My bike conforms to EN15194

[103Alex1]

I'm not too worried by this because as Jeremy has said, the DfT have given assurances that they would not support a prosecution.

Surely it is down to the CPS rather than the DfT ? Where are these written assurances and how much reliance can be placed on them ?

I can see the headlines now .... "Britain's procrastination over fulfilling its duties to incorporate EN15194 into legislation risks criminalizing a generation of pensioners".

Where's Panorama when you need them ?

 

[Old_Dave]

I hear what your saying Alex... But

How is it our illustrious governments fault that importers / sellers / users assumed incorrectly as to what's law and what's not ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jeremy]

Surely it is down to the CPS rather than the DfT ? Where are these written assurances and how much reliance can be placed on them ?

I can see the headlines now .... "Britain's procrastination over fulfilling its duties to incorporate EN15194 into legislation risks criminalizing a generation of pensioners".

Where's Panorama when you need them ?

You're right. In practice the DfT have no means of directing the judiciary or influencing the CPS. The only practical thing they can do is limit the probability of a case being handed to the CPS for action, by making it clear to the Home Office (and hence the police) that they accept that there is an anomaly in the law that they haven't got around to resolving yet.

Should something happen that has to go the CPS, then the DfT can't do anything to prevent a prosecution going ahead.

 

[103Alex1]

I hear what your saying Alex... But

How is it our illustrious governments fault that importers / sellers / users assumed incorrectly as to what's law and what's not ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. They have made the law so difficult to navigate through that it has taken a virtual detective job on this forum to expose the actual status quo in a way that any user can understand (and it seems some importers)

2. UK government is obliged to enact EN15194 into domestic legislation so as to give it effect. It has chosen to procrastinate for YEARS and at present is in default. That's how I see it anyway. However, the risk of going ahead and following what EN15194 permits (and UK govt is bound to also allow) rather than wait an unreasonable amount of time is laid at the door of users / sellers. The blame is with the procrastinators i.e. the Government being the only party within whose power it lies to effect compliance.

I should imagine that if anyone does wind up fined or in jug for riding their BH Neo on a public highway without a licence, insurance or a helmet the case will end up in the European Courts and will trigger UK to get its house in order. Any volunteers with time on their hands ?

 

[flecc]

Surely it is down to the CPS rather than the DfT ? Where are these written assurances and how much reliance can be placed on them ?

Yes, it is more a matter for the CPS, but anyone charged can then apply to the DfT for their support, the hoop to jump though that I mentioned. An approach to BEBA could be one route to do that. There is precedent for the DfT to step in a similar e-bike respect, but of course all this presumes that someone knows of this issue. Anyone not aware of this forum probably will not be and could successfully be prosecuted and penalised, but I think the authorities hope is that the likelyhood of this actually happening is so slight it can be ignored for the present.

Reference my previous post, I'm not defending the authorities and feel as you do, but am just stating some of the reasons for what happens. The reluctance to issue an exemption may be due to the tangle of related law that exists, since any exemption might have unforeseen consequences if any one of those is not considered in it's wording. For example, we've been speaking of the 1983 EAPC regulations, plus EN15194 and the EU EPAC regulations, but there's also the effect of the EU type approval regulation 2002/EC/24 and Road Traffic Acts like that of 1988 that mention e-bikes, plus some construction and use regulations likewise. It's no doubt this sort of tangle that helps to make for such a delay in bringing in the new regulations, not helped by a steady flow of threatened or possible changes in the EU regulations.

As said not excuses, just reasons.
.

 

[RoadieRoger]

Jeremy I`m out of the job of updating BS`s and EN`s now, but I am surprised that BS 1727: 1971 hasn`t been withdrawn by now and superceded by an EN . It must be 200 Watt as there`s more fizz in a bottle of pop !

 

[Jeremy]

Jeremy I`m out of the job of updating BS`s and EN`s now, but I am surprised that BS 1727: 1971 hasn`t been withdrawn by now and superceded by an EN . It must be 200 Watt as there`s more fizz in a bottle of pop !

