1-1-2016 Today's Change in the Law.

[flecc]

I'll start by saying the chances of being caught in consequence of any of the following are minimal. However, it's only right that everyone should be aware of the law as it applies to them.

From today, to be a bureacracy free pedelec (EAPC), any new electric assisted bike bought must have it's power actuated by pedal control when riding, throttles acting independently without pedal rotation are not permitted, except on pre-existing bikes with "grandfather rights".

Some pedelecs may have a walk-assist throttle fitted which can act up to 4 mph. Nothing in pedelec law permits that, it's only legal due to the Pedestrian Controlled Vehicle Regulations of 1963, which only permits pedestrian control. It follows that if one of these new pedelecs throttles is used while on board to take off without pedalling, the rider is guilty of riding an unregistered and uninsured motor vehicle. If they don't have a group Q, AM, P, A, A1 or A2 driving licence, they will be guilty of driving unlicenced too.

I stress that the chance of any police officer detecting and stopping anyone for that "take-off" usage is virtually zero. However, if you are aware of the law and if ever that did happen, you will know its best to act the innocent and not challenge the officer. They would then undoubtedly not bother to pursue the matter other than giving the relevant advice.
.

 

[Lancslass]

I bought my bike in December, before the law changed.

Nah nah na na nah!!

(And I carry a copy of my invoice in my rack bag to prove it)

 

[flecc]

I bought my bike in December, before the law changed.

Nah nah na na nah!!

Ah, but can a lady have grandfather rights?
.

 

[Kudoscycles]

As stated previously the new law is one of the most ambiguous documents I have ever read....the wording in connection with throttles is that grandfather rights are offered to any pedelec that has been 'used prior to the 1/1/2016.'
The key word is 'used'....all Kudos bikes are tested post manufacture...so any bikes built and tested prior to 31/12/2015 automatically attract grandfather rights....it only affects the Kudos Secret and Safari models.
Obviously any bikes assembled after that date will not qualify.
I have heard rumours that other suppliers have different interpretations of this deadline date re the new law.
So no panic,last years stocks that have been tested (used) will last for some time.
KudosDave

 

[mike killay]

It is not for the owner to prove that the bike has grandfather rights.
It is for the prosecution to prove that it does not.
Really, I cannot see this being enforced.
Exactly when is a bike not a bike?
If you repair an old bike with new wheels and saddle, does it remain an old bike?
Just how much of the original must remain?
Unlike motor vehicles which do not use the phrase 'First used' but 'first registered', it is almost impossible to date a bike.
Well a Chinese bike anyway.
Of course the Germans will have full and faultless records.

 

[flecc]

It is not for the owner to prove that the bike has grandfather rights.
It is for the prosecution to prove that it does not.
Really, I cannot see this being enforced.

It won't be enforced, it will just happen over time as it did in the mainland EU. Eventually there'll just be pedelecs left in use and the users won't even be aware of the possibility of having full throttles on them.
.

 

[Kudoscycles]

It probably won't be enforced but bike importers/suppliers have to abide by the law so that if the bike rider was unfortunate to have an accident which caused injury to himself or to a third party then the owner has the confidence that his bike with a 15 mph throttle is bicycle usage legal.
KudosDave

 

[jonathan75]

Flecc is spot on, being courteous to police is always a good idea.

Just at a moral level, of all the post-purchase modifications I can imagine, like hot-rodding the thing to hell, fitting a £2 hand-throttle to give dodgy knees a rest seems unbelievably neutral.

One to write to the MP about.

I believe the police may lack a statutory power to issue a penalty in respect of whatever offence this is so it would go to the CPS (wouldn't it?) who would then have to decide that it was in the public interest to prosecute. I find it hard to believe they'd want to enforce this - it's a very stupid law, which appears to provide negligible or no benefits to public safety, and plenty of capacity to cause harm.

 

[anotherkiwi]

Do you think that policemen have any idea about pedelec law? I can see them running off to the on board car computer to brush up on the texts here. I bet their first thought would be "anything that has a motor is a moped and needs registration, helmet, etc..."

 

[Lancslass]

I believe the police may lack a statutory power to issue a penalty in respect of whatever offence this is so it would go to the CPS (wouldn't it?) who would then have to decide that it was in the public interest to prosecute. I find it hard to believe they'd want to enforce this - it's a very stupid law, which appears to provide negligible or no benefits to public safety, and plenty of capacity to cause harm.

