Any attempt by people to say they are not ok to be used, is just an attempt to justify their use of higher powered bikes, which are very much not the same thing.

Has there been any attempt anywhere, Colin? If so, where? I've been reading this forum for over four years, and I've never seen any post that says they're not OK to be used. Maybe I missed it.

I obviously cannot advise you as to why the police chose to use illegal vehicles since only they will know that. I suspect it might be due to ignorance.

 

I might be able to help here. I have met some senior officers and can confirm that It's ignorance, and lots of it.

Has there been any attempt anywhere, Colin? If so, where? I've been reading this forum for over four years, and I've never seen any post that says they're not OK to be used. Maybe I missed it.

 

here, is just one I can find.

 

Flecc, lumps 250w bikes in with higher power ones.

 

So as per those examples, since KTM UK are already selling illegal e-bikes, adding S class e-bikes does not present a new problem.

.

 

It very much is a very new and different problem, under 250w, no issues for us, or the public using the bikes. Over 250w and your driving an illegal vehicle on the roads and should the continued growth of awareness lead to any one being stopped you could get points and lots of them on your license, and should you be involved in an accident the liability and prosecution are likely.

 

So I stand by my statement that there has been comments made on this forum, that hint that if you're going to break the law and ride 250w, you might aswell ride 1000w. The thresehold has been sent by the EU and its 250w and the UK legislation will follow that. 250w is not a problem in the UK.

"as soon as KTM have a production one ready we will bring one into the UK and try to register it with the DVLA and insure it. We will of course post the results.

 

We suspect that by 2016, the UK will have caught up with the EU and we'll be able to register them, but we will see.

 

Next. As I've said above, we're totally confident that the 250w bikes are ok to be used on the UK roads and offroad, and no one should be prosecuted and us as a brand and our dealers can't be liable for these bikes being involved in accidents. Any attempt by people to say they are not ok to be used, is just an attempt to justify their use of higher powered bikes, which are very much not the same thing.

 

With regard to Dongles and bikes that are over 250w. We will not be offering them to UK customers, unless they can prove they have private land to use them on. There are a number of reasons for this, that include but are not limited to our liability should you being involved in an accident. There are a number of people who are using these illegal bikes who don't appreciate the risks they are taking, and the brands and dealers selling them are putting their customers at risk of prosecution, and hefty liability.

 

No one in the trade who sells these items has responded and I think its clear why. They are basically taking a massive risk, and yes whilst there is big reward for them now selling these bikes, having looked at all the evidence and consulted widely.... we wont be selling them until they are legal, I'm not prepared to risk my company and my customers driving licenses and finances."

 

Excellent, Col, don't be put off trying.I'd love a truly legal s-class and am not put off by the no. plate or helmet requirements or any others!

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by hoppy

So I stand by my statement that there has been comments made on this forum, that hint that if you're going to break the law and ride 250w, you might aswell ride 1000w. The thresehold has been sent by the EU and its 250w and the UK legislation will follow that. 250w is not a problem in the UK.

 

I agree that 250 watts usage is not a problem in the UK and have posted as such earlier, but in legal terms what I have said is absolutely correct. 250 watts remains outside the permitted legal power specified in the only relevant UK law, so there is no legal difference between 250 watts and 1000 watts. Both are legally the same offence.

 

Prior to the 13th of April last year, 250 watts in the UK was not permitted in any e-bike circumstance and never had been. After that date a waiver then prevented prosecution using that legal power, it did not change the law in any way. Police forces were merely told not to act on the 200 watt power limit part of that law and permit up to 250 watts.

 

My replies to Tom should not be misunderstood. He has stated the EAPC law is redundant and the EU law is in force here. I have posted in reply to correct him and added evidence in support, but have never said that 250 watts could not be used in the UK after the 13th April 2013.

 

I have and still do maintain the the law makes 250 watts illegal and I have shown that in this thread using the government's own definition on their website.

That is fact.

.

I once ran into a dog! It was a very big dog weighing about 10 stone and although it was unhurt in the collision there was considerable damage to my car. The owner was being totally irisponsible by allowing this dog off its lead, in fact encouraging it to run across the road! So who was liable for the damage to my car.. My insurance told me they would make ua claim off of the owners house insurance but if they wouldn't pay it's tough sh1t. Are bicycles not insured in this way?

