Hello, just been chatting to a customer who says the police have told him that no electric bikes at all are legal in Northern Ireland. I assured him this was not the case as at the very least the usual EU law applies, and that they're legal across the UK in any case.

 

Anyone heard anything to the contrary, or is this just a case of a local bobby get on his high horse?

 

Anyone been pulled over riding their electric bike anywhere in the UK on such spurious grounds, for that matter?

Apparently it was a local constable, backed up by an inspector from roads policing. That's two of them who are presumably wrong then.

Yes the police are both wrong. I don't know what's best to tell your customer in that situation though. I'd try to refer them to a government webpage dealing with the EPAC law. Anyone got a link?

 

Personally I'd probably tell them that most police are thick but then again I'm not trying to sell them a bike.

I can't say I'm surprised. The local Gestapo have a habit of making laws up to suit their own particular view points. A friend of my son's was 'done' for breaking a non-existent law! He had the wits frightened out of him, spent a night in the cells, and was even fined by the local 'beak' before it was discovered that the actual law (being 'suspected of intending to get in a car and drive whilst over the limit') does not actually exist! He was actually sitting in his (parked) car (passenger side) on his mobile, 'phoning his mum to come and take him home because he knew he was over the limit to drive.......

The charge was eventually overturned and he was let go with a 'warning' (presumably not to 'phone his mum when over the limit ?). Still the whole episode beggared belief. To actually be prosecuted and fined for an offence that doesn't exist.......His solicitor was stunned - even he got a warning for 'talking aggressively' to the policeman he was trying to convince was making up the law as he went

 

Makes me shudder, I've seen a few instances like this and it has left me a rather distrustful of the police. Even worse, PCSO's (shudder...) but that's another story.........

 

Phil

The Police may be correct in part.

 

The EU law is probably best used for Northern Ireland, that's Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 March 2002 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles.

 

The Northern Ireland police are correct in saying that the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 do not apply, since that only applies to Great Britain.

 

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, it is a part of the United Kingdom.

 

Here's a link to the DfT factsheet

.

Edited January 10, 200917 yr by flecc

P.S.

 

I've found a relevant reference now. The European order was passed into law by an amendment to a UK law, the Motor Cycles Etc. (EC Type Approval) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2920) as amended.

 

Therefore, although our EAPC law doesn't apply in Northern Ireland the EU law does. That means they cannot have throttle control only bikes past or present, only full time pedelec permitted.

.

Edited January 10, 200917 yr by flecc

I can't say I'm surprised. The local Gestapo have a habit of making laws up to suit their own particular view points. A friend of my son's was 'done' for breaking a non-existent law! He had the wits frightened out of him, spent a night in the cells, and was even fined by the local 'beak' before it was discovered that the actual law (being 'suspected of intending to get in a car and drive whilst over the limit') does not actually exist! He was actually sitting in his (parked) car (passenger side) on his mobile, 'phoning his mum to come and take him home because he knew he was over the limit to drive.......

The charge was eventually overturned and he was let go with a 'warning' (presumably not to 'phone his mum when over the limit ?). Still the whole episode beggared belief. To actually be prosecuted and fined for an offence that doesn't exist.......His solicitor was stunned - even he got a warning for 'talking aggressively' to the policeman he was trying to convince was making up the law as he went

 

Makes me shudder, I've seen a few instances like this and it has left me a rather distrustful of the police. Even worse, PCSO's (shudder...) but that's another story.........

 

Phil

 

Perhaps i am wrong, but i thought even if caught asleep in a stationary car, then drunk in charge of a vehicle is a possible charge that could be used against you,this may be an urban legend, but im not sure if you could even be done for drink driving, whilst getting your coat out of your car,to keep you warm on your walk home.this with intention to drive charge worries me.

Perhaps i am wrong, but i thought even if caught asleep in a stationary car, then drunk in charge of a vehicle is a possible charge that could be used against you,this may be an urban legend, but im not sure if you could even be done for drink driving, whilst getting your coat out of your car,to keep you warm on your walk home.this with intention to drive charge worries me.

 

Scrolling down to "What is the legal definition of being in charge" on the link below shows that you can be prosecuted even if you go near your car if you have the keys in your possession, or even if you've recently driven it, you don't even need to be in it.

 

The safest course of action is to not go near your car, if with friends hand the keys over to them for safe keeping and use a taxi or other transport to get home.

 

This strict law has come about because of car drivers who used various excuses like driving home with the police in pursuit and running indoors. It's these sort of actions which led to the tightening up to close all loopholes.

 

Legal definitions

.

