Like KTM I'm not aware of any rejection by the EU, it appears the DfT made their own decision about how to proceed.

 

I agree that it would have been better for throttle permission as an EAPC without type approval to continue in the UK but see this as a lost cause. No matter how many moan about it, the ruling is here to stay and we'll have to live with it.

 

Some might see hope in the possibility of us leaving the EU, but I doubt that will happen and in any case, the UK's record on e-bike regulation shows us as far stricter than the EU, e.g. 12 mph assist limit, 200 watts and a 14 yrs lower age limit. Clearly the EU is the UK e-bikers friend.

.

 

I got it wrong, it was a few years back it was the European Parliament that made the request but it was attached to the removal of speed limits so I can see why it was rejected, but it was interesting that you say the UK made no such request:

 

http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/threads/help-with-the-law-please.10740/#post-128887

 

As it has not been specifically asked before I wonder what the Commissions response to consider only the inclusion of throttles into the EPAC definition and what justification they could give if they were to reject the idea.

Edited August 13, 201510 yr by shemozzle999

Thats a very interesting point, we dod make a lot of fuss about slow speed control and the benefits of a throttle. There are now bikes that enable the rider to quickly switch between torque sensor and speed sensor, the best of all worlds.

 

All the best

 

David

 

 

Hi David,

 

Interesting compromise but still prefer the independent throttle version although I had to remove its function until I obtained DfT confirmation it was ok to use it.

 

Really feel sorry for all you dealers even if my posts appear otherwise.

 

If I were a dealer I would be really annoyed after all the years of effort to build up the UK interest in electric bicycles to see the additional restriction on throttles imposed, without in my opinion, any justifiable grounds on usage or safety.

 

I am sure there will be ways around it I just hope it doesn't involve the user baring the legal responsibility.

As it has not been specifically asked before I wonder what the Commissions response to consider only the inclusion of throttles into the EPAC definition and what justification they could give if they were to reject the idea.

 

I'm sure their response would be a refusal for several reasons:

 

The overwhelmingly majority markets in Europe have no problem with the pedelec only ruling.

 

Adding throttles departs from the principle of the pedelec remaining a bicycle, all motive power being controlled through the pedals.

 

The well known opposition from the motorcycle interests.

 

Probably even opposition from the EU pedelec makers, since their investment in development has been solely pedelec for many years. Bosch, Daum, Derby Cycles et al. They might also see permitting throttles as further opening doors to the far Eastern opposition.

 

These are the reasons for me saying it's a lost cause, I can see no possibility of change to suit us.

.

I am sure there will be ways around it I just hope it doesn't involve the user baring the legal responsibility.

 

There is a way round the law to have a throttle without type approval in the EU. Germany and The Netherlands enjoy it and France will from January 2017.

 

It's informally called the "S" class.

 

There is generally a requirement for minimal registration with number plate and insurance, these being set by national governments who also determine whether they can use cyclepaths. No type approval or rider licence is necessary, despite the permitted 45 kph (28mph). And one can have up to a 500 watt rating.

.

I'm sure their response would be a refusal for several reasons:

 

The overwhelmingly majority markets in Europe have no problem with the pedelec only ruling.

 

Adding throttles departs from the principle of the pedelec remaining a bicycle, all motive power being controlled through the pedals.

 

The well known opposition from the motorcycle interests.

 

Probably even opposition from the EU pedelec makers, since their investment in development has been solely pedelec for many years. Bosch, Daum, Derby Cycles et al. They might also see permitting throttles as further opening doors to the far Eastern opposition.

 

These are the reasons for me saying it's a lost cause, I can see no possibility of change to suit us.

.

 

No harm in me asking the question to the Commissioner responsible based on usage and safety rather than principle!

 

Adding throttles departs from the principle of the pedelec remaining a bicycle, all motive power being controlled through the pedals.

 

The well known opposition from the motorcycle interests.

 

Probably even opposition from the EU pedelec makers, since their investment in development has been solely pedelec for many years. Bosch, Daum, Derby Cycles et al. They might also see permitting throttles as further opening doors to the far Eastern opposition.

 

Succinctly put Flecc. The matter of encroachment by a grouping of EAPC makers into lucrative territory currently occupied by moped and scooter manufacturers is a consideration I had never paid much attention to.

 

Anyone who has spent time in rural France, much of Spain, Italy, Greece and the north African mediterranean countries can't help but have noticed the ubiquitousness of that type of two-wheeled transport. I'd guess that those prolific manufacturers might feel just a little peeved if new legislation were introduced which would impact severely on their sales and livelihood.

 

I have read and heard the arguments for and against throttles on EAPCs time and time again in recent years but my view hasn't changed. While I can understand their limited usefulness for some in particular circumstances, I cannot accept that they are necessary nor in any way essential for cyclists. Personally, if my legs/heart/lungs give out while cycling, I stop for a breather. I did that 60 years ago on my bikes and I still do it today. If a hill defeats me, I get off and push for a bit. It seems like cheating to me that I should be able to glide along without pedalling and still call it cycling.