Neither bikes nor cars are insured in this way Phill. That is personal liability insurance which is an optional feature of some home policies. It certainly cannot be relied on.

.

I watch far too much daytime TV and often see youths without licenses driving untaxed, untested and uninsured cars causing absolute mayhem and uncountable damage and the often get off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine! So how come all this about an e-bike? Although responding to an earlier post.. Any one doing 20 mph on the towpath where they can't see what's around the corner deserves everything they get..

I watch far too much daytime TV and often see youths without licenses driving untaxed, untested and uninsured cars causing absolute mayhem and uncountable damage and the often get off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine! So how come all this about an e-bike? Although responding to an earlier post.. Any one doing 20 mph on the towpath where they can't see what's around the corner deserves everything they get..

I guess the difference is that most e bike owners have assets and can therefore be perused for compensation, while the yobs in cars probably don't.

I watch far too much daytime TV and often see youths without licenses driving untaxed, untested and uninsured cars causing absolute mayhem and uncountable damage and the often get off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine! So how come all this about an e-bike? Although responding to an earlier post.. Any one doing 20 mph on the towpath where they can't see what's around the corner deserves everything they get..

 

Because e-bike law is in a tangled mess in the UK and car law isn't.

.

Some good points raised here.. When my bike is legal or not the claims principle is valid so I will be asking my home insurance for clarification..

...

I watch far too much daytime TV and often see youths without licenses driving untaxed, untested and uninsured cars causing absolute mayhem and uncountable damage and the often get off with a slap on the wrist and a small fine! So how come all this about an e-bike? Although responding to an earlier post.. Any one doing 20 mph on the towpath where they can't see what's around the corner deserves everything they get..

 

That way lies madness mon amie.

...

 

 

That way lies madness mon amie.

I used to be a bit more waterproof than I am now do tend to stay in when it's wet!

However, I can point you to arrests and EAPC seizures for destruction under the 1983 EAPC legislation dating from five years later and beyond.

 

Flecc, is this really the best you can come up with?

 

I was looking for some evidence of successful prosecutions based on the EU-compliant EAPCs and you provide the tale of the Met police acting politically at the behest of a grouping of MPs helping out the licensed Hackney Carriage association's complaints about loss of trade to the pedicabs.

 

As a Londoner like yourself, though now ex in my case, I'm familiar with that police action at that time but you are misleading readers here by selecting this very specific and unusual sector of the electrically-assisted pedelec market in your attempt to prove that 250w-powered motors are illegal. Trikes, as you well know, are a different kettle of fish and I'm sure 95% of forum readers wanted to read something relevant to 2-wheeled machines.

 

I cannot remember a single reported case of any 250w 2-wheeled EAPC being declared illegal on account of that single measurement being outwith that allowed by the 31-year old regulations. Of course, perhaps these things never make the press?

 

As for this 'waiver' you have often referred to, surely if that disallows prosecution for the 250w contravention under that 1983 regulation, then it must follow that such bikes are deemed to be legal, even though non-compliant. That being the case, no-one riding such a bike need have any concerns about contravening a 1983 regulation which by dint of the waiver becomes, to all intents and purposes, redundant.

 

Unless you Flecc, or someone else, is able to show me a definitive prosecution relating to an EU compliant, 2-wheeled EAPC, purely based on the fact it is 250w rated, then I shall presume that no such successful prosecution has ever occurred. In any event, I remain happy to rely on EU law should I ever have a problem with police on the wattage rating. Which court is going to convict me? I guess it will be the same court that will convict assorted police forces!

 

As for the mysterious waiver, it should be posted LARGE on every EAPC seller's website, on their showroom wall and should be clearly displayed on this website. That would be helpful to all concerned and I'm actually looking forward to reading the exact wording used including the specific advice to police not to prosecute offenders.

 

It has just occurred to me, given the chronology of events tabled in your various responses Flecc, that if it were the case that the first regional police service only purchased their EU-compliant EAPCs post-2008, then that would have been after the much-heralded pedicab prosecutions in London.

