is this a silly question?

[indalo]

Trying to understand the legislation pertaining to what constitutes public highway, the meaning of right of way and so on is extremely complex. There are legal definitions which vary, one to another, for the many types of paths, lanes, bridleways and so on which exist as jbond has described.

There's a useful, if considerably abbreviated, explanation from Suffolk Police online about such matters. I shouldn't think one is ever likely to be prosecuted for simply riding a bike in the wrong place however, if one is reckless and endangers other people or animals, that may well be a different story regardless whether on public or private land.

Hope the link works,
Indalo

Motor Vehicles On Public Rights Of Way

 

[flecc]

It is interesting though how ebikes are restricted to assistance up to 15.5mph, (I thought it was 15), when anyone can ride them or any bike much faster

That the law is silly is probably underlined by the 15.5 limit, when most off-road buttons only up the speed to about 18 mph! Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere, but it doesn't seem particularly useful to draw it there.

Assistance is naturally only thought necessary for the average utility cyclist, not for the 20 mph obviously fit sport cyclist, so the assist limit relates to the average utility cyclist who typically cycles at around 10 to 14 mph as we all know when we pass them. The assist limit set now at 25 kph (15.5 mph) is quite generous therefore, it used to be only 12 mph up until 1988 in the UK until we came into line with the EU's more liberal limit.

Usually at this point someone tries to convince me that a typical cycling speed is 20 mph. No it's not, only the lycra brigade and a few other drop handlbar types do that, and they are the ones who don't need assistance.

Basically power-assist permission is a concession for our convenience and as such it's quite generous as it is, with it's relative freedom from legal restriction and bureaucracy.
.

 

[z0mb13e]

I'm going to muddy the waters a little bit now...

My Whisper is a little over a year and a half old now and will now only assist up to 15.5mph with the off road button switched on (without throttle - I think the standard mode only manages about 12 or 13 mph without throttle and 15ish with). For the first few miles the throttle would push the speed up to about 18mph (if used). After about 8 miles the speed drops to between 12 and 14mph and adding throttle will take the speed up to about 16, maybe 17mph.

I remember a thread about a Kalkhof that ran over the limit on a fresh battery, though only for the first few miles.

How do you think the law would view that?

 

[Trex 850]

I'm going to muddy the waters a little bit now...

My Whisper is a little over a year and a half old now and will now only assist up to 15.5mph with the off road button switched on (without throttle - I think the standard mode only manages about 12 or 13 mph without throttle and 15ish with). For the first few miles the throttle would push the speed up to about 18mph (if used). After about 8 miles the speed drops to between 12 and 14mph and adding throttle will take the speed up to about 16, maybe 17mph.

I remember a thread about a Kalkhof that ran over the limit on a fresh battery, though only for the first few miles.

How do you think the law would view that?

Am I right that to prove your bike was breaking the law, ie: going over the limit of 15.5mph,, they would have to show that your machine is capable of more than 15mph??
How would they do this?
Are they within their rights to confiscate your bike and test it and would a prosecution result from this ?

 

[Xcytronex]

Am I right that to prove your bike was breaking the law, ie: going over the limit of 15.5mph,, they would have to show that your machine is capable of more than 15mph??
How would they do this?
Are they within their rights to confiscate your bike and test it and would a prosecution result from this ?

Who cares ??
They'll never catch me once I top out at 23mph !! Eat illegal tyre tread coppers !!!! Ha Ha Ha !!! [twirls moustache menacingly]

 

[Bob_about]

I think I`m legal!!!

I have fitted a switch to my Ezee to restrict / de-restrict it.

This switch is located within a section of inner tube (for waterproofing obviously, although curiously this plus the position makes it almost invisible unless you know its there) and mounted on the frame with cable ties behind the battery, a little way above the controller. I cannot operate the switch while riding the bike.

I am therefore assuming from the posts on this thread that when set to restricted mode the bike is legal - it wont go above 15.5mph and cannot be made to do so while riding the bike.

Obviously I would only switch it to the other mode whilst on the private roads within my extensive country estate! When I do I find the bike capable of assist to 20-21mph, a speed which can be maintained for approaching 20 miles in a morning, and at the same speed for the same distance later in the day with no charge.

I do have two batteries wired in parallel which explains part of it, but an unrestricted Ezee in my experience manages a bit more than 17 or 18mph.

Does it make a difference? Yes - over the distance I travel and the character of the roads I have it means an unrestricted commute can be completed in just under 60 minutes - a totally legal commute is around 1 hour 20 - saves 40 minutes a day (theoretically of course)

Loving the onset of Spring round here and the country lanes

All the best

Bob_about

 

[allen-uk]

I know there have been some instances where the police have stopped misbehaving youngsters on ebikes and checked that they weren't in fact mopeds so didn't need helmets/insurance/licences etc....

