Question re what conversion kit will allow slow-pedalling/give knees a rest

[flecc]

Didn’t you post about some changes to the regs starting next year which will allow much higher powered bikes with throttles, but still limited to 25kph? Perfect for the less able I would have thought.

Yes, and that's always been the case anyway, the Low Powered Moped Class which is about to be called the L1e-A class in the new law. But they are not bureaucracy free pedelecs, the former requires registration, number plates, insurance etc, and though there are indications of some easing in the new legislation, driving licences are still required.

I have a number of times posted that the Low Powered Moped Class suits those needing higher power and/or a throttle, but that's never well received since prospects want pedelec freedoms as well.
.

 

[jonathan75]

You'll be wasting your time. In 2014 the European Parliament recommended removal of pedelec wattage power limits on the same rational basis, but despite that, after consideration the EU Commission rejected the proposal. They are highly unlikely to now admit being wrong and do a volte-face.

Disability is not at issue. The pedelec law exists purely to give cyclists moderate power assistance to supplement their pedalling, hence the regulation specifying that power stops when pedalling stops. Fundamental to that is them being cyclists, implying sufficient physical ability to permit cycling in most circumstances.

Those unable through disability to measure up to the requirement have provisions in law. One is the mobility vehicle, essentially a motorised chair restricted to 4mph (pavement) and 8 mph (road). Another to give greater flexibility of use is a car, modified if necessary to fit specific disabilities.
.

Flecc, neither of the Parliament and Commission are supreme in the EU legal order, the Member States are, through the Treaties, and what is in the Treaties is interpreted by the CJEU. It doesn't matter whether the Commission admits to being wrong, what matters is what the CJEU holds to be the correct application of the acquis. You're good on the content of directives, indeed I have relied on you sometimes for your close reading of them, but your understanding of the acquis and the EU legal structure is I'm afraid rotten.

In your second and third paragraphs (which are more what i was looking for) you put your opinion on the reasons for wattage and throttle limits in question. Thank you for this - it helps me clarify my own thoughts, even though I strongly disagree with the claims made.

You said a while ago you couldn imagine any basis for a challenge, but EU law is completely different in structure to the common law. Without extensive additional training, the tools which your own understanding of common law may have given you, don't enable someone accustomed to the English legal system to understand EU legal methods.

It isn't for me here to use what little energy I have by arguing my case with you, so I hope you will forgive me for not explaining it. I hope you can trust me however that there are things about EU law which you're not as expert on as you are on other things, and which I know people on here rightly respect you for.

So while I am grateful for your close readings of the directives, which are very impressive, as is your technical knowledge about ebikes, I would also be grateful if you would please refrain from making disparaging or discouraging comments about the merits of my case.

 

[flecc]

your understanding of the acquis and the EU legal structure is I'm afraid rotten.

I fully agree Jonathan and I don't pretend to know, but those are not the basis of my comment on your case prospects. My comment on you wasting your time was my opinion based on how people actually behave, rather than how they should behave.

I wish you luck and genuinely hope you have success since the benefits could be real for many, but I won't hold my breath.

As for whether I post comment on any of your posts, I reserve my right in this open forum to express an opinion, should I feel it appropriate as I did here.
.

 

[oldtom]

I reserve my right in this open forum to express an opinion, should I feel it appropriate as I did here.
.

Although I haven't always shared the views you have expressed from time to time Flecc, I believe I grasped the spirit of your previous input to this thread.

I am disappointed to read the lengthy retort in #42 from jonathan75 which, frankly, while well written, smacks of arrogance, is condescending and downright insulting. Moreover, I fail to understand why the contributor felt it necessary to adopt such a manner although I'm sure he has his reasons.

Tom

 

[flecc]

I'm sure he has his reasons.

Tom

He's a lawyer, reason enough!

However, I wasn't at all offended by Jonathan's post, accepting that I had probably inadvertantly offended him by posting negatively on his intention. We all have different sensibilities and not everyone has skin as thick as mine.
.

 

[jonathan75]

Oh dear -I'm upset to hear I was perceived as being rude. I do have a thin skin sometimes but on this occasion I was just worried that someone reading might think I was just indeed wasting my time and thus refrain from giving me needed assistance with this case. Ironically I seem to have made that less likely anyway through my manner.

 

[flecc]

In a more constructive vein Jonathan, it might help know there have been previous attempts at easement of the pedelec regulations and the problems met.

A major one is the active opposition by bodies representing the motorcycle and moped industries who fear inroads into their trade, and they have their lobbyists. It doesn't help that cycling bodies are less than favourably inclined to powered bicycles.

A related difficulty and one that the opposition exploit is the provision of motor vehicle classes that answer the needs being expressed by the pedelec easement lobby. There's the 25 kph + up to 1000 watt Low Powered Moped Class which is becoming L1e-A now, the S bikes which permit 45 kph + up to 500 watts,. and of course the full moped class, now becoming L1e-B.

A further difficulty is that we do not know the provisions required for L1e-A yet, since the L1e Type Approval law is being phased in during 2016 and 2017. For example, the draft regulation states that L1e-A does not require a mounting provision for a number plate, which has important implications.

The current identical Low Powered Moped class in the UK does have to be registered and have a number plate, but L1e-A having no number plate one assumes no registration. However, with no means of identification, will third party insurance be required? One might think not, yet we already know that a driving licence new class Q will be required. Clearly there's some conflicting issues in all this which are yet to be cleared up. And of course the conditions of usage of any class can be influenced by one's national government, as witness the current refusal of the UK government to consider the S class.

I have tried twice to get some answers on these issues from the DfT, but their replies show that they haven't even understood the question. Basically they respond only about the current EAPC pedelec regulations, which of course could be to avoid at present the issues being raised.
.

 

[JohnCade]

Don’t worry about it Jonathan. By next week this thread will have disappeared into the black hole that awaits all ephemera. It won’t matter then if you had confessed to a sexual predilection for sheep.

 

[Alan Quay]

..... It won’t matter then if you had confessed to a sexual predilection for sheep.

It would matter to the sheep.