 

I find it difficult to believe that those involved in the first police procurement of EAPCs, (possibly Sussex?) were not aware of the London situation. Given also that other police areas subsequently went on to purchase similar EAPCs, one would have to believe that several different police forces failed to notice the gaffe......or maybe they did!

 

Tom

Tom, you really are unbelievable. First you say the EAPC regulations are redundant and don't have the decency to acknowledge that you were wrong when this case proves your error. You also said that the EU regulations have force in the UK instead, but once again you don't have the decency to acknowledge that you are also now shown to be wrong about that second belief you had.

 

You don't seem to understand the simple protocol that if you challenge someone, the onus is upon you to provide the reason and proofs why you believe they are wrong. It is not upon them to prove that what they've said is true. If you don't know that simple legal and moral fact I can only conclude you have been sleep walking through life.

 

There is no case that I know of that a two wheeled EAPC has ever been prosecuted over 250 watts in the UK and I have never claimed that there has been one. I have said that such a prosecution was attempted and who it was who intervened to get that stopped, and invited KTM to check that is the truth. What I have consistently stated is the fact that the 1983 EAPC regulations have always made 250 watt two wheel EAPCs illegal, and that remains the case. I and another have provided a link for you to see that the government itself agrees, but you've just ignored that.

 

The waiver that I contributed in small part to bringing about does not alter that illegality, it merely confines the degree to which the police can use that power limit part of the EAPC law. That is not in any way legality, it is merely a statement that the police will ignore that part of a law for the time being. Indeed, the DfT have carefully omitted the waiver part of their statement when publishing the outcome of the meeting which brought the waiver into being. Clearly they do not want to be cornered into admitting a law is to be ignored on their instructions, the civil service is far too smart to make that mistake.

 

So please accept that you were also wrong when you said that your 250 watt e-bike is legal in the UK. As I've shown, it is not and never has been, so how about a third apology?

 

As for the police behaviour in respect of adopting 250 watt e-bikes, I'm not interested. I've already said in reply to you that I obviously cannot answer for them and that you should ask them in person if you are interested. The freedom of information act gives you that power and you can use the link I provided earlier to prompt them on what the government say about e-bike 250 watt power legality.

.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by flecc

Thank you for clarifying the position over the waiver.

 

With the helpful dealings with the Dft under the FOI act I was coming to the same conclusions that there is no tangible evidence available regarding it.

 

I assume your reference to a meeting on the 13th April 2013 is the one published here, please correct me if I am wrong:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/232171/disclosure-minister-external-meetings-dft-apr-jun-2013.csv/preview

 

It now makes me ask myself what was the main purpose of the waiver was it to semi secure the owners of the bikes who purchased them in good faith to use on the road or for the trade to continue selling them?

 

You have inferred elsewhere that the blame for the situation lies squarely with the Government, but they did not start selling bikes that did not meet the law.

Edited September 3, 201411 yr by shemozzle999

Of interest in this debate of liability perhaps.

 

http://road.cc/content/news/129281-london-cyclist-seriously-injured-crash-another-rider-frustrated-police-failure

It now makes me ask myself what was the main purpose of the waiver was it to semi secure the owners of the bikes who purchased them in good faith to use on the road or for the trade to continue selling them?

 

You have inferred elsewhere that the blame for the situation lies squarely with the Government, but they did not start selling bikes that did not meet the law.

 

The main purpose of the waiver was to make the current position on the roads tenable following the disputed attempt at a prosecution, the DfT itself saying that they had to accept the reality. It wasn't in any way to cover the trade since they had no legal liability, they were doing nothing wrong and could continue their 250 watt sales anyway.

 

As for responsibility for the mess, I've blamed both parties. The government in the form of the civil service left the implementation of the mandatory type approval legislation 2002/EC/24 to the last minute, so late in fact that it went one day beyond the deadline set by the EU. It seems any measures to comply with the accompanying instruction to remove all conflicting legislation were inadequate, since the EAPC regulations clearly conflicted with the exemption in section 1, subsection 1(h) of 2002/EC/24.

 

The selling of 250 watt e-bikes in the UK occurred for two reasons. Firstly, before that EU law even came into being, Giant of Taiwan and others started to sell them here, possibly and perhaps probably because they thought that as EU members, our law would be that common in Europe anyway at that time. It was also the Japanese law which the Panasonic unit followed, Giant using that.