But have there EVER been any prosecutions in the UK of adults for ebike offences, like having an off-road button fitted, or an over-sized motor, or the like?

Allen.

 

[flecc]

There were a couple of prosecutions concerning bikes over the 200 Watts limit according to one post in here, but I've had it hinted from another source that they were in the Channel Islands and possibly as a result of a tip-off. I've no evidence of any of this being true, but I suppose someone could be vindictive and report an illegal user to a receptive PC.
.

 

[flecc]

Am I right that to prove your bike was breaking the law, ie: going over the limit of 15.5mph,, they would have to show that your machine is capable of more than 15mph??
How would they do this?
Are they within their rights to confiscate your bike and test it and would a prosecution result from this ?

Yes, they can confiscate anything they suspect is an uninsured motor vehicle.

The motor vehicle branch of the police force involved would carry out the test, probably by riding and using a hand-held radar speed gun on it, a method which has been accepted by the courts.

But as Allen has said, there's almost no chance this would happen, and certainly not for the speeds in zombie's case. About the only slight chance of detection is if you were involved in a serious accident which resulted in the death or life threatening injury of a third party and there was a witness allegation of high speed involvement.
.

 

[Jeanette Morgan]

The Police would certainly test the bike and would then find it had been de-restricted, which would be against the Law. It's all very well making such a modification but in the event of any kind of accident, incident or death, any insurance cover, including a life policy, would not pay out, regardless of the speed the bike was ridden at at the time.

The Police have their own inspectors, or send it out to an "expert" and yes they would ride the bike to test the speed. I know this to be a fact as they did a very thorough inspection of my Husband's Ezee Sprint, when he became ill on his bike and fell onto the road. They wrote in their report that they had ridden the bike, and at what speed the motor cut out. Fortunately all was in order, and I was pleased to read in the report that they noted the bike had been properly maintained !

 

[allen-uk]

That's an interesting point, Jeanette. I hope your husband has recovered from his accident.

Not sure of the set-up on Ezee Sprint, but Laura's original point was about the handle-bar mounted switches that many companies fit and call 'off-road' buttons. Thus, the bike itself is not 'derestricted', but the user has the option of throwing the switch and temporarily increasing the power so that the bike zooms away from 15.5 to 18 mph (mild sarcasm), and apparently it is the mere possession of this button that puts the bike outside the law.

I can see that an insurance company assessor would certainly jump on this illegal button in order to help his company wriggle out of paying on a policy, though.

Allen

 

[Trex 850]

That's an interesting point, Jeanette. I hope your husband has recovered from his accident.

Not sure of the set-up on Ezee Sprint, but Laura's original point was about the handle-bar mounted switches that many companies fit and call 'off-road' buttons. Thus, the bike itself is not 'derestricted', but the user has the option of throwing the switch and temporarily increasing the power so that the bike zooms away from 15.5 to 18 mph (mild sarcasm), and apparently it is the mere possession of this button that puts the bike outside the law.

I can see that an insurance company assessor would certainly jump on this illegal button in order to help his company wriggle out of paying on a policy, though.

Allen

Ok then, if 15mph is the maximum what the law allows, would it be possible to get a bike to accelerate to the maximum speed in less time??
My own bike takes around 14 secs to get there and getting away from the lights sharpish would be an advantage !!!
I assume it would boil down to the weight of the bike ,the riders weight, rear or front hub drive,etc,,,

 

[allen-uk]

Definitely one for flecc, Trex. I have a hunch that it would require a massive motor, so far over the legal limit that it WOULD draw the attention of The Man.

A

 

[flecc]

Ok then, if 15mph is the maximum what the law allows, would it be possible to get a bike to accelerate to the maximum speed in less time??
My own bike takes around 14 secs to get there and getting away from the lights sharpish would be an advantage !!!
I assume it would boil down to the weight of the bike ,the riders weight, rear or front hub drive,etc,,,

I don't know what bike you have, but most will do that in far less time. My eZee Quando does it so fast with just two or three pedal strokes at the beginning it's not really possible to time it accurately, but that's partly down to the mechanical advantage that 20" wheels give.

It's not so good off the mark initially though, hence those initial pedal strokes, the best system for that is the Panasonic one that many e-bikes fit. On that a strong thrust on a pedal gets instant reaction through the torque sensor with maximum power applied, but that only holds to just over 9 mph when the power phase down starts gradually coming in. The drive through the gears system helps that of course, since the motor is using a lower gear to accelerate with.

