Flecc, for the less fit and those who need them?

 

I can easily do without a pedelec, it just happens to suit my needs at times. Makes life easy when towing or into a strong head wind.

 

I do not see that these should be seen as bikes for the weak only. A perception I come across on my way to work daily.

 

I use an automatic washing machine, not because I need one, its just handy.

Gave using a manual drill decades ago, now use a lith powered version.

 

Whilst I am sure you will know where I am coming from, I wish Jo Public could understand.

 

Yes, I do understand, and it's a widespread view. But the legislators are insistent that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance, so subject to the factors I mentioned.

 

To be fair they do have classes of vehicles to fit other needs, but they are subject to some additional, arguably necessary, bureaucracy. Chief among those are the low powered moped, not faster but allowing 1000 watts in a bicycle form to better tackle hills and headwinds, and the moped for those wanting to travel rather faster than common bicycle speeds. The latter can have pedals and often do in China, that they aren't on any mopeds here is due to lack of demand, not legal restriction.

 

And then there's the high speed e-bike class that Germany has and which can exist in any EU country. That it isn't elsewhere is due to the other EU national governments, including ours, refusing it.

 

So there isn't any overall blocking of higher speed or power, just a reasonable insistence that added power on an unregistered vehicle operated by an unknown and untested rider is confined to a small amount at safe speeds for those who need it, not those who merely want it. And certainly not those who want it with much less restriction.

 

My views are supported by the fact that the motor cycle trade bodies are very strongly opposed to any easing of pedelec regulations and lobby strongly on this matter. Clearly they recognise that any easing would cut into their business, thus proving that those who want easing of pedelec regulation are really asking for what is generally accepted to be a motor vehicle.

 

My views are supported by the fact that the motor cycle trade bodies are very strongly opposed to any easing of pedelec regulations and lobby strongly on this matter. Clearly they recognise that any easing would cut into their business, thus proving that those who want easing of pedelec regulation are really asking for what is generally accepted to be a motor vehicle.

 

I think that your ideas are a little dated there Flecc. It seems that Dealers have found that the unrestricted bikes sell like hot cakes, so there may be now a bit more pressure to bring the S class to UK.

I know that's true of some here in Britain Dave, but they'll need to tell their trade bodies who are currently opposed to change in both mainland Europe and Britain. Most of the lobbying on this is to the EU in Europe so what a minority of British m/c dealers do is unlikely to be very influential.

 

As for the S class, the DfT have been emphatic, no way, and since they have that view in common with all the other 25 non-participating member countries, the chance if it ever being here seems vanishingly small.

Many people will agree with your sentiments, but power has nothing to do with speed. You can have a zero watt motor and still do 40mph in some circumstances, or you can have a 1000w motor that can't exceed 14mph. It may be OK for you to say 250w is OK, but for unfit people that weigh 100kg or more that ride down Ironbridge Gorge, they'd be stuck there for life if all they had was 250w. Luckily, most bikes designated 250w can actually consume 550 to 600w.

 

How much do you weigh? If it's less than 80kg, you're being selfish, or do you want to punish the heavyweights for having a few pies too many.

 

Agreed. but speed limit of 15-16mph for an electric bike on a public road is more than acceptable, yes you can still go faster, I do if pedal hard I can reach speeds of 17 or 18. If you are a heavy and I do fall into that category a more power would be nice. Wasn't there a some sort of equation for working out power of bike which took into account the weight of the rider? So a heavier person could use a more powerful motor.

 

Rich

Yes, I do understand, and it's a widespread view. But the legislators are insistent that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance, so subject to the factors I mentioned.

 

 

Flecc, can you quote a source for this view?

It seems to me that if this were the case, pedelecs would be classed as a mobility device. They are not classed as such, so to suggest "that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance" is incorrect. IMHO;)

Glad to hear you are riding a legal bike Riche, I was concerned that others had taken it upon themselves to take action on your behalf.

