Just happened across this but can't comment on its accuracy

[indalo]

Interesting comment on kits and the law!

Electric Bikes WhyCycle? - The impartial cycling advice site

Indalo

 

[Jeremy]

Basically OK, but a bit inaccurate in places.

They haven't read all of the EU regulations properly, or else they would have realised that, whilst non-electrically assisted bikes don't have to be Type Approved, 250W, 25km/h EPACs do need to be Type Approved to EN15194 in order to be legally classified as bicycles.

Their observations on kits show that they haven't read, or perhaps understood, the two Statutory Instruments (UK SI 1168 and UK SI 1176) that govern 200W, 15mph, EAPCs. Had they read and understood these they would have realised that the motor power certification requirement, to BS 1727:1971, presents a significant hurdle to anyone building a DIY or kit ebike.

 

[Marctwo]

This would seem to imply that UK limits are no big deal and don't require all the hoo-haa. Maybe this will all be the case for the updated requirements when the EU standards are adopted.

 

[Jeremy]

This would seem to imply that UK limits are no big deal and don't require all the hoo-haa. Maybe this will all be the case for the updated requirements when the EU standards are adopted.

On the contrary, that simplified article specifies the limits that are in UK SI 1168 and UK SI 1176, the two Statutory Instruments that apply.

As always, the devil is in the detail. For example, that simplified description says:

"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"


What does this mean? Does it mean 200W for 1 hour as a rating, or does it mean 200W for 30 seconds? If you look at the underlying law in those referenced statutes, then you'll find that in order to be legally defined as a 200W motor it has to be tested, at the bike nominal battery voltage, using the procedure defined in BS1727:1971, and that it is this test data that has to be marked on the data plate.

 

[Marctwo]

The point is, it doesn't say it needs to be certified in any way. If it had to be approved to those standards then that would surely have been stated.

The OP's link also seemed to suggest that those standards are for retailers rather than owners to conform to. That would make sense to me.

 

[Jeremy]

The point is, it doesn't say it needs to be certified in any way. If it had to be approved to those standards then that would surely have been stated.

The OP's link also seemed to suggest that those standards are for retailers rather than owners to conform to. That would make sense to me.

Yes it does, but it is for the manufacturer to do that and mark the results on the required data plate.

If you take a look at the underlying law, of which that simplified statement by the DfT is a précis, then you will find that the electric motor output power has to be determined according to an old British Standard, mentioned above. Provided that the manufacturer (which the law in question defines as the person who assembles a DIY or kit built ebike) tests the motor to that British Standard, and marks the outcome on the data plate (along with the other details) then that is OK.

The problem for most people is that getting a motor tested to BS1727:1971 is going to be prohibitively expensive. Also, because the motor power output is determined primarily by the controller, it makes it hard for the suppliers of parts to sell pre-approved motors. They could sell a pre-approved kit of motor, battery and controller, provided the vendor was prepared to bear the cost of motor testing and supply the test data to the customer so that they could mark the data plate appropriately.

 

[Marctwo]

BS1727:1971 may well be used to determine the power of your motor should the need arise but if your motor is declared to be 200W then it's upto others to prove that it's not.

There's no implication that you have to have proof that your motor has already been tested and approved under the standards.

 

[Jeremy]

BS1727:1971 may well be used to determine the power of your motor should the need arise but if your motor is declared to be 200W then it's upto others to prove that it's not.

There's no implication that you have to have proof that your motor has already been tested and approved under the standards.

Unfortunately it's not. This is Statute Law, so the onus is on the manufacturer (who may be the person that fits a kit to a bike) to prove that the motor can only deliver 200W output, as defined by the method described in BS1727:1971.

If this were Common Law, where precedent applies and retrospective argument may be made, then you might have a point. It isn't though, and primary legislation is absolute and in this case needs to be complied with before the bike is used on the road.

If you want chapter and verse then this is what the Road Traffic Act (in UK SI 1168, the EAPC Regulations) gives as definitions, quote:

"2. In these Regulations—
“continuous rated output” has the same meaning as in the 1971 British Standard;
“kerbside weight”, in relation to an electrically assisted pedal cycle, means the weight of the
cycle without any person on it and with no load other than the loose tools and equipment with
which it is normally equipped;
“nominal voltage” means the nominal voltage of the battery as defined in the 1971 British
Standard;
“the 1971 British Standard” means the specification for motors for battery operated vehicles
published by the British Standards Institution under the reference 1727: 1971 as amended by
Amendment Slip No. 1 published on 31st January 1973, Amendment Slip No. 2 published on
31st July 1974 and Amendment Slip No. 3 published on 31st March 1978;"

and this is what it actually says with regard to the requirements, quote:

"4. The requirements referred to in Regulation 3 above are that the vehicle shall:—
(a) have a kerbside weight not exceeding—
(i) in the case of a bicycle, other than a tandem bicycle, 40 kilograms, and
(ii) in the case of a tandem bicycle and a tricycle, 60 kilograms;
(b) be fitted with pedals by means of which it is capable of being propelled; and
(c) be fitted with no motor other than an electric motor which—
(i) has a continuous rated output which, when installed in the vehicle with the nominal
voltage supplied, does not exceed—
(A) in the case of a bicycle, other than a tandem bicycle, 0.2 kilowatts,
(B) in the case of a tandem bicycle and a tricycle, 0.25 kilowatts; and
(ii) cannot propel the vehicle when it is travelling at more than 15 miles per hour."

