the racing compromises inherent in using an HPV to get to an event (road legality, luggage capacity, rider fatigue, gearing, tyres, etc) as it is an environmental measure or who-cycled-the-furthest-to-the-event competition.

I think if you're going to say 'low-capacity' you need to define it for the quibblers.  A number of seats or driving licence class or something.

Introducing a category for non-motorised participants is positive thinking  :thumbsup:  Banning all but non-motorised participants is negative thinking  :hand:  Therein lies all the difference - nice to know the BHPC has understood it; perhaps the CUK/CTC could look and learn!