Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Afasoas on 29 February, 2024, 10:20:44 am
-
Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/29/ministers-to-consult-on-doubling-the-legal-wattage-of-electric-bike-motors)
The Department for Transport will launch the consultation on Thursday, the Guardian understands, which will propose changing the maximum allowable power of an e-bike motor from 250w to 500w.
Another possible move would allow e-bikes to be powered by a throttle, like a motorbike. Currently, they must be pedalled for the electric motor to start working.
The cynic in me thinks that the DfT has no intention of enacting this, but is dredging it up to stoke anti-cycling sentiment as part of the ongoing culture war.
I've no experience of e-bikes so I can't possibly comment on whether or not it is wise to double the legal limit on power output. Although 500W seems like a lot. With that much power and a throttle, we're effectively talking about speed restricted electric mopeds?
-
I don't get it. 250W is plenty for 99% of cyclists, and 15mph means that you still can't keep up with traffic. Feels to me like they are fixing the wrong one.
-
Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/29/ministers-to-consult-on-doubling-the-legal-wattage-of-electric-bike-motors)
The Department for Transport will launch the consultation on Thursday, the Guardian understands, which will propose changing the maximum allowable power of an e-bike motor from 250w to 500w.
Another possible move would allow e-bikes to be powered by a throttle, like a motorbike. Currently, they must be pedalled for the electric motor to start working.
The cynic in me thinks that the DfT has no intention of enacting this, but is dredging it up to stoke anti-cycling sentiment as part of the ongoing culture war.
I've no experience of e-bikes so I can't possibly comment on whether or not it is wise to double the legal limit on power output. Although 500W seems like a lot. With that much power and a throttle, we're effectively talking about speed restricted electric mopeds?
I agree with you somewhat, in that I think that's how it will be hanlded... although I know that some of the delivery services have been lobbying ministers - partly because their machines aren't currently legal (yes - we're looking at you Just Eat) and they're trying to get ahead of a potential law suit.
-
I was thinking about electrically assisted cargo bikes. On the face of it, this more power sounds like a good idea for a laden cargo bike, but do we need to consider that heavier, electrically assisted (or in the case of a throttle, fully motorised) conveyances increase risk of serious injury to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users when it goes pear shaped ???
I dunno. I'm probably overthinking.
Also, interesting this consultation is the result of lobbying by delivery services. It would be most unlike the Government of the day to do something as a sheer kindness.
-
I was thinking about electrically assisted cargo bikes. On the face of it, this more power sounds like a good idea for a laden cargo bike, but do we need to consider that heavier, electrically assisted (or in the case of a throttle, fully motorised) conveyances increase risk of serious injury to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users when it goes pear shaped ???
I dunno. I'm probably overthinking.
Also, interesting this consultation is the result of lobbying by delivery services. It would be most unlike the Government of the day to do something as a sheer kindness.
I dunno, perhaps you don't have to contend with fully laden Ocado delivery bikes going 20mph the wrong way down narrow cycle paths. Just waiting for a serious injury or fatality...
-
I'm not convinced that this bit in the article is correct:
For example, some cyclists with disabilities find it easier to use e-bikes but are unable to pedal unassisted to the 4mph speed at which, under current laws, the electric motor starts up.
As I understand it the 4mph limit is the speed up to which the walk assist function can operate where pedalling is not necessary. Above 4mph you need to pedal to get electric assistance.
-
It would probably be useful to have separate regulations allowing more powerful motors for cargo bikes.
-
I was thinking about electrically assisted cargo bikes. On the face of it, this more power sounds like a good idea for a laden cargo bike, but do we need to consider that heavier, electrically assisted (or in the case of a throttle, fully motorised) conveyances increase risk of serious injury to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users when it goes pear shaped ???
I dunno. I'm probably overthinking.
Also, interesting this consultation is the result of lobbying by delivery services. It would be most unlike the Government of the day to do something as a sheer kindness.
I dunno, perhaps you don't have to contend with fully laden Ocado delivery bikes going 20mph the wrong way down narrow cycle paths. Just waiting for a serious injury or fatality...
Well that's my fear. As well as galvanising anti-cycling sentiment when there is a fatality or life altering injury.
-
I'm not convinced that this bit in the article is correct:
For example, some cyclists with disabilities find it easier to use e-bikes but are unable to pedal unassisted to the 4mph speed at which, under current laws, the electric motor starts up.