These parts of the law have to be read in conjunction with the parts of The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983, in UK SI 1176, quote:

"Interpretation
3. - (1) In these Regulations:-
(a) a reference to the manufacturer of a vehicle means, in the case of a vehicle which has been so altered so as to become an electrically assisted pedal cycle, the person who made that alteration;"

This law also states:

"4. No Person shall ride, or cause or permit to be ridden, on a road a pedal cycle to which the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 apply unless it is fitted with -
(a) a plate securely fixed in a conspicuous and readily accessible position showing:-
(i) the name of the manufacturer of the vehicle,
(ii) the nominal voltage of the battery (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the vehicle, and
(iii) the continuous rated output (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the motor of the vehicle;"

From this you can see that before you fit the plate to the bike with the rating, you have to ascertain the motor power and battery voltage according to the BS, you can't do this afterwards as otherwise the information on the plate would be, in effect, made up, rather than measured, as required.

 

[Marctwo]

I must be missing something... I don't see any pre-approval requirement there other than your interpretation at the end.

The brief EAPC requirements I linked to say that only bikes that don't meet the requirements need to be type approved. But you seem to be saying that a bike needs to be type approved to prove that it doesn't need to be type approved.

 

[Old_Dave]

a bike needs to be type approved to prove that it doesn't need to be type approved.

Yep... it needs to be type approved to show that its of a type that fits the exemption, as opposed to type that doesn't

 

[Jeremy]

I must be missing something... I don't see any pre-approval requirement there other than your interpretation at the end.

The brief EAPC requirements I linked to say that only bikes that don't meet the requirements need to be type approved. But you seem to be saying that a bike needs to be type approved to prove that it doesn't need to be type approved.

Demonstrating compliance with Statute Law is a general principle that applies whenever there is a requirement for a statement of fact.

For example, before EU Type Approval came along, when cars, trucks and motorcycles were approved to the same group of Statutes, the "Construction and Use Regs" as they are known, then there was a similar requirement for every car, truck and motorcycle to have a data plate like this, that stated important information about the vehicle. These plates legally defined certain parameters, like maximum towing weight, maximum allowable axle weight, vehicle class etc.

Just like the data plate requirements in the Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations, these have to be right, they cannot just be made up numbers that are only checked after an incident or enquiry. That is a general principle that has been proven time and time again in the courts.

What would be the point of putting a requirement for motor testing to a specific standard into law, with a requirement that the result of that motor testing should be marked on a plate fitted to the vehicle, if anyone could just ignore it and make up a number, put it on the plate and argue that it was up to someone else to prove them wrong?

[Edited to add:

Sorry, missed the second point. There is no requirement for EAPCs to be Type Approved. Type Approval is an EU introduced method of demonstrating compliance with standards and doesn't apply to UK-only legislation like this. This UK law only requires that the motor power and battery voltage be measured using the procedure defined in BS1727:1971. Before EU Type Approval we used to use BS standards and methods for all sorts of approvals, you've probably seen some of them, like the kite mark BS approval on older electrical equipment.]

 

[Marctwo]

Well I've checked the legislation and various dft doc's and can find no requirements for any certification or pre-approval of EAPCs built to UK reg's.

Meaning, if you build an EAPC with no cert's or approval and it's checked for conformity at any time, it will be perfectly legal if found to conform to the UK EAPC regulations. Of course, if it doesn't conform then you may find yourself in trouble.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Well I've checked the legislation and various dft doc's and can find no requirements for any certification or pre-approval of EAPCs built to UK reg's.

Meaning, if you build an EAPC with no cert's or approval and it's checked for conformity at any time, it will be perfectly legal if found to conform to the UK EAPC regulations. Of course, if it doesn't conform then you may find yourself in trouble.

I think you're correct. In the case in the other thread where a woman was appealing against her conviction of driving without insurance for using a scooter, the court didn't ask for any approval documentation, If the approval had been required by law, the case would have been black or white and would never have got to the appeal. Instead, they made their own decision on whether it met the requirements, which it didn't.

I would guess that there was some history to the case, which caused the police to prosecute her, and my guess is that it went something like this:
Woman rides non-compliant scooter on footpath or road. I know that the police jump on you if you try and ride these scooters.
Police tell her that she can't ride it because it has no pedals.
She gets a guy to fix two bolts to the very small front wheel, which are just about are able to turn the wheel with careful foot technique. They give a speed of about 1mph.
Woman gets stopped by police again. She points at the front wheel.
The police say that they're not pedals.
There's an argument, and she tries to put the police in their place.
They get annoyed and report her.