It has been superseded, but unfortunately the DfT have never got around to updating the law, so the statute still specifically refers to the "1971 British Standard". Crazy, but true. One consequence is that I doubt there's a test house in the country that's actually still accredited to test a motor to this old standard, plus it has no clear way of dealing with a BLDC motor and controller.

 

[OxygenJames]

Has anybody read Kafka's 'The trial'? - this whole thread reminds me of that book.

 

[Old_Dave]

1. They have made the law so difficult to navigate through that it has taken a virtual detective job on this forum to expose the actual status quo in a way that any user can understand (and it seems some importers)

2. UK government is obliged to enact EN15194 into domestic legislation so as to give it effect. It has chosen to procrastinate for YEARS and at present is in default. That's how I see it anyway. However, the risk of going ahead and following what EN15194 permits (and UK govt is bound to also allow) rather than wait an unreasonable amount of time is laid at the door of users / sellers. The blame is with the procrastinators i.e. the Government being the only party within whose power it lies to effect compliance.

I should imagine that if anyone does wind up fined or in jug for riding their BH Neo on a public highway without a licence, insurance or a helmet the case will end up in the European Courts and will trigger UK to get its house in order. Any volunteers with time on their hands ?

1. Law has always been a minefield for the common man, so I can't agree with that.

2. Yep, 100% with you on that

Errrrrrrrrrrrr I'm a bit short of time at the moment

 

[103Alex1]

1. Law has always been a minefield for the common man, so I can't agree with that.

Yet ignorance of it is no defence in criminal matters.... and a situation persists where the government has left the door open to criminalize its citizens for riding a bicycle which is legal under EU law that UK undertook to adopt and remove conflicting legislation by 2003 and has failed to do so. It has hiden behind the confusing minefield of its own creation and which results on account of its own illegal actions - and which common practice has simply brushed over and disregarded with the silent turn of a blind eye. No ordinary man could reasonably be expected to either abide by the letter of a British Law that is itself illegal or to be punished as a result of breaching same. That goes for dealers selling bikes and buyers buying them. Once again a British government has failed its citizens and left fear of prosecution to buy their silence. It is behaviour which whether resulting from negligence or design (it matters not in the eyes of a judge where determination of fault is in point) can only be viewed with disbelief and contempt.

 

[Old_Dave]

Ok... You've got me, I'll do a U turn

Whilst law is a minefield there was no need for them to add missiles, lol

 

[RoadieRoger]

I`m pretty sure EU Law trumps British Law so we have nothing to fear, even if you are facing deportation .

 

[103Alex1]

^^ only possible bankruptcy paying a pack of liers (sorry ... LAWYERS) to argue the point

 

[Jeremy]

I`m pretty sure EU Law trumps British Law so we have nothing to fear, even if you are facing deportation .

EU regulations aren't law until the member state makes them so, though. In this case the member state (the UK) failed to make them law back in 2003, so the situation is that Statute Law (the 1983 EAPC and Construction and Use Regulations) trump the EU regulation.

 

[flecc]

I`m pretty sure EU Law trumps British Law so we have nothing to fear, even if you are facing deportation .

It does in almost all transport matters, and has done so since the original Treaty of Rome. This is simply because a borderless Europe necessitates a common law for all vehicles, since they cross country boundaries within journeys.

 

[Old_Dave]

^^ only possible bankruptcy paying a pack of liers (sorry ... LAWYERS) to argue the point

I think that it was Lord Denning that said

"in the dictionary for example the word barrister comes directly after bankrupt and just before bastard"

 

[10mph]

Demo of 1983 EAPC Regulations Compliance <200 watts

EU regulations aren't law until the member state makes them so, though. In this case the member state (the UK) failed to make them law back in 2003, so the situation is that Statute Law (the 1983 EAPC and Construction and Use Regulations) trump the EU regulation.

The regulations are neatly summarised on the current DfT web site.