As I understand it the 4mph limit is the speed up to which the walk assist function can operate where pedalling is not necessary. Above 4mph you need to pedal to get electric assistance.
Yeah, it only needs to sense you pedalling to provide assistance, though I note barakta's Falco system does have a minimum forward speed threshold too (intended for use without a crank rotation sensor, in regions that permit it).
I'm strongly in favour of the move to provide hand-throttle operation, as this is a game-changer for some disabled people. As a road user, it matters to me not a jot whether e-cyclists are pedalling or running on motor power alone.
Similarly, I don't care about power rating. 500W is within the acceleration capabilities of a fit cyclist, and the speed limiting still applies, so all it does is make cargo-hauling more practical, and give a bit more thermal headroom for hill climbing.
What would be more interesting would be a 'speed pedelec' classification, which seems like it would be deeply unpopular with the government and gammonati.
-
Similarly, I don't care about power rating. 500W is within the acceleration capabilities of a fit cyclist, and the speed limiting still applies, so all it does is make cargo-hauling more practical, and give a bit more thermal headroom for hill climbing.
...until it gets derestricted - as we know a significant number will. In which case the 250W ebike will do maybe 20mph on the flat whereas the 500W one will do nearer 30mph.
-
Similarly, I don't care about power rating. 500W is within the acceleration capabilities of a fit cyclist,
For a few seconds at most for the majority. Possibly a minute or two if you race. Certainly not for sustained periods.
-
Power ratings are pretty meaningless anyway. The rules specify the maximum continuous rated power for 30 minutes. So the peak power could be a lot higher. The rated power could just be whatever sticker they put on the motor.
How can you actually measure it, unless you have a dynamometer?
-
Power ratings are pretty meaningless anyway. The rules specify the maximum continuous rated power for 30 minutes. So the peak power could be a lot higher. The rated power could just be whatever sticker they put on the motor.
How can you actually measure it, unless you have a dynamometer?
Volts * Amps is a decent approximation.
-
Power ratings are pretty meaningless anyway. The rules specify the maximum continuous rated power for 30 minutes. So the peak power could be a lot higher. The rated power could just be whatever sticker they put on the motor.
How can you actually measure it, unless you have a dynamometer?
Volts * Amps is a decent approximation.
That will tell you input power. The output will be bit less. Maybe 70-80% efficient?
Depends on what sort of motor, and where you are measuring it, does it include drivetrain losses etc.
-
I think the law relates to the motor's input power, not the power that reaches the wheel.
-
I'm strongly in favour of the move to provide hand-throttle operation, as this is a game-changer for some disabled people. As a road user, it matters to me not a jot whether e-cyclists are pedalling or running on motor power alone.
The biggest problem there is that's currently the difference between an electrically assisted bicycle and a motorised bicycle.
Electrification has clearly created a problematic area for ownership, sales and enforcement.
At least historically you knew if it was a moped/motorcycle because of the noise it made.
Maybe it should be based on an easily measurable metric.
Motor cuts out at 25kmh - Bike - "anyone" can use.
Motor doesn't cut out at 25kmh - Motorbike - insurance, lid, licence required
Although how plod can test out that when the mangled mess is being checked I dunnoh.
-
25kph is a stupid limit.
It's low enough that you are the slowest thing on the road (maybe some of those hire scooters are slower some of the time) and therefore every motorized vehicle (driver) wants to pass you in the worst possible way. It's high enough to scare anyone on the pavement. It's utterly useless if you are trying to get somewhere a middle distance away. Anyone who is fit can exceed the limit without the motor, assuming a suitable bicycle (which mostly excludes those with motors). So anyone in a rush, or who wants to travel between villages or something just breaks the law and derestrict it anyway.
The logical thing to do would be to create a category where you reduce conflicts with pedestrians by banning use on shared use paths, and allow a higher speed. Maybe you could even put the scooters into this category as well.
-
I very much doubt that most people can maintain over 25km/h for, say, a half hour journey.
-
I very much doubt that most people can maintain over 25km/h for, say, a half hour journey.
Agreed. E-assist would be enormously useful if you have a half hour journey to make and conditions would permit speeds above 25kph.