 

If my various conditions deteriorate to the point where I cannot continue riding EAPCs, I shall happily purchase and ride a light motorcycle or scooter for journeys longer than I wish to undertake on a mobility scooter.

 

Tom

If a hill defeats me, I get off and push for a bit.

 

Indeed, this was commonplace sixty and more years ago when hordes commuted by bike. Long lines could be seen walking up steep hills, pushing their bikes, and anyone trying to struggle up by pedalling would be viewed as odd indeed.

 

Not surprising of course, considering that bikes were commonly single speed or sometimes three speed hub geared.

.

 

The well known opposition from the motorcycle interests.

 

Probably even opposition from the EU pedelec makers, since their investment in development has been solely pedelec for many years. Bosch, Daum, Derby Cycles et al. They might also see permitting throttles as further opening doors to the far Eastern opposition.

 

.

 

also should add, the opposition comes not just from the Motorcycle industry... the majority of the big players in the eBike Industry, it also comes from pretty much the entire cycle industry. Who are working very very hard on access rights for cycles and see ebikes with throttles as mopeds without the legislation - and therefore a big threat to all the good work thats gone on over the past 10 years.

 

Which is why I think everyone should see the current result as very much a success for the individuals and companies who want to use / sell ebikes with throttles. It was about the best that was always going to happen.

Perhaps after January 2016 a new type will evolve,maybe a vehicle with moped type performance,with a full speed throttle but with the appearance of a bicycle....that would satisfy most requirements.

We have proven that we can get a lot of torque legally out of the BPM hub drive,with the addition of a full speed throttle it may satisfy most requirements.

Just depends how onerous and/or expensive is the type approval.

KudosDave

then why not go straight for the 'S' type approval?

just change the battery on the BPM bikes for a 48V - cost is same as of now.

There's nothing to stop you using a throttle. The only rule is that the power has to stop when you stop pedalling.

 

I made a crank-drive bike, where the motor turned the crank without a freewheel on it. I couldn't use a pedal sensor because it would have run until the battery went flat, so I had only a throttle. When you opened the throtle with your feet on the pedals, the motor made your feet go round. My understanding is that that system would be legal since the motor was stopped when your feet stopped.

 

 

http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq236/d8veh/Bikes%20I%20Built/20120910_152947_zps8bd96fef.jpg

then why not go straight for the 'S' type approval?

just change the battery on the BPM bikes for a 48V - cost is same as of now.

 

We can't without the government introducing the necessary legislation, and the DfT seem set against it.

.

There's nothing to stop you using a throttle. The only rule is that the power has to stop when you stop pedalling.

 

That's how my two 2006 eZee bikes operated when switched into pedelec mode, fully working throttle but only while the pedals were turning. They were EU legal since that's how they were sent into that market.

.

the Woosh Gallego's throttle works like that too. You have to keep pedalling a little for the throttle to work.

the Woosh Gallego's throttle works like that too. You have to keep pedalling a little for the throttle to work.

That is possibly the answer!

Underpedalling.

You have a normal throttle that only works as long as the pedals are turned, no matter how slowly.

Stop pedalling and assistance stops,

Get really knackered and turn the pedals slowly and run on throttle.

Members like Old Tom who do not consider this cycling can buy other bikes without the system.

Shouldn't the pro-throttle argument be that it is safer. The better the control of the bike the safer it is. Continually turning a class A bike on and off to cycle without power, plus the delay on rotation provides far less control. Legislation ought to be evidence based (dream on). What is required here is organised lobbying and data collection from the real experts, e-bike riders.

Members like Old Tom who do not consider this cycling can buy other bikes without the system.

 

I'm bound to say Mike, I find your comment somewhat disdainful and certainly unnecessary. I thought I explained clearly in post #56 how I view throttles on EAPCs and how I cope without one.

 

As it happens, no hill has ever defeated me on my Xion-powered PC although I have had that experience on other EAPCs. For a registered disabled person, I take some pride in coping as normally as I can.

 

I'm not sure why so many people in the UK insist a throttle is essential to their particular need. EAPCs provide most people who might otherwise struggle to ride a bike with the means to do so more easily. That, surely, is the ethos, spirit and raison d'être of electrically assisted cycling. They were never meant, I would contend, to function in the manner of a moped.

 

You should have noted my statement about my intention, should I find in the future that I can no longer manage to do do what I want to do on my EAPCs. I will certainly never become an advocate or champion for throttles and I get rather cross with those who seem to believe the relative regulations should be tailored to suit them, or that they should be free to ignore those rules with impunity. The laws and regulations are there and I respect all of them and I never break speed limits in my car which some find important to throw into these discussions.

 

Tom

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by oldtom

That is possibly the answer!

Underpedalling.

You have a normal throttle that only works as long as the pedals are turned, no matter how slowly.

Stop pedalling and assistance stops,

Get really knackered and turn the pedals slowly and run on throttle.

Members like Old Tom who do not consider this cycling can buy other bikes without the system.

