A legal Bafang BBS01B mid-motor rated by the manufacturer as 250W - it's permanently etched on the motor by Bafang. It's legal, it'd be legal even if he increased the controller's limit to it's maximum of 20A using the programming cable and software.

 

So a fully charged 36V battery is 42V and you have stated 20A controller (continuous?) that is 840W peak current. 3.5x the so called legal wattage. To produce 80Nm that is probably at 20A similar to the Tongsheng.

 

Again this is just calling 15.5mph a 250W motor its is utterly meaningless and would never stand up in court. It's no different to the dieselgate situation where people assumed their cars were legal until they weren't and they were producing far more emissions than they claimed. How is anyone going to claim in court it is a 250W motor when tested to over 800W continuous operation?

 

I was a compliance officer dealing with European certification and much of it made no sense and many things were overlooked. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't surprised when many of the Chinese products we imported got through certification. People seem to assume certification means everything is checked, it isn't only a subset of checks are made to that standard. Just because Bafang certified its motor under the legislation doesn't mean it can happily use 800W legally.

 

So basically you believe a 800W motor is actually a 250W motor because they have put a rating label on it that says 250W? However you believe a 400W motor is less legal because someone hasn't put a 250W rating sticker on it? So someone riding a 400W ebike should have their ebike stopped and confiscated because of incompetent and corrupt legislation that makes zero sense.

 

I couldn't stand up in court and pretend that Bafang motor is 250W especially if they showed me it drawing 800W of power. Why is my Tongsheng less legal despite pretty much having identical power characteristics (if limited to 15.5mph) especially if I stuck a 250W sticker on it?

 

Whatever the legal interpretation of that motor the one thing it certainly isn't is a 250W motor. Surely no one is going to argue that a sticker over-rides the real evidence of what that motor draws in power. If someone says a 1500cc engine is legally a 500cc engine then so be it but it's still very much a 1500cc engine in the real world away from the fantasy legal world.

 

I would still say that motor is illegal just overlooked legally like many other ebikes. I guess you would have to send data showing it consuming possibly over 800W of power to the correct authorities and request it's legal status for use on UK roads. I'm not convinced the result would come back saying it would be legal to do so.

 

Also I now remember the BBS01B because its the model used for those widely distributed stickers for motors. Aliexpress etc. It's like because Bafang managed to slip through the certification it's what they are all re-labelling their 500-1000W mid-drive motors as. So its like every mid-drive motor out there be it Tonsheng, Bafang or whatever is a Bafang BBS01B just to get the 250W rating. Many of which will actually be less powerful than the BBS01B such is the farcical nature of the certification.

 

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004814775411.html

Edited October 29, 20232 yr by Bonzo Banana

So basically you believe a 800W motor is actually a 250W motor because they have put a rating label on it that says 250W?

 

250W is engraved on the Bafang BBS01B motor by the manufacturer. From what I've read about the recent crackdowns and how the law appears to be enforced at street level by the police - they impound ebikes with motors rated higher than 250W and capable of speeds exceeding 25km/h, they also seem to believe all ebikes with throttles are illegal. Controller amps don't matter, you don't have to like it. I expect yet another diatribe about how throttles should be legal too. You haven't mentioned "Single point of failure" yet...

 

 

my Tongsheng

 

...and this could be why. Fantastic! Welcome to the mid-drive club. Quit complaining and enjoy your legal pedelec, and let [mention=40353]Saracen[/mention] enjoy his.

Edited October 29, 20232 yr by guerney

I couldn't stand up in court and pretend that Bafang motor is 250W especially if they showed me it drawing 800W of power.

 

Why do you persist in getting this wrong?

 

We are signed up to BS EN15194, the legal technical standard which determines the motor rating, NOT the actual power. Nor does it set any maximum power.

 

So the actual power is not a matter for any court, only compliance with the law as it stands.

.

So basically you believe a 800W motor is actually a 250W motor because they have put a rating label on it that says 250W?

However you believe a 400W motor is less legal because someone hasn't put a 250W rating sticker on it? So someone riding a 400W ebike should have their ebike stopped and confiscated because of incompetent and corrupt legislation that makes zero sense.

 

Please don't tell me you still believe law make some sense. Law is just a number of boxes you must tick or hoops to jump through to get "legal" certificate. Yes, most of it doesn't make sense.

 

Bike with 250W rated power can use 500W and still be legal.

EN15194 no where states any thing regarding controller rating out put, all it says is the motor must be rated for 250w continuous use without overheating. There is no max out put rating otherwise the likes of bosh . yamaha, et al would all be illegal as well.