I'm assuming the 25kph limit is some kind of "safety" limit to prevent e-assist cyclists mowing down pedestrians and causing death and carnage on our pavements. (that's reserved for cars.) Which becomes absurd when you can momentarily exceed that with no e-assist and no problem. What is it about an e-assist bike that makes >25kph so much worse than a regular bike?
-
I very much doubt that most people can maintain over 25km/h for, say, a half hour journey.
Agreed
Audax min speeds would seem to bear that out, even for fit cyclists.
-
I very much doubt that most people can maintain over 25km/h for, say, a half hour journey.
Agreed. E-assist would be enormously useful if you have a half hour journey to make and conditions would permit speeds above 25kph.
I'm assuming the 25kph limit is some kind of "safety" limit to prevent e-assist cyclists mowing down pedestrians and causing death and carnage on our pavements. (that's reserved for cars.) Which becomes absurd when you can momentarily exceed that with no e-assist and no problem. What is it about an e-assist bike that makes >25kph so much worse than a regular bike?
For many of the cheaper ones, a vehicle that is a great deal heavier and has shittier brakes.
-
So it would seem to me that a vehicle which allows you to do 25km/h and keep it up for quite long periods with relatively little effort is actually going to make those middle-distance journeys much easier.
-
So it would seem to me that a vehicle which allows you to do 25km/h and keep it up for quite long periods with relatively little effort is actually going to make those middle-distance journeys much easier.
Agreed. To pick a number at random, 35kph would be better though, if there's no decrease in safety, right? You'd get to your destination faster, and motorists are less likely to be dicks around you.
Is there any published rationale for 25kph? I'd love to see it, but I suspect it's just a number plucked out of the air, and IMO it offers the worst of all worlds.
I'm not convinced by the idea that an eBSO is somehow more dangerous than a regular BSO (excepting the fire risk to the owner).
-
I'm assuming the 25kph limit is some kind of "safety" limit to prevent e-assist cyclists mowing down pedestrians and causing death and carnage on our pavements. (that's reserved for cars.) Which becomes absurd when you can momentarily exceed that with no e-assist and no problem. What is it about an e-assist bike that makes >25kph so much worse than a regular bike?
I walk my dog every day in a small park that has a crowded shared-use path through the middle of it. Most riders are sensible. Some whizz through at silly speeds for the conditions. 100% of them are on e-bikes that allow them to do it with zero effort, because it requires zero effort.
(Most of them are "respectable" adults, often cargo bike parents, not hooded teenagers or deliveroos. The worst one I see is a tricycle bakfiets with a tall rain hood that must have forward visibility on par with the worst wankpanzer)
-
Exactly my point - 25kph is rubbish in all circumstances. It's too fast to share with pedestrians, and too slow to share with cars (or to get places).
-
I'm assuming this is largely making the law reflect current reality. Certainly, in Brighton there's a lot of delivery bikes that require zero pedal effort.
I can well imagine that both delivery companies and the police would like the status quo legalised.
Sustained keeping up with the cars in an urban 20mph makes some sense. Except, if the most visible users are competing with taxis for considerate road user awards* and are also making money, then there'll be another round of calls for tax, licences, and registration.
Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk
-
Exactly my point - 25kph is rubbish in all circumstances. It's too fast to share with pedestrians, and too slow to share with cars (or to get places).
It's the right speed to share with most other people on bikes, wasn't that the point?
-
had a quick look, a moped/scooter is limited to 48kmh
if you derestrict it you have to preregister as a motorbike
considering also you are speed limited on a motorbike until you've passed your test,
It's all about theoretical skill levels isn't it.
anyone can hop on an assisted bicycle with no training, someone fit enough to ride faster than 25kmh has probably enough practice and experience to be able to control the bike at those speeds.
of course every single one of those levels of hike has a derestriction black market going on.
My as well just let everyone ride 1000cc super bikes.
Sent from my IV2201 using Tapatalk
-
^ along my line of thinking. Should we worry about people being able to.do.what they already can do on a motorscooter?
-
Similarly, I don't care about power rating. 500W is within the acceleration capabilities of a fit cyclist,
For a few seconds at most for the majority. Possibly a minute or two if you race. Certainly not for sustained periods.
