This letter does not appear anywhere on the governments advice website or in the public domain so I as a rider feel I have no protection from the law.

 

Should it not be publicly published thus giving reassurance to riders?

.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/8.Transport-ElectricallyAssistedPedalCycles.pdf

Have you forwarded the correspondence to Halford's head office for their comments?

 

No.

 

The reply I received was precise is saying that as far as the D of T were concern Halfords were not committing an offence.

The electric bikes that they were selling could be used on the roads subject to conditions.

However, the conditions were not listed in fact the impression given was if you had the cash and were over 14 years old you could ride it away.

 

I put this point to the Rt Hon as I found it disingenuous given the D of T's official stance.

 

This return the below reply.

I do appreciate that this could do with a little more clarity and that is why we are working to harmonise our provisions.

So that's all right then.

Phil

Just noticed Dve8h was watching Three Amigos, so was I! El Guapo would have sorted this issue out.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/8.Transport-ElectricallyAssistedPedalCycles.pdf

 

Thanks dmsims, I am aware of this document but as there is no specific mention of a waiver in it I assume that there is another document which we are not allowed to access publicly.

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by shemozzle999

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/8.Transport-ElectricallyAssistedPedalCycles.pdf

 

Thank you for posting this link dmsims, very helpful.

 

Personally I was entirely happy with the original assurances, in part because I played a part with BEBA in the steps which prevented the police prosecution, an action leading to this measure, so I knew the police were blocked from action.

 

Just seen Shemozzle999's post above. The document is the second part of what I posted, part of the conclusions of that meeting headed "Extracts of Intentions". Presumably that is recorded somewhere but I'm not concerned enough about my own status on a 250 watt machine to worry where.

.

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by flecc

Given the current state of "the law" and the published intent I cannot foresee a prosecution for 250W

 

When was the last time a police patrol prosecuted for 80mph on the motorway?

Thank you for posting this link dmsims, very helpful.

 

Personally I was entirely happy with the original assurances, in part because I played a part with BEBA in the steps which prevented the police prosecution, an action leading to this measure, so I knew the police were blocked from action.

 

Just seen Shemozzle999's post above. The document is the second part of what I posted, part of the conclusions of that meeting headed "Extracts of Intentions". Presumably that is recorded somewhere but I'm not concerned enough about my own status on a 250 watt machine to worry where.

.

 

Therefore it can not be challenged! conveniently.

Further to my above post, the notion that some have expressed that a private prosecution might be brought is frankly silly. The CPS would follow official policy, and that is clearly for harmonisation at 250 watts with no contrary action meanwhile. Those seeing problems in the current status are simply failing to realise that as a matter of principle, anyone representing government cannot say the law is wrong.

 

Such waivers are not unusual and they have existed previously in many areas, including our own. An example is the Countryside Act 1968.

 

Legislation concerning bicycles usually includes the wording "bicycles, tricycles and bicycles with four or more wheels", but the permission to use bridlepaths included in that countryside act only included bicycles.

 

Following representations from tricyclists, Sustrans, the government backed sustainable transport organisation, successfully sought a waiver from the DfT for tricycles to be permitted, and that was the informal status for long afterwards.

 

It may still be, but that act has had many amendments since so the change may have subsequently been written into law, as this waiver will be in due course.

 

This really is a silly fuss about nothing. Anyone remember the very many years that London taxicab drivers were required by the Hackney Carriage acts to carry a bale of hay on board for their hypothetical horse's welfare? That law was only rescinded quite recently and no-one using an ic cab had ever been prosecuted over that century of the measure being in force. Also I believe it's still an imprisonable offence for a woman to wear make-up, it certainly was a long way into my lifetime.

.

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by flecc

A private prosecution as far as I am aware is a legal option for bringing a case to court are you saying that the waiver can also be guaranteed to stop it in all circumstances and what legal capacity do you hold to make this judgement.

Hi flecc,

I can understand that from your point of view it's a silly fuss. You are clearly in the know about a meeting BEBA had and what resolved from that meeting.

You are fortunate.

 

Accept that the majority of us were not at that meeting, are not in the know and remain in the fog.

I really appreciate what you contribute, you are a great source of information but amid so much confusion to say there has been a waiver without putting some meat on the bone doesn't lift the fog.

 

Should this forum disappear and you along with it no one would know about a waiver.

Phil

Phil, the best guarantee is the embarrassing position the DfT is in, one I exploited to assist in preventing the potential prosecution I mentioned previously.

 

This is it:

 

The EAPC law states that anything over 200 watts means the e-bike is a motor vehicle which must be type approved for registration, and in law the relevant DfT department and the Home Office have to agree with that.

 

However, we have adopted in law the EU two and three wheeler type approval legislation 2002/EC/24, and in section 1.1.(h) that specifically excludes pedelecs of 250 watts or less from needing type approval.

 

The Vehicle Inspectorate is the DfT department charged with administering that type approval so there's an impasse, two sections of the DfT operating to totally opposing but entirely legal positions.

 

That has been the case since 10th November, 2003, and it came about because of a failure to complete the actions required by an accompanying document when the EU order arrived with the DfT on 9th May 2003. That document required the removal of all conflicting legislation by the 10th November 2003, clearly not done.

 

As I thought when advising BEBA, that was sufficient for the DfT to prevent a prosecution and avoid the embarrassment and confusion that would be incurred.

.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

What with government agencies watching our every move and monitoring us online. The chances of a bureaucratic mistake of the Tuttle to Buttle variety resulting in a fully military kitted out squad of plod kicking my door in and hauling me off to be interrogated under some obscure anti terror law seems much more likely than a prosecution over this.

It appears from the end of this old post that only BEBA is privy to the content of this "waiver" whether given verbally or written it is unlikely we should ever get to know.