Motorway Lawyers

.... There is no need for the prosecution to prove that a person was likely to drive whilst unfit. Is for the Defendant to prove that there was no prospect of using the vehicle....

 

I thought the UK law says everyone is "innocent, until proved guilty" - or has someone changed the rules and not told everyone

 

Next the powers-that-be will be saying, "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"

.

Edited January 11, 200917 yr by Footie

My understanding of the application of the drink-driving law in the UK is that if you're sitting inside a motor vehicle and have possession of the keys then automatically you are in charge of it and the police don't have to prove anything about your intent to drive or not. There is a specific offence of being drunk in charge, and I think that's been the case for many years.

 

You can also get 'done' if you're anywhere near your car and in possession of the keys.

 

It's been well publicised and there have been numerous successful prosecutions based on just this situation. To their credit, the police have been known to use discretion, and just take the keys away, but if I had any plans to have a drink or three I'd make sure the car was locked and the keys were not in my possession. Then there is no argument. You can plead your case in Court that you had no intention to drive and whether you are successful or not also depends on how the Court finds the balance of probability, reliability of witnesses, etc.

 

One other thing - for the police to proceed with a 'drunk in charge' arrest the vehicle has to be either on the road or in any place normally accessible to the public. That would obviously include a car park or your driveway, but not, presumably, your locked garage.

Edited January 11, 200917 yr by rog_london

Drunk in charge of a bicycle

 

One other interesting thing. You can't be breathalysed for riding a bike (electric or otherwise) though the police may request you allow them to to do so. You're entitled to refuse without penalty, and I suspect unless you were pretty damn certain of your innocence you'd be well advised to do so!

 

You can, however, be done under the same 'drunk in charge' rule mentioned above. I've discovered this has been around since 1872. Successful prosecution depends on the police convincing a court that you were obviously impaired under the old pre-breathalyser rules, i.e. (in the UK) walking a straight line, etc.

 

Rog.

Police state at the next junction

 

......Makes me shudder, I've seen a few instances like this and it has left me a rather distrustful of the police. Even worse, PCSO's (shudder...) but that's another story.........

 

Phil

 

Not just the PCSOs... had a very 'interesting' encounter with two Street Wardens (very pretty blue uniforms) a couple of weeks ago,

 

i was walking, with my bike thru an underpass, i was stopped by these two jokers and informed....'should i be seen, riding my bike on any pavement, i would be be instantly fined a fixed penalty of £30'.... no discussion,

 

my response was simply...'am i riding on the pavement ?' to which, the warning was repeated. Still not sure what prompted them to stop me, but have since assumed the male was attempting to impress his female colleague.

 

not only was his statement threatening, it was also wrong, but i couldn't be bothered to ring his office to complain or ascertain whether this was now Borough Council policy.

Edited January 11, 200917 yr by Beeping-Sleauty

 

i was walking, with my bike thru an underpass, i was stopped by these two jokers and informed....'should i be seen, riding my bike on any pavement, i would be be instantly fined a fixed penalty of £30'.... no discussion,

 

You could carry a printout of the following when out, hand it to any officer who behaves in this way and point out the following. Cycling on the pavement isn't necessarily illegal and the officers are disobeying orders, ignorance of those orders being no excuse. An instant automatic penalty should not be applied in all circumstances.

 

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

 

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

 

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

 

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

 

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

.

Edited January 11, 200917 yr by flecc

Possession - One definition?

 

Not sure about the use of the word "Possession"

 

Possession - requires both control and intention.

It is obtained from the first moment that both those conditions exist simultaneously.

Usually, intention precedes control.

 

If one intends to sleep in the car (while drunk) - there's control but no intention to drive it - is one in possession ?

.

Not sure about the use of the word "Possession"

 

Possession - requires both control and intention.

It is obtained from the first moment that both those conditions exist simultaneously.

Usually, intention precedes control.

 

If one intends to sleep in the car (while drunk) - there's control but no intention to drive it - is one in possession ?

.

 

Yes. As Rog stated above, there have been numerous cases of convictions, it's not an issue of possession but of being in charge of the car. It's only necessary to have the keys and be in the vicinity of the car for a conviction to be possible if the police can show reasonable belief of intent.

 

On the basis that one can still be over the limit the morning after, sleeping it off in the car isn't likely to form a successful defence anyway

.

I'm sorry - and your point is?

 

Ah - you just beat me to it, Flecc!

To get back to Tim's original point. As an Isle of Man resident, where - not being members - we don't even have the EU Type Approval Regs to fall back on, I find it best not to say anything and just go quietly on my way. If you don't ask then you don't get an answer you might not want to hear;)

Hi Bob

 

That does sound to be eminently sensible!