If it wasn't the case and an unfavorable judgement occurred the outcome could have been a minimum of 6 points for no insurance and several years of increased premiums.

I agree with flecc that the older driver appears to be imparting bad driving skills to the younger driver and as a professional driver it is totally in inexcusable.

Luckily for them you were not injured or you bike damaged but you are now free to pursue the matter

however you wish.

Edited November 3, 201312 yr by shemozzle999

Flecc, can you quote a source for this view?

It seems to me that if this were the case, pedelecs would be classed as a mobility device. They are not classed as such, so to suggest "that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance" is incorrect. IMHO;)

 

What does the word assist mean, when is assistance applied? It's applied in circumstances when and where it is needed, so that fundamentally is your answer. The only occasion that the term mobility vehicle is applied is when it's intended for those registered disabled, which excludes a huge proportion of the population who have some lesser limitations. They can still need assistance in some circumstances but are by no means disabled in the eyes of most of us.

 

As for the source otherwise, it's the law itself. Here in Britain, in the EU and in Japan which has very similar law, the legislators based the regulations on what they considered to be utility cycling rather than all forms of cycling, quite obviously excluding the fully fit types who commonly cycle at 20 mph and more. Indeed the Japanese were very specific about that and the original UK EAPC regulations were perhaps even more clear.

 

In each case they specified that the pedelec/e-bike remained a bicycle and not a motor vehicle, with limitations variously on speed, power and even acceleration. The implication is clear, that those who use bicycles in a utility manner for general transport purposes can have assistance for the more difficult circumstances of their cycling, but not for performance purposes like speed and acceleration.

 

So limitation to those who need assistance, not anyone who wants it in the way that suits them.

What does the word assist mean, when is assistance applied? It's applied in circumstances when and where it is needed, so that fundamentally is your answer. The only occasion that the term mobility vehicle is applied is when it's intended for those registered disabled, which excludes a huge proportion of the population who have some lesser limitations. They can still need assistance in some circumstances but are by no means disabled in the eyes of most of us.

 

As for the source otherwise, it's the law itself. Here in Britain, in the EU and in Japan which has very similar law, the legislators based the regulations on what they considered to be utility cycling rather than all forms of cycling, quite obviously excluding the fully fit types who commonly cycle at 20 mph and more. Indeed the Japanese were very specific about that and the original UK EAPC regulations were perhaps even more clear.

 

In each case they specified that the pedelec/e-bike remained a bicycle and not a motor vehicle, with limitations variously on speed, power and even acceleration. The implication is clear, that those who use bicycles in a utility manner for general transport purposes can have assistance for the more difficult circumstances of their cycling, but not for performance purposes like speed and acceleration.

 

So limitation to those who need assistance, not anyone who wants it in the way that suits them.

 

There is a big difference between 'needed' and 'wanted'. I do not need assistance, but have chosen a pedelec because I want assistance and am happy with the limitations with regard to power and speed that legislators have set. I see no reference in the EAPC regulations regarding needs of the rider, other than a need to be a minimum of 14 years of age.

As a fully fit male, I am happy to travel at far lower speeds than 20 mph, because I am not a sport cyclist. At other times, if I want to get from A to B more quickly, I can 'get a shuffle' on. But I'm still not a sport cyclist.

Edited November 3, 201312 yr by peerjay56

I see no reference in the EAPC regulations regarding needs of the rider, other than a need to be a minimum of 14 years of age.

 

if I want to get from A to B more quickly, I can 'get a shuffle' on. But I'm still not a sport cyclist.

 

Of course the law makes no mention of needs, does the 70 mph speed limit mention it's to limit those who want to go faster, or alternatively say it's for those who want to get a move on? No, those are the matters discussed when the laws are being framed, and in the same way, cyclists needs and wants would be discussed when setting pedelec laws and exemptions. The limitations specified in law are the outcome of such discussion, not a transcript, but they reveal the thinking behind them, as do the subsequent answers to queries on the matter.