If all Bosch 250W mid-drives have suddenly become magically illegalised by [mention=24131]Bonzo Banana[/mention]'s very long posts distorting the fabric of reality, [mention=11305]soundwave[/mention] should watch out!

 

 

Cheltenham: Call for crackdown on 'dangerous' illegal e-bikes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-66880295

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165/2004-03-30

Edited October 29, 20232 yr by guerney

Please don't tell me you still believe law make some sense. Law is just a number of boxes you must tick or hoops to jump through to get "legal" certificate. Yes, most of it doesn't make sense.

 

And for this subject the law can never make sense.

 

The fundamental behind all this is that the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Man are incompatible. Since the Laws of Physics are immutable, it is the Laws of Man that must bend to achieve any sort of compatibility.

 

Whether any of us like that isn't of any consequence, it is what it is.

.

Whether any of us like that isn't of any consequence, it is what it is.

 

Exactly. I don't like it, but we little people have very limited choices. We can comply or ignore and try to ride below radar.

Speaking of compliance I think I will have to buy a bloody sticker as I don't have displayed maximum assisted speed anywhere.

 

Interestingly insurance companies sell policies not for bikes with 250W maximum rated power. They insure bikes with 250W maximum power. A genuine mistake? Or they sell us false sense of security?

Interestingly insurance companies sell policies not for bikes with 250W maximum rated power. They insure bikes with 250W maximum power. A genuine mistake? Or they sell us false sense of security?

 

We are quite safe. They have chosen the wording most likely to ensure compliance, but will not attempt to oppose what the law actually is.

 

A similar situation arose when the European Parliament recommended that pedelecs should have whatever power the designer considered necessary to achieve the 25kph permitted, since that in effect is what EN 15194 rules.

 

But the EU Commission said no and overrruled, probably since that looked so like a huge loophole which would invite trouble. But of course EN 15194 is in fact a huge loophole, but conveniently hidden from ordinary mortals.

.

We are quite safe. They have chosen the wording most likely to ensure compliance, but will not attempt to oppose what the law actually is.

 

You are quite an optimist, you know? I am not .

This is exact wording: "the electric motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts or less "

With third party insurance claim as high as 20m they might quite easily say: "contract is a contract and actually your bike max power goes well above 250W". What if they do that?

You are quite an optimist, you know? I am not .

This is exact wording: "the electric motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts or less "

With third party insurance claim as high as 20m they might quite easily say: "contract is a contract and actually your bike max power goes well above 250W". What if they do that?

That's what it says, but it's not the law and it's wrong. If it were right, just about every ebike in the UK would be illegal. That includes all bikes with Bosch, Yamaha, Brose and Shimano motors.

That's what it says, but it's not the law and it's wrong. If it were right, just about every ebike in the UK would be illegal. That includes all bikes with Bosch, Yamaha, Brose and Shimano motors.

 

But they don't say which bike is legal and which is not. They say what bikes are covered by their insurance and as you have said most ebikes are excluded.

You are quite an optimist, you know? I am not .

This is exact wording: "the electric motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts or less "

With third party insurance claim as high as 20m they might quite easily say: "contract is a contract and actually your bike max power goes well above 250W". What if they do that?

 

They can't legally do that, they too have to comply with the law, and that also applies to the law on misleading people.

.

They can't legally do that, they too have to comply with the law

 

Is there a law saying what insurance companies can and can't insure?

I am sure if they deny your claim you could put up a good fight, but average person probably wouldn't stand a chance.

 

that also applies to the law on misleading people.

 

I don't like what they do at all, but I can't say they mislead people. On contrary, they are very clear what they insure and what they don't.

But they don't say which bike is legal and which is not. They say what bikes are covered by their insurance and as you have said most ebikes are excluded.

The insurance company has just copied what's on the government website. You're insured if your bike is legal.

I don't like what they do at all, but I can't say they mislead people.

 

If they say this, as you have said they do:

 

"the electric motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts or less "

 

They are misleading, since the law says no such thing about EAPCs. Since they are the only legal electrically assisted pedal cycles on the road, that is all they can be offering to insure so they must adhere to what the law says, which is:

 

"pedal cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with

an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous

rated power of less than or equal to 250 W"

 

Note the key words I've highlighted in red, highlighting that EAPCs primary remain as bicycles, in fact as in law. They apply to their insurance whether they like it or not, leaving out those words in their terms as if trying to pretend they are some form of motor vehicle is not a basis for legal argument. To try to argue that would certainly be misleading as well as unlawful.

.

If they say this, as you have said they do...

