That's right. The key phrase is "Reasonable grounds for suspicion of committing an offence". There have been various test cases that determined suspicious behaviour and non-co-operation is not enough. They has be some sort of evidence of an offence being committed. If you were observed going up a hill without pedalling, that would be enough, or if someone had reported that they'd seen 500w stamped on your motor, that would also be grounds for suspicion of an offence. Riding a bike with fat tyres and a deliveroo box on the back and wearing a black balaclava wouldn't be grounds for suspicion of an offence.
I'm not so sure you and I have the same view of what a policeman might say about his 'reasonable suspicion' if he were ever challenged by his superiors. If instructed to clear nuisance high powered delivery bikes off the streets in response to complaints, he can say anything he likes about what his reasonable suspicion was. He will know exactly what will pass the sniff test.
'Offences have been reported. I need to check your bike'.
He can in reality stop any, and every e-bike, and look at it, and speak to the owner.
If you asked him why he stopped you, he would likely say,
'We have had a lot of offences in this area and I thought your bike looked like I should take a look at it.'
He might refer to speed, or rate of pedalling. He might say he 'thought' he spotted a throttle on the bike when you were riding, so he stopped you. What matters is HIS view, or reported view of it in the moment when he made the decision to interact with you.
He does not have to be right. He need only show he thought he might have grounds. This is 'reasonable suspicion.'
If the bike is compliant - like in the video you posted a little while back, you will rapidly be on your way.
If it is non-compliant, identification details will be requested.
If the person being investigated on 'reasonable suspicion' or having committed an offence, declines to give their name and satisfy him that the name is correct - probably by showing id, he can, and likely will arrest them with all the pain in the behind that entails - dna - photograph in mug shot library, finger prints and the rest. On the other hand he might just decide it isn't worth the trouble to arrest. It will involve work for him. Or he could be out to make a name for himself.
Police have VERY wide powers AND they have a lot of discretion. Which is why I am always polite and forthcoming. They just let me go on my way, because I am not giving any signs of being a scrote, or trying to hide something. I have always been handled reasonably, because I am polite and reasonable with them. One of my sons when he was a student, aged about 18 got reported for drunk and disorderly purely because he took the sarcastic route and made a disparaging remark about the officers who were questioning him about why he was running down a street at 1 AM. Night in cells. Caution for D&D. Completely unnecessary. His own fault. He'd only had four pints of ale, but he was taking the pi ss.
Way back - circa 1971 I got away with riding a motorcycle with an expired mOT purely by being polite and plausible. I was stopped in Newcastle - no issue found, but was told to present my documents within a few days and given a piece of paper requiring that documents be presented within a certain period.
I went straight to an mot station and tried to get an mot. It failed on some minor thing. I put it right, but the MOT guy would not retest the bike until the next day and wouldn't date it one day earlier. I had a stop on one day and an mot starting the next. I presented the MOT down in London a couple of days later having ridden the C15 down the AI to uni.
The policeman noticed the discrepancy and stood up straight from leaning on the desk and he pointed it out. I just said that when stopped I was on my way to the mot test centre. I am sure he could have phoned up and asked the test centre whether I had an appointment, but he didn't bother, because I was polite and plausible.
I never rode without an mot again. Lesson learned by me. Everyone was satisfied.
This offence I just admitted to was 54 years ago. I doubt anyone would consider it worth taking action now.