 

Secondly, those who followed often misinterpreted that exemption from motor vehicle type approval as being the new pedelec law. It wasn't of course, it merely made e-bikes between 200 and 250 watts motor vehicles, illegal to use in the UK. No doubt Giant's very popular 250 watt Lafree was a reassuring factor for other suppliers, after all they were the world's largest producer of bicycles at the time so could be thought unlikely to be wrong.

 

But not all makers and suppliers got it wrong, such as Heinzmann, Powabyke, Sakura and others continued to sell 200 watt rated e-bikes and kits, some like Powacycle and later Cyclone had some 180 watt motors for the UK market.

 

Of course consumers went for what seemed to them the better option of 250 watts, so that created a snowball effect, the more selling them, the more followed, to the point where 250 watts dominated.

 

The first sign I saw of probable DfT realisation of the situation was when they posted a webpage in 2005, two years after that type approval legislation, publishing the key factors of the UK law and the EU law below, with no proper explanation why they did that. Perhaps it was trying to cover themselves in some way? That webpage didn't stay up for long thankfully, since it was likely to add to the confusion.

 

Following that from time to time the DfT have acknowledged that the EAPC law was to be updated to harmonise with the EU, usually indicating within a couple of years. They are still doing that of course, the latest indication being 2016. They even archived the EAPC webpages at one point, but soon took down the advice that they'd done that and reposted the EAPC law advice. There was also a consultation with all interested parties to ask their views on what should be in the revised law, one we were invited to take part in.

.

Edited September 4, 201411 yr by flecc

Well Iets hope that compromises can be agreed in at least the exempt class can be resolved without causing a delay in harmonisation and that the other classes under consideration do not present a barrier for a swift introduction. The Government needs our full support on this matter.

I'm sure nothing will be done to improve on the current legal situation before implemention of a harmonised law on pedelecs that approves 250 watts, since the DfT are satisfied that the waiver is sufficient until then.

 

Effectively that is true of course, since our police forces cannot now prosecute on the conflicted issue.

 

There are only two possible flaws that I can see. One is that theoretically a private prosecution is still legally possible, but we can safely discount that since the CPS would I'm sure block it, after no doubt consulting the DfT on this unusual to them issue.

 

The other is if the promised referendum on continued EU membership results in us leaving the union, said by some in high places to be a possibility. That would leave the waiver in a questionable position, since it's basis is solely that we are to harmonise. Once a decision was made the leave the EU, all harmonisation processes would immediately be cancelled or at least be suspended.

 

It would then be necessary to have our EAPC regulations amended to 250 watts for bicycles. Since e-tricycles already have 250 watts permitted in that law, that should be an extremely simple amendment, just eliminating the variation clauses, leaving one law for both.

 

That would certainly suit us of course, since it would leave us with 250 watts and throttles.

.

Edited September 4, 201411 yr by flecc

Of interest in this debate of liability perhaps.

 

http://road.cc/content/news/129281-london-cyclist-seriously-injured-crash-another-rider-frustrated-police-failure

 

Perhaps insurance cover might help in the future when things are harmonised:

 

http://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/magazine/topics-online/2012/02/e-bikes/index.html

The promised referendum can only happen if the Tories win an overall majority. Which of course they didn't do last time in much more favourable circumstances. Any other result, a Labour win or a coalition of any kind, even one involving the Tory party, will not result in a referendum. Because the other major parties would only have one if the EU proposed a new treaty which had the effect of taking powers away from the British Parliament.

 

Dave is only interested in a wall paper job anyway. He's trying to pull off the same trick that Wilson did and for the same reason. A pretend renegotiation, some tiny so called concessions that can be sold to his backbench Europhobes, and then the big sell to the country of how much worse we would all be out of the EU.

 

But it ain't going to happen anyway.

Any other result, a Labour win or a coalition of any kind, even one involving the Tory party, will not result in a referendum.

What about a coalition with UKIP?

The Kippers dream their dreams, but reality is an alarm clock.

 

"I'm a poet and I don't know it; hope I don't blow it."

But it ain't going to happen anyway.

 

Almost certainly true, but in covering the flaws the possibility had to be mentioned.

.