Unfortunately there is plenty of evidence (no pun in intended) that the CPS don't generally judge whether the law is an ass, rather than whether the law, however stupid it may seem, has been broken. I'm sure that there would be instances where they would pursue the case. You may end up with just a caution, but would you really want that on your record?
I have far more doubts about whether someone would be stopped by the Police however. I think that they have far more pressing matters to deal with than stopping cyclists to check the legalities of their throttles. I also doubt that it will be a law well known by the Police.
Insurance companies are another matter however! They have all day to pick holes in an insurance claim and it's there where cyclists flouting the law could come unstuck in my humble opinion. Knock down a pedestrian and woe betide if you have an illegal throttle on your bike. You could then be facing a claim which any bike or liability insurance that you hold will not cover.
Worst case scenario, I know, but that would be my fear.

 

[SRS]

Presumably it is still legal to but these throttles and they will not be required to carry any legal notice.

Would it not be possible to have a throttle classified as a disabled aid? Thereby allowing some to regain the lost benefit.

 

[flecc]

Would it not be possible to have a throttle classified as a disabled aid? Thereby allowing some to regain the lost benefit.

Not as the law stands, but I think there might just be a case for there to be a class of e-bike classified for the partially disabled.

There is a snag though, the existing Low Powered Moped class, now becoming class L1e-A could be considered as ideal for that purpose, since it is an e-bike based class and allows 1000 watts, so even more ideal. Of course that means registration and insurance, but that's not a legitimate objection since many other disability vehicles also have to be registered.
.

 

[flecc]

Do you think that policemen have any idea about pedelec law?..."

A few do for three reasons. First there's the odd traffic officer who has brushed up on the law following an accident involving a pedelec, I know of two in my general area. Second are the officers who have ridden or still ride pedelecs since their forces used/still use them, That's quite a few forces in the UK. Third are our police officer members who are pedelec riders and see all these posts. There's been at least three of those I've known of during the life of the forum, so there's probably more undeclared.
.

 

[SRS]

Not as the law stands, but I think there might just be a case for there to be a class of e-bike classified for the partially disabled.

There is a snag though, the existing Low Powered Moped class, now becoming class L1e-A could be considered as ideal for that purpose, since it is an e-bike based class and allows 1000 watts, so even more ideal. Of course that means registration and insurance, but that's not a legitimate objection since many other disability vehicles also have to be registered.
.

I was thinking more on the lines of some sort of dispesation scheme for orange badge or medical certificate holders.
I'd like to think that if or when I'm unable to pedal far that something as seemingly simple as above would have been implemented.

 

[Lancslass]

A few do for three reasons. First there's the odd traffic officer who has brushed up on the law following an accident involving a pedelec, I know of two in my general area. Second are the officers who have ridden or still ride pedelecs since their forces used/still use them, That's quite a few forces in the UK. Third are our police officer members who are pedelec riders and see all these posts. There's been at least three of those I've known of during the life of the forum, so there's probably more undeclared.

.

Blimey Flecc, I hate some people because that's a good point, well made!
OK so that's insurance people and policemen that we have to worry about...

 

[Lancslass]

By the way, my comments about the Police probably not being aware of the throttle law was not meant to be in any way disparaging. I have great respect for our boys in blue.

 

[flecc]

I was thinking more on the lines of some sort of dispesation scheme for orange badge or medical certificate holders.
I'd like to think that if or when I'm unable to pedal far that something as seemingly simple as above would have been implemented.

I'm not sure it could be quite that easy due to the conflicts with at least two laws and the nature of those laws. However, since cars for use by the disabled can be modified to suit the user in ways that almost certainly conflict with the Construction and Use regulations, there must be a way under disability laws.
.

 

[SRS]

I'm not sure it could be quite that easy due to the conflicts with at least two laws and the nature of those laws. However, since cars for use by the disabled can be modified to suit the user in ways that almost certainly conflict with the Construction and Use regulations, there must be a way under disability laws.
.

There must be.

 

[flecc]

There must be.

Of course even if done, it wouldn't satisfy all. Some members object to any provision that only applies to registered disabled, feeling it should include all who have a more minor need.

It would be difficult to administer that, I can only think of a Doctor's Certificate method which would be very loose. There's already a similar and controversial provision for those who for psychological reasons cannot bear being held in by a car seat belt, but that doesn't appear to work well.
.

 

[SRS]

Of course even if done, it wouldn't satisfy all. Some members object to any provision that only applies to registered disabled, feeling it should include all who have a more minor need.

It would be difficult to administer that, I can only think of a Doctor's Certificate method which would be very loose. There's already a similar and controversial provision for those who for psychological reasons cannot bear being held in by a car seat belt, but that doesn't appear to work well.
.

You cannot please everybody and never will and why should we.

There are people out there that may well hang up their cycling gloves without the comfort of a throttle. The throttle being potentially their only way to get home should they be struggling physically.

Its a sorry state of affairs and this new law is a step backwards as far as I am concerned.

I suggest that we grant badge holders and all over 65 the use of throttles.

PS: i am neither of the above but will be one day.