 

If I recall correctly, it's comparatively recently that the IOM and the Irish Republic got around to fitting in with UK licence suspensions. Not too long ago you could get banned from driving in the IOM but still drive perfectly legally in the rest of the UK.

 

Rog.

Well, who can read all the above and say we don't live in a 'police sate'.

 

It all sounds benign until you find yourself on the wrong side of one of these jokers (and believe me that can happen more easily than you may realise), then it becomes both more maddening and much more sinister.

 

Years ago I spent a very uncomfortable night in a cell 'drying out' when I hadn't had a drop to drink. I was returning to the doctor's residence one night and tried to help break up a gang of gatecrashers attempting to get in to a nurses' party. The Rozzers arrived all gung-ho and arrested everyone, me included. I was on call that night and was the only resident senior house officer in my dept. in the hospital! They wouldn't listen to me, let me 'phone anyone etc. When my consultant eventually found out and came to get me out, he 'went ballistic' about it!. Still never even got an apology over it, ( and several patients spent many hours in unnecessary discomfort as a result (could have been worse)).

 

I could relate several more, but I'd better stop here as I'll get my knuckle wrapped for going off thread...(sorry about that). OK. Rant over, soapbox disassembled, off for a cold shower.....

 

Phil

No problem Phil, I can verify that kind of police behaviour and far worse is not uncommon and I spent years engaged in voluntary support and action for those wronged by the Metropolitan Police, frequently obtaining satisfaction for them.

 

There is no solution as far as I can see, it's in the nature of the beast, man and institution.

.

I've found a relevant reference now. The European order was passed into law by an amendment to a UK law, the Motor Cycles Etc. (EC Type Approval) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2920) as amended.

 

Therefore, although our EAPC law doesn't apply in Northern Ireland the EU law does. That means they cannot have throttle control only bikes past or present, only full time pedelec permitted.

.

 

That's an interesting distinction, so the policemen were right, but only on the grounds of their limited understanding of the different classes of electric bike. A Kalkhoff would still be perfectly legal to ride on the public roads. Good.

Hi Bob

 

That does sound to be eminently sensible!

 

If I recall correctly, it's comparatively recently that the IOM and the Irish Republic got around to fitting in with UK licence suspensions. Not too long ago you could get banned from driving in the IOM but still drive perfectly legally in the rest of the UK.

 

Rog.

 

 

Hi Rog,

 

True. Until fairly recently local legislation also allowed for the flogging of violent youths, the jailing of homosexuals, and the shooting of a Scotsman on sight. We have to accept that that times change though! It would be good if the enlightenment would stretch to electric bikes.

 

Bob

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others.

 

Thanks Flecc, i know you've posted this before but it won't do any harm to display it again....

 

i don't make a habit of riding on the pavement, but when i do, i ensure there are no pedestrians and exercise extreme caution around any that appear.

 

however on this occasion, i was stopped whilst walking the bike and i got the distinct impression that words or printed matter would prove irrelevent to this 'semi-cop' in his shiny blue pyjamas. He simply did not want hear anything i might have to say, His attitude & posture said it all.

 

i was sorely tempted to test his mettle and provoke him into giving me the dammed £30 ticket, just so that i could dissemble him at the local county court and get a proper tested definition, i am however, old enough & sane enough to know this would not be the end of the matter and might just prove to be the start of my troubles.

 

ho...humm

That's an interesting distinction, so the policemen were right, but only on the grounds of their limited understanding of the different classes of electric bike. A Kalkhoff would still be perfectly legal to ride on the public roads. Good.

 

I'd like to second that- as I live in Northern Ireland and recently bought an Agattu!

 

But I also agree with Bikerbob - sometimes its best not to ask too many questions.

"You could carry a printout of the following when out, hand it to any officer who behaves in this way and point out the following:

Cycling on the pavement isn't necessarily illegal and the officers are disobeying orders, ignorance of those orders being no excuse. An instant automatic penalty should not be applied in all circumstances...."

 

If you ride your bike in Scotland remember that Paul Boateng's statement does not apply here. I have just received a letter from The Scottish Government Transport Directorate to the effect that the statutory provision under which the statement was made (Article 3 of regulations made under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988) does not apply to Scotland. There are therefore no plans to issue a similar statement here.

 

It would be possible however for the Scottish Justice Minister and the Crown Office to issue a statement to the effect that throughout Scotland police and other enforcement officers will exercise a discretion similar to that mentioned in the statement, and I think I shall press them to do so.