So like I said before, everybody can stop worrying and go back to enjoying their bikes. Just make sure that it looks like a bicycle and it doesn't go faster than what it's allowed with power - about 16.5mph or 15mph if you want to be absolutely sure.

 

[Jeremy]

As I keep saying, there is no need for approval documentation with any ebike that has been approved to the UK Statutory Instruments. What is required is a data plate that shows the data derived from a test performed according to the British Standard, BS1727:1971.

I can't quite understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. If you want to be legal under UK (not EU) law then the data on the required plate has to be that from the British Standard test.

The law is clear, it stipulates the test requirements and the BS it refers to stipulates the conditions, test equipment and accreditation and calibration standards needed to perform the testing.

If you can get the motor power output tested to that BS then you can legitimately put the power output from the test certificate on to the data plate. If you don't get the motor tested to the BS, then how are you going to comply with the legal requirements?

 

[Marctwo]

As I keep saying, there is no need for approval documentation with any ebike that has been approved to the UK Statutory Instruments.

The bike doesn't need to be approved by anyone or to any standard to be legal. It just has to meet the requirements.

What is required is a data plate that shows the data derived from a test performed according to the British Standard, BS1727:1971.

I can't quite understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp. If you want to be legal under UK (not EU) law then the data on the required plate has to be that from the British Standard test.

The plate has to show:

the continuous rated output (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the motor of the vehicle.

This is not the same as requiring specific test results. This is the rated output as defined by (not tested to) BS.

 

[Jeremy]

The bike doesn't need to be approved by anyone or to any standard to be legal. It just has to meet the requirements.

The plate has to show:
This is not the same as requiring specific test results. This is the rated output as defined by (not tested to) BS.

Go and read the British Standard referred to in the law.

If you do, then you will see exactly what is needed, rather than keep persisting with the view that the law can be ignored.

 

[Marctwo]

Go and read the British Standard referred to in the law.

If you do, then you will see exactly what is needed, rather than keep persisting with the view that the law can be ignored.

It doesn't matter. Theres no legal requirement to test the motor so the testing standards are moot until such a time as the specific motor needs to be tested.

 

[Jeremy]

It doesn't matter. Theres no legal requirement to test the motor so the testing standards are moot until such a time as the specific motor needs to be tested.

How much more obvious can the part of the law be that says how the motor power output HAS to be determined?

I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can read this clear statement in the law of "the continuous rated output (as defined in the 1971 British Standard) of the motor of the vehicle;" as meaning anything other than what it clearly says - you have to state the motor power output as defined in the British Standard!

The law doesn't give you any other means of defining the motor power output at all, so you can't just make it up, you have to do as the law says and use the British Standard test method.

How do you propose obtaining the "continuous rated output of the motor of the vehicle" in a way that fits the law?

 

[Marctwo]

How do you propose obtaining the "continuous rated output of the motor of the vehicle" in a way that fits the law?

Quite clearly it's the continuous output that the motor of the vehicle is rated for. It's the rated output that's referenced, not the actual output.

Further to the EAPCs of the UK, I've just been reading about the EPACs of the EU and I can't find any testing or approval requirements in the EN15194 standard either. Although there are many (very many) test methods detailed for production and compliance testing, I found no actual requirements for any of these tests.

 

[Jeremy]

Quite clearly it's the continuous output that the motor of the vehicle is rated for. It's the rated output that's referenced, not the actual output.

Further to the EAPCs of the UK, I've just been reading about the EPACs of the EU and I can't find any testing or approval requirements in the EN15194 standard either. Although there are many (very many) test methods detailed for production and compliance testing, I found no actual requirements for any of these tests.

Exactly! If you read the British Standard then there is a definition in it as to what is meant by "continuous rated output". This is not the same as the label on the motor, by a long way, it is the output when measured using the method and test equipment defined in the British Standard.

It's the same measurement problem that the EN standard has. They have defined 250W, but then discovered that this had no real meaning unless they also described ways in which that could be measured. The result is that they added Annex D, which gives a measurement method which, if followed, will give a figure for the power that is deemed to be acceptable.

However, the method in Annex D can be tampered with, perfectly legally. The measurement in Annex D isn't a direct measurement of motor power at all, but a measurement of the time the ebike takes to accelerate over a short distance on the flat, with no appreciable wind and at a given weight. If the manufacturer deliberately slows down the rate at which power is increased, by adjusting the controller power versus time characteristic, then they can actually have a motor of perhaps twice the supposed maximum power and still be perfectly compliant with the regulations.

Going back to the UK regulations, there is no way to "cheat" like this, as they stipulate a power measurement at the output of the motor, using a calibrated dynomometer at a set temperature. You can use a dynomometer to determine power for EN 15194 compliance demonstration, but in practice it's often cheaper and easier (and more lenient!) to do the acceleration test.