 

If your bike has a pedal sensor it will give full power when you turn the pedals slowly, so if you're able to turn the pedals you don't really need the throttle.

Some people though, are unable to turn the pedals so need a throttle. If some old guy doesn't want a throttle that's fine, it's his choice. I just can't understand why any old Tom, Dick or Harry wants to ban others from enjoying going out on their bike.

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by Jimod

I'm not sure why so many people in the UK insist a throttle is essential to their particular need.

Tom

I suppose we see an opportunity, we have tasted a device that for some can provide a level of mobility that wasn't so easily possible (& affordable) before. (& without the stigma, limitations & cost of some of the official disabled devices) The review of the legislation offered a possibility to get this "new" invention "unshackled" from the bounds of type approval.

 

(& for me throttle becomes "essential" when my knees are irritated simply by turning the pedals. I have arthritis of the knee caps which means simply bending my knees can irritate the cartilage. Being able to use the throttle means I can get around further distances without having to get in the car)

 

Imagine we were living around the time ordinary bicycles were just becoming popular, you too would be a bit peeved if the government suddenly insisted on lots of extra paper work and checks wouldn't you? Wouldn't it seem even a little bit like this amazing invention was being shackled just as it was showing it's potential?

 

For myself I have found that a throttle controlled bike has enabled me to regain some of the freedom I used to enjoy as a cyclist. I'm only 44 and I miss it.

 

I will probably (grudgingly) be one of those who submits their bike for type approval once it is available...

Edited August 17, 201510 yr by torrent99

Shouldn't the pro-throttle argument be that it is safer. The better the control of the bike the safer it is. Continually turning a class A bike on and off to cycle without power, plus the delay on rotation provides far less control.

 

That's true, but the legislation is based entirely on a pedelec remaining a bicycle, not creating a different class of vehicle. Hence all motive power applied by the pedals.

 

The law is to provide a degree of power assistance to those cycling, not to create a very low powered motorcycle.

 

That's why all appeals for throttles have fallen on deaf ears and why that isn't going to change no matter what evidence is produced. The EU will merely point to the alternative provisions for those who want throttles.

.

That's true, but the legislation is based entirely on a pedelec remaining a bicycle, not creating a different class of vehicle. Hence all motive power applied by the pedals.

 

The law is to provide a degree of power assistance to those cycling, not to create a very low powered motorcycle.

 

.

Indeed that's where the "argument" lies, those who stand by the definition of cycling above, and those (including myself) who believe it should be "stretched" a little to include the 250W pedelec with throttle control.

 

Probably more useful in the long term though is to create an entirely new class of low powered vehicle, with similar freedoms enjoyed by the bicycle, to include some more of the low powered vehicle types that are being invented with todays compact motor and battery technology. Hopefully, some of these nascent technologies will survive their legal no-mans land (well default to being classed as motor vehicles with possibly hard to reach standards) to become fully realised. We are lucky that at least in the UK the low powered throttle bike is going to enjoy some legal freedoms. (& we hope the new l1e-a type will be sufficiently flexible to include non-bike shaped options too!)

 

In the move to "greener", more social transport it helps to have options.

My dream. Not an ICE but a HPVelotechnik Gekko. A couple of 48V20Ah batteries in the hard cases for LOOOONG range cruising. A pinion gear box on the front and a "legal" 250W hub motor in the back wheel. Maybe not the nose...

 

This issue comes up frequently and I am always left to wonder how people on mainland Europe manage. Perhaps only the able-bodied ride EAPCs in all those countries?

 

Tom

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/17/8fb63cff9515ec7a86b628bf72bd4a47.jpg

 

I think these sorts of things were popular, although not sure you can still get them.

Probably more useful in the long term though is to create an entirely new class of low powered vehicle

 

Of course the EU feel they've done that now with the forthcoming 25 kph L1e-A class. They've recognised that without always pedalling 250 watts won't be sufficient (absolutely true) so allow that class to have 1000 watts. But that brings with it a small degree of extra legal restriction, mainly type approval to ensure that more powerful bike will be safe.

 

I think that's very reasonable, especially now that they've decided that if there's pedals fitted, the group Q driving licence for L1e-A will not be required.

.

The L1e-A class is intended for commercial vehicles hence the requirement of the 1kW limit and because of the additional power quite rightly under control of the regulations.

 

Attaching our EAPC exemption to the EU regulation means that it lies inside that regulation only being allowed while the individual member States have the freedom to set its own legislation.

 

It is mentioned that there may be a future review and there may be a requirement to bring that power inside the EU ruling and create a universal legislation for all member States, if that happens I believe our lonely voice will again be ignored.

 

This is why I feel that it is essential the EPAC exemption should be altered to include throttles now, as they do not effect safety, improve usage, allow all EU citizens access and promote to the maximum the take up of this eco friendly device.

 

The added bonus would be they would be outside the regulations by means of exemption and any threat of any future granting of the EU to set legislation, therefore I agree with the OP sentiments.

Edited August 18, 201510 yr by shemozzle999