France new E-bike deristriction law 1 year in prison and a 30,000 Euro fine

[flecc]

You're right I stand corrected.

But there seem to be plenty of items that are illegal to import and presumably sell (and I stand to be corrected again) such as asbestos, food related items containing lead, unlicensed radio transmitters, certain plants, animals and drugs and many more

I tried using Google to find a list but this is the closest I could find

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524568/withdrawn_document_restricted-prohibited-goods.pdf

Yes there are import bans which by inference ban sales, but the primary barrier is the law against import, not sale.

For example, there is nothing to stop you in the UK buying a load of asbestos from a country that sells it and then selling it on to a country that has no ban, reaping a profit that you can enjoy in the UK with no law broken. Similar happens all the time.

In fact we have individuals and companies who grow cannabis elsewhere and sell it elsewhere, all legally.
.

 

[Deleted member 25121]

Yes there are import bans which by inference ban sales, but the primary barrier is the law against import, not sale.

For example, there is nothing to stop you in the UK buying a load of asbestos from a country that sells it and then selling it on to a country that has no ban, reaping a profit that you can enjoy in the UK with no law broken. Similar happens all the time.

In fact we have individuals and companies who grow cannabis elsewhere and sell it elsewhere, all legally.
.

But we're discussing possible restrictions on selling illegal ebikes in the UK, not overseas.

 

[flecc]

But we're discussing possible restrictions on selling illegal ebikes in the UK, not overseas.

Not restrictions, a ban, and I've shown that our custom is to only control usage, not to ban sales due to the complications it causes, and there is a precedent for this.

You may have seen my posts about the 1835 Highway Act that banned all and any form of motor vehicle. That no doubt seemed like a smart move at the time to control such things from entering road use, and we've kept it in force for that advantage.

But what a rod it's made for our own backs. Ever since then, every new type of motor vehicle entering the market has to have at least two new items of law drafted and passed by both Houses of Parliament.

On construction there has to be either new type approval law provision or an exemption from type approval, each highly detailed with what constitutes the vehicle type or the grounds for exemption.

There also has to be new law permitting the use of that specific vehicle type in order that it doesn't breach the 1835 act. And both have to be updated from time to time to accommodate technical and social developments.

You can see how complicated it can be to have a blanket ban on supply but then provide for all the legal exceptions. It's far easier to just control usage, so that is what parliament does.

Although I've given strong backing in an earlier post for having that French style law, I don't believe we'll get either since we have it all covered already. We just aren't enforcing the existing law, so there's no reason to believe we'd enforce a different one.
.

 

[MikelBikel]

Enjoying the interesting tangent things have gone off on (imho). But wasn't the gist of the thread about the ethicality of delimiting ebikes and/or the penalties accruing?

Is it time to drop in a line about why other vehicles are not limited to the posted max speed?
(stands back having lit blue touch paper ! )

 

[flecc]

Is it time to drop in a line about why other vehicles are not limited to the posted max speed?

No, because the drivers are tested and approved, insured to compensate for any harm, and are identifiable and traceable.

It's precisely because pedelec riders are not that the severe restrictions have to be applied to the vehicle.
.

 

[Charliefox]

Not restrictions, a ban, and I've shown that our custom is to only control usage, not to ban sales due to the complications it causes, and there is a precedent for this.

You may have seen my posts about the 1835 Highway Act that banned all and any form of motor vehicle. That no doubt seemed like a smart move at the time to control such things from entering road use, and we've kept it in force for that advantage.

But what a rod it's made for our own backs. Ever since then, every new type of motor vehicle entering the market has to have at least two new items of law drafted and passed by both Houses of Parliament.

On construction there has to be either new type approval law provision or an exemption from type approval, each highly detailed with what constitutes the vehicle type or the grounds for exemption.

There also has to be new law permitting the use of that specific vehicle type in order that it doesn't breach the 1835 act. And both have to be updated from time to time to accommodate technical and social developments.

You can see how complicated it can be to have a blanket ban on supply but then provide for all the legal exceptions. It's far easier to just control usage, so that is what parliament does.

Although I've given strong backing in an earlier post for having that French style law, I don't believe we'll get either since we have it all covered already. We just aren't enforcing the existing law, so there's no reason to believe we'd enforce a different one.
.

Why can the 1835 act not be repealed as was the corn law?

 

[flecc]

Why can the 1835 act not be repealed as was the corn law?

It's still too useful because it makes any new type appearing automatically illegal until it becomes approved in law. Breathing space for government while keeping the public safe.

In that way it enabled rapid action by the police to prevent Segways injuring pedestrians and control the menace of kids on mini-motos and quads. And now it's enabling prompt action against the powered pavement scooters which have already killed.

From the government's point of view, what's not to like?
.