Yeah, but it doesn't take long to reach 15mph at 500W on the flat, at which point the speed limiting takes over. It's equivalent to a fit rider giving it maximum beans to clear a junction ahead of the cars, or get started on a bastard hill, before settling to cruising speed.
-
Exactly my point - 25kph is rubbish in all circumstances. It's too fast to share with pedestrians, and too slow to share with cars (or to get places).
It's the right speed to share with most other people on bikes, wasn't that the point?
Exactly.
Ebikes are bicycles with electric assist. People are more than welcome to get a motorbike if they want to go at 20+mph.
Electric vehicles with a throttle are motor vehicles, and throttle controlled electric bicycles don't belong in cycles paths.
It's not surprising this is proposed by delivery riders, their entire industry is illegal: illegal bikes, ignoring every road and traffic regulation, illegal riders, illegal self employment.
-
Exactly my point - 25kph is rubbish in all circumstances. It's too fast to share with pedestrians, and too slow to share with cars (or to get places).
It's the right speed to share with most other people on bikes, wasn't that the point?
That's the first answer to why 25kph that makes sense - it's for them to work properly alongside bikes on dedicated bike infrastructure. :thumbsup: Awesome, for the Netherlands.
If we're changing the rules for the UK, can we change them to match UK infrastructure, which is almost entirely roads or shared (with pedestrians) paths? Making them more powerful, with the same legal 25kph limit is just going to encourage derestricting that limit.
-
Brommers are allowed on some fietspaden
which is interesting
Sent from my IV2201 using Tapatalk
-
As a cargo bike user, and a maintainer of two cargo bikes (I have a Kona e-ute and Mary has a Raleigh Stride 2 box bike, both equipped with kiddy seats).
We'd like more power, don't need more speed but until you've tried to get a 60 kilo cargo bike (before we get on) with child and shopping up a bastard hill like the ones around here without being run over i'm not sure you really understand the difference it would make.
-
Brommers are allowed on some fietspaden
which is interesting
Sent from my IV2201 using Tapatalk
Well, there is a special class of "brommers" that are restricted to 30 km/h (if I remember correctly) and they can use "fietspaden" (but Amsterdam has local laws to prevent this, Groningen where I live also does this on certain bike paths). All other mopeds should use the road unless the bike path is designated as a bike/moped path. Typically, this is along provincial roads (where cars can go 80+ km/h and don't expect to share the road with slow traffic).
-
I'm not convinced that this bit in the article is correct:
For example, some cyclists with disabilities find it easier to use e-bikes but are unable to pedal unassisted to the 4mph speed at which, under current laws, the electric motor starts up.
As I understand it the 4mph limit is the speed up to which the walk assist function can operate where pedalling is not necessary. Above 4mph you need to pedal to get electric assistance.
Not 100% correct. Under the existing legislation, e-bikes built before 1/1/2016 could have throttle only operation.
In addition, it's also possible for a bike manufacturer to apply for type approval as an L1e low powered moped, meaning you can then have throttle only operation. There are a couple of UK brands who have done this, Wisper Bikes being one of them: https://wisperbikes.com/full-throttle-option/#:~:text=How%20It%20Works,(250Watt%20Low%20Powered)%20Moped.
-
I find 25kph limit to be perfectly fine for our riding (we have an e-assist tandem) and I am against any moves to make high powered ebike more commonplace because pretty much all the ones I see used in cities are already too fast for crowded paths. Big and heavy bikes doing 25mph without pedalling have no place on cycling or shared use paths.
As folks have said, although 500W maybe just making the status quo legal, but it another high watermark from which to start from in de-regulating. (There are plenty of videos out there showing how to get your bike to go above 50mph by spending a little cash on amazon. )
I'm with Hubner on this.
-
It's not surprising this is proposed by delivery riders, their entire industry is illegal: illegal bikes, ignoring every road and traffic regulation, illegal riders, illegal self employment.
Has it? You mean the gig economy deliveroo riders and the like (Of which I'm one)? I don't think so, the providers don't care what bike you ride, most of the riders don't care what the regulations are and this proposal would have zero effect on this type of delivery.
-
For the between-villages commute, the speed pedelec seems like a good solution. 28mph, so not overly holding up traffic, power to carry loads etc. There may need to be some tweaks for disability use; I haven't looked closely at things like walk assist, throttle etc.
