Ministers to consult on doubling legal wattage of electric bike motors

[Afasoas]

Guardian article

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?

[DuncanM]

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.

[Regulator]

Guardian article

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.

[Afasoas]

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.

[peter simplex]

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...

[JonBuoy]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It would probably be useful to have separate regulations allowing more powerful motors for cargo bikes.

[Afasoas]

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.

[Kim]

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.

[JonBuoy]

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.

[Lightning Phil]

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.

[lissotriton]

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?

[JonBuoy]

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.

[lissotriton]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think the law relates to the motor's input power, not the power that reaches the wheel.

[FifeingEejit]

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.

[DuncanM]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I very much doubt that most people can maintain over 25km/h for, say, a half hour journey.

[DuncanM]

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?

[mrcharly-YHT]

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.

[mrcharly-YHT]

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.

[Cudzoziemiec]

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.

[DuncanM]

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).

[grams]

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)

[DuncanM]

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).