 

http://pedelecs.co.uk/forum/threads/justin-beba-or-just-out-of-beba.16823/#post-207168

 

So the doubt remains.

 

If not watertight this "waiver" could effect the outcome of a prosecution dramatically:

 

http://ukcyclerules.com/2012/11/21/serious-injury-dangerous-driving/

Edited July 26, 201411 yr by shemozzle999

It appears from the end of this old post that only BEBA is privy to the content of this "waiver" whether given verbally or written it is unlikely we should ever get to know.

 

http://pedelecs.co.uk/forum/threads/justin-beba-or-just-out-of-beba.16823/#post-207168

 

So the doubt remains.

 

If not watertight this "waiver" could effect the outcome of a prosecution dramatically:

 

http://ukcyclerules.com/2012/11/21/serious-injury-dangerous-driving/

 

Not so, have you even read my previous post? The doubt exists only in the imagination. The type approval law excludes 250 watt pedelecs from being considered as motor vehicles. That is the most recent UK law on the subject. Add to that the clear official statements of government policy and intentions regarding 250 watts for pedelecs and the knowledge of or production of the waiver is scarcely necessary.

 

Have you even considered the fact that a variety of UK police forces have used and in some cases still use 250 watt e-bikes?

 

This is a non-subject.

.

http://www.electricbikemag.co.uk/Images/storyImages/2013/freegopolice2.jpg

 

Hi flecc,

Thanxs once again for your input.

 

I don't know if the best guarantee is the embarrassing position the DfT is in. It's one of those things that would have to be put to the test.

On the subject of police forces.

 

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn39/philxphilx/front_zps967fb25c.jpg

 

The above is a picture of Wealden Police complete with what I think are Wisper electric bikes.

Dunno if they've been dumbed down to 200wts?

If not I'll have that as my defense!

 

Phil

Hi flecc,

Thanxs once again for your input.

 

I don't know if the best guarantee is the embarrassing position the DfT is in. It's one of those things that would have to be put to the test.

On the subject of police forces.

 

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn39/philxphilx/front_zps967fb25c.jpg

 

The above is a picture of Wealden Police complete with what I think are Wisper electric bikes.

Dunno if they've been dumbed down to 200wts?

If not I'll have that as my defense!

 

Phil

 

No, they are indeed the standard 250 watt rated machines Phil. There are at least four police forces currently using 250 watt e-bikes, probably more but I don't remember all of them. None of the e-bikes supplied for trial or regular use by police forces over the last eight years have been "dumbed down" to 200 watts as you put it. They've all been 250 watt rated.

 

The embarrassing position for the DfT has already been put to the test as I've posted, the successful prevention of the intended prosecution case. I won't identify the traffic officer and force involved since I don't want to embarrass anyone, but both a couple of BEBA principals and I know who they are.

.

by the Police.

 

Care to expand?

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-vote-office/8.Transport-ElectricallyAssistedPedalCycles.pdf

 

Thanks for posting this information. I found it interesting.

Extract from a BEBA member user manual of an EN15194 approved 250W rated bicycle:

 

"There is a twist throttle provided on the right handlebar grip.

There is a red button by the throttle which, when pushed in, activates the throttle. Ensure that it is only pushed in when the throttle needs to be activated.

To use the throttle start pedalling as normal and once you have reached the speed you wish to travel at then twist the throttle.

After the throttle is used you can stop pedaling and the motor speed will be maintained.

Obviously, if the bicycle is used under throttle only without pedal assistance then the range will be substantially reduced."

 

Is the user covered by the waiver?

Every one who has a genuine interested in electric bikes from the mighty to the humble like myself accepts that at the moment the legal position needs clarifying.

Until this happens a multitude of questions will remain answered, it's the reason it needs clarifying.

 

I could ask that given the stance by the D of T to my letters why are Wealdon Police (among others it seems) boasting they are using electric bikes for community policing?

On lots of levels I have no problem with it ... think it's a great idea... but would think very differently if I was nicked by one.

 

Wish some of the knowledgeable members on this forum would put their points to the law makers. It's what they're there for.

Many would be interested in their answers.

 

PhilX

Although not knowledgeable Philx that is what I intend to do, but first I am trying to establish the facts regarding the blind eye policy, waiver, informal waiver or whatever it will be called next. I have a brief extract from BEBA of what I assume is text from the DfT apparently agreed in April 2013 by persons unknown , which was after the published findings of the consultation in 2012.

 

I have not been convinced by the statement made here that users are totally protected from prosecution and despite requesting guarantees that all users will be protected none have been given.

Edited July 27, 201411 yr by shemozzle999

Clearly, after four dozen posts in this thread, there is a degree of concern among some about the legality of 250w EAPCs and their potential for expensive litigation and conviction in court for perhaps several RTA offences.

 

Will those concerned individuals now desist from riding such machines pending clarification?

 

Tom

For what it's worth I've concluded that it's an informal waver.

I'm sure if it was cast in stone all retailers/ those connected with the trade would be shouting it from the roof tops and putting the flags out.

I don't see that.

 

With Rt Hon law makers putting it on paper that they accept its a confusing situation, one that certainly needs clarifying (no hurry it seems) plus we have the law keepers using them for community policing to me it would be hard to prosecute me for the offence of riding a 250wt pedelec.

Riding a more powerful model could well be a different matter.

Needs a volunteer to get nicked doesn't it?

 

...plus we have the law keepers using them for community policing to me it would be hard to prosecute me for the offence of riding a 250wt pedelec.

 

It would be the same if you were riding a 500w bike. The charges would relate to using a bike over 200w, so all rider would need to do is point to the Sussex police (for example), and say, "In that case I'm reporting them, please prosecute them too".

 

Maybe this is why they don't check. The only thing the police can get them for is offences relating to the manner of their riding.