I've looked at them a few times, but really can't make them work for me as the law stands. I do about a ten mile commute, sometimes on a bicycle, sometimes on a motorbike, sometimes in a car. The car or motorbike are load carrying, bad weather or where I want to spend 20 minutes commuting rather than an hour (with changing and faffage at each end that's probably what it takes on a bicycle, about 35 minutes actually on the road). A standard e-bike wouldn't offer me much more than a bicycle, no increase in pace or luggage ability, less exercise. The motorbike gets me there quickly regardless of traffic, but without any exercise.
A speed pedelec would get me there faster than a bicycle, with the ability to haul more load, and get some exercise. Seems pretty perfect. Except that you need to register it as a moped, and wear a proper motorbike helmet, and find somewhere to mount a number plate (which is standard size, so going to get in the way and catch on things), and have a license, insurance and mot. At which point, you might as well save some cash and just get an electric motorbike, which is faster and easier to get road legal in the UK.
I'd like to see speed pedelecs be road legal, to be used like a bicycle (not a motorbike), but perhaps with more restrictions - only allowed on roads, not shared use paths, perhaps an older minimum age (17, like a moped?).
-
It's not surprising this is proposed by delivery riders, their entire industry is illegal: illegal bikes, ignoring every road and traffic regulation, illegal riders, illegal self employment.
Has it? You mean the gig economy deliveroo riders and the like (Of which I'm one)? I don't think so, the providers don't care what bike you ride, most of the riders don't care what the regulations are and this proposal would have zero effect on this type of delivery.
I read somewhere (might have been on road.cc) that this proposal is in response to requests from the delivery cos that supply bikes (or often trikes), like Zedify, as opposed to Deliveroo and such. May not be accurate of course.
-
Higher power e bikes will be less dangerous that the equivalent motorscooter or dirt bike as they will be significantly lighter.
-
Wheels for Wellbeing have a position statement: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_O1BRlGNBSsmIFcvSuyEaSZ2kesR69wk/view
Interesting that this refers only to the power limit, no mention of hand throttles.
-
And the consultation itself: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/smarter-regulation-proposed-changes-to-legislation-for-electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles
-
And the consultation itself: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/smarter-regulation-proposed-changes-to-legislation-for-electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles
Thankyou Kim. Veery eenteresting.
key phrase...
"The overriding rationale is to make EAPCs a more attractive and viable travel option for more people"
I get the feeling that "active travel" is being used as a trojan horse to benefit the likes of Ocado et al to distribute heavier loads. I'm not quite sure though how sitting at home on a keyboard and ordering stuff to be delivered by paid pedalling operatives counts as "active travel". However the discussion there is well-balanced.
"Stakeholder" count - 5
"active travel" count - 9
-
But even if it is for home delivery, is that necessarily a problem? More use of pedal powered delivery would seem better than more transit vans.
-
I read somewhere (might have been on road.cc) that this proposal is in response to requests from the delivery cos that supply bikes (or often trikes), like Zedify, as opposed to Deliveroo and such. May not be accurate of course.
That would make more sense, that isn't the industry that hubner describes.
-
Can't help wondering if 500W for 3 or more wheels would be a reasonable compromise. The oikery tend not to ride VTXen or Windcheetahs.
-
It's a daft proposal - as it will make shared use paths even more dangerous.
Far better, as stated by others, to simply have a higher limit only for proper cargo bikes.
-
It's not surprising this is proposed by delivery riders, their entire industry is illegal: illegal bikes, ignoring every road and traffic regulation, illegal riders, illegal self employment.
Has it? You mean the gig economy deliveroo riders and the like (Of which I'm one)? I don't think so, the providers don't care what bike you ride, most of the riders don't care what the regulations are and this proposal would have zero effect on this type of delivery.
I read somewhere (might have been on road.cc) that this proposal is in response to requests from the delivery cos that supply bikes (or often trikes), like Zedify, as opposed to Deliveroo and such. May not be accurate of course.
It's not Zedify and the like that are leading the charge on this - it's the likes of Just Eat and Deliveroo who are supplying and using bikes which are not currently legal (using some very shady legal reasoning).
The likes of Zedify are working within the law. They support the proposed changes because it will make their lives easier in the long run.
-
Just Eat and Deliveroo aren't supplying any bikes round here. But if they are elsewhere, good for them.