 

Yes, you are not a sport cyclist in your eyes, but the legislators have a different view, and they set the laws. People can and do argue this issue ad nauseum, but the fact remains that the laws were and are very specifically based on common utility cycling practice as seen in each region of law. In the UK and Japan utility cycling's common upper speed was seen as about 12 mph, in the EU as about 25 kph (15.6mph). The only reason the UK much later changed it's limit to 15 mph was to more closely align to EU rules.

 

And finally I remind what I said in my last post, what is the meaning of assist and when is assistance provided. It is provided for those who need it, not normally for those who want it but don't need it. A fit active young person might think, "S*d cooking, I want meals on wheels", but they won't get that assistance. Equally, does anyone rush to help fully fit people to cross a road? No, but some do offer to help those who are frail and appear to need assistance.

 

When the legislators used the word assist and specifically excluded the most fit, the intention was obvious, to provide assistance to those who need it.

Of course the law makes no mention of needs, does the 70 mph speed limit mention it's to limit those who want to go faster, or alternatively say it's for those who want to get a move on? No, those are the matters discussed when the laws are being framed, and in the same way, cyclists needs and wants would be discussed when setting pedelec laws and exemptions. The limitations specified in law are the outcome of such discussion, not a transcript, but they reveal the thinking behind them, as do the subsequent answers to queries on the matter.

 

Yes, you are not a sport cyclist in your eyes, but the legislators have a different view, and they set the laws. People can and do argue this issue ad nauseum, but the fact remains that the laws were and are very specifically based on common utility cycling practice as seen in each region of law. In the UK and Japan utility cycling's common upper speed was seen as about 12 mph, in the EU as about 25 kph (15.6mph). The only reason the UK much later changed it's limit to 15 mph was to more closely align to EU rules.

 

And finally I remind what I said in my last post, what is the meaning of assist and when is assistance provided. It is provided for those who need it, not normally for those who want it but don't need it. A fit active young person might think, "S*d cooking, I want meals on wheels", but they won't get that assistance. Equally, does anyone rush to help fully fit people to cross a road? No, but some do offer to help those who are frail and appear to need assistance.

 

When the legislators used the word assist and specifically excluded the most fit, the intention was obvious, to provide assistance to those who need it.

 

Flecc,

I have no doubt you believe you are right on this matter, but you provide no evidence to suggest that it is anything but your own interpretation.

The legislators may or may not have been insistent that pedelecs are bicycles for those who need assistance.

 

It matters not. We are working in realtime now.

 

People like Haibike and several other manufactures are clearly targeting at the young and fit. This can only be good for all.

 

These bikes are for anyone who wishes to use one either for fun or as their day to day travelling.

Flecc,

I have no doubt you believe you are right on this matter, but you provide no evidence to suggest that it is anything but your own interpretation.

 

Your mind seems to be closed on this, the last sentence of my last post is very clearly that evidence.

 

But here's more. Following the DfT's consultation before preparation for the new forthcoming EU harmonised pedelec law, they held a meeting with interested parties. Requests for easing of the EU regulations met with varying responses. For more speed was met with an absolute veto. For more power also elicited an unfavourable response.

 

But when the subject of the banned EU throttles was raised with a request for them here on the grounds that some need them such as to get off the mark due to physical limitations, the response was much more favourable. The DfT are as a result seriously considering their inclusion in the new law.

 

So want cut no ice, while need found favour.

Dear Rich,

 

Thank you for bringing this incident to our attention. Please accept our sincere apologies.

I can assure you that the two drivers concerned will be suspended from any driving duties with immediate effect- pending a full investigation.

 

Can you please provide your contact details via a private message on this site so I can keep you informed of the outcome of our investigation.

 

Once again I apologise on behalf of Cornish Premiere Pasties.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Fiona Rick

(Director)

Your mind seems to be closed on this, the last sentence of my last post is very clearly that evidence.

 

But here's more. Following the DfT's consultation before preparation for the new forthcoming EU harmonised pedelec law, they held a meeting with interested parties. Requests for easing of the EU regulations met with varying responses. For more speed was met with an absolute veto. For more power also elicited an unfavourable response.