 

Have a look yourself. Scroll down to very bottom to reference 7

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/thirdpartyliability

 

so they must adhere to what the law says, which is:

 

"pedal cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with

an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous

rated power of less than or equal to 250 W"

 

I checked quite a few insurance companies and all have very similar policies with missing key words that you highlighted. This is also the reason why I decided not to take third party liability insurance. Perhaps it would be wise to ask them to clarify things.

I checked quite a few insurance companies and all have very similar policies with missing key words that you highlighted. This is also the reason why I decided not to take third party liability insurance. Perhaps it would be wise to ask them to clarify things.

 

I don't need to look, in a dispute the court would soon clarify things for them. In respect of third party risks they are bound by what the law says is an EAPC. If a machine is a compliant EAPC, they are liable.

 

In respect of other incidental risks they are only bound by any incidental risks they are claiming to insure.

 

You are flogging a dead horse and all you are achieving is wearing out your keyboard.

.

best budget keyboard review

Edited October 30, 20232 yr by lenny

The fundamental behind all this is that the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Man are incompatible

 

The Laws of Nature/Jungles are also incompatible with the Laws of Man - which is good news for all the fat, ill, old, diasabled, neurodivergent (except the ones alert and fit enough to run away) etc. needing care, which saves the rest of us eating them. Mind you, cannibals have reported humans taste like pork, which is why I avoid Chinese restaurants run by Triads. (That last bit is true, it's how they dispose of bodies. And nearly all of them are organised by Triads.)

 

I don't need to look, in a dispute the court would soon clarify things for them. In respect of third party risks they are bound by what the law says is an EAPC. If a machine is a compliant EAPC, they are liable.

 

In respect of other incidental risks they are only bound by any incidental risks they are claiming to insure.

 

I wish I had faith enough to buy third party ebike insurance, with policies intetionally worded so poorly. Does what's said on the website matter? Surely it's the policy wording that's relevant? Are the laws relevant to the contract a subset of pedelec laws, which together form a subset of all UK laws? Or is contract law completely separate from pedelec laws? If not, how many people with their insurance claim having been denied will take thair insurer to court, if indeed they have financial resources to do so? Do we need to take out insurance to insure against dodgy insurers? Should we buy three or more policies from three different ebike insurers?

Edited October 30, 20232 yr by guerney

I wish I had faith enough to buy third party ebike insurance, with policies intetionally worded so poorly. Does what's said on the website matter? Surely it's the policy wording that's relevant? Are the laws relevant to the contract a subset of pedelec laws, which together form a subset of all UK laws? Or is contract law completely separate from pedelec laws? How many people with their insurance claim having been denied will take thair insurer to court, if indeed they have financial resources to do so? Do we need to take out insurance to insure against dodgy insurers? Should we buy three or more policies from three different ebike insurers?

I can only agree with what you have said. Like me you must have read policies and wonder what they really are insuring with so many get out clauses.

I wish I had faith enough to buy third party ebike insurance, with policies intetionally worded so poorly.

 

Surely it's the policy wording that's relevant?

 

No, their wording is irrelevant if they are claiming to cover third party risks for an EAPC. Third party insurance has a very definite legal meaning.

 

I don't think the insurance companies are intentionally wording poorly in this instance. They are merely using simple wording for simple people, rather than using baffling legalese.

 

Don't confuse their legal liability to the third party under third party insurance, with other elements of the insurance covering incidentals for the insured's benefit.

.

 

.... I suspect that the delivery riders might technically be 'self employed', a standard avoiding tax (and insurance claims) regime.

A lot of these guys aren't even paid minimum wage, and have no choice but to work in the gig economy.

 

As for "standard" tax evasion - like the other 4 million self-employed people in the UK, there are records of how they're paid and they are required to file a tax return every year

there are records of how they're paid and they are required to file a tax return every year

There aren't and they don't. I know people that do it. It's just cash. Unrecorded tips too!

 

A fair proportion of those checked in Coventry were illegal immigrants. How are they going to complete a tax return?

The rider's app transmits GPS co-ordinates, it'd be easy to identify dangerous illegal ebike use; illegal speeds on level roads etc. The government could obtain that data and determine far more.

Impossible to prove because you can - technically -pedal faster than the cut off point

 

It would be laughed out of court (although it wouldn't get that far)

 

You have to be caught in the act

There aren't and they don't. I know people that do it. It's just cash. Unrecorded tips too!

 

A fair proportion of those checked in Coventry were illegal immigrants. How are they going to complete a tax return?

 

That probably explains why they holiday in the Bahamas each winter and store their money in the Caymans