-
It's not Zedify and the like that are leading the charge on this - it's the likes of Just Eat and Deliveroo who are supplying and using bikes which are not currently legal (using some very shady legal reasoning).
I'm intrigued by that - what are they doing and what is their reasoning?
-
It's not Zedify and the like that are leading the charge on this - it's the likes of Just Eat and Deliveroo who are supplying and using bikes which are not currently legal (using some very shady legal reasoning).
Where is the evidence for that? I've already said why I think it highly unlikely.
The only bikes I know of being supplied, on lease or rent, by any of the apps are from Eskuta and Zoomo and the models they offer are 250W and fine for the job. Though I'm aware how many riders like to ride around on higher powered illegal bikes, my six years delivering experience makes me sceptical that a higher powered bike (With the same 25kph cut off) is going to make the job more profitable or efficient.
-
It's not Zedify and the like that are leading the charge on this - it's the likes of Just Eat and Deliveroo who are supplying and using bikes which are not currently legal (using some very shady legal reasoning).
Where is the evidence for that? I've already said why I think it highly unlikely.
The only bikes I know of being supplied, on lease or rent, by any of the apps are from Eskuta and Zoomo and the models they offer are 250W and fine for the job. Though I'm aware how many riders like to ride around on higher powered illegal bikes, my six years delivering experience makes me sceptical that a higher powered bike (With the same 25kph cut off) is going to make the job more profitable or efficient.
The Just Eat and Deliveroo branded bikes around here aren’t legal. They’re throttle controlled and don’t require the rider to pedal even at speeds in excess of 6kmh.
-
An excellent idea.
Very useful for cargo bikes, which will be essential for making sustainable last mile delivery.
While we're at it can we apply the same limits to cars. Max 500w power, and max 25kph speed.
J
-
It's not Zedify and the like that are leading the charge on this - it's the likes of Just Eat and Deliveroo who are supplying and using bikes which are not currently legal (using some very shady legal reasoning).
Where is the evidence for that? I've already said why I think it highly unlikely.
The only bikes I know of being supplied, on lease or rent, by any of the apps are from Eskuta and Zoomo and the models they offer are 250W and fine for the job. Though I'm aware how many riders like to ride around on higher powered illegal bikes, my six years delivering experience makes me sceptical that a higher powered bike (With the same 25kph cut off) is going to make the job more profitable or efficient.
The Just Eat and Deliveroo branded bikes around here aren’t legal. They’re throttle controlled and don’t require the rider to pedal even at speeds in excess of 6kmh.
https://extrahelpings.just-eat.co.uk/cost-effective-delivery-e-bikes
Gosh. I've never seen one of these – perhaps they're only offering them in certain places. They say
Just Eat has partnered with Eskuta to offer electric pedal bikes to Restaurant Partners at exclusively discounted rates.
which implies they're not offered to the actual riders directly. The manufacturer distinguishes one model as an EAPC and the other as a e-motorcycle, and the video for the EAPC shows pedalling. The presence of pedals rather than pegs is about the only thing that visually distinguishes the models. It would be not at all surprising if some "restaurant partners" were using the mopeds without registering them.
-
https://extrahelpings.just-eat.co.uk/cost-effective-delivery-e-bikes
Gosh. I've never seen one of these – perhaps they're only offering them in certain places. They say
Just Eat has partnered with Eskuta to offer electric pedal bikes to Restaurant Partners at exclusively discounted rates.
which implies they're not offered to the actual riders directly. The manufacturer distinguishes one model as an EAPC and the other as a e-motorcycle, and the video for the EAPC shows pedalling. The presence of pedals rather than pegs is about the only thing that visually distinguishes the models. It would be not at all surprising if some "restaurant partners" were using the mopeds without registering them.
I mentioned Eskuta upthread, riders can rent or lease them, the delivery apps facilitate this (In return for the branding) but the contract is between the cycle provider and the rider. Despite what Regulator thinks, the pedelecs are supplied conforming with EAPC requirements, though the "must have pedals that can be used to propel it" is vague enough to include ghost pedalling and of course how long they remain compliant is the same for any E-bike. The electric scooters are supplied DVLA registered.
Restaurant partners are something different to the gig economy, unlike the other apps, Just Eat can act solely as a booking service and leave the delivery to the restaurant.