EAPC requirements

The requirements are:

• the bike must have pedals that can be used to propel it
• the electric motor shouldn’t be able to propel the bike when it’s travelling more than 15mph
• the bike (including its battery but not the rider) must not be heavier than 40 kilograms (kg) if it’s a bicycle, or 60kg if it’s a tandem or tricycle
• the motor shouldn’t have a maximum power output of more than 200 watts if it’s a bicycle and 250 watts if it’s a tandem or tricycle
• the bike must have a plate showing the manufacturer, the nominal voltage of the battery, and the motor’s power output

I have now tested a method of making my bike compliant with the 200 watt requirement. On power up the bike comes on in Mid Mode. By fixing a cover over the two mode change buttons (permanently held in place by means of glue or by other means) the operator no longer has access to either the High or Low power Modes.

I have not got a current meter in place at the moment, but based on previous experience and also on observations of the battery voltage drop when pedaling hard against a high resistance, I am pretty sure that the maximum power in Mid is around 60% of the power in High. By this means I should be comfortably bringing the En15194 tested 250 watts below the 1983 EAPC's 200 watts.

It is a pity that I shall lose access to the Low mode, but the range of the bike is so good that I can live with Mid mode. I will just get a bit less exercise. I shall miss the High mode which is so useful for the very steepest of hills, but nearly everything I encounter can be done slowly with Mid assist. I just have to accept this in order to assure full legality.

Oh, yes, I will also need to get a plate made up giving voltage and power.

 

[jackhandy]

Oh dear, oh dear......

That Dft extract appears to say the motor must have MAXIMUM power output of 200/250 watts.

Not what's wanted at all, that!

 

[flecc]

Oh, yes, I will also need to get a plate made up giving voltage and power.

And bike total weight, all three are necessary on the plate, which should be mounted on the bike in a clearly visible position.

I suppose instead of making these modifications you could have added an outrigger wheel to nominally make it a tricycle, and thus 250 watt legal.
.

 

[Jeremy]

The regulations are neatly summarised on the current DfT web site.

We're now going back around a loop that was discussed pretty thoroughly in the other thread.

The DfT precis of the law quoted above is very general and is non specific about the detail that's within the actual statutes. It's not untrue, it just glosses over the critical definition of power in the UK law. To be legal you need to define the motor power output (that is the mechanical output power at the motor shaft) according to the procedure in an old British Standard, BS1727:1971.

I have now tested a method of making my bike compliant with the 200 watt requirement. On power up the bike comes on in Mid Mode. By fixing a cover over the two mode change buttons (permanently held in place by means of glue or by other means) the operator no longer has access to either the High or Low power Modes.

I have not got a current meter in place at the moment, but based on previous experience and also on observations of the battery voltage drop when pedaling hard against a high resistance, I am pretty sure that the maximum power in Mid is around 60% of the power in High. By this means I should be comfortably bringing the En15194 tested 250 watts below the 1983 EAPC's 200 watts.

It is a pity that I shall lose access to the Low mode, but the range of the bike is so good that I can live with Mid mode. I will just get a bit less exercise. I shall miss the High mode which is so useful for the very steepest of hills, but nearly everything I encounter can be done slowly with Mid assist. I just have to accept this in order to assure full legality.

Oh, yes, I will also need to get a plate made up giving voltage and power.

This isn't legal, unfortunately, as the law is very clear. If you read the 1983 EAPC regs, then the power that is stated by the manufacturer on the mandatory data plate fixed to the bike has to be determined using the method within BS1727:1971.

If you use any other arbitrary method of defining the "continuous rated output", or of defining the "nominal voltage" other than the method given in the British Standard then the ebike still does not comply with the law.

Unlike the EU regulations, where there is considerable latitude in the way that compliance can be demonstrated, the UK regulations are very specific, and tie down the motor continuous output power and battery nominal voltage measured to one, rather old, specific method. What's more, it is not a method that easily lends itself to defining the output power of a brushless motor, as it assumes a brushed motor by default.

Furthermore, that label could get you into trouble on its own, as it is stating something that isn't true or correct. Far better to take it off, I would suggest.

Finally, as you are not the manufacturer, you have no authority under the EAPC regulations to add a data plate to the bike, either!