So that's the choice, one of the more powerful legal hub motors to get all the way to 15 mph quickly, or a crank drive to get off the mark initially at the fastest rate.

I have to bring in the EU legislation at this point, since it will be fully adopted soon. That requires the power to phase down before reaching 25 kph (15.5 mph), and many pedelec bikes like those with the Panasonic system already comply with that. That rules out the last few mph to 15 being done quickly.

Also e-bikes are power assist systems, not powered vehicles, you need to do your bit for them to achieve their best.
.

 

[jbond]

The Police would certainly test the bike and would then find it had been de-restricted, which would be against the Law. It's all very well making such a modification but in the event of any kind of accident, incident or death, any insurance cover, including a life policy, would not pay out, regardless of the speed the bike was ridden at at the time.

The Police have their own inspectors, or send it out to an "expert" and yes they would ride the bike to test the speed. I know this to be a fact as they did a very thorough inspection of my Husband's Ezee Sprint, when he became ill on his bike and fell onto the road. They wrote in their report that they had ridden the bike, and at what speed the motor cut out. Fortunately all was in order, and I was pleased to read in the report that they noted the bike had been properly maintained !

I have to say I'm surprised that the Police went to such lengths. They must have been bored that day.

There's enough vagueness in the UK regs vs the EU regs vs the testing procedure as outlined in the French document that I think there would be plenty of wriggle room for both sides in any court case. It's really not as simple as just riding the bike and judging when the motor cuts out against a calibrated speedometer or radar gun. Or lifting the rear wheel and testing it's no-load speed. If it involved a Panasonic style system, even more so.

While we're on confusing regs that are hard to verify, the motorcycle world is just as bad. 50cc, 125cc, 2 year restricted 25Kw are all hard to test, verify and prove. Especially that last one. There's a *lot* of kids who spend those 2 years on bikes that are illegal but either have a piece of paper saying they've been restricted or don't bother with that either. There's also a fair number of kids on L plates on 125cc machines that have been tuned or de-restricted. I've only ever heard of a single case where any of this has been tested and that was a 16 year old on a 50cc moped clocked at 35mph. He actually got off because he was cautioned and self-incriminated without an adult present! As far as the 25Kw restriction, the DVLC, Police, Insurance companies all seem to be totally un-interested.

 

[morphix]

i didn't mean driving the car at 120mph, i just meant all cars on the road are capable of doing such speeds. but they are perfectly legal to drive. I'm just curious

Laura makes an excellent point and something I've always wondered about too.. I find it somewhat hypocritical to try and regulate and restrict bikes that pose far less danger to the public and road users, than speeding in cars does.

Why doesn't the government force car manufacturers to restrict cars engines so they can't exceed the legal speed limit?

 

[flecc]

I have to say I'm surprised that the Police went to such lengths.

Tragically, Jeanette's husband's sudden illness onset causing him to fall from his bike while riding was fatal, hence Jeanette's long absence from the forum before taking up e-biking again in Richard's memory.

All of our sincere condolences were expressed at that time so I think it might be painful for Jeanette for them to be repeated now.

The police take every accident with a fatality linked to it in any way with the utmost seriousness of course and check everything.
.

 

[flecc]

Laura makes an excellent point and something I've always wondered about too.. I find it somewhat hypocritical to try and regulate and restrict bikes that pose far less danger to the public and road users, than speeding in cars does.

Why doesn't the government force car manufacturers to restrict cars engines so they can't exceed the legal speed limit?

Already substantially answered by my post above on this link.

In addition, legislations vary widely around the world on what is legal, so designing vehicle to limits isn't practical. The alternative of restrictors is unsatisfactory. Engine restriction acts in all gears of course, seriously compromising both performance and economy during legitimate and reasonable driving. The alternative of road speed cut-off restriction is potentially very dangerous so is never considered.

As my post remarked, drivers are tested not only on their ability but on their knowledge of the law they must comply to. Preventing drivers from breaking the law by vehicle restriction is like locking everyone up during periods when they aren't busy just in case they are tempted to commit a crime.
.

 

[Jeanette Morgan]

Thank you Flecc. I thought hard before replying to this post, but did so as I wanted to mention the worse case senario of modifications in the event of legal circumstances. Jeanette

 

[allen-uk]

Already substantially answered by my post above on this link.


.

Nice one, flecc. I recall Gordon Brown using the same sort of self-referring justification on The Today programme once. Humphrys asked him a question, and rather than answering it Brown said "No, I've already answered that question, so I'm going to say this instead..."

Humphrys must have been having an off-day, as he didn't pursue the point.

A