-
Cycling UK's rebuttal of the proposals can be seen here:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/statement-proposed-changes-e-cycle-regulations
People want safer spaces to cycle, not faster ways to endanger other people.
-
Cycling UK's rebuttal of the proposals can be seen here:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/statement-proposed-changes-e-cycle-regulations
People want safer spaces to cycle, not faster ways to endanger other people.
For once I agree with Cycling UK.
-
The ship has already sailed on illegal e-bikes and there has been no attempt at enforcement.
I'm really not sure what they want to achieve by this other than court gammonati opinion which is what our local council tried when they consulted to ban bicycles from the pedestrian area of the town centre whilst ignoring the fact that the deliveroo, Just Eat, Door Dash etc. small car and motorbike users were* illegally driving / riding through the pedestrian areas at all hours. And not a word on the e-scooters ...
They dropped the plans because they did not want to stop the latter.
* Still are. 🤔
-
https://extrahelpings.just-eat.co.uk/cost-effective-delivery-e-bikes
Gosh. I've never seen one of these – perhaps they're only offering them in certain places. They say
Just Eat has partnered with Eskuta to offer electric pedal bikes to Restaurant Partners at exclusively discounted rates.
which implies they're not offered to the actual riders directly. The manufacturer distinguishes one model as an EAPC and the other as a e-motorcycle, and the video for the EAPC shows pedalling. The presence of pedals rather than pegs is about the only thing that visually distinguishes the models. It would be not at all surprising if some "restaurant partners" were using the mopeds without registering them.
I mentioned Eskuta upthread, riders can rent or lease them, the delivery apps facilitate this (In return for the branding) but the contract is between the cycle provider and the rider. Despite what Regulator thinks, the pedelecs are supplied conforming with EAPC requirements, though the "must have pedals that can be used to propel it" is vague enough to include ghost pedalling and of course how long they remain compliant is the same for any E-bike. The electric scooters are supplied DVLA registered.
Restaurant partners are something different to the gig economy, unlike the other apps, Just Eat can act solely as a booking service and leave the delivery to the restaurant.
You did mention them upthread, I can't remember now if that's how I found that link. I think it was just random googling. However, it's good to have a comment with knowledge. :thumbsup:
-
.....People want safer spaces to cycle, not faster ways to endanger other people.
That's an excellent encapsulation of the argument. It might be more correct to say reasonable people though.
In many ways the whole discussion is redundant. The regs are largely ignored and there's been no appetite/capability for enforcement. All that will happen is that the inevitable public outrage in response to the inevitable incidents will lead to more anti-cycling measures that will restrict the law abiding and be ignored by the scofflaws. What a stupid country we live in.
-
Cycling UK's rebuttal of the proposals can be seen here:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/news/statement-proposed-changes-e-cycle-regulations
People want safer spaces to cycle, not faster ways to endanger other people.
Agree with that part, but I think the health benefits of pedalling are a spurious argument. They wanted e-scooters restricted to a lower speed than e-bikes for the same reason. Cycling UK should be making it easier for people to cycle, not forcing them to do exercise.
Blurring the line between e-bikes and motorcycles is a more reasonable concern, and I'm wondering if that's where the government are heading with this (turn them into motorcycles, then quietly legislate them off the road like motorcycles). They're shirley not being lobbied by Big E-Bike.
-
..Blurring the line between e-bikes and motorcycles is a more reasonable concern, and I'm wondering if that's where the government are heading with this (turn them into motorcycles, then quietly legislate them off the road like motorcycles). They're shirley not being lobbied by Big E-Bike.
I'm a bit more cynical. They'll use the public outcry at the incidents that happen to turn them all into mopeds to speed up the traffic and then get acoustic bikes off the road 'cos they're too 'dangerous' now.
-
In addition to legislating motorcycles off the road, they've created economic conditions which mean we have more motorcycles than for many decades before. At one end, there are the scooters (just to be clear, I mean little Yamaha 125s etc not Tier or Pure) running the gig economy, at the other, there are wealthy retired or semi-retired men (occasionally women) reimagining their youth.
-
Back to EAPCs: I don't think it's part of any dastardly plot to force either pedal bikes or e-bikes off the road (or even off the trails), it's just another distraction, perhaps designed to keep some people busy in the run up to May (or is it now November?).