 

But when the subject of the banned EU throttles was raised with a request for them here on the grounds that some need them such as to get off the mark due to physical limitations, the response was much more favourable. The DfT are as a result seriously considering their inclusion in the new law.

 

So want cut no ice, while need found favour.

 

You accuse me of something that you are demonstrating. My mind is not closed on this. I have asked you for a reference to support your view. I am willing to accept your view if you provide a link to a document produced by legislators that says what you claim. You haven't offered one. You cite those physically fit as being 'specifically excluded' You then go on to cite discussions on the new eu regulations. Whilst throttles may be a concession to those less fit, they do not exclude there use by those who are physically fit.

SRS's post sums the current situation up: something about which we seem to agree:p

You cite those physically fit as being 'specifically excluded'.You then go on to cite discussions on the new eu regulations. Whilst throttles may be a concession to those less fit, they do not exclude there use by those who are physically fit.

 

The first sentence does not refer to throttles, it refered to the specific exclusion of what the legislators see as sport riding speeds and therefore those who use them.

 

Quoting from sentences from two different posts of mine on different aspects of the subject, pretending they were linked, is dishonest.

.

Edited November 3, 201312 yr by flecc

Dear Rich,

 

Thank you for bringing this incident to our attention. Please accept our sincere apologies.

I can assure you that the two drivers concerned will be suspended from any driving duties with immediate effect- pending a full investigation.

 

Can you please provide your contact details via a private message on this site so I can keep you informed of the outcome of our investigation.

 

Once again I apologise on behalf of Cornish Premiere Pasties.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Fiona Rick

(Director)

 

Nice to see the company has responded in a positive manner. Nearly missed this post any chance peerjay and flecc could call it a draw or start a new thread. Think lots of people will be interested to read the original post

Nice to see the company has responded in a positive manner. Nearly missed this post any chance peerjay and flecc could call it a draw or start a new thread. Think lots of people will be interested to read the original post

 

+1 Yes, Sorry:o I've hijacked the thread asking for what I thought was a simple clarification. That wasn't my intention.

Nice to see the company has responded in a positive manner. Nearly missed this post any chance peerjay and flecc could call it a draw or start a new thread. Think lots of people will be interested to read the original post

 

No concession on the dispute, but I agree on the importance of the OP's last post.

 

It is the most important post in this thread and this is the link to it

Good to see that the company has taken this incident seriously..... and so they should, it was a terrible standard of driving with complete disregard for other road users.

Good news that Richie (I hope) has reported this to the company and has had a positive response. Drivers and riders have a need to be responsible in the way they act and behave, minor violations can cost a life and that is to great a sacrifice.

I think those guys have had a shot across the bows and hopefully learnt a lesson for safer driving. Fair play to the Director for replying to this thread. Free hand crimped pasties for life could be your compensation? You will need a 6000 watt motor to move you then lol. You might not have been here to take up that offer though.

Dear Rich,

 

Thank you for bringing this incident to our attention. Please accept our sincere apologies.

I can assure you that the two drivers concerned will be suspended from any driving duties with immediate effect- pending a full investigation.

 

Can you please provide your contact details via a private message on this site so I can keep you informed of the outcome of our investigation.

 

Once again I apologise on behalf of Cornish Premiere Pasties.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Fiona Rick

(Director)

 

Hi Rich have you heard any more cant think there was a lot to investigate?

 

Watch Video

 

Talk to staff

 

Take action

Having watched the video, it's obvious the guy swiped you by not giving you enough room. However, you passed the Renault at 29 seconds, leaving him very little room, especially when the road width was getting smaller, and then you cut out in front of him. You must have been annoyed when the van hit you, but you can't really complain when you do similar things to other road users. You may say you had enough room to get past the Renault, but if the Renault had have left you that much room and then cut in front of you, you would probably post